HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 05.11.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
Monday, May 11, 2009 — 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice -Chair Terrones called the May 11, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
IV
V
VI
Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie
Absent: Commissioner Cauchi
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner, Erica
Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan
ROTATION OF OFFICERS
The following Planning Commission Officers were selected for the upcoming 12-month period:
■ Chair: Richard Terrones
■ Vice -Chair: Stan Vistica
■ Secretary: Sandra Yie
Chair Terrones returned to the regular order of the agenda.
MINUTES
Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg to approve the minutes of the April 27,
2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as submitted.
Motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones abstained, Commissioner Cauchi absent).
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
FROM THE FLOOR
No one spoke.
1
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 349 LEXINGTON WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A
WORKSHOP/ART STUDIO IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (BARRY CHANDLER, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND MARIE NASSER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 11, 2009.
Commission comments:
■ What was the nature of the complaint?
■ Why was the work inspected by a licensed inspector, but not permitted?
■ Obtain copy of the original Assessor's appraisal report.
■ When was the reconstruction completed?
■ What would the Building Permits have cost; what are the fines for proceeding without permits?
■ Get input from the neighbor to the rear.
■ Have property owner make arrangements with the tenant to permit the Commissioners to view the
property.
■ What is present in the "nook" area?
This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and
reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests. He noted that he would abstain from voting on the item since
he was not present at the meeting when the matter was reviewed as a study item.
2. 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
Commissioner Yie moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report,
Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff
report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Terrones called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner Terrones
abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m.
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3. 2538 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (AUDREY TSE,
INSITE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND STEVE AND SHANNON CANNON, PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN (Continued from April 27, 2009 Planning Commission
Meetin_g)
Reference staff report dated May 11, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Terrones noted that he listened to the recording of the deliberations from the April 27, 2009 meeting
at which this matter was initially discussed.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Audrey Tse, 1534 Plaza Lane and Steve Cannon, 2538 Hayward Drive; represented the application.
Are still waiting for the window grids for the garage door to arrive.
Commission comments:
Why weren't the garage doors installed as shown on the approved plans? Did the property owner
enter into a contract with the contractor for installation of the new doors? Is it the same reason that
the front door wasn't replaced? (Tse/Cannon — financial considerations caused the change even
though they agreed to install them per the approved plans. Also the existing doors were relatively
new; it didn't make sense to discard them. Chose to replace the grids on the existing windows on
the doors. Similar reasoning applied to the decision regarding the front door.)
Will the grids be of the design shown on the plans? Would be better to have the proportions similar
to the windows on the house. The mullions will need to be very small to include the number of
divided windows shown. (Tse/Cannon — Yes, the grids will be as shown on the plans; they have
already been ordered as shown. The grids will be installed on the outside of the door, rather than
inside.)
The upper bay window above and to the left of the main entry has also been changed because the
diamond patterned siding was not installed on the right and left sides of the bay window; the change
makes the siding look "paper thin"; the diamond patterned siding should be installed on the sides as
well. Staff needs to ensure that the siding is installed on both sides of the bay window.
(Tse/Cannon — missed that detail.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Understands the cost issues, but the garage is a focal element of the project.
Grids on garage door will be too small.
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
The front door is not appropriate for the house.
The detail of the garage door falls short of the details present on the house; if the Commission
considers approval; then the doors should at least be painted to match the color of the siding in the
gable above.
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution; with the exception that the
garage door shall be installed per the originally approved plans unless a revised garage door design is
approved by the Planning Commission as an FYI item, subject to the following amended conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped November 2, 2007 (Sheets A.0 through A.3, A.8, A.9, LS.0, and DM.1), March 26, 2009
(Sheets A.4 and A.6), and April 30, 2009 (Sheets A.5 and A.7), and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this
permit;
2. that the garage door shall be installed pursuant to the plans submitted to the Planning Department,
date stamped November 2, 2007, unless the applicant receives approval from the Planning
Commission for an alternate garage door design which may be presented to the Planning
Commission as an FYI item;
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 27, 2007 memo, and the City Engineer's, Fire
Marshal's, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 30, 2007 memos shall be met;
4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the right side setback
variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void;
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 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. 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;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
E,
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
May 11, 2009
10. 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;
11. 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
12. 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 Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
Want to leave the option open for the applicant to present an alternate design for the garage door, if
they still choose not to install the garage door as approved.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0
(Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m.
Commissioner Yie noted that she would recuse herself from participating on Agenda Item 4 (1140 Cortez
Avenue), since she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the Council Chambers.
4. 1140 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS -
BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SIMON JANG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JD AND
ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated May 11, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Michael Kaindl, JD & Associates, 875 Mahler Road; Simon Jang, 1140 Cortez Avenue; and Steve Johnson
(contractor), 1136 Cortez Avenue; represented the application.
Summarized the design changes.
Commission comments:
Asked if the applicant would be willing to install a landscaped strip down the middle of the concrete
driveway? (Jang — pavers did not flow with the design of the home. The strip would allow weeds to
grow. Johnson — Concerned about the stability of the paving if installed in the manner suggested.
A sharp edge will result from cutting the concrete to add the strip down the center. Jang — ok with
that solution as long as it doesn't compromise the driveway. Kaindl — proposed placing pavers in
sand in the strip in the center of the driveway.)
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
The strip doesn't need to be grass; could be another plant material that doesn't require as much
moisture as lawn area.
Clarified that the window trim was revised to match the existing window trim.
Gravel set the pavers to provide greater permeability than would occur with sand set pavers.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke:
A big deal is made about the use of pavers to reduce impervious surfaces; placing the strip in the
driveway will not prevent water from sheeting off of the driveway.
Cutting the driveway now will not look good because it wasn't planned for initially; will create a
potential tripping hazard; leave it as it was installed.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Likes the idea of having less pervious surface on the property; agrees with installing a strip in the
driveway; it can be done well.
■ Install the strip in the area in front of the gate.
■ Sawing the driveway after the fact will not result in a clean cut; will not look acceptable; should have
followed the original plan.
■ Believes that the slab can be cut cleanly; edge will be covered with vegetation or other material.
■ Drippings from vehicles will be filtered by the strip if installed.
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution; with the exception of the
driveway design; providing direction to the applicant to develop an alternate design for the driveway that will
permit percolation of water and create the aesthetic affect of the original design, to be presented to the
Planning Commission as an FYI item; subject to the following amended conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped April 3, 2008, sheets A-1 through A-6, G-1, SF and L-1, and dated stamped April 28, 2009,
sheets A-1, A-2 and A-4.1 through A-6.1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior
finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the driveway shall be installed in accordance with the plans submitted to the Planning Division,
date stamped April 3, 2008; unless an alternative driveway design is reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission that provides for a similar aesthetic affect and opportunity for percolation of
water, as an FYI item;
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 1, 2008, memo, and the City Engineer's,
Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's February 4, 2008 memos shall be met;
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
M
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
May 11, 2009
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
10. 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;
11. 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
12. 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 Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
Concerned about saw -cutting of the existing driveway, will require cutting through the re -bar; will
affect the structure of the driveway.
Driveway does not have re -bar, but will normally have a steel mesh mat.
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1
(Commissioner Cauchi absent, Commissioner We recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 7:59 p.m.
Commissioner Yie returned to the dais.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
5. 32 ADRIAN COURT, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HEALTH
SERVICE USE (COUNSELING SERVICE) IN AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (LIZAH B.
MCLAUGHLIN, APPLICANT; AND DONALD SPOLAR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT:
RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated May 11, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four (4) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Steve and Lizah McLaughlin, 32 Adrian Court; 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 counseling service shall be limited to 220 SF at 32 Adrian Court, as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped April 13, 2009; any increase in the health
service use shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit;
2. that the counseling service shall be limited to one counselor and two patients on site at any one
time;
3. that any changes to the floor area, use or number of counselors or patients which exceeds the
maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit;
and
4. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2007 Edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0
(Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:04 p.m.
E
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
6. 1616 ROLLINS ROAD AND 1625 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE STORAGE IN THE DRAINAGE RIGHT-OF-WAY (GEOFF BURNS,
APPLICANT; SANJAYLYN COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER; AND LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING, INC.,
ENGINEER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated May 11, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-six (56) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Geoff Burns, 5202 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Why does the culvert need to be 24-feet wide? (Burns — for potential 2-way traffic.)
Public comments:
Andrew Pitzer, 1660 Rollins Road; and Peter O'Hara, 364 Bush Street, San Francisco; spoke:
■ Indicated his desire to use his (Pitzer's) property for a similar purpose; assumed the Commission's
action on this matter would set a precedent. (Meeker — indicated that each request is considered
on a case -by -case basis, based upon individual property conditions and circumstances.)
■ Expressed support for the proposal (O'Hara).
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
■ None.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
motion passed 6-0-1-0 (CommissionerCauchi absent).
Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped March 25, 2009, sheets C-2.1 through C-2.8, C-3.1 through C-3.4, ER-1, ER-2, SW-11,
L1.1 and L2.1 through L2.3;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 13, 2009 memo, the Chief Building Official's
February 25, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 23, 2009 memo and the NPDES
Coordinator's February 23, 2009 memo shall be met;
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
3. that the existing K-rail barrier shall be maintained along the top of the drainage ditch; this barrier
shall include 13 one-way ramps to allow the movement of frogs back into the drainage ditch, should
they be trapped in the parking area;
4. that the entrance to the frog ramps and ramps at the K-rails on the parking lot side shall be checked
and be maintained free of debris at least once a month, or more often if necessary;
5. 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;
6. that an Encroachment Permit must be obtained from the City of Burlingame Public Works
Department, Engineering Division, for any improvements within the 140' drainage right-of-way;
Conditions of Approval for Creek Enclosure Permit
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit and any work in the drainage channel, the project shall
obtain necessary permits to meet the standards of the required permitting agencies including:
California Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board,
State Water Resources Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service;
8. that the applicant and/or property owner shall keep the portion of the drainage channel located at
1616 Rollins Road clear of debris and shall adequately maintain the culvert to insure free flow of the
drainage channel and to minimize erosion;
9. 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;
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
Conditions of Approval for Parking in the Drainage Right -of -Way
12. that parking within the drainage right-of-way shall be exclusively used for storage of vehicles
associated with the automotive service center located at 1625 Adrian Road (approximately 217
spaces) and for overflow parking for an automobile dealership (approximately 95 spaces); vehicles
stored by the automotive service center shall only be brought to the site by using the road crossing
at the rear of 1625 Adrian Road;
13. that vehicles associated with the automobile dealership shall not be moved during the peak traffic
hours, and shall only be moved during off-peak traffic hours from 9:30a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and 6:30
II
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the weekdays, with no time restrictions on moving vehicles on Saturday and
Sunday; there shall be no car carriers used to deliver vehicles to the site or remove them, nor shall
car carriers be parked in the public right-of-way to load or unload cars from this site;
14. that all the vehicles in the drainage right-of-way shall be relocated during any flood situations and
shall be the responsibility and liability of the property owner; and it is the responsibility of the
business to make tow trucks available to move any vehicles stored on the site that are not in
operable condition;
15. Applicant shall provide a hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney that
provides as follows:
A. Owner agrees and understands that some of the parking proposed in the application is to be
located in a drainage area that is subject to periodic flooding. The Owner has obtained
professional analysis of the effects and impacts of the drainage area.
B. Owners agrees and affirms that Owner is relying solely on Owner's own knowledge and the
representations of Owner's own experts and consultants in designing, constructing, and
using the project and in no way relying on any representations or analyses of the City or any
of its officers or employees in proceeding with the construction and uses.
C. Owner agrees that Owner shall defend and indemnify the City, its officers and employees
against, and will hold them and each of them harmless from any and all actions, claims,
damages to persons or properties, penalties, obligations, and liabilities, including any
attorneys fees or associated costs, that may be asserted by any person arising from the
approval, design, location, methods, installation, operation, and existence of the parking
within the drainage area approved by the City.
D. This agreement shall be recorded by the City in the Official Records of the Recorder of San
Mateo County.
16. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
17. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil
separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of
heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on -
site;
18. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to
storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be
discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and
cleaning sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately
prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 — April 1);
19. the property owner shall provide access easement rights to the City of Burlingame for maintenance
with the drainage easement. The City of Burlingame shall be held harmless for any property
damage which might occur as a result of flooding within the drainage easement adjacent spur track
right-of-way;
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
20. the improvements over the drainage channel shall not compromise the surface drainage flow to the
drainage ditch at the rear of 1616 Rollins Road and shall not compromise the holding capacity of
the basin during flooding; all the vehicles shall be relocated during flood situations;
21. that if required for any improvements, the applicant shall amend the California Department of Fish
and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits for any operational or physical changes
made for these uses in this drainage area, and if those permits are not issued and maintained these
uses shall cease;
Mitigations from Initial Study
22. A design -level geotechnical report shall be required for the project. The design -level geotechnical
investigation shall be reviewed by the Burlingame Department of Public Works for compliance with
existing building codes and ordinances. The City field inspectors shall inspect construction for
implementation of the recommend site preparation activities;
23. The project design shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Code, 2007
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer before a grading permit is issued. All applicable
requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) shall be adhered to in
the design and during construction, including the following listed below;
24. The applicant shall submit a grading plan and erosion control plan for review and approval by the
City Engineer;
25. The applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management
Practices (BMP's) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system;
the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and
slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing
vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or
sensitive areas on -site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access
routes, staging areas and washout areas;
26. Off -site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on -site runoff shall be diverted
around exposed construction areas;
27. Methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences,
straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil
stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and
sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established;
28. The erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or
attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment
control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation,
filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and
fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation;
29. All applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage will be adhered to in the design and
during construction;
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
30. The applicant shall implement spill prevention measures to control the storage and handling of any
hazardous materials, including concrete, at the construction site;
31. At no times shall hazardous materials be released and discharged into the drainage channel;
32. Any accidental spill or hazardous substances shall be reported to the City of Burlingame, the San
Mateo County Environmental Health Department, and the California Department of Fish and Game
within 24 hours of the release or spill. The applicant shall implement a corrective action plan to
contain and cleanup the release within 24 hours of the accident or release;
33. Any additional applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage, as well as any
requirements of the Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be
adhered to in the design and during construction;
34. No vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on -site, except in designed areas
where runoff is contained and treated;
35. All clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage
courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing and that adjacent properties and
undisturbed areas are protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment
barriers or filters, dikes or mulching;
36. Clearing, earth moving activities and the application of pesticides and fertilizers shall be performed
only during dry weather (April 15 through October 15);
37. If construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to October 15
the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and
polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to,
during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or
permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion
of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other
chemicals;
38. Staging areas and access routes to the work area shall be delineated and inspected by the project
biologist prior to establishment to avoid unnecessary impacts to California red -legged frogs, San
Francisco garter snakes and their habitat;
39. Exclusion fencing shall be erected around the project boundary prior to the onset of project
activities. Fencing will be a minimum of 3 feet in height and buried in the soil to inhibit California
red -legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes from entering the project area; once the
exclusion fence is installed, a pre -construction survey will be conducted to ensure that no San
Francisco garter snakes or California red -legged frogs are present in the restoration area;
40. A US Fish and Wildlife Service -approved biologist shall be onsite during ground -disturbing activities
and will have the authority to halt any action that might result in impacts to California red -legged
frogs or San Francisco garter snakes. The Service -approved biologist will survey the work site prior
to the start of the day's activities. If California red -legged frogs are found, the approved biologist will
ensure that the individual(s) is moved safely away from the work site before work activities begin. If
San Francisco garter snake(s) are found, DFG will be notified for guidance and the animal will be
allowed to disperse away from the project area. Only Service -approved biologists may participate in
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of California red -legged frogs and
San Francisco garter snakes;
41. Before any construction activities begin, worker education and awareness training shall be
conducted for all construction crews and contractors that access the site for any period of time. The
education training will be conducted prior to starting work on the project and upon the arrival of any
new worker. The training will include a brief review of the California red -legged frog and the San
Francisco garter snake life history, field identification, habitat requirements, location of sensitive
areas, possible fines for violations, avoidance measures, and correction actions if sensitive species
are encountered. The program will cover the mitigation measures, environmental permits and
regulatory compliance requirements as applicable. In addition, a record of all personnel trained
during the project will be maintained for compliance verification;
42. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators shall be properly contained, removed
from the work site and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction
debris will be removed from work areas;
43. All practicable erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to
minimize the potential of impacts to water quality;
44. No smoking except in vehicles shall be permitted within vegetated areas;
45. Trash dumping, firearms, open fires, hunting, and pets shall be prohibited;
46. To mitigate impacts to the wetland habitat for CRF and SFGS, the project shall a) remove invasive
plant species from the 0.2 acre ruderal area and replant with native riparian floodplain plant species
or contribute an in lieu fee for habitat restoration that assists in the recovery of the California red -
legged frog and/or San Francisco garter snake that is commensurate with the impacts of this project
(i.e. 0.009 acres of freshwater emergent wetland); b) install a drainage collection system on site to
treat stormwater pollutants that currently drain untreated from the parking areas and into the
drainage;
47. To avoid impacts to nesting birds within the project area, including the saltmarsh common
yellowthroat, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted prior to construction
between: February 15 and August 31. If active nests are found, and project activities could
potentially impact nesting success, the US Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Treaty Office
and the Department of Fish and Game shall be consulted for guidance and all necessary permits
would be obtained;
48. If construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to October 15
the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and
polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to,
during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or
permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion
of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other
chemicals;
49. Maintenance of construction equipment within 100 feet of the drainage location shall be prohibited;
50. Areas of bare soil shall be reseeded, planted, or otherwise stabilized with erosion control as soon
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
as possible after work has ceased and prior to the onset of the rainy season (October 31);
51. Storage of any hazardous materials shall be prohibited within 100 feet of wetlands or other waters;
52. No invasive nonnative plants, as listed by the California Invasive Plant Council on-line database
(Cal-IPC 2008), should be planted on the property at 1625 Adrian Road or within the adjacent
drainage channel;
53. The property owner shall provide access easement rights to the City of Burlingame for maintenance
with the drainage easement. The City of Burlingame shall be held harmless for any property
damage which might occur as a result of flooding within the drainage right-of-way;
54. Parking shall be setback from the foot of these towers and adequate access provided by parked
"lanes" on the pavement through parking areas to insure continued access for maintenance and
repair of these structures at all times without damaging sensitive environmental resources on the
site or in the area;
55. Construction of the box culvert and road crossing shall not compromise the surface drainage flow to
the drainage ditch at the rear of 1616 Rollins Road and shall not compromise the holding capacity
of the basin during flooding. No fencing shall obstruct existing surface drainage into and through
the drainage right-of-way from the adjacent parcels. All the vehicles shall be relocated during flood
situations; and
56. If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during grading and construction, all
work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as
determined by qualified experts, can be implemented.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0
(Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from participating on Agenda Item 7 (1109
Cortez Avenue), since she resides within 500-feet of the property. She left the Council Chambers.
7. 1109 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK
VARIANCES AND PARKING SPACE DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JENNIFER AND ANTHONY LEE, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS; AND STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN
HURIN
Reference staff report dated May 11, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
16
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Commission comments:
Asked if two Variance applications are required for the front setbacks; noted that only one was
submitted with the application? (Meeker — noted that the next notice would require clarification.)
Need to provide justification for the Variance requests.
John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos; and Anthony and Jennifer Lee, 1109 Cortez Avenue;
represented the applicant.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Asked if the rest of the material on the front bay window is stucco or siding? (Stewart — will be
wood.)
■ Questioned the variety of materials in the gables, vertical siding in front and rear gables and
shingles on right side gable. (Stewart — front and rear gables are larger areas, warranted vertical
siding. Jennifer Lee — want to make the home look like it has been there for a long while.)
■ Can the driveway be made at least partially permeable? (Jennifer Lee — the landscape architect
has noted that this is important to the Commission. Hope to keep the existing driveway where it is
as a cost -saving matter. The landscape plan includes planting strips along the house; there is also
a strip along the neighbor's property as well. Stewart— would think draining rainwater onto the site
would be better than draining to the street.)
■ Can the Variance on the upper floor be eliminated by reducing the depth of the bay window?
(Stewart — trying to create a useable window seat.)
■ There may be some give in some other areas of the floor plan to reduce the need for the second
floor Variance. (Jennifer Lee — want to leave enough relief for the window to look proper.)
■ Handsome application; concerned with the extreme difference between the existing versus the
proposed design; feels really tall, but not sure what can be done. (Stewart — there are a lot of large
houses on the street.)
■ Clarify the different finishing materials on the final submittal.
■ Asked if stucco will be removed from ground floor and replaced with siding. (Stewart — yes; there
will be very little left of the stucco.)
■ The project is nearly a complete "tear down"; be aware of the potential for cost overruns.
■ Echo the existing gable vent in the new design.
■ On left elevation; concerned about roofline near chimney; steps down for a small distance; why isn't
it tied in. (Stewart — will review to see if there is a better solution.)
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke:
Is almost a "tear -down"; will the fireplace be gas, or will it be grandfathered in with a wood -burning
fireplace? Hates the appearance of chimney caps.
Are the windows "simulated true divided lights"?
When oil drips from cars onto the ground, it percolates into the groundwater; is not filtered by the
soil before entering the groundwater.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
17
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
Further Commission comments:
■ Agreed with speaker's comments with respect to chimney caps; they could be scaled down.
■ Indicate that windows are simulated true divided light windows on the plans.
• Nice project; glad to see the house refurbished.
■ Either justify or eliminate the second floor Variance.
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
■ None.
Chair Terrones called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent,
Commissioner Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 8:42 p.m.
Commissioner Yie returned to the dais.
8. 1521 LA MESA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED
GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (J DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; AND CURTIS AND PATRICIA WALKER, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT:
RUBEN HURIN
It was suggested that the discussion of the project design occur separately from the code interpretation
matter raised in the staff report. The Commission concurred to proceed in this manner.
Reference staff report dated May 11, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Michael Kaindl, JD & Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Handsome design; a good solution for the site; asked if the neighbors to the left and right have
been consulted? (Kaindl — owner may have consulted with the neighbors. Residence to the right
has a window at the garage. The home to the left has a view that is blocked by an Oak tree.)
■ On Sheet A-2, could soften the front faqade by having a tree within the area in front of the front
door; landscaping could also conceal the electrical panel and gas meter. (Kaindl — perhaps a
Japanese Maple could be planted in the area.)
■ Is the intention to stain or paint the house? (Kaindl — will use a recycled siding that is painted; most
likely earthtones.)
■ What is the material on the patio wall? (Kaindl — horizontal siding with tongue and groove format.)
IN
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
■ How do the existing and proposed finished floor compare? (Kaindl — have retained the same
overall height of the house.)
■ Why aren't rainwater leaders hidden? (Kaindl — would then need to be made of cast iron; will look
at it.)
■ On the front elevation, the stucco walls walking up the steps look fine on the drawings, but may look
bulky when built; have glass rails or another design been considered? (Kaindl — glass would give a
commercial appearance. The design identifies where the stairs are located; but will be as low as
allowed by code.)
■ Concerned with large stucco wall at this location; consider softening. (Kaindl — will look at the
design in that area.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Setback Variance is not a problem.
■ Asked if utility room counts toward the basement exemption? (Strohmeier — yes.)
■ Suggested looking at other material for fascia boards rather than Redwood, since they will be
painted.
■ Agrees with applicant's calculations of floor areas that are counted and not counted; is a good
example to look at for a hillside lot; acceptable to divorce code interpretation issue from this project.
■ Need to be consistent in requiring story poles, even though there doesn't appear to be a significant
potential impact, given the proposed building envelope.
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom.
Discussion of motion:
Need to install story poles.
Agrees with staffs code interpretations relative to the basement area of this project.
Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when
plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:18
p.m.
9. 1561 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND SEAN AND MARIE MCCALLION, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN
HURIN
Reference staff report dated May 11, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
19
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
James Chu, 55 West 43d Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Asked if the steps continue all the way down at the bottom? (Chu — yes.)
■ Likes the project details.
■ Nice project in and of itself; but the project needs a porch; the house faces the park across the
streets; other homes in the area have porches that address the park; consider adding a porch.
(Chu — considered when first considered the project. Felt there was enough yard space and that
the presence of the park across the street warrants not having a porch. Client requested not having
even a sitting area in the front.)
■ Seems like this project is lacking some of the detail that is usually provided; perhaps due to the
scale of the home.
■ Designate the plants on the landscape plan.
■ Including a porch would provide a gathering space; the powder room is very generous, could also
eliminate some space in the den to accommodate a porch.
■ Creating a negative space of a porch will improve the relief on the front fagade.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
A minor flip of portions of the floor plan could accommodate the porch.
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:29 p.m.
10. 2509 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DANIEL BIERMANN, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND JOSH GRATCH AND KIM MCKELLAR, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT:
ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated May 11, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
20
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Daniel Biermann, 1649 Laurel Street, San Carlos; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Are there plans to do anything with the driveway and other concrete areas at the front? (Biermann
— not at this time.)
Check for consistency in window design and rendering relative to which windows are to be
replaced, to ensure no confusion.
Asked if the windows and shutters on second floor front will remain? (Biermann — noted that they
will be replaced on first and second floors.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
Spell out the details on existing and new elements.
Chair Terrones called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (CommissionerCauchi absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:36 p.m.
11. 2963 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING, AND SPECIAL PERMIT
TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON SITE FOR A SINGLE -STORY ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT NEBOLON, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; PAUL LEUNG,
PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated May 11, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Noted letters received from neighbors at 2967 Frontera
Way and 2953 Frontera Way.
Robert Nebolon, 801 Camelia Street, Berkeley; and Paul Leung, 384 Oyster Point Boulevard, South San
Francisco; represented the application.
Disputed the uphill neighbor's contention that his view is lost with the addition; showed photo from
neighbor's property of East Bay hills.
Disputed downhill neighbor's concerns about loss of light to the fruit trees and blockage of open -sky
views.
21
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
Commission comments:
■ Clarified intentions of Hillside Ordinance; preservation of distant views from living space.
Encouraged architect to visit the neighbor's house at 2967 Frontera Way; the design will
significantly block views. (Nebolon — disputed the Commissioner's contention.)
■ Need to observe the views from within the neighboring properties; story poles will be required.
■ There was an unfortunate past design alteration to the original Eichler design; but little remains of
the original design. (Nebolon — none of the Eichler design remains; have changed the exterior
design in light of this.)
■ The Commission is essentially treating the design as a new home, given the lack of original Eichler
detailing.
■ The front elevation is uninviting; consider adding a window into the office area that is more vertically
oriented to provide more light inside. (Nebelon — the landscaping will do a lot to mitigate the
appearance of the structure and the additional parking space.)
■ Horizontal siding is not carried through to the east elevation; should be carried through. (Nebolon —
agreed to carry through the siding.)
■ Noted that aluminum detailing is not wrapped around the side elevations.
■ Consider having wood siding butt against window trim, rather than the window trim placed on top of
the siding.
■ What is planned for the mechanical system? (Nebolon — will install a forced air system mounted
against the ceiling in the garage, with ducts running through the webbed joists. Is running the hot
air ducts to the lower part of the walls.)
■ Is there a way to lift only a portion of the roof of the house? (Nebolon — sees the point, but didn't
make sense.)
■ Want a colored rendering of the front elevation, including landscaping.
■ Want to see the egress window in the office wrapped around to the front.
■ Consider a wider entry to make the front more inviting. (Nebolon — attempting to emulate a typical
Eichler entry design.)
■ Not concerned regarding reduction in the garage.
■ The applicant makes a good point relative to the lot coverage; are reducing overall square footage;
making a non -conformity somewhat better.
■ Provide more information regarding the proposed trees and potential impacts upon the neighbors.
Additional applicant comments:
Spoke to the design of the driveway; it is also design to look more like a walkway, not just a location
for parking cars.
Additional Commission comments:
Clarified that a planter strip will be provided along the side of the house; not a planter.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke:
Clarify the type of Bamboo to be planted (i.e. height, clump or runner); best to plant in a container to
control growth.
If the owner didn't want an Eichler, why did they buy an Eichler?
22
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
Does the covered atrium cause the structure to exceed lot coverage?
Story poles are necessary.
Would be more advantageous to restore the radiant heating system or install baseboard heating,
rather than raise the height of the roof.
Further applicant comments:
The home has many structural and mechanical problems; hasn't been maintained for the past 20
years.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
23
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
Further Commission comments:
■ Has a concern about approving a "new" box; has lost its Eichler character; would not be approved if
an Eichler had not be present on the property; it is really a new home.
■ Appreciate the effort to stay with the contemporary motif.
■ Need to be sensitive to the views of surrounding neighbors.
■ Is a non -starter if it blocks significant views.
■ Have been good comments on improving the connection to the street.
■ Carrying through details from south elevation to some of the other elevations could be helpful.
■ Could stand out too much if it was heavily articulated; is surrounded by Eichlers.
■ Concerned about the reduction in parking; not a walking neighborhood.
■ Need certified story poles and contact information for the neighbors.
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when
plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Cauchi
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:27
p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
DISCUSSION OF INTERPRETATION SECTIONS 25.08.265(B)(1), 25.08.265(B)(2), AND 25.08.265(B)(3)
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO BASEMENT EXEMPTIONS
Following discussion of information presented in the staff report regarding Agenda Item 8 (1521 La Mesa
Drive), the Commission concurred with staff's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance provisions related to
basement exemptions; though it was noted that it may be appropriate to have a Planning Commission
subcommittee review the standards as they relate to hillside properties as a future work item.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
Noted that appointments to Commission Subcommittees will be agendized for a future agenda.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 4, 2008:
Noted that the City Council introduced an ordinance permitting 5 additional full -service food
establishments within portions of Downtown Burlingame; creating a definition for "ready -to -eat food
shop" and amending the parking standards for single-family residences for compliance with current
residential design review policies. The ordinance will be considered for adoption on May 18, 2009.
If adopted on that date, the changes will become effective on June 17, 2009.
24
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes May 11, 2009
FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — May 4, 2009:
Accepted.
FYI: 2843 Adeline Drive — Review of required landscape changes to a previously approved Design
Review project:
Accepted.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 10:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Yie, Secretary
25