HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.26.07 PC Minutes APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
March 26, 2007
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the March 26, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Terrones and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi, Osterling
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erica Strohmeier;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 12, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were amended item 1, 12 Vista Lane, line 3 of that item should
be amended to read “… but has not discussed the site in any detail with the
applicant…”. The minutes were approved unanimously as amended.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Brownrigg noted that based on a
letter received he would move item 1a, 329 Occidental, from the Consent
Calendar to the first item on the Regular Action Calendar. Otherwise the
Agenda remained as submitted.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, commented on the three FYI projects on
the agenda.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
There were no study items for review.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on 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 Brownrigg noted that item 1a, 329 Occidental Avenue, would be moved to the first item on the
Regular Action calendar. He then asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any
item off the consent calendar. There were no requests.
1b. 624 TRENTON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION (KATRINA KUHL, KUHL ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SUZI AND
FRANK HENNELLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
1c. 819 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A
BASEMENT (MICHAEL RABBIT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON,
DESIGNER) (107 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
2
1d. 2620 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVED APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (KEVIN WEINMANN, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; LORNA BECCARIA, PROPERTY OWNER) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA
WHITMAN
1e. 1110 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GREG AND DIANE
HAUPT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS,
ARCHITECT) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Comment on the Consent Calendar: Commissioners noted that the conditions on the project at 819 Walnut
Avenue, item 1c, should be amended to require that a rat abatement program shall be prepared and executed
before demolition or any construction commences on the property. Further it was noted for the project at
624 Trenton Avenue, item 1b, that for security the property owner could install either opaque or tinted glass
in the garage door if they wished.
C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioner’s
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the
motion. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 7:12 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
1a. 329 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG
ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOE AND JULIA MCVEIGH, PROPERTY OWNERS)
(49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report March 26, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. Letter from Alan and
Suzie Klein, March 20, 2007, to Planning Commission. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Joe McVeigh, property owner, 329 Occidental Avenue; Randy
Grange, architect; Susie Klein, 325 Occidental Avenue; Robert Bodreau, 333 Occidental Avenue. Issues
noted: existing landscaping along side property lines; driveway configuration; hammerhead in rear yard for
forward exit; change in plans re: basement and terraces; keep existing wooden property line fence during
construction; protect/retain existing established hedge on the right side property line. There were no further
comments. The public hearing was closed.
Comment on the motion: Following items need to be addressed on the plans:
On the left side property line in the small space along the fence plant Pittosporum and provide a
protection plan and implement it during construction to protect the established hedge along the right
side property line;
Curve the driveway in order to retain as much as possible of the existing landscaping (trees) on the
left side, including the Holly tree;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
3
On one sheet of the plans note all the existing trees, unprotected size as well as protected, along all
the property lines;
For greater mature height consider Bradford Pear and Grecian Laurel in the rear;
Chair Brownrigg noted that the house plans appear to be resolved, think changes to it were improvements,
the removal of the basement was the applicant’s choice, moved to bring the item back on the consent
calendar when the landscape plan and driveway have been amended as recommended. The motion was
seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the consent calendar after the
landscape and site plans have been amended based on the direction given and reviewed by Planning staff.
The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers Cauchi, Osterling absent). Staff noted that they would renotice this
item when it was placed on the agenda again. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m.
2. 1473 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JASON AND DENISE PAYNE,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (63
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report March 26, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if any
revised plans were submitted, staff responded no.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 W. 43rd Ave San Mateo, architect; Jason and
Denise Payne, property owners; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Ave, spoke. Issues noted: front porch area; flat
areas on roof; fireplace insufficient setback; Jasmine on landscape plan; curved windows; one car garage
required; tree protection; and construction site maintenance requirements. The applicant submitted a single
copy of a reduced sheet of new proposed revisions at the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:
May want to extend the rafters up on the roof at a pitch in order to avoid flat areas, particularly on the
smallest flat area; tar and gravel is a lot of work and water can pond;
The proposed fireplace along the right side elevation has an insufficient setback to the property line, it
needs to move at least 6” in towards the house;
The Jasmine vines along the left side property line need to be planted closer together and there should be
more of them, in order to create a landscape barrier between the two properties;
The curved windows proposed on the house shall be retained during construction and shall not be
replaced with rectangular windows;
An arborist report, prepared by a licensed arborist, shall be submitted with tree protection measures for
the protected Oak tree in the rear yard, and the City Arborist shall review and approve the arborist
report; the protection measures should be installed before a building permit is issued;
During construction, the applicant should coordinate, if possible, with the next door neighbor to share a
debris box or at least avoid having two debris boxes on the street at the same time; the applicant shall
abide by the new construction site maintenance requirements.
C. Auran moved to approve the original plans and application, by resolution, with all conditions. The
motion was seconded by C. Deal.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
4
CA Anderson encouraged the Commission to not approve the project with the plans submitted at the
meeting because they have not yet been reviewed by staff and their content is not reflected in the staff report
or record. He stated that the Commission could place the item on the consent calendar when all changes had
been made to the plans, reviewed by staff and there is room on the agenda.
C. Auran amended his motion and moved to place the item on the consent calendar when all changes noted
by the Commission had been made to the plans and reviewed by staff and when there was room on the
agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place the item on the consent calendar when all
changes had been made to the plans and reviewed by staff and when there was room on the agenda. The
motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 8:10 p.m.
3. 1136 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW
FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(SARAH & BENJAMIN CHEYETTE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; TIM HALEY, TSH
INTERNATIONAL, ARCHITECT) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report March 26, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Sarah Cheyette, property owner, spoke. Issues noted: size and
material of vents at front elevation; only Scheme A will work in this circumstance; with Scheme A front
fascia should be extended slightly and to the eave as well; header boards; placement and size of bathroom
widow; can window be lowered a few inches; window box material; and cast stone material under windows.
The public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with added conditions that Scheme A, date
stamped March 13, 2007, be approved for the front elevation; that the eave over the bathroom at the front is
extended proportionally to the wall to retain the same eave projection as approved originally; the bathroom
window at the front should be lowered as much as possible and that the vents, as reflected in Scheme A,
shall be made of wood and with the conditions in the staff report:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
March 13, 2007, Scheme A front elevation, date stamped January 29, 2007, left side elevation, date stamped
January 11, 2006, sheets A0.10 to A3.03 (excluding the proposed front, sheet A3.01, and left side, sheet
A3.03, elevations), and topographic survey sheet 1, with simulated true divided light windows and
traditional wood stucco mold throughout, and with the relocation of the stairs between the garage and the
house into the house and out of the required parking area; 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 eave
over the bathroom and front door be extended proportionally to the extension of the wall so that the eave
projection remains the same as originally approved; that if possible, the bathroom window at the front when
relocated in the new wall, shall be lowered as much as possible; the two vents, as shown in Scheme A, shall
be made of wood; (3) that the variance for parking space width shall only apply to this residential building
and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural
disaster or for replacement; (4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 18, 2005
memo and the Fire Marshal's, the City Engineer's, the Recycling Specialist's, and the NPDES Coordinator's
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
5
November 21, 2005, memos, shall be met; (5) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any
grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site
work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
(6) that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 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; (8) 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; (9) 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; (10) 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; (11)
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; (12) that the project shall comply with the Construction
and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and
alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and (13) that the applicant
shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added conditions. The motion
passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
4. 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMENT AND
DETACHED GARAGE (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KENDRICK LI,
PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report March 26, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Twenty (20) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Kendrick Li, applicant and property owner, Ben Behravesh, 4
W. Santa Inez Ave San Mateo, architect; Dennis and Delores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue; Pat Giorni,
1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Issues noted: applicant volunteered to go to a design review consultant; wood
headers missing over five windows along left elevation; headers over arched windows will be made of
stucco; decorative railing; more traditional to have simulated true divided lite windows; site design; spiral
staircase used to exit the sunken garden area; lights mounted on outside of house; greenbelt of backyards;
detached garage verses a sunken attached garage; privacy tree hedge; noise from basement and sunken
garden; large houses and maximum allowable FAR; basement used as fifth bedroom or second unit; City
infrastructure supporting sump pumps; a drainage plan; not required to have a basement, but required to
have a second exit from a basement; and great house, but on wrong lot. The public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
6
C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with added conditions that simulated true divided
lite windows on a grid pattern be used throughout the house, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as
an FYI item; that the spiral staircase out of the sunken garden be eliminated and replaced with a ladder per
California Building Code requirements; and that the only lighting on the left side shall be landscape lighting
directed to the ground, and with the conditions in the staff report:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
March 14, 2007, sheets DD-1 through DD-7.0; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes,
footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that the spiral staircase
from the sunken garden shall be eliminated and replaced with a ladder per California Building Code
requirements; and that the only lighting along the left side shall be landscape lighting directed to the ground,
with the cone of light kept on the site as required in the Burlingame Ordinance; (2) that any street tree roots
of one inch diameter or larger that are encountered during installation of the new sidewalk and driveway are
not to be damaged or cut prior to inspection and approval by the City Arborist or the Park Department
Supervisor; (3) that all windows shall be simulated true divided lite windows with a grid pattern and these
windows shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item before issuance of a building
permit; (4) that an automatic gate shall be installed in the driveway a minimum 20'-0' back from the front
property line; (5) that all skylights shall be tinted to reduce night glare; (6) that the property owner shall
be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist
report prepared by Arborlogic Consulting Arborists, dated August 3, 2006; (7) that the conditions of the
City Arborist's March 21, 2007 memo, the Chief Building Official's November 27, 2006 memo, the City
Engineer's November 27, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 29, 2006 memo, the Recycling
Specialist's November 27, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 12, 2006 memo shall be met; (8)
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; (9) 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; (10) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a
licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (11) that prior to
underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the
various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; (12) 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; (13) 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; (14) that prior
to final inspection, Planning Department staff shall inspect and note compliance of the architectural details
(trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved
Planning and Building plans; (15) 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; (16) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; (17) 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
7
partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; (18) that
during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the
applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water
Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; (19) that the applicant shall
comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance; and (20) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a
complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time
of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the proposed project with the added
conditions. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) roll
call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.
5. 1318 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FRANK PRENDERGAST, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; PIERRE AND CAROL UHARRIET, PROPERTY OWNERS) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report March 26, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if there
were any changes to the project other than the height, staff responded no.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Phillip Uharriet, property owners son, and Frank Prendergast,
architect, were available to answer questions. The public hearing was closed.
C. Deal 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 Department date stamped
December 12, 2003, sheets A1 through A5 and date stamped March 14, 2007, sheets A1 and A4; and that
any changes to the footprint or floor area of he building shall require and amendment to this permit; (2) that
any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; (3) that the property owner at 1318 Benito Avenue shall be responsible for
implementing the recommendations listed in the March 23, 2004 arborist's report to preserve and protect the
existing Coast Redwood tree located at 1320 Benito Avenue; the recommendations include measures to be
implemented before, during and after construction is complete; (4) 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; (5) 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood
windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; (6)
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; (7) that prior to
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
8
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; (8) that the conditions of the City Arborist's April 5,
2004, memo including the requirements of the Arborlogic Consulting report dated March 23, 2004, and the
City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's August 11, 2003,
memos shall be met; (9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris
Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit
a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; (10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance
1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (11) that
the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Commission noted that an extremely large tree and the slope of
the lot help to mitigate the height of the house.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Cauchi and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
9
6. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP,
FRONT SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
HEIGHT FOR A 25-UNIT, 7-STORY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (PAUL BOGATSKY,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DAN IONESCU ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS,
ARCHITECT) (14 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT; AND
b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP – PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG
Reference staff report March 24, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fifty-two (52) conditions including the mitigation monitoring program were suggested
for consideration. CP noted that on February 12, 2007, the Commission held a public hearing on this
multiple family residential project and continued the action until the applicant had responded to several
design and open space issues identified. The applicant submitted revised plans dated March 14, 2007, and
notice was sent for a continued public hearing this evening. Commissioners had no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dan Ionesco, architect, and Paul Bogatsky, property owner,
represented the project. Issues discussed: the changes to the plans, placement of wrought iron below the
store front gate; the construction of the trellis on the front of the building; the new podium used for open
space; materials sample board. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was
closed.
C. Vistica made a motion finding that, on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in
writing and at the public hearing, there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a negative
impact on the environment, so recommend the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Tentative Condominium
Map to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to find the Mitigated Negative Declaration an
adequate environmental disclosure and recommending both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Tentative Condominium Map to the Council for action. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi,
Osterling absent) voice vote.
Commissioners comments on the project: because of the proximity of the hospital entrance across the street
from this site would like to see all staging and debris management for this project done on site, applicant
should find alternate parking for employees and for storage of materials during construction if necessary.
Note that the exception for lot coverage is met because the area covered not only improves the quality of life
in the building by sheltering future residents and neighbors from noise from the access ramps to the parking
area below the building but also provides additional open space for the use of future owners; the front
setback variance is justified on the basis that a major objective of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan is to increase pedestrian activity and life on the street, because the grade on this lot and
easement location resulted in the first deck of parking being at grade, the main entrance into the building
projecting into the front setback supports the objective of bringing more life to the street and encourages
pedestrians.
C. Vistica made a motion to approve the residential condominium permit, front setback variance, conditional
use permits for lot coverage and height for a new seven story 25-unit residential condominium project by
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
10
resolution with amended conditions that building materials for this project shall be stored on this property
or managed from another property in the area approved by the City Engineer; that all employee parking and
equipment parking for this construction project shall be provided on the site or shall be provided on another
site in the immediate area as approved by the City Engineer; that no mitigations proposed for materials
storage, equipment storage and staging, or employee parking shall involve the Plaza Shopping Center
parking or facilities; and that the portions of the trellises on the front elevation shown to be built with the
2x10’s shall be increased to at least 4x 10 over the 6x6 posts; and with all the conditions, including the
conditions from the mitigation monitoring plan as follows:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
March 14, 2007, sheets A0.1, A.1, A2.1, A2.1.1, A2.2 through A2.7, A3.1 through A3.4, A4.1, A4.2, A5.1
through A5.9, Ground Floor Landscape Plan and Podium Level Landscape Plan, and Boundary and
Topographic Survey Plan and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; and that the portions of the trellises on
the front elevation shown to be 2x10’s shall be increased to at least 4x 10 over the 6x6 posts; (2) that
building materials for this project shall be stored on this property or managed from another property in the
area as approved by the City Engineer; that all employee parking and equipment parking for this
construction project shall be provided on the site or shall be provided on another site in the immediate area
as approved by the City Engineer; that no mitigations proposed for materials storage, equipment storage and
staging, or employee parking shall involve the Plaza Shopping Center parking or any of its facilities; (3)
that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 117.18'' as measured from
the average elevation at the top of the curb along Trousdale Drive (42.18') for a maximum height of 75'-0",
and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the
framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The lower level garage floor finished
floor elevation shall be elevation 33.5'; at-grade garage level finished floor elevation shall be elevation 42.5';
first floor above garage finished floor shall be elevation 53.5'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation
63.5'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 73.5'; fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 83.5';
sixth floor loft finished floor shall be elevation 102.5'; and the top of ridge elevation shall be no more than
117.18'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that
the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved
plans; (4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the
footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch,
shall be subject to Planning Commission review; (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 the backflow prevention device and post indicator valve (PIV) shall be located and
screened by landscaping so they will be hidden from both the street and project residents; (7) that the
conditions of the City Engineer's June 21, 2006, memo, the Chief Building Official's August 2, 2005, memo,
the Fire Marshal's August 12, 2005 and September 3, 2006 memos, the NPDES Coordinator's August 15,
2005, memo and the Recycling Specialist’s August 8, 2005, memo shall be met; (8) that storage of
construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; (9) that
prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the North
Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $12,593.70, made payable to the City of
Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; (10) that prior to scheduling the final framing
inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame
Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $12,593.70, made payable to the City of Burlingame and
submitted to the Planning Department; (11) that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the
applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to establish the affordability of the three below market
rate units required as a part of this project; the applicant shall also submit a below market rate housing plan
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
11
which shall describe in detail the applicant's proposal for a third party to meet and manage the inclusionary
housing requirements as required by Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; the applicant shall
enter into an agreement with a third-party non-profit organization approved by the City to administer the
program; (12) that 'guest parking stall' shall be marked on the three guest parking spaces and designated on
the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by
the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be
separately enclosed or used for resident storage; and that in addition to the three guest parking stalls, and
one service vehicle parking stall, 52 parking spaces shall be available on site for owners, and none of the on-
site parking shall be rented, leased or sold to anyone who does not own a unit on the site; (13) that the
Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the three
guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; (14)
that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow
on the sale of each unit; (15) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the
board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name
and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of
appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property,
including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; (16) that the
trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required
parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code
requirements before a building permit is issued; (17) that the security gate system across the right side
entrance driveway shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate
system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate
with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; (18) that
prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the
building envelope; (19) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor
elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; (20) 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; (21) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; (22) that trash enclosures and dumpster
areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted
from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; (23)
that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation
Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be
provided at the time of building permit application; (24) that all site catch basins and drainage inlets
flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent
debris from entering; (25) that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency
generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and
electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so
that they meet the City’s noise requirement; (26) 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; (27)
that in lieu of meeting the requirement specific to fire apparatus access required by Section 902.2.1, Uniform
Fire Code, as adopted by Burlingame Municipal Code 17.04, the project applicant shall extend the required
Class I Standpipe outlets to garage stair landings in accordance with fire department approved locations, and
install Quick Response Sprinklers throughout the garage; (28) that the proposed project shall comply with
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
12
construction standards and seismic design criteria contained in the Building Code as adopted by the City;
(29) that before construction of the proposed project, per the Building Code, the project applicant shall
obtain a site-specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive,
liquefiable, or compressive soils) and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design
criteria, including provisions to reduce the effects of expansive soils. The recommendations made in the
soils report for ground preparation and earthwork shall be incorporated in the construction design. The soils
evaluations shall be conducted by registered soil professionals, and the measures to eliminate inappropriate
soil conditions must be applied. The design for soil support of foundations shall conform to the analysis and
implementation criteria described in the Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33; (30) that a site-specific
evaluation of soil conditions required by the City shall be completed as part of the building permit process
and shall contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the project site that
would become an integral part the construction design. Recommendations shall be included in the
excavation and construction plans for the proposed project; (31) that although the proposed project would
be exempt from preparing and implementing a project-specific SWPPP, because the City of Burlingame is a
member of the STOPPP, the proposed project shall obtain coverage under STOPPP’s Phase I Municipal
Storm water Permit and comply with performance standards set forth by STOPPP’s Storm water
Management Plan. The City Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Municipal Code
Chapter 15.14; Ordinance 1503 Section 1; June 20, 1994) would also be applied to the proposed project. In
addition, the project applicants shall perform the following actions as uniformly required conditions of
project approval, as identified by the City’s NPDES Coordinator upon submittal of project applications to
the City: (a) Implement appropriate storm water best management practices (BMPs) to minimize pesticide
usage in accordance with the City’s New Development/Redevelopment Landscaping Fact Sheet; (b)
Incorporate applicable structural source control measures to minimize storm water pollutants in accordance
with the City’s Model List of Structural Source Control Measures; (c) Identify the responsible party who
would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the permanent post-construction storm water
treatment measure(s). Prior to issuance of a final building permit, submit a completed, notarized Storm
water Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement; (32) that the proposed project shall comply with City
grading requirements specified in Section 18.20 of the Municipal Code; (33) that the proposed project shall
comply with the City’s Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.17.001;
Ordinance 1476 Section 1; January 4, 1993), thereby reducing the amount of project site runoff polluted by
landscape chemicals; (34) that the project applicant 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; (35) that the project applicant shall prepare and
implement a construction phasing plan and traffic management plan that defines how traffic operations
would be managed and maintained during each phase of construction. The plan should be developed with
the direct participation of the City of Burlingame. To the maximum practical extent, the plan should: (a)
Detail how access will be maintained to individual properties where construction activities may interfere
with ingress and egress. Any driveway closures shall take place during non-business hours; (b) Specify
predetermined haul routes from staging areas to construction sites and to disposal areas of agreement with
the City prior to construction. The routes shall follow streets and highways that provide the safest route and
have the least impact on traffic. (c) During construction, require the contractor to provide information to
the public using signs, press releases, and other media tools of traffic closures, detours or temporary
displacement of left-turn lanes. (d) Identify a single phone number that property owners and businesses can
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
13
call for construction scheduling, phasing, and duration information, as well as for complaints. (e) Identify
construction activities that must take place during off-peak traffic hours or result in temporary road closures
due to concerns regarding traffic safety or traffic congestion. Any road closures will be done at night under
ordinary circumstances. If unforeseen circumstances require road closing during the day, the City of
Burlingame should be consulted; (36) that in order to improve the ability of vehicles to turn from the lower
level ramp to the driveway, the project has been revised so that the west driveway is 12 feet wide; (37) that
the proposed project driveways shall be secured with an automatic gate system that would allow delivery
vehicles to enter and exit the driveways with an opener. The entrance gate shall also provide an intercom
system that would allow delivery vehicles to call from the entrance. Furthermore, rolling dumpsters shall be
acquired by the project applicant, which can be maneuvered outside of the parking garage to the curb, to
facilitate garbage pickup from Trousdale Avenue; (38) that the project applicant shall include in the
proposed project a bicycle parking area that is 12 feet by 21 feet, in the lower level of the parking garage, as
indicated in the site plan which is sufficient space for approximately 25 bicycles; (39) that the removal of
trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting
period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no
surveys shall be required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds should be
conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs,
grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21
days following the survey. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging
areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise
determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in
other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at
least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the
nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; (40) that the trees proposed to be
removed shall be evaluated by a licensed arborist whose report shall be reviewed by the City arborist to
determine whether they are “protected trees” per Section 11.06.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code and
whether a tree removal permit is appropriate. If any trees proposed to be removed are protected trees, the
City Arborist shall make a determination regarding the removal and replacement of these trees. As the
proposed landscaping plan includes the planting of 16 new trees, the City Arborist may determine that the
proposed landscaping plan is sufficient and no other replacement trees are required. (a) The Municipal
Code includes the following requirements regarding replacement trees; (b) Replacement shall be three 15-
gallon size, one 24-inch box size, or one 36-inch box size landscape tree(s) for each tree removed; and (c)
Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two 24-inch box size, or two 36-inch box size
landscape trees for each tree removed; and (d) Replacement of a tree may be waived by the director if a
sufficient number of trees exists on the property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation
and Tree Protection Ordinance; and (e) Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall be determined by
the director and shall be based on the species, location and value of the tree(s) removed; and (f) If
replacement trees cannot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be made to the City. Such
payments shall be deposited in the tree-planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree planting; (41) that
the project applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and protecting the existing on-site trees to be
retained. The following specific actions shall be followed to maintain the health of the remaining trees: (a)
Any pruning shall be done according to the direction of a certified arborist and all pruning shall comply with
International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter Standards or other comparable standards deemed
acceptable to the City Arborist; (b) Any abandoned utility lines (water, electrical, etc.) in the root zones
(radius of ten times the trunk diameter) shall be cut and left in the ground to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist; (c) Any surfacing material inside the root zone shall be pervious and installed on top of the
existing grade. As an example, pervious pavers are acceptable provided the base material is also sufficiently
pervious. Base rock containing granite fines is not sufficiently pervious; (d) Temporary construction
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
14
fencing shall be erected to protect the retained trees of a size to be established by the City Arborist. The
fencing shall be placed at the perimeter of the root zone unless the pavement is supervised by a certified
arborist. The fencing shall be in place prior to the arrival of construction materials or equipment; (e) The
landscape irrigation shall be designed to prevent trenching inside the root zones of retained trees; (f)
Supplemental irrigation shall be provided during construction. Approximately 10 gallons of water for each
inch of trunk diameter should be applied at or near the perimeter of the root zone every two weeks during
the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall on average); (g) Retained trees shall be
thoroughly mulched with a 3-inch layer of bark chips with the exception of a 6- to 12-inch area around the
base of the root collar, which must be left bare and dry; (42) that as required by BAAQMD Regulation 11,
Rule 2, the proposed project shall implement preventative measures during demolition and removal of all
asbestos containing materials (ACMs) to prevent emissions of asbestos into the air. The proposed project
shall also remove and dispose of all asbestos and PCB-containing materials according to Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) regulations and comply with the Cal/OSHA guidelines for worker safety during
removal; (43) that the project applicant shall abide by its declared building height as specified in the FAA
determination for the proposed project. The project applicant shall also ensure that construction equipment
for the proposed project (e.g. cranes) shall not exceed the maximum height restriction specified in the San
Francisco Airport Land Use Plan for the project site; (44) that if markings or lighting are to be included in
the proposed project, the project applicant shall ensure that they are installed and maintained according to
FAA guidelines; (45) that the applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction
documents to be implemented by the project contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise
control devices (e.g. mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g.
surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), all of which would not require major equipment
redesign. (a) Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: (1) Use heavy-duty mufflers for
stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; (2)
Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive
receptors; (3) Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and (4)
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 applicant 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; (46) that the project applicant shall incorporate the
following practice into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. The project
applicant 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; (47) that the project applicant shall include in the final project design noise insulation
features that would effectively maintain interior noise levels of 45 dBA or less; (48) that the existing
sanitary sewer on site shall be examined by the City after project construction to evaluate the pipe’s
condition. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe is substandard or if the pipe has been damaged by
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
15
project construction, the pipe shall be replaced or repaired by the project applicant to the City Engineer’s
satisfaction; (49) that if the project applicant does not provide a 12-foot wide driveway, the project
applicant shall be required to purchase maintenance equipment for the City that can access the on-site sewer
easement through the proposed 9.5-foot-wide driveway; (50) that per the City’s Construction and
Demolition Waste Recycling Requirement, the project applicant shall submit a waste reduction plan that
demonstrates that at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition waste can be recycled; (51) that the
project applicant shall design and locate all exterior lighting so that the cone of light and/or glare from the
lighting elements is kept entirely on the project site on or below the top of any fence, hedge, or wall at the
site’s property line, as required by the Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light
spillage off site in commercial or residential areas). All wall mounted up-lighting shall be excluded from the
proposed project. All project lighting shall comply with requirements of the California Energy Commission
and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for illumination levels; and (52) that the
following provisions shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to address the
potential to encounter currently unknown cultural resources: (a) Prior to the initiation of construction or
ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall receive environmental training that will include
discussion of the possibility of buried cultural and paleontological resources, including training to recognize
such possible buried cultural resources, as well as the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are
encountered; (b) Retain Project Archaeologist. Since the project area contains a portion of one recorded
Native American archeological resource, and other previously unknown prehistoric or historic cultural
deposits may be encountered elsewhere in the project site during excavations, the City shall retain the
services of a qualified archaeological consultant meeting federal criteria under 36 CFR 61, and who has
expertise in California prehistory and urban historical archaeology; (c) If potential historical or unique
archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be
suspended and alteration of the materials and their context shall be avoided pending site investigation by a
qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant retained by the project applicant. The immediate
vicinity wherein work shall be suspended shall be approximately 50 feet from the discovery or within an
appropriate distance to be determined by the archaeologist or cultural resources consultant. Construction
work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been given an
opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional
exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to
any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered; (d) If the
find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, and if avoidance of the resource
would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the
methodical excavation of those portions of the site that would be adversely affected. The plan shall be
designed to result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non-redundant archaeological data to address
important regional research considerations. The work shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural
resources consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports shall be submitted to the
California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall
be accomplished in accordance with current professional standards and shall not recommence until this work
is completed; (e) The project applicant shall assure that project personnel are informed that collecting
significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project is
prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile
points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected
rock, or human burials. Historic resources can include nails, bottles, or other items often found in refuse
deposits; (f) If human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the
discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project
applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In general, these
provisions require that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are found to be
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
16
.
Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24
hours. The most likely descendant of the deceased Native American shall be notified by the Commission
and given the chance to make recommendations for the remains. If the Commission is unable to identify the
most likely descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be re-interred
with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface
disturbance. If recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission
will mediate the problem. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project including the condominium
permit, front setback variance, and the conditional use permits for lot coverage and height. The motion
passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded
at 10:00 p.m.
IX DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
7. 1560 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR BASEMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE
(ROBERT AND CYNTHIA GILSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU
DESIGN & ENGINEERING, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Brownrigg noted that he lives within 500’ of the subject property and recused himself from the item. C.
Auran noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and also recused himself from this item.
Both Commissioners stepped down from the dais and left the council chambers. Chair Brownrigg passed
the gavel to Vice Chair Deal.
CA Anderson noted that there was not a quorum on the item and that the applicant must make the decision
themselves to either go to a design review consultant for guidance or to place themselves on the action
calendar after incorporating the changes recommended by the Commission. Without a quorum, the
Commission cannot make a motion on this item.
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Two letters were
submitted: March 21, 2007 and March 26, 2007.
Vice Chair Deal opened the public comment. James Chu, 55 W. 43rd Ave, San Mateo, architect, and Robert
and Cindy Gilson, property owners; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, commented. Issues noted: existing fence,
drainage; and requirements for basements to exempt 700 SF of FAR. There were no other comments from
the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project:
Looks like front of house is sunk down a couple feet; looks like grade is going down to the house and
then up again, needs to be addressed; can do some sort of retaining wall in front of house to step down
into a flat landscape area;
Will the stone surround be actual stone?
The cantilevered stone chimney at the back of the house hanging over a stairwell does not work; need to
push chimney into house;
Will the attic vents stick out from the roof and will they have arched tops made of copper? Should show
on the side elevations;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
17
Areas of flat roof could be eliminated; the flat roof area at top will break the 30’ maximum line by 6” to
8”, which should be easily solved with a special permit; because it is a small area, would be willing to
consider a special permit for height to mitigate the flat roof;
Note fencing on plans, including where existing fencing is to remain; and
A wood beam should be added to the corbels that frame the double doors at the left elevation;
Fancy window above entry door is a little small.
Because there was no quorum, the Planning Commission only provided direction. The Commission
suggested that it would be best for this project to come back on regular action with the provision to allow the
applicant to choose to go to a design review consultant. There was no motion. The applicant may decide to
either go to a design review consultant or to come back on the regular action calendar. This item concluded
at 10:25 p.m.
Cers. Brownrigg and Auran returned to the dais.
8. 1511 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK MELAMED, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER; YURI BUBNOV, ARCHITECT) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERICA STROHMEIER
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners noted that the plans were not to scale,
staff noted they had one set to scale which was the basis of the plan check; this is a second floor so entire
structure subject to design review? yes; were retaining walls include in the originally submitted plans? No;
why is an FAR variance not requested; part of the lower floor will remain as storage with a ceiling height of
5’-11”; noted issues with the accuracy of the plans. Two letters were submitted: Alexander Klein, 1509
Drake, Jani Ochse, 1512 Drake, Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake, together, March 26, 2007; and James Frolik,
1517 Drake, March 26, 2007.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Mark Melamed, property owner; Alex Klein, 1509 Drake
Avenue; Kirsten Garen, 1509 Drake Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Issues noted
included: sheets of plans do not agree; CA noted that the applicant could withdraw and because of the code
enforcement the city will follow up with legal action; problem with windows throughout the house; entire
project is now subject to design review; location of windows on sides; vegetative screening; drainage;
property for sale; can still do what building required, fill space with concrete. There were no further
comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioners noted that for design review the plans are considered as proposed project plans.
Commissioners gave the following direction:
Provide a landscape plan addressing vegetative screening along the sides of the house and at the rear of
the addition;
Provide a drainage plan, documenting how the system is to be installed and that all water goes into the
street as required, and a grading plan; it is a mistake to grade down the rear 6 feet;
Scupper should not connect into the sanitary sewer, correct plans;
Need to provide better articulation on the elevations to reduce the scale and blend the walls.
Adjust window placement to reduce views into the neighbors properties;
Should look at a project which makes a modest upper story addition within FAR requirements;
All windows should be replaced with simulated true divided lites or true divided lites, all windows
should have stucco mold finish consistent with the style of the house;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
18
The size of the rear deck should be reduced and the windows removed;
There is no connection between the yard and the house, provide access;
Architectural forms at rear are not consistent or appropriate with those on the front;
Choice of finish materials should include more than stucco;
There is too much impervious material surrounding the house;
Application is not complete without an accurate set of drawings;
If proceed with an FAR variance, need to explain the hardship on the property to justify the variance.
Chair Brownrigg moved to refer this project to a design reviewer with the comments made by the
Commission and the suggestion that the reviewer listen to the tapes of this meeting. The motion was
seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project at 1511 Drake Avenue to a design
reviewer. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling absent). There is no appeal for this action.
The item was completed at 11:15 p.m.
Mark Melamed came forward and asked how he could withdraw his design review application. CA told him
to submit a letter in writing to the Planning Department tomorrow.
X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports for review.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes March 26, 2007
19
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
- City Council regular meeting of March 19, 2007
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions taken by the Council at their March 19, 2007, meeting.
- FYI: 1520 Arc Way - changes to a previously approved design review project
Commission acknowledged these changes.
- FYI: 1609 Monte Corvino Way - changes to a previously approved design review project
Commission directed that these proposed changes be brought back on the action calendar.
- FYI: 110 Clarendon Road – changes to a previously approved design review project
Commissioner Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant on this item and
would recuse himself from any discussion. He left the dais and chambers. Commissioners directed
that this item be brought back to the Commission on the action calendar.
C. Deal returned to the chambers.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Deal, Vice Chair and Acting Secretary
V:\MINUTES\Minute\unapproved 03.26.07