HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.10.08 PC Minutes - APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
November 10, 2008 - 7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cauchi called the November 10, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at
7:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Vistica and Yie
Absent: Commissioner Terrones.
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; and Assistant Planner Lisa Whitman
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Vistica to approve the minutes of the October
27, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as submitted.
Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; commented regarding requiring tree wells for new sidewalk
installations to permit for tree growth without impacting the sidewalks.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1375 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A — APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE
TO AMEND AN EXISTING MASTER SIGN PROGRAM (MICHAEL TUCKER, BOOKS INC.,
APPLICANT; JERRY WYMAN, DESIGNER; AND KARIM A. SALMA, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Assistant Planner Whitman presented a summary of the staff report, dated November 10, 1008.
Commission comments:
■ Seems that the awnings were an important part of the original discussion; research minutes
from the original proceedings when the sign program was approved and provide this information
when the item returns.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
■ Asked what happened to the Crosby Commons sign.
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 7:09 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 Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
2a. 1221 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT
AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID AND LAUREN ROSEN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT:
LISA WHITMAN
2b. 7 EL QUANITO WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A PLATE HEIGHT
GREATER THAN 9'-0" AND A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. BESS WIERSEMAN, STUD1O3 DESIGN,
INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND EMILIE AND GORDY BROOKS, PROPERTY OWNERS)
STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
2c. 1223 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL
BUILDING (CATHERINE JOHNSON, BESTER ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
INGRID CHARTER. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
2d. 1333 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW FOOD
ESTABLISHMENT WHICH INCLUDES CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING
COMMERCIAL BUILDING (DAVID DODSON, CREATIVE RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, APPLICANT;
JEREMY STEINMEIER, AIA, ARCHITECTURE & LIGHT, ARCHITECT; AND, MICHAEL & ATHIA
GIOTINIS TRUST. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
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 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m.
Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he appreciated the sign illustration for `Derry's'; but is still
somewhat concerned that the sign will be out of character.
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3. 260 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A — MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES, AND A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR 24-HOUR OPERATION OF A DRUG STORE FOR A NEW 13,765 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING (KEVIN CULLINANE, APPLICANT, KEVIN AND LISA CULLINANE,
PROPERTY OWNERS; AND NILMEYER AND NILMEYER ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) STAFF
CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated November 10, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty (30) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
Asked if the Commissioners are required to accept the findings of the consultant (Meeker —
indicated that it is the expert opinion of the consultant under the direction of staff; but the
Commission can question the findings).
Asked what purview the Commission has with respect to signage; (Meeker — signage is staff's
purview; though the Commission can discuss signage areas shown on plans).
Asked if there is a noise ordinance (Meeker — yes; it is enforced by Police Department).
Michael Nilmeyer, 128 Pepper Avenue and Kevin Cullinane, 311 South Ellsworth Avenue, San Mateo;
represented the applicant.
■ Reviewed comments made by the Planning Commission at the August 25th meeting.
■ Have no problem installing benches on the site.
■ Provided a couple of brick samples for the Commission's review.
■ Intent was to invoke the style of an older building.
■ Have worked extensively with Walgreens to address design concerns raised by the
Commission.
Additional Commission comments:
Expressed concern about the height of the clear windows along Burlingame Avenue; due to the
slope of the site, the four foot height to the windows will increase as you move east; concerned
that views into the store will not be easily achieved (Nilmeyer — site slowly steps down from
corner). Can the windows be lowered more? (Cullinane — Walgreens compromised as much as
they were willing).
With respect to the pedestrian passageway; envisioned as a dark area where refuse will collect;
can this be closed in (Cullinan — willing to gate at both ends; will have lighting along the area as
well. Nilmeyer — existing building next door is less than one-half the length of the proposed
building; trash receptacles are placed near the entry to the store. Cullinane — will maintain
regularly. Nilmeyer — still felt solution was better than requiring people to walk a great distance
around the building to get to Burlingame Avenue; promotes a pedestrian -friendly downtown).
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Michael Kaindl, 1512 Sanchez Avenue spoke: spoke with
Mr. Nilmeyer; Walgreens is an established company that has a business plan that works for
them; however, Burlingame has fought for many years to maintain its status. Burlingame has
good demographics for Walgreens; if we want to see into the store, the Planning Commission
should ask for windows that pedestrians can look into. Other Walgreens stores look like
prisons; doesn't want this store to look like one. The walkway will eventually create a problem
for the site; no one will use it; in the long run it could present as a problem. Thinks the project is
good; excited about something happening on that corner. Could depress the slab at the display
windows.
Applicant response:
The sill of the windows is at two -feet above the finished floor; depressing the slab would not
benefit since the display cases are always at floor level.
Further Commission comments:
Don't see the logic in having a passageway; the passage is one store from the corner; what
would happen if the stairway was at the passageway; how would this impact the display area
(Nilmeyer —would require moving roughly'/2 of the building; the stairway door would enter onto
Burlingame Avenue).
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
More Commission comments:
■ Like the work that has been done to respond to Commission comments; building is rather
handsome; though have reservations about passageway; would like to see some other
utilization of the area.
• Concern that parking could be an issue; but has been handled sufficiently; can be handled by
the parking lot across the street or other area.
■ Agree with 6 a.m. delivery time.
■ Clarified that elimination of alley would not create setback issues.
• As a new commercial building; is quite nice; alley could always be gated if it becomes a
problem; only 50-foot deep.
■ Supports request for a Variance based upon intended use and design of the mezzanine space.
■ Have no problem with passageway; it easy way to get through to the rear of the property from
Burlingame Avenue.
■ Parking is first come first serve; Safeway is not yet an application; the applicant has every right
to proceed with this project.
■ Suggested that windows to be white -framed to blend more with other buildings.
■ Can't support the project; beautiful building; but don't need to suspend common sense, this is
the entryway to Burlingame Avenue; concerned about trucks parking and traffic on Burlingame
Avenue; believe the traffic consultant assumes that Parking Lot K will remain in existence, most
M
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
trips will be from Fox Plaza Lane; there is a scenario in which Safeway could buy the parking
lots; applicant has assumed that public parking may continue to exist at the rear of the property;
the Commission doesn't have to be unmindful of the potential impacts of Safeway.
■ Site wasn't designed for a high -traffic, multiple trip type of use.
■ Not the right use for the site.
■ Doesn't feel that the four -foot window height is pedestrian -friendly.
■ Does not warrant approval because risk too high for Burlingame residents.
■ In favor of project; if done well, will help the corner.
■ Some concern about generating traffic; but may make for a slower entry to Burlingame Avenue
from El Camino Real.
■ Could improve pedestrian friendliness by adjusting the height of the windows along Burlingame
Avenue.
■ Alleyway space could be used better for another purpose; could enhance pedestrian
friendliness.
■ Some concern about what will ultimately happen on Safeway; concerned with project integration
of Walgreens and Safeway projects.
■ Thinks the project can work if a couple of things (windows, passageway) are handled differently.
■ Thinks that Walgreens interest is in line with the City; what is Walgreen's reaction to the traffic
study?
■ What is a reasonable height for the windows; three -feet from the outside of the building.
■ Could the lighting fixtures in the passageway be placed in a manner that they couldn't be
accessed from the passageway.
■ Would like more study of the passageway.
Commissioner Cauchi 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 October 29, 2008, sheets T-1 through A-6 and sheets L-1 through L-6;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding
exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof
height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division
or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 26, 2007 and August 14, 2008,
memos, the City Engineer's August 18, 2008, memo, the Fire Marshal's November 26, 2007,
memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 26, 2007, memo shall be met;
5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance,
Setback Variance and Conditional Use Permit as well as any other exceptions to the code
granted here will become void;
6. that the commercial retail building shall be allowed to be open 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a
week;
7. that any changes to the floor area, use and hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as
stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this permit;
8. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of
approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval
is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of
the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
11. Exterior lighting for the project would be designed to meet the requirements of Burlingame
Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or
residential areas), the California Energy Commission, and the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North America for illumination levels. Compliance with these performance standards would
minimize the dispersion of light in a manner that reduces the glow or aurora effect to acceptable
and allowable levels. In addition, the project area already contains numerous sources of
exterior lighting, and is not adjacent to uses that would be sensitive to light spillover.
12. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
The following three (3) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to
the inspections noted in each condition:
14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under
penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
Mitigation Measures from Initial Study:
0
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
Hydrology and Water Quality
17. Run-on diversion: During construction, the contractor shall implement run-on diversion best
management practices (i.e. use of gravel bags and/or sand bag berms or perimeter trenching)
to prevent stormwater run-on from entering and ponding in excavated areas. Diversion of
stormwater run-on would prevent stormwater from entering the excavation and contributing to
alterations in the groundwater hydrologic gradient. Additionally, it would protect the local
groundwater from contamination by potential pollutants in stormwater;
18. Construction Scheduling: Excavation of old fill and replacement with engineered fill shall not
occur during the rainy season (from October 15 to April 15). By limiting excavation to the dry
season, the potential for stormwater run-on would be minimized and the direct effect of
precipitation would be minimized;
Air Quality
19. Implement feasible control measures for construction emission of PM10: The project sponsor
shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in
accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
C. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non -toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging
areas at construction sites.
e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public streets.
Traffic
20. Large Truck loading procedures: Large trucks shall load from Burlingame Avenue. Site plans
propose three metered public parking spaces in front of the project site, where loading would
occur. In order to minimize parking impacts, the parking stalls should be regulated to prohibit
customer parking during loading hours. The proposed parking spaces in front of the site would
not be eliminated and proper signage would inform patrons that during specific delivery hours
from midnight to 6 a.m., seven days per week, parking within these three stalls is prohibited.
Such signage designating the loading times shall be installed in this area. If access to Fox
Plaza Lane is ever provided from El Camino Real, large truck loading may occur at the rear of
the site;
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
November 10, 2008
21. Medium and Small Truck loading procedures: Medium and small trucks shall load from the three
spaces in the lot south of the project building, adjacent to the loading area. Site plans show
three accessible parking stalls in that area. These three proposed parking spaces would not be
eliminated; and proper signage would inform patrons that during specific delivery hours from
midnight to 6 a.m., seven days per week, parking within these three stalls is prohibited. Such
signage designating the loading times shall be installed in this area;
Biological Resources
22. Pre -construction nesting bird survey: Construction of the proposed project shall avoid the
February 15 through August 15 bird nesting period to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to
avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife
biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to the construction. The area surveyed shall include all
clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 150 ft. of the boundaries of those areas, or
as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered,
clearing/construction shall be postponed within 150 ft. of the nest until a wildlife biologist has
identified the nesting avian species and consulted on further measures with the CDFG. If the
avian species present is protected under the MBTA, further mitigation could entail
postponement of clearing or construction activities within 150 ft. of the active nest until the
young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second
nesting attempts. If the avian species is not protected under the MBTA, no further action is
required and construction activities may proceed;
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
23. Conduct testing on fill material: Prior to any demolition or excavation activity, soil sampling and
chemical analysis of fill material (soil) shall be performed to determine the extent of the potential
contamination in the fill material. If the fill material is deemed to be contaminated, the material
shall be disposed off at a certified hazardous materials landfill site;
24. Prepare a Health and Safety Plan: A Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be completed and
implemented by the project sponsor to protect workers from risks associated with hazardous
materials during demolition, construction, and transport and disposal. The plan shall identify the
contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health
and the environment during construction and post -development, and describe measures to
protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures should
include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during
construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post -development maintenance or access
limitations, or some combination thereof;
25. Install a vapor barrier beneath the building foundation: The project design shall include an
engineered vapor barrier to be included as part of the foundation for the new structures. The
vapor barrier would be (at a minimum) 10-mil thick and extend to the edge of the slab -on -grade
floor (concrete foundation);
M
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
Noise
26. Implement best management practices to reduce construction noise: The following practices
shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the project
contractor:
a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
■ Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly
noisy areas of the site or around the entire site;
■ Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit
transmission of noise to sensitive receptors;
• Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and
■ Minimize backing movements of equipment.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible.
C. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or
electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
exhaust from pneumatically -powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be
used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using
impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible.
d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
e. Select routes for movement of construction -related vehicles and equipment in
conjunction with the Burlingame Planning Department so that noise -sensitive areas,
including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible.
f. The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" for construction
activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints
regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause
of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct
the problem.
g. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within
50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the
telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site.
27. Implement measures to reduce construction vibration: The project sponsor shall incorporate the
following practice into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor:
a. The project sponsor shall require that loaded trucks and other vibration -generating
equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses
to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals.
9
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
Cultural Resources
28. Undiscovered Cultural Resources: If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected
cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, including darkened soil
representing past human activity ("midden"), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked
stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits or burials) is
discovered during construction -related earth -moving activities, all ground -disturbing activity
within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame shall be notified. The
project applicant shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The City of
Burlingame shall consult with the archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts
to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less -than -significant level through data
recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archeological Documentation. Any
identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-J) for and filed
with the NWIC;
Undiscovered Cultural Resources in the State ROW. If there is an inadvertent archaeological or
burial discovery in the State ROW, in compliance with CEQA,PRC 5024.5, and Caltrans
Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Volume 2 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser), all construction
within 50 feet of the find shall cease. The Department's District 4 Cultural Resources Study
Office shall be immediately contacted at (510) 286-5618. A staff archaeologist will evaluate the
finds within one business day after contact. Archaeological resources may consist of, but are
not limited to, dark, friable soils, charcoal, obsidian or chert flakes, grinding bowls, shell
fragments, or deposits of bone, glass, metal, ceramics, or wood. The project applicant shall
comply with the appropriate measures as identified by the staff archaeologist;
29. Unique Paleontological/Geological Features: Should a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geological feature be identified at the project construction site during any phase of
construction, the project manager shall cease all construction activities at the site of the
discovery and immediately notify the City of Burlingame. The project applicant shall retain a
qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures
to reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the
project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The
project applicant shall be responsible for implementing any additional prescribed mitigation
measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City; and
30. Human Remains: If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any
phase of construction, all ground -disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and
the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to
Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Health
and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American,
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the
guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The
project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial
experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely
Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide
professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of
the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended
mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before
the resumption of ground -disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were
discovered.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran
Discussion of Motion:
Discussed the treatment of windows on the El Camino Real side of the building; not that
concerned with the windows along that side, but are concerned about advertising in the
windows; the El Camino view is not as important as the Burlingame Avenue view. The windows
along El Camino Real should be true display windows with no distracting glare that will affect
properties across the street.
Chair Cauchi called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 2-4 (Commissioners
Brownrigg, Vistica, Yie and Cauchi dissenting; Commissioner Terrones absent).
More Commission comments:
Discussed alternative treatments for the passageway area.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant, as follows:
The site line at the windows shall be three feet above the sidewalk.
Look at alternative treatments for the passageway area.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion carried 5-1-1
(Commissioner Brownrigg dissenting; Commissioner Terrones absent). This item concluded at 8:10
p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
4. 145 COSTA RICA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN
& ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND JENNY NGO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated November 10, 2008, with attachments. Assistant Planner Whitman briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue; represented the applicant.
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
Met with neighbor on right and have addressed her concerns.
Commission comments:
■ Driveway on the left is a wise decision.
■ Asked if this were a four -bedroom house, would a single -stall garage be built.
■ Asked for explanation for all of the hardscape in the rear.
■ The rounded bay at the rear is a nice feature; think about carrying it through to the front of the
property and consider eliminating the balcony.
■ Corner post treatment for 2nd floor balcony appears a bit heavy.
■ Fagade handled nicely.
■ On left elevation; first floor near kitchen area; is there any way to add another window to
eliminate the blank wall.
■ Second floor sill plate line is pretty linear throughout; it might be nice to break this down
somewhat.
■ The vents look a bit small.
■ Question regarding the Mellaluca; what is the anticipated size, shape and is this a deciduous
tree.
■ Front elevation; what is the purpose of the angled wall by the front door; will this create a
problem with landscaping.
■ Clarified that the dormer on the front elevation of the garage is a decorative feature.
■ Add a more prominent or enticing feature to the front. Perhaps consider a gable over the front
door and tie it into the balcony rather than having a shed roof over the door.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; glad to see that planting well is increased in sidewalk area.
Questioned the amount of hardscape. Concerned about calling it a 4 bedroom house; the den
is a bedroom. Would hate to see the guidelines for 4 bedrooms change. Appreciates that the
house includes only 3'/2 baths.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Discussion of motion:
None
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. 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 8:25 p.m.
5. 1452 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND
GINKGO BURLINGAME LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
Reference staff report dated November 10, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant.
Presented alternate architectural treatments.
Declining height envelope encroachment is based upon elevation that was created in
anticipation of the former project.
Commission comments:
■ Refreshing and workable design.
■ Clarified that the fireplace is not wood -burning and that a chimney is not necessary for the
installation.
■ The design is not compatible with the architectural styles in the neighborhood.
■ Willing to accept the general design; however, puzzled with the need for modern vocabulary for
a "green" house; green structures do not need to be contemporary in design.
■ Like the proposed modifications that echo Craftsman style.
■ Like having the garage up front.
■ Would encourage the applicant to choose the design they prefer; the Craftsman style is a bit
more comfortable when viewed in context, but more incongruous with the contemporary left
portion of the structure; want to see a design that softens the appearance of the left side of the
house.
■ Questioned the need for a flat roof.
■ The rear elevation looks friendlier than the front elevation; a trellis element may help the design
blend better with the neighborhood.
■ Like the softer version of the design that will fit better with the neighborhood; soften and make
the design more compliant with the neighborhood; used more Craftsman elements on the rear
elevation; details like that could soften the appearance of the front.
■ Blank garage door hurts the design as well; consider installing windows in the door.
Public comments:
Mary Martocci, 1448 Drake Avenue; Alex Daskalakis, 1449 Drake Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445
Balboa Avenue spoke: When the foundation was installed for the prior building, the lot was
raised considerably; concerned about drainage problems. House has lots to recommend it; but
it is a large departure from the neighborhood; bulk of it is next to her home (1448 Drake
Avenue) and makes it seem larger. Will there be noise from the metal roof; will it be painted or
left natural (concerned about glare); also concerned about stainless steel railings on the rear.
Concerned that there will not be enough parking. Have a heritage tree on her property (to the
right) a Liquid Amber can be a problem; wants it to be noted that a barrier or something would
need to be installed to prevent roots from infringing upon the house to be built. Is a 19 year
resident; came to city due to quaintness of neighborhood; concerned about how the home will
blend with neighborhood. The features present somewhat of an industrial look. Flat roof is
unattractive. Concerned with the metal roof; aesthetics and maintenance. The design is not
appropriate for Drake Avenue, though a nice urban design. Other designs of this type are
softened by foliage. Drake Avenue's tree-scape has been dramatically reduced; there will not
be much relief in front of the house. Feels that the steel rails are out of character with the
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes
November 10, 2008
Craftsman design. How is a living roof maintained? Will it look unkempt? Metal roof is too
industrial for neighborhood. Is the property owner attached to a really modern design; probably
being built to be sold.
Applicant response:
Randy Grange: not meant to be sold; connected to a non-profit foundation; want to prove that
you can build a sustainable home and still have a profit margin; there will be someone living on
the property that is involved in the development. Durable metal roof with 60-year lifespan;
100% recyclable with 90% recycled content; crisp clean look, non -reflective, no noise. Are are
bound by law to contol and deal with drainage on site. Living roof is like a succulent ground
cover that will last 100 years and grows only to a certain height. Railing is twisted cable.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ The applicant needs to call out the reflectivity and finish of the metal roof.
■ The design includes a lot less lot coverage than normal; below maximum FAR; far below the
maximum height.
■ Add some design gestures that are familiar to neighborhood.
■ Chimney is not necessary; consider eliminating it.
■ The design is incompatible with the neighborhood; it is too industrial in appearance. The
proposed windows belong in an industrial area.
■ Proposed house could work in neighborhood by softening the design.
■ The scale and height of the structure are appropriate for the neighborhood.
■ Appreciate the architect's effort to try something different.
■ Neighborhood consistency is not necessarily a matter of style; can relate to finishes, scale,
texture; the design needs a bit more work.
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Cauchi 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 5-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones
absent, Commissioner Auran dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 9:08 p.m.
Commissioner Auran recused himself from participating on Agenda Item 6 and left the dais.
6. 1333 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; AND OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
Reference staff report dated November 10, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ The design would benefit from two large-scale trees in the front.
■ Consider decreasing FAR by reducing size of master bedroom and family room.
Public comments:
■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Alison Greenspan, 1337 De Soto Avenue spoke: good
looking house; only two square feet short of FAR; house seems to be in context with the
neighborhood; ensure that planting wells are placed in the planting strip when sidewalk is
replaced. Many of the large homes on the block were built before the declining height envelope
restrictions. When an architect and builder are given a blank slate they shouldn't assume that a
special permit will be granted. Doesn't understand the need for 5 bedrooms and 5'/2 baths.
Concerned about the massive style and the proposed height. Design Guidebook states that
massive buildings are discouraged, keep volumes away from neighboring properties. Asked
that the home be made smaller and within the design envelope; her home receives the light
from this side of the property.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Not convinced that the home is the right style and shape for the site given the adjacent house;
shadows could be better addressed by another style. The slope of the lot will make the house
seem more massive.
■ Noted that the design is only two feet below the maximum FAR allowed on the site.
■ Rafters under the eaves are a bit too small.
■ Asked why a full bath is proposed off of the library; and the library includes a closet.
■ Asked if the pitch of the roof necessitated by the dormer; could the height be brought down by
decreasing pitch of roof.
■ Door swing in family room will make furniture layout difficult and wastes space.
■ Nice design, but the two-story wall at front and right -side elevation is out of character with
neighborhood.
Commissioner Brownrigg a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Discussion of motion:
■ None.
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent,
Commissioner Auran recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable.
This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.
Commissioner Auran returned to the dais.
7. 1040 BROADWAY, ZONED RR — ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW STUDY FOR
AN APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND
VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK, LANDSCAPING AND SIGNAGE TO REBUILD AN EXISTING
GAS STATION WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A NEW FUELING CANOPY AND DISPENSERS,
CONVENIENCE STORE AND CAR WASH (BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC., APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; AND BOE ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN
HURIN
Reference staff report dated November 10, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Michael Majors, 913 K Street, Sacramento; represented the applicant.
Met with Mike Harvey (adjacent property owner) several times; he noted that the visibility of the
used car lot is the issue; objected to how staff interpreted front and rear setbacks; the design is
based upon this input.
Commission comments:
■ Clarified that users of convenience store would not be parking in front of the store.
■ At the entry to the car -wash; there will be conflict between the entry to the fuel stalls and the
entry to the car wash.
■ Asked how many cars will normally be stacked waiting for entry to the car wash; noted that this
site sometimes has three or four vehicles in line for the car wash, and noted the stacking at the
Chevron car -wash on Carolan Avenue sometimes flows out onto the street.
■ Path of travel markings are confusing.
■ Questioned turning radius into car wash, seems tight; will cars be able to turn around.
■ The air -water -vacuum; clarify where the vehicles will need to be placed; does this area count
towards the required parking.
■ Clarified that parking is not permitted on Rollins Road near the site.
■ Asked why the convenience store could not be moved closer to Whitethorn Way; if not for the
trash enclosures, could be placed closer to that.
■ Whitethorn is supposed to be one-way, there is no right turn from Whitethorn allowed; needs to
be marked very clearly.
■ Would like to see the applicant meet the landscaping requirement for the overall site.
■ The back of the store presents a good community opportunity; a community feature of some
sort, perhaps related to the schools; would like the design of the rear of the store to be creative.
■ Concerned about how cars will access and circulate around the site; arrows are inconsistent
from sheet to sheet.
■ Not sure the distance from the entry to the intersection is adequate; review with Traffic
Engineer.
16
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
■ Is access to the west also meant to be an entry to the site; entry only to the east. Could be
clearer if one is an entry and the other is an exit.
■ Is the egress across the adjacent property available in perpetuity.
■ The building doesn't address the corner as an architectural element; needs to make a gesture
to the corner; the design is not creating a gateway to the City; a mural on the rear of the building
is not the architectural statement we are looking for; perhaps a better site for the store is closer
to where the car -wash is located.
■ Was there any consideration to not having the car -wash on the property; could more pumps be
added to off -set the lack of a car -wash.
■ Have different shapes been considered for the building; a smaller rectangular building might
permit a greater presence at the corner.
■ Now trying to pack three uses on a property that now has two; need to somehow address the
City's needs as well.
■ Three different types of architecture are proposed on the site; the design should be more unified
in terms of architectural style.
■ Not as concerned about the circulation; the two entrances are necessary.
■ Mostly concerned about the AM -PM Market design; somehow design the building to make a
statement; don't like the finishing. Asked why the roof is not consistently tiled, consider showing
gutters, consider a design similar to the train and greyhound station.
■ Landscaping is important; would like to see trees installed along Broadway; would be nice to
have a landscape screen in front of property; trees are probably a good temporary solution for
the intersection.
■ Asked if there is an intention to make this a LEED certified project.
■ Questioned the amount of light on the site; can light levels be lowered to reduce glare.
■ Have they considered placing the building where the parking stalls are currently located.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; glad to see driveway on Rollins Road being removed. Agrees
with sprucing up the rear wall; how about a false fagade. Premature to consider planting trees
on Broadway; too many unknowns regarding grade separation and new Broadway interchange;
existing sidewalks will not accommodate trees.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Need to be very mindful of the entry to Burlingame; design needs to be more integrated into the
City; work out of the box at other design solutions.
■ The project includes the creation of an additional use on the site; not sure all pieces fit together.
■ Site needs to be updated. Commend applicant for investing in proposal.
■ This is one of the principal corridors to the City; the architecture can make the statement.
Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Discussion of motion:
Need a visual simulation of the building.
17
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
■ Light and glare analysis needs to be reviewed.
■ Traffic needs to be reviewed.
■ Hazardous materials need to be reviewed.
■ Encouraged a more sustainable solution; could install permeable pavement or photovoltaics on
the canopy.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. 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 10:20 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 November 3, 2008:
■ None.
FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — October, 2008:
■ Accepted.
FYI: 1125 Clovelly Lane — review of required trellis addition on front elevation of garage for a
previously approved first and second story addition:
Commissioner Brownrigg suggested that the trellis be lowered by three to four inches.
■ Accepted.
FYI: 1625 Adrian Road — review of required parking space configuration changes to a
previously approved project:
■ Accepted.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
IN
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes November 10, 2008
Stanley Vistica, Secretary
19