HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.09.07 PC minutes APPROVED
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
July 9, 2007 - 7:00 p.m.
1
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Deal called the July 9, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling
and Terrones
Absent: Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Planner
Ruben Hurin; and Acting City Attorney, Dan Siegel.
III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to
approve the minutes of the June 25, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission as mailed. Passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica
absent).
Commissioner Osterling asked about the status of the investigation of the
landscaping at the rear of the property at 1412 Alvarado had been
completed per the approved plan. Community Development Director
Meeker indicated that the matter had been referred to staff for investigation.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, referenced a letter from Helaine Darling regarding Agenda Item 5,
requesting that Chair Deal recuse himself from the proceedings on that item. Ms. Giorni indicated that she
felt this was unreasonable given that Mr. Deal has no business relationship with the applicant’s architect
and that the prior design for the property, prepared by Mr. Deal, was denied a year ago. She also
referenced Agenda Item 1, noting that a Liquidambar tree should not be the street tree for the project.
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 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 Deal asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
2
1. 102 VICTORIA ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (JEFF
AND CHRISTINE OBERTELLI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOANN M. GANN,
DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
The Commission removed Agenda Item 1 from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Reference staff report dated July 9, 2007, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented a brief overview of
the staff report. He pointed out that recommended Condition 2 requires the applicant to consult with the
City Arborist regarding the selection of a street tree and its placement. The condition does not require the
tree to be a Liquidambar.
Commission comments:
The street tree should be something other than a Liquidambar. That species is destructive to
sidewalks and litters the area in the vicinity of the tree. Staff should verify that Liquidambar trees are
no longer on the street tree list.
Jeff Obertelli, applicant, 102 Victoria Road, indicated that he is open to another species of tree.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, commented that the home is beautifully designed, and reinforced that a
Liquidambar tree could cause property damage in high winds, in addition to impacting sidewalks.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m.
Commissioner Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped June 26, 2007, sheets 1-8, with 6x8 gable end beams and that the tile roof shall contain a
blend of colors when installed; and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint
or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that prior to the final inspection, the property owner shall consult with the City Arborist to determine
the appropriate number and species of street tree(s), selected from the City's street tree list as
determined by the City Arborist, to be planted in the planter strip along Victoria Road; the street tree
shall be of a species other than Liquidambar;
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 27, 2007, memo, the City Engineer's April 30,
2007, memo, the Fire Marshal's April 30, 2007, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 4, 2007,
memo shall be met;
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall
not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with
all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
3
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. 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; and
11. 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.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners
Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:24 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, LOT 9, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS,
AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED
GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (OTTO MILLER,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (57
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated July 9, 2007, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Forty-six (46) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.
Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
With respect to the root protection fencing referenced in Condition 26, are the posts driven into the
ground and not skid mounts (yes).
Discussed the cash deposit of $118,780 referenced in Condition 33 as a means of guaranteeing the
viability of the Redwood grove. Ultimately determined that the cash deposit should continue to be
retained.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
4
Commissioner Brownrigg noted that this, and the next item, are the end of a long and, at times,
contentious process. He still regrets that the large parcel was divided into three parcels, since
Burlingame values a diverse housing stock, which includes various lot sizes. That said, compromises
were made on size and setbacks, and this is a reasonable outcome.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, doesn’t think applicant has suffered any punishment by City. Feels that
applicant is intent on developing all emergent lots in City and building large homes; eliminating affordable
housing units. Developers do not pay for damage to City streets as a result of new construction projects.
Cash deposit should not be returned for at least 5-years after completion of project. Suggested lot split
resulting in dedication of the portion of Lot 9 containing the Redwood grove to the City.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.
Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped March 13, 2007, sheets A.1, A.4 through A.6, U.1, L1.1, S.1 and D.1 through D.4, and date
stamped June 7, 2007, sheets A.2, A.3, A.4A, A.4B, A.5A, A.5B and L1.0; and that any changes to
the structure including but not limited to foundation design, height, building materials, exterior
finishes, footprint or floor area of the building or to the tree protection plan or tree trimming shall
require review by the Planning Commission and an amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing
the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
3. 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;
4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all
required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the
redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and
irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been
met;
5. 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;
6. that the conditions of the City Engineer's April 8, May 31, June 4, August 15 , August 30, and October
15, 2002, June 27, 2005, and June 18, 2007 memos, the Fire Marshal's September 3, 2002, June 23,
2005 and June 18, 2007 memos, the Chief Building Official's August 5, 2002, June 27, 2005 and
June 15, 2007 memos, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002, and June 27, 2005 memos, the
NPDES Coordinator's June 27, 2005 memo, and the City Arborist's September 3, 2002, and April 3
and May 21, 2003, and April 13, 2007 memos shall be met;
7. that any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be
overseen by the project arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
5
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the
permit issued by BAAQMD;
8. that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays
during the development of Lot 9; use of all hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's
noise ordinance;
9. that as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the
phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree
grove protective fencing on Lot 9;
10. that construction of the house and attached garage on Lot 9 shall be completed through Lot 10 at rear
of Lot 9;
11. that heavy construction materials and equipment shall not be delivered to the site or stored at the
front of Lot 9 in the designated driveway area;
12. that at no time shall any equipment exceeding 18,000 LBS be allowed to be within 30 feet of the
currently fenced off Redwood Tree Grove protection zone;
13. that prior to the placement or use of any motorized equipment within 30 feet of the currently fenced
Redwood Tree Grove protection zone, a protective layer of mulch one foot deep with ¾ inch plywood
on top, shall be installed and inspected by the project arborist to avoid further soil compaction of the
area; post construction the protective plywood and mulch may be removed as approved by the project
arborist;
14. that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in
effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of
construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code;
15. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise
level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas;
16. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be
installed along the left side property line between the driveway and property line to meet current code
standards; local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the
property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department; and the
location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit
review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of the project
arborist and inspection by the City Arborist;
17. that the new sewer connection to the sewer main in the street shall be installed along the left side
property line to City standards as required by the development;
18. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the
City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site;
19. that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the property owner shall submit an erosion
control plan for approval by the City Engineer;
20. that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections to the site, the property owner
shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist;
21. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
6
22. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
23. that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the
proposed house or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues which
may arise during construction;
24. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they
are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the Community Development Director
and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City;
25. that no installation work on the driveway or landscaping on the site shall occur until the timing, design,
method of construction and materials have been approved by the City Arborist, and the project
arborist shall be on the site continually to supervise the installation of the driveway and to make
adjustments based on any root impacts identified during the process of construction; the construction
activity shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist during construction for compliance with the
approved materials and method of installation; it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to
notify the City Arborist when construction of the driveway on Lot 9 is to begin;
26. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall
not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City
Arborist; and that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on
Lots 9 and 10, except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be
removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the
fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing;
27. that special inspections by the City Arborist, to be funded by the property owner, shall include being
on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated
tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation
and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; and that the special inspections by the
City Arborist shall occur once a week or more frequently as required by the conditions of approval and
shall include written documentation by the project arborist that all tree protection measures are in
place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; and that the City Arborist shall
also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and
maintenance of trees on the site;
28. that under the observation of the City Arborist, all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a
depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required
by the City Arborist; and that if any roots greater than 2 inches in diameter are encountered during the
digging for the pier holes, the project arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier
shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve that the
requirements of the building code are still met; and that if at any time during the installation of the pier
and grade beam foundations roots greater than 2 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must
be documented by the project arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are
cut;
29. that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner
shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City
Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation, the report shall be approved
prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; and if at any time during the
construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural
changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or
damaged;
30. that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
7
to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site,
including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site;
installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the project arborist and regularly inspected
by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans revised if any
roots of 2 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape materials added
endanger the redwood trees;
31. that no fencing of any kind shall be allowed for the first 65'-0" along the side property line between
Lots 9 and 10;
32. that for tree maintenance the property owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the protected
Redwood grove during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year post
construction maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure; including deep root
fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended by
the City Arborist based on site studies and experience during construction; and that the property
owner of record shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that
discusses the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other
recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction
(issuance of an occupancy permit) on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5
years;
33. that the property owner shall deposit with the City $118,780 based on the appraisal of the value of the
four Redwood trees accepted by the City Arborist and City Attorney on Lots 9 and 10, as security to
the City against one or more of the Redwood trees dying as the result of construction or within 5
years of the completion of construction due to problems attributable to construction; these funds shall
be available to the City Arborist to cover any necessary removal costs, cover any unperformed
maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the grove of Redwood trees; nothing in this
condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other
person may have regarding damage or loss of trees;
34. that for purposes of these conditions the project arborist is a certified arborist hire by the property
owner/developer; a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of
Arboriculture as an arborist;
35. that before issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner shall record a deed
restriction on the lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs,
successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and:
a. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations,
roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and
inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame
Municipal Code;
b. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must
be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation
with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and
possible criminal prosecution;
36. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
37. that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved
plans shall be posted on a weather-proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the
Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the
site;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
8
38. that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required
approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately
halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what
corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
9
39. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lot 9,
and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed
during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even
temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection
measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for the development on Lot
9 has been finaled and an occupancy permit issued; except for modification of the protective fencing
as approved by the City Arborist in order to install the driveway on Lot 9;
40. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall install a
locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected
area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field
conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the
project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals;
41. that the property owner shall maintain throughout construction a three-inch thick layer of well aged,
course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the
entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip
and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist;
installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City
Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course
wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur;
42. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall ensure
maintenance of the supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses
attached to an active hose bib, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the
Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks
throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by
the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two
weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test
the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation;
43. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall ensure
maintenance of at least four (4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree
Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a “Tree Protection Fence”, “Do Not Alter or Remove” and
in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number;
44. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lot 9 shall be regularly inspected by the project
arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 9; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or
relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has
been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective
measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist;
45. that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning
Department to fund, on an hourly basis, the City Arborist inspections as required by the conditions of
approval on Lot 9 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the
conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and
a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to
maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is
available to cover this on-going inspection function; and
b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall
result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds
have been deposited with the City;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
10
c. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall
be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so
inspection can continue; and
d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding
in this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the
amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the
third stop work order shall be removed; and
e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner
upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and approval
of the five year maintenance plan/ program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot;
and
f. that this same account may be used for a licensed arborist inspector on lot 9 selected by the
City Arborist and approved by the Community Development Director.
46. that prior to the final inspection, the applicant shall work with the property owner adjacent to Lot 9 to
determine the type of fence and/or landscaping to replace the existing brick pillars separated by
grape stake fencing.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Commissioner Osterling noted that he would vote against the motion since he believes that the cash
deposit for the Redwood grove should be released.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-2 (Commissioner
Osterling dissenting, Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
3. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, LOT 10, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS,
AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (55 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated July 9, 2007, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Forty-five (45) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m.
Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, represented the applicant.
There were no Commissioner comments.
Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, encouraged retention of the cash deposit related to the Redwood grove.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m.
Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
11
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped March 13, 2007, sheets A.1, A.4, A.5, U.1, L1.1, S.1 and D.1 through D.4, and date stamped
June 7, 2007, sheets A.2, A.3, A.4A, A.4B, A.5A, A.5B, A.6 and L1.0;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing
the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
3. 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;
4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all
required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the
redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and
irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been
met;
5. 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;
6. that the conditions of the City Engineers' May 31, June 4, August 30, and October 15, 2002, June 27,
2005, and June 18, 2007, memos, the Fire Marshal's September 3, 2002, June 22, 2005, and June
18, 2007 memos, the Chief Building Official's August 5, 2002, June 27, 2005, and June 15, 2007
memos, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002, and June 27, 2005 memos, the NPDES
Coordinator's June 27, 2005, memo, and the City Arborist's September 3, 2002, and April 3 and May
21, 2003, and April 13, 2007 memos shall be met;
7. that any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be
overseen by the project arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the
permit issued by BAAQMD;
8. that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays
during the development of Lot 10; use of all hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the
City's noise ordinance;
9. that as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the
phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree
grove protective fencing on Lot 10;
10. that construction materials shall not be staged on Lot 9; all heavy equipment and materials shall be
staged along the right side of the property on Lot 10;
11. that at no time shall any equipment exceeding 18,000 LBS be allowed to be within 30 feet of the
currently fenced off Redwood Tree Grove protection zone;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
12
12. that prior to the placement or use of any motorized equipment within 30 feet of the currently fenced
Redwood Tree Grove protection zone, a protective layer of mulch one foot deep with ¾ inch plywood
on top, shall be installed and inspected by the project arborist to avoid further soil compaction of the
area; post construction the protective plywood and mulch may be removed as approved by the project
arborist;
13. all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in effect
at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction
imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code;
14. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise
level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas;
15. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be
installed along the right side property line to meet current code standards and local capacities of the
collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined
to be necessary by the Public Works Department and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall
be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall
occur on site without continual supervision of the project arborist and inspection by the City Arborist;
16. that the new sewer connection to the public sewer main shall be installed along the right side property
line to City standards as required by the development;
17. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the
City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site;
18. that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the property owner shall submit an erosion
control plan for approval by the City Engineer;
19. that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the property owner
shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist;
20. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
21. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance;
22. that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the
proposed house and/or accessory structure or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to
address new issues which may arise during construction;
23. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they
are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the Community Development Director
and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City;
24. that the driveway shall be designed to be pervious material as approved by the City Arborist, and
installed according to approved plans with the supervision of the project arborist and regularly
inspected by the City Arborist;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
13
25. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall
not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City
Arborist; that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9
and 10, except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be
removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the
fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing;
26. that the driveway on Lot 10 shall be constructed of pavers set in sand, with a maximum cut below
grade of 10 inches and a base compaction determined by the project arborist and approved by the
City Arborist; that if any roots greater than 3 2 inches in diameter are encountered during grading for
the driveway on Lot 10 and must be cut to install the driveway, the situation shall be documented by
the project arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to cutting any roots; and that if at any time
the project arborist on site or the City Arborist feels the number of roots to be cut to install the
driveway on Lot 10 is significant, a stop work order shall be issued for the site until the City Arborist
determines whether it is necessary to relocate the driveway;
27. that special inspections by the City Arborist, to be funded by the property owner, shall include being
on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated
tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation,
and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; that the special inspections by the City
Arborist shall occur once a week or more frequently as required by the conditions of approval and
shall include written documentation by the project arborist that all tree protection measures are in
place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; that no materials or equipment
shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously approved by the City Arborist; and that the
City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection,
conservation and maintenance of trees on the site;
28. that under the observation of the City Arborist, all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a
depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required
by the City Arborist; that if any roots greater than 2 inches in diameter are encountered during the
digging for the pier holes, the property owner's on-site arborist shall call the City Arborist and
determine how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the
change and approve that the requirements of the building code are still met; and that if at any time
during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 2 inches in diameter
must be cut, the situation must be documented by the project arborist and approved by the City
Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut;
29. that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner
shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City
Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to
the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; and that if at any time during the
construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural
changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or
damaged;
30. that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior
to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site,
including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site;
installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the property owner's arborist and regularly
inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans
revised if any roots of 2 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape
materials added endanger the redwood trees;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
14
31. that no fencing of any kind shall be allowed for the first 65'-0" along the side property line between
Lots 9 and 10;
32. that for tree maintenance the property owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the protected
Redwood grove during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year post
construction maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site,
including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be
founded upon the recommendations of the April 28, 2003 Mayne Tree Company report as well as
such additional recommendations as the property owner shall receive from a certified arborist; and
that the property owner of record shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning
Department that discussed the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees
or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of
construction (issuance of an occupancy permit) on the project and every two years thereafter for a
period of 5 years;
33. that the property owner shall deposit with the City $118,780 based on the appraisal of the value of the
four Redwood trees accepted by the City Arborist and City Attorney on Lots 9 and 10, as security to
the City against one or more of the Redwood trees dying as the result of construction or within 5
years of the completion of construction due to problems attributable to construction; these funds shall
be available to the City Arborist to cover any necessary removal costs, cover any unperformed
maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the grove of Redwood trees; nothing in this
condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other
person may have regarding damage or loss of trees;
34. that for purposes of these conditions the project arborist is a certified arborist hire by the property
owner/developer; a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of
Arboriculture as an arborist;
35. that before issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner shall record a deed
restriction on the lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs,
successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and:
a. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations,
roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and
inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame
Municipal Code;
b. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must
be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation
with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and
possible criminal prosecution;
36. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition
or the edition approved by the City and as amended by the City of Burlingame at the time a building
permit is issued;
37. that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved
plans shall be posted on a weather-proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the
Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the
site;
38. that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the
required approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division, work on the site shall be
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
15
immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to
determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation;
39. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lot 10,
and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed
during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even
temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection
measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for each development on
Lots 9 and 10 has received an occupancy permit and the City Arborist has approved removal of the
protective fencing;
40. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall install a
locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected
area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field
conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the
project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals;
41. that the property owner shall maintain throughout construction a three-inch thick layer of well aged,
course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the
entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip
and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist;
installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City
Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course
wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur;
42. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall ensure
maintenance of the supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses
attached to an active hose bib, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the
Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks
throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by
the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two
weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test
the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation;
43. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall ensure
maintenance of at least four (4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree
Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a “Tree Protection Fence”, “Do Not Alter or Remove” and
in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number;
44. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lot 10 shall be regularly inspected by the project
arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 10; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal
or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has
been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective
measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; and
45. that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning
Department to fund, on an hourly basis, the City Arborist inspections as required in the conditions of
approval of all construction and grading on Lot 10 to insure that the mitigation measures included in
the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning
Commission action are met; and
a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to
maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is
available to cover this on-going inspection function; and
b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
16
result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds
have been deposited with the City; and
c. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall
be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so
inspection can continue; and
d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding
in this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the
amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the
third stop work order shall be removed; and
e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner
upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and approval
of the five year maintenance plan/ program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot;
and
f. that this same account may be used for the City Arborist’s selected licensed arborist inspector
on lot 10 selected by the City Arborist and approved by the Community Development Director.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Commissioner Osterling asked if the cash deposit would still be retained if Condition 33 were eliminated
from the conditions of approval for Lot 10. Community Development Director Meeker responded that since
the requirement for the deposit remains with Lot 9, the applicant would still be required to leave it on
deposit with the City.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners
Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:02 p.m.
4. 1509 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND AMENDMENT TO SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (JACK AND KIMBERLY STRATTON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Chair Deal recused himself from participation on this item due to a conflict of interest, and left the dais.
Reference staff report dated July 9, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Secretary Terrones opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
Stewart Gunrow, JD Associates, 1228 Paloma Avenue, Burlingame, represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
With respect to the window in the stairwell, consider switching to another style, perhaps casement-
style, to add interest to the front elevation.
Encouraged using three-inch on center spacing on the front railing.
Clarified that the landscape plan is correct in showing the removal of trees from the property. Noted
that a tree removal permit may be required.
Sheri Saisi, adjacent neighbor, 1505 Los Altos Drive, stated that the Chief Building Official considers the
residence to be new construction and asked if Planning agrees. Also noted that the design reviewer noted
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
17
that there is no addition to the garage, but there is one, but she is “ok” with it. Community Development
Director Meeker noted that the Planning Division defers to the Chief Building Official's definition of new
construction; this project is not considered to be substantial construction.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m.
Commissioner Brownrigg 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 June 14, 2007, sheets A-00 through A-08, A-11, and L-1, and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this
permit;
2. that the living area above the garage shall never include a kitchen and shall never be used for living
purposes as a second dwelling unit;
3. that the existing rear setback shall be maintained and will never be less than 60'-0" to the first floor,
and 57'-0" to the second floor;
4. that sound mitigating techniques shall be incorporated into the design of the family room wall along
the left side property line to reduce noise emanating from that living space to the greatest extent
possible;
5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 3, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's January
2, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's January 2, 2007 memo, the Recycling Specialist's April 25, 2005
memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 25, 2005 memo and January 2, 2007 memo shall be met;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. 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;
11. 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;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
18
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
13. 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
14. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Secretary Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-2
(Commissioner Deal recused. Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 8:14 p.m.
Commissioner Deal returned to dais.
5. 3105 MARGARITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MIKE AND AMY KERWIN, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN MANISCALCO ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (47 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated July 9, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Amy Penticoff and Mike Kerwin, 3105 Margarita
Avenue; Frank and Joyce Sulgit, 1560 Los Montes Drive; Sue and Steve Osborne, 1624 Skyline Boulevard;
Helaine Darling, 3100 Margarita Avenue, Helaine Darling, 3100 Margarita Avenue; Linda Murphy, 3101
Margarita Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Amy Penticoff, 3105 Margarita Avenue, spoke. Issued
noted: pruning of trees on the property; proposed addition to the residence is modest; have tried to work
with the neighbors, have offered many compromises to neighbors, hopes he can continue considering
compromises, doesn’t want to continue to look to the past approvals, pursued designs knowing that
addition location was logical; want to maintain some level of privacy, while maintaining the health of the
trees; want to protect views; new tree growth blocks views; prior owners of the property were very
cooperative to maintain their views; intent of the original developer of the area was to preserve a view from
each property’s living space; story poles have been done well, purpose is to show affect of long distance
views, new growth on trees has blocked the view of story poles; views from the properties Increase
property values; addition will impact the distant view; concerned about view blockage from growing trees in
area; neighborhood designed for small homes, too many mini-mansions are being built; keep neighborhood
as it is without stepping on people’s property rights; distant views and compliance with the hillside
ordinance; prior owners wanted to construct a massive addition which was deemed inappropriate by the
Planning Commission; current proposal should be shelved; supports parts of the proposal, but don’t
support view blockage; Elm trees in front of the living and dining room windows have been recklessly
pruned; PG&E and CalTrans pruning programs aren’t healthy for trees; trees exceed the minimum size for
preserved trees; substantial pruning done without a permit, penalty should be imposed; condition should be
added to require maintenance of a maximum tree height; appreciates the “green” practices to be included
into the construction of the project; applicant appears to be subject to home occupation business licensing
requirements, but he doesn’t have a license; applicant may not adhere to conditions of approval if the
project is approved by the Commission; applicant indicated he is not operating a business out of his home;
running out of design options; is Commission amenable to a request which required a variance for an
alternate design.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
19
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 8:54 p.m.
Commission comments:
The Commission has been receptive in the past to Variance requests required to address unique
characteristics of a property; it depends upon how significant variance is.
Commended the applicant on his efforts to work on design and willingness to work with neighbors for
a design solution.
The Commission needs to look past the trees, and focus on the additions impact upon the neighbors.
There would still be view blockage with the current design of the addition.
The project may be a candidate for referral to a Design Reviewer.
Difficult to render a decision since it is hard to see the story poles through the tree growth. Not
convinced that the addition could not work with a flat roof or other solution.
A view corridor should be trimmed into the trees to permit a determination of the extent of view
blockage.
Perhaps an alternate design would move the home forward by four (4) to five (5) feet to minimize
impacts.
Another solution may be to remove the trees and work with neighbors to come up with a landscape
solution that meets the needs of all involved.
Commissioner Terrones moved to deny the application without prejudice.
Commissioner Osterling noted that he is unsure whether approval of the motion will speed up or slow down
the project. He believes that input from a Design Reviewer may be beneficial.
Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he would not support the motion. He is not convinced that the
project cannot be salvaged, believing that a continuance may be more appropriate.
Commissioner Terrones noted that a new project could be referred to a Design Reviewer.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Chair Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 3-2-2
(Commissioners Brownrigg and Osterling dissenting, Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m.
6. 2516 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR
HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
WITH DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND STEVE SPINA, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated July 9, 2007, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Ferdinand Devera, Chu Design, 55 West 43rd Street, San
Mateo; Leslie McQuaide, 1439 Montero Avenue; Jim Briggs, 1443 Montero Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445
Balboa Avenue; Victor Subbotin, 2519 Hale Drive, spoke. Issues noted: proposed house is too large for
property and doesn’t fit into the neighborhood; don't understand why it is common for designers to exceed
height requirement; request story poles; neighbors to left are not aware of this application since they have
been away for three months; approval of this home will set a precedent; house is too tall; this is a spec
house; have no redevelopment agency, Burlingame is being redeveloped; applicant appears to be subject
to home occupation business licensing requirements, but he doesn’t have a license; protest Special Permit
for height.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
20
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
21
Commission comments:
Discussed appropriateness of landscaping at front of house, due to the slope. Determined that the
landscaping in this area was acceptable.
Noted that the handrail design on the front is not an elegant solution and encouraged an alternate
design that fits the design better.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m.
Commission comments:
The house is well designed, but is too much house for the lot. Lot coverage and FAR are very close
to the maximum allowed.
There are a lot of high ceiling spaces that contribute to height.
The design for a flat lot, not a hillside lot. Window heights are greater than normal. This exacerbates
the size of the house. Needs to follow slope of lot better, and make more of an attempt to match lot.
Design is out of character of neighborhood.
Special Permits for height are intended to provide flexibility to promote superior design.
Commissioner Osterling moved to refer the project to a Design Reviewer. Motion failed for lack of a
second.
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to deny the application without prejudice.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5-0-2
(Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
9:32 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
7. 3209 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
ATTACHED GARAGE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DANIEL BIERMAN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
RICHARD MURRAY, PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Deal opened the public comment period at 9:37 p.m.
Daniel Bierman, Design Studio, 1649 Laurel Street, San Carlos, represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Design is well crafted.
Clarified that the cluster of Birch trees at front right corner of garage are to remain.
The design of the dormers should be re-considered; they include a rather long slope that could
appear odd from the side.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed at 8:50 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
22
Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans had been
revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent.
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:49 p.m.
8. 1775 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; WADE AND ELIZABETH LAI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (25 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
LISA WHITMAN
Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Deal opened the public comment period at 9:51 p.m.
Robert Medan, 1936 Los Altos Drive, San Mateo; Andy Mabardy, 1781 Escalante Way; William Raskoff,
1769 Escalante Way, spoke. Issued noted: proposed second-story addition will affect privacy; number and
size of windows overlooking their property; request story poles be installed; standing water in basements in
neighborhood; encouraged the Commissioners to visit the property to view impacts upon his parents’
property; addition will change drainage patterns; experienced flooding of his property from the pool on the
applicant’s property; fire resistant roofing.
Commission comments:
Noted that a plain window design has been selected and confirmed that new windows will be installed
throughout the home and that trim details will enhance the appearance of the windows.
Encouraged the addition of an attic vent and/or lighting on the garage to enhance detail.
Encouraged looking at the design of the bay window in the front to either provide more of a projection
to increase the shadow line, or to eliminate the pop-out.
Provide size and finishing details of the columns on the rear of the home.
The addition over the garage looms over the neighbor. Look at options for minimizing the impact of
the second floor balcony in this area upon the privacy of the neighbors to the left.
Consider revising master bedroom windows to ensure neighbors’ privacy.
Add a tree or two in the front planters between the walkway and driveway.
Story poles shall be erected.
When conditions of approval are crafted, be certain to include language requiring that the drainage
plan take into account the area around the pool as well.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed at 10:20 p.m.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular Action Calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent)). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
23
9. 1316 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (YEVGENY DUBINSKY, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; AND BOBROWSKY & COOK, ARCHITECTS) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Commissioner Auran recused himself since he resides within proximity to the subject property.
Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Deal opened the public comment period at 10:25 p.m.
Louis Bobrowski, 791 Widgeon Street, Foster City; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Issued noted:
not all of the cottages and bungalows in Burlingame are architecturally great, applicant should look at other
designs that are different but still conform to neighborhood.
Commission comments:
The style of the house doesn’t work for the area, it has no defined architectural style.
Proportions of the home are wrong.
Massing is not done well.
Vents are crowded.
Window fenestration is inappropriate.
North elevation is rather chaotic.
East rear elevation, placement of windows is awkward.
Rear elevation is very massive with the one gable.
First floor balcony railings are not appropriate.
Driveway includes a lot of paving and looks very cold.
Design could be helped with a front porch.
Consider pulling in family room and enlarging the adjacent deck.
There are a lot of overly large spaces that are not useful (e.g. utility room, hallways).
Encourage an automatic irrigation system for the landscaping.
Include an automatic gate across the driveway to allow room for a car to pull up in front of the gate.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed at 10:39 p.m.
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to refer the project to a Design Reviewer.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a Design Reviewer. The motion passed on a
voice vote 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Auran recused, Commissioners Cauchi and Vistica absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:44 p.m.
10. 1401 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN
REVIEW FOR EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (NIDAL NAZZAL, APPLICANT;
JOE CONWAY, PROPERTY OWNER; AND WILLIAM SCOTT ELLSWORTH, ARCHITECT) (38
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Deal opened the public comment period at 10:46 p.m.
Scott Ellsworth, 867 Valencia Street, San Francisco, represented the applicant.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes July 9, 2007
24
Commission comments:
This is the most important corner in Burlingame; a fairly nostalgic corner. Not convinced that the
design is a good evolution for the corner.
A color rendering of both street fronts is needed. Place renderings at Towles site prior to meeting.
Look at the existing charm, scale and detail along Primrose Road, continuing across Burlingame
Avenue. Need to maintain this.
No connection between the materials board and photo simulation submitted.
Wainscot tile on the property is not the proper scale.
The large windows with aluminum frames do not maintain scale of other buildings in area.
There is an obligation to respect the charm and detail of street this is not reflected in the design
solution.
The mansard has been on building for 50 years. It would be a big mistake to make the changes
proposed on this corner.
Verified with staff that the restaurant qualifies as a full-service restaurant.
Have an obligation to create something with the same sort of charm as the existing façade.
Need to create good human scale to harmonize with the rest of the character of the block.
The business could be more successful by working with existing design.
Be sensitive to keeping the Towles look.
Commissioner Brownrigg left the meeting at 10:48 p.m.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame, stated that the business will do well if they don’t change the
character of the corner. If they have good food, people will com. Even consider keeping the mural on the
Primrose Road side of the building.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed at 11:16 p.m.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular Action Calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3 (Commissioners Cauchi, Vistica and
Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 11: 18 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
Discussion of subcommittee assignments was deferred to the next regular meeting.
XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
There were no City Council actions to review.
There were no other items to report.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 11:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Terrones, Secretary