HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.13.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
February 13, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the February 13, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling,
Terrones and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen
Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell
III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 23, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed with C. Osterling abstaining because
he was not at the meeting.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1124 ROSEDALE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR SIDE AND
REAR SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION. (JEFF AND
EMILY SCHLEINING, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RAY BRAYER, DESIGNER)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners noted that from the aerial a lot of the
properties in this block appear to have nonconforming rear yards, could staff measure lot coverage and rear
setbacks from the aerials for the next meeting in order to provide some documentation on the existing
conditions. It was noted that because of the size and type of remodel this project was not subject to design
review and public comment at this time. The project will be noticed to the neighbors when it returns for
action.
Commissioners asked: the applicant needs to more clearly address the extraordinary circumstances on his
property to establish hardship for the variances requested, particularly lot coverage and rear setback; need
hardship on the property clarified and context of existing conditions; if going to agree to variances need
more information for findings; noted that to make a decision the Commission needs to see the "real" house
so the plans need to be corrected, the roof ridge is not correct and the left and right elevations are incorrect
compared to what is currently in place; there is a problem related to the front porch structure, on the right
elevation the window is high and the porch low, saw double hung windows on the existing house but they
are not shown on the plans; problem with back porch roof framing, is it being replaced or modified because
the pitch on the new porch is different from the existing could result in needless reframing of the roof when
it is not needed, look at dashed line; indicate different front and garage doors on the plans, they change the
character, what is intended; hardship identified is the lights from traffic on Meadow day and night, Meadow
is a dead end not a through street, how is the traffic volume unusual for a dead end street? Plans call for a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
2
Poplar tree in the rear yard, urge applicant to choose a different tree species from the City's street tree list,
will do better in this environment.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the questions have been answered, information
has been submitted, reviewed by the Planning Department, and there is space on a Commission agenda.
This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
2. 1818 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK AND
BUILDING HEIGHT AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE NORTH
BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A NEW FOUR-STORY ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITY. (BILL LINDSTROM, SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT, INC., APPLICANT; MICHAEL
KITSUN, MITHUN ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; AND TROUSDALE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY
OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report including the Mitigated Negative Declaration and noted
this project was submitted before the TW zoning district was adopted so it is being reviewed under the C-
3/R-4 zoning that was on the property at the time the project was submitted. However, the project is required
to comply with the General Plan including the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, and the design
guidelines are the expression of the plan for this project. Table 2 in the staff report which compares the
project to the design guidelines in the specific plan, outlines the compliance of the project with the plan,
even though the zoning requirements are not those of the TW district. Staff noted that the guidelines express
the General Plan consistency which is required, so can be considered to over rule the zoning requirements.
Commission noted that there seem to be some inconsistencies between the design guidelines and the zoning
regulations of the C3/R4 districts, staff noted that they would add another column to the table to compare the
project to the TW zoning regulations;
After noting that the comments this evening should be on the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the design of the project, the Commissioners commented on the following items:
• Responses to Conditional Use Permit Requests: Cannot read the handwritten CUP responses please
have the application type them so that they are legible; applicant expressed concern at previous meeting
about needing a buffer between the road and the doorway for safety but that was not discussed in the
setback variance request.
• Mitigated Negative Declaration: think that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete in its
analysis; it is a good report, have no comments.
• Land Use: Group residential facilities is a good use for this area;
• Zoning Regulations: not clear what code is used for design, does not meet the intention of either C-3/R-
4 or TW;
• Design Guidelines: project does not meet the design guideline direction regarding street wall, build to
lines, require only a percentage of the frontage to comply, none of the frontage of this building complies,
why should it be exempt? Commission has done a lot of work on the planning and zoning for this area
and this project did not take the guidelines to heart, the transparent trellis wall does not meet the build-to
line intention; problem is with compliance with the design guidelines, want to send a strong message,
want the project to comply with all the design guidelines; agree want to pull the buildings up to the
build-to line and begin the change to the whole streetscape in this area as planned; pull forward the
elements of the ground floor - build to the TW zoning requirements, provide a buffer to the interior of
the building in another way; could create a pull in/driveway in front of the front door, could use a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
3
structure like a port cochere and give up the patio area, increase the sense of the building being built at
the sidewalk; Would note that the design guidelines require 60% of the building to be built to the build-
to line, that leaves 40% of the area for landscaping buffer or drop off; build-to line makes good sense,
provides a wall which can be enhanced by nice landscape features along the street, can support good
architecture, look at San Mateo project, it is attractive with landscaping at the front.
• Building Design: Need to encourage a new design for this building which is different from the others,
can rearrange inside and move the front entry desk to the Ogden side. Think it is correct to move
entrance to Ogden, if this is done, will want to avoid large institutional wall look on Trousdale side.
Think wall on Trousdale can be articulated and broken up without the front entrance there; revise the
window treatment so that it looks less like an office building, soften it and make it look more residential
with different window and smaller mullions sizes, reduce the repetitiveness which will look tedious
when built; compliance with the build-to line would provide more articulation along the Trousdale side
of the building. There are options like a Porte Cochere on Trousdale, shift building 15 feet closer to
Ogden in order to increase the rear yard so the van access can be put back there, the rear yard would be
75 feet wide with the move.
• Entrance off Ogden: if main entrance off Ogden would be good to look at, provides the facility with
needed safety for residents, single entry for guests and residents is important; could consider Ogden as
an alternate. On Ogden side inset the sidewalk so that vehicles are placed off the street, experience is
that when transit parks for this type of use, it is there a long time to load and unload; side entrance
needs to be more grand. Safest and best way appears to be in/out on Ogden as far from Trousdale as
possible. Agree Ogden better, if stranger sees entrance on Trousdale will be encouraged to park in front.
Need to make the entrance on Ogden more visible.
• Parking: the parking for this use is appropriate.
• Height: four stories works;
• Sign Placement: feel that the approach to signage (monument sign) is suburban, is what was done in
the are in the past, and is not consistent with the design guideline intentions for this subarea, want to
increase the urban sense;
• Resident Pick Up/Drop Off: if the building were shifted closer to Ogden there would be more space at
the rear for resident shuttle drop off/pick up from the delivery area and the east side off Trousdale.
Concerned about the pick up/drop off and the safety of pedestrian access into a dead end driveway off
Trousdale, can't support. Staff noted that the Negative Declaration pointed out that the access to the
service area on Trousdale which is generally opposite the entrance to the hospital on the south side of
the street was difficult and would work principally because of its infrequent use. Safer to drop people off
on Ogden side rather than on Trousdale side; advantage to placing passenger loading area on Ogden,
could be enhanced by landscaping on the northeast corner, should be revised.
• More Information: would like addresses for the pictures of other facilities in the staff report and
addresses of facilities in this area so that we can visit them; would like to visit a couple of these
facilities, could staff provide addresses in the Bay Area; would staff e-mail the list to the Commissioners
so can visit early.
C. Auran noted that since this was a study item with a Mitigated Negative Declaration he directed that it
come back to the commission on the regular action calendar when the issues identified had been addressed,
the Mitigated Negative Declaration revised, if necessary, and staff had reviewed all the changes, at a
meeting where there was room on the agenda. This item is not appealable. The item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
4
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.
3A. 1199 BROADWAY, SUITE 2, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
(TOMMY NGAI AND DANNY KUAN, APPLICANTS, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT, AND
GARBIS AND MAIDA BEZDJIAN, TRS., PROPERTY OWNERS) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
3B. 821 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A
FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JD ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND DANIEL MCAULIFFE, PROPERTY OWNER) (75 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
3C. 16 DAVIS COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND ANDREW JUROW
AND BARBIE BARRETT, PROPERTY OWNERS) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA
LEWIT
Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. There were no requests. C. Deal noted that he would abstain from the vote on 821 Paloma
because he has a business relationship with the applicant and he would abstain from the vote on 1199
Broadway because he lives within 500 feet on the project site.
C. Terrones moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners'
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion
and it passed for 3a, 1199 Broadway, and 3b, 821 Paloma Avenue, on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice
vote and for 3c, 16 Davis Court, on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded
at 7:52 pm.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 2412 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, ALVIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER)
(70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report February 13, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. James Wong, 207 Northwood Avenue, San Francisco, project
architect, Susan May, 2408 Hale Drive, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke regarding the project.
Grateful for the most recent revisions regarding the hip roof; have concerns with protecting our house during
construction, concerned with the drainage from the site, now there are times when water runs onto our
property, the bulk of the structure is six to ten feet from our house, will be excavating the lower level along
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
5
that side, side yard is narrow, how will excavation be done. The applicant noted that the excavation will be
done by bucket method, e.g. by hand. It was noted that the architect made a good attempt to meet all
requirements, this house is difficult to remodel, like that the walkway is reduced, but the front door is
double, makes the entry look massive, why not have one door with lights on each side; note that the design
is better with single arched windows. The applicant noted that the door does not face the front porch, that is
a window, the door is on the side facing the side property line.
Commissioners noted that the project has gotten to a point where it looks good, would like to comment on
the pathway to the front door, has been reduced to six feet wide, would like to see it reduced to five feet to
provide more space between the driveway and walkway; concerned with mixed vocabulary of roof forms
between the east and west elevation; changed roof form to hip on east side, why not on west; would look
better if all hip. The applicant noted that the roof was hipped on the east elevation because of concerns
raised by the neighbor, the west side is next to a driveway, not affect neighbor and decided that without the
hip roof, it reduced the mass of the building, see less of the wall on second floor. Commissioners asked if
the corbels will be made of wood, yes. Commissioners asked what the applicant plans to do for subsurface
drainage during excavation? Will construct a French drain along the perimeter. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions to address
retention of the fence covered with vegetation during construction, installation of a subsurface perimeter
drainage system along the right side of the property, and reduction of the front walkway from six feet to five
feet with additional landscaping in the foot added between the driveway and the walkway: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 27,
sheets A1.00 to A3.01, with wood windows with simulated true divided lites and traditional wood stucco
mold throughout (both new and existing windows) to match the style shown on cut sheets A to E (attached),
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 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; 3) that the existing non-protected size shrub at the front right side property line shall
remain and be protected during construction; the fence and plantings along the right side property line shall
be protected during construction; 4) that a subsurface perimeter drainage system shall be developed to keep
water from going on to the neighbor's property, to be approved by the City Engineer; 5) that the front
walkway shall be reduced to five feet in width and the one foot added to the landscaped area between the
driveway and the entrance walkway; 6) 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; 7) 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; 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 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 conditions of the Chief
Building Official's August 12, 2005 memo and the Fire Marshal's, the City Engineer's, the Recycling
Specialist's, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 15, 2005, memos, shall be met; 11) that the project shall
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
6
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. Vistica.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0-voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m.
5. 1125 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE
SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SATISH AND MEENU DUTT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; AND MARK SANO, DESIGNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report February 13, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Sateesh Dutt, 1125 Clovelly Lane, was available for questions.
Commissioners asked about the Magnolia trees proposed, the plans note that an existing tree will be
relocated, please clarify. The applicant noted that it is not being moved, it is a new tree. Commissioners
asked that one tree is proposed too close to the right property line, would you object to moving it toward the
driveway? No. It appears there may be more than one appliance venting through the chimney, if the
chimney is eliminated, may need to provide new vent for water heater.
Commissioners noted that the garage is coming forward too far on the property, would be better if the
appliances located there were moved inside the house, then the front of the garage could be pushed back;
would move the garage back by at least three feet; now it comes out farther than it has to, too close to the
sidewalk and prominent, the scale also seems strange in relationship to the rest of the front; the water heater,
washer and dryer could go a lot of places inside the house; like the porch change; overall the massing is
done well, especially at the rear, if going to use stucco mold, should be shown properly on the plans, what is
shown is too thick; existing windows have wood sill, should match throughout, show that on the plans.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal moved to continue the application to the consent calendar when the following changes have been
made and have been plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
• Move the water heater, washer and dryer out of the garage, and move the front of the garage back by
four to five feet and retain a legal covered parking space;
• Rework elevations for consistency, especially consistent use of stucco mold and wood sills on windows;
• Move the Magnolia tree in the front yard inward, about seven feet in from the inner edge of the
driveway; and
• The sun tunnel skylight should be tinted.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until plans have been revised, plan
checked and there is space on an agenda. This item will be renoticed when it is returned to the action
calendar. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
8:25 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
7
6. 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN
APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO
INCREASE THE HEIGHT BY 15 INCHES. (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND
GARY PARTEE, PROPERTY OWNER) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report February 13, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted
that they had met the applicant at the site, he has explained that a couple of other homes had been built at
grade as was originally proposed and they flooded, did not want to have potential flooding.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Gary Partee, 340 Lorton Avenue, property owner, Con Brosnan,
applicant, and Rebecca Knudsen, 315 Occidental Avenue, spoke regarding the project. Commissioners
asked if it weren't for the requirements for declining height envelope, would the siting have stayed the same
and would you have just raised the height? Yes. Resident to left of site, have no problems with the changes.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling 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 January 23,
2006 sheets A.1 through A.5, and date stamped July 7, 2005, sheet L1.0, site plan, floor plans, building
elevations, landscape plan and site survey; that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building
shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the proposed landscaping in the side yard to the right
side of the house shall cover the entire 5'-9" setback area; 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
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; 4) 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; 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 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; 7) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection
a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 8) 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; 9) 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; 10) 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;
11) that the conditions of the City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official, and Fire
Marshal's July 8, 2005 memos shall be met; 12) that the project shall comply with the Construction and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
8
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; 13) that the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
14) 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. Vistica.
Commissioners noted that it is unfortunate that the articulation on the left side was lost to avoid the special
permit for declining height envelope, would have just as soon given the special permit; unfortunate to lose
the step, the fireplace and the dining room articulation.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:33 p.m.
7. 1655 SEBASTIAN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF ROOFTOP PANEL ANTENNAS AND EQUIPMENT CABINETS
ON THE GROUND FLOOR AT THE EXISTING PENINSULA TEMPLE SHOLOM (TASHA SKINNER,
APPLICANT; AND PENINSULA TEMPLE SHALOM, PROPERTY OWNER) (66 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report February 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration from the staff report, and CP
suggested a sixth condition that the project should be reviewed for compliance with conditions of approval
in five years or upon complaint. Commissioners asked if this is one of the antenna locations where we need
to reserve space for police and fire antennas? CA Anderson replied that no, that regulation applies to the flat
area where building height becomes an obstacle. Commissioners suggested a seventh condition that the
antennas shall continue to be screened with healthy vegetation and that the landscaping shall be maintained
with an automatic irrigation system.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Tasha Skinner, 185 Berry Street, San Francisco, representing the
applicant; Dane Ericksen, 470 Third Street West, Sonoma, Hammett & Edison Consulting Engineers; Tony
Sava, 2901 Arguello; Mary Cotter, 2847 Arguello; Joseph Dees, 2909 Arguello; Mary Ann Saba, 2901
Arguello; Nancy Dees, 2909 Arguello; spoke regarding the project. Applicant noted that letters had been
sent to the two neighbors who had requested the public hearing, the antennas themselves are 4 feet tall, not 8
feet tall, the structure supporting and enclosing the antennas is 8 feet tall; received letter regarding effect on
property values, we have not encountered any evidence that demonstrates property values decrease when
antennas like this are installed; to the contrary homeowners are choosing where they live based on adequate
coverage by wireless service; the five-year master plan notes that there will be one future site in Burlingame
this year, near Burlingame Avenue and Bloomfield Road; the applicant is in Concord and does not live
across the street from the proposed antennas, applicant made statement that is not true, don't believe what
they say about radio frequency is true; have been experiencing traffic congestion in the neighborhood from
the activities at the Temple Sholom, used to be a right turn only sign from the parking lot , the sign is now
removed and the threat of accident is greater, cars cannot see around corner, visitors to the site are not aware
of this situation, now have to deal with heavy traffic and garbage, don't need to add this to our list of
concerns; last time the Temple did renovations, had no qualms, every car that goes from Escalante down
Sebastian to Arguello goes past these antennas, it will be an eyesore, maps are not accurate, how much noise
is it going to make; somebody is making money from this; property overlooks the Temple, this is a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
9
residential area, what is proposed is a profit venture, will be an eyesore and depreciate property values;
health effects are unknown, concerned that signal will interfere with satellite dishes, phones, radios;
unhappy about antennas, there is a lot of equipment, should take a ride up here and see this, there is a lot of
equipment on the roof of the Temple now resulting from classroom additions, the towers would add to this
and would be ugly; regarding comment about impact on satellite and telephone reception, there would be no
impact, this signal is vastly removed in spectrum, low power signals, FCC has regulations to make sure that
the frequencies do not interfere with one another, purpose of the installation is to provide improved service,
meets the requirements of the antenna regulations, generally would require nine panel antennas at this
location, heard concerns of neighbors so the footprint was reduced as much as possible and now three
antennas are proposed.
Commissioner's comments: appreciate the photo simulations that show that the new wall will match
existing; how will the emissions from this antenna compare to emissions from a home wireless network?
The applicant noted that the antennas will have different frequencies than home operations, the emissions
would be 1.1% of the maximum permitted by federal standards, this is 100 times below the federal limit.
What is the power level? Maximum is 400 watts, compared to a radio signal which is 50,000 watts and a
television signal which is 5 million watts; FCC does not allow frequency interference. What is the diameter
of the cylinder? 20 inches, the purpose of the cylinder is to conceal the antenna from public view. There
were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions to
make sure the existing screening vegetation on the Temple site is maintained and to require that the
application is reviewed in five years or upon complaint for compliance with the conditions of approval: 1)
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
February 6, 2006, sheets T-1 and T-2, A-1 through A-8, S-1 and E-1 through E-6; 2) that the antennas and
its supporting structure shall be located a minimum of 4'-6" from the roof edge and that the height of the
antenna, including its supporting structure, shall not exceed 8'-0" above the closest portion of the roof on
which is it mounted; 3) that the antennas, supporting structures and cable trays shall be painted with a non-
reflective paint and shall be painted to mach the color of the building; 4) that the new CMU wall for the
proposed equipment enclosure on the ground floor shall match the existing equipment enclosure in color,
texture coursing and grouting; that any noise from the operation of the generators will not increase the noise
level at the property line by more than 3 dBA; the new CMU wall shall not exceed 9'-6" above grade and the
equipment enclosure area shall not exceed 12'-0" x 18'-0"; 5) 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; 6)
that the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the existing healthy vegetative screen for the
antennas and around the equipment enclosure and shall insure that the vegetation is served at all times by an
automatically operated irrigation system as approved by the City Arborist; and 7) that the project shall be
reviewed for compliance with conditions of approval in five years or upon complaint. The motion was
seconded by C. Deal.
Comment on the motion: think with added conditions for screening and review, although this is a residential
neighborhood, the screening is such that it will blend, know that emissions from this type of facility are very
low, not concerned; was involved in the industry for twelve years, these installations are not hazardous, well
below federal regulations, applicant has done a good job screening the site from view, there won't be an
increase in traffic, after construction, a technician will come out about once a month; Commissioners do go
out to look at the projects, from every view applicant has done a good job of negating the negative aesthetic
impacts, there will be more requests for these, hope other applicants do it as well; it is unfortunate that the
sample which was put up is bright orange but that is the purpose of story poles, when the antennas and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
10
structures are painted will blend so it is not nearly as visible, with hillside area construction permit
applications we are looking at obstruction to distant views, in this case there aren't any, this has a great value
to the community, the community became concerned when PG&E proposed very high power lines through
neighborhoods, this is not the same impact, the emissions are low, 1% of the federal limit, not invasive.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 2115 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE. (JD & ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND MIKE & MERRISA HUTCHISON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (52
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
C. Deal noted that he had a business relationship with the applicant and recused himself from the discussion
on this item, and stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers.
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. The applicant, Mike Hutchison, 2115 Roosevelt Avenue, was
available to answer questions. Commissioners asked about the existing driveway width of 8.5 feet, one foot
short of the required width, can the curb be relocated to gain the extra foot in width? The existing basement
plan shows an external staircase, can it be made into an internal stair? Makes it difficult to access the washer
and dryer. The applicant noted that the curb could be moved; Planning staff clarified that since this is an
existing nonconforming condition on the site, a variance is not required for the driveway width. The
external stair to the basement area will remain, however, the washer and dryer will be moved upstairs. The
applicant noted that he would like to move the location of the new garage so that it is on the property line.
Planning staff noted that this would require a property line survey for side and rear, and eave and design
details for the structure would have to be revised because of California Building Code and Engineering
requirements. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions
have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
• Would like to see the landscape plan revised to beef it up with appropriate tree species, taking out the
palm trees;
• Encourage to keep the garage setbacks as proposed, if the garage is pushed closer to the property line,
will substantially affect the design details such as the eaves;
• Would like to see a 2 foot setback on the garage to both side and rear property lines, to avoid future
problems with maintenance of the exterior of the structure.
Chair Auran 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 6-0-1 (C. Deal recused). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the dais.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
11
9. 755 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMITS
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND FOR A NEW OFFICE IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
(JONATHAN FELDMAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND ANN STOWE & MICHAEL
CELICEO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Jonathon Feldman, 29 Park Hill Avenue, San Francisco, project
architect, Michael Celicio, 755 Paloma Avenue, property owner, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, spoke
regarding the project. Commissioners noted that the existing house is nice looking, will the existing
shingles be kept, it is not clear on the drawings. The architect noted that the existing shingles will remain
and the new addition will be shingled. The applicant noted that there are similar accessory structures in the
neighborhood, at 1401 Palm there is an accessory structure that is the entire length of the lot with a
bathroom, stairs and balcony, if they can do it, why not us; appreciate the comments made, but these are a
lot of cosmetic concerns; we should have some choice on certain things, think that sometimes homeowner's
choices should be allowed, contemporary style is our choice. Commissioners asked how the accessory
structure would be used, and when would the office space be used? The applicant noted that it would be his
home office and would work there as many as 18 hours a day. Commissioners noted that the property at
1401 Palm is a different situation, that accessory structure has been there since before the current code was
adopted, the property is used as a residential care facility for developmentally disabled persons. It was
noted that design review was put in place because this is an older, established community with a lot of
architectural jewels; in the recent past, bungalows were being replaced with two story monster homes next
to existing homes; the regulations have evolved over time to provide a balance between existing
neighborhood and new, and to make sure the new fits in with the existing neighborhood.
Commission comment on the project:
• Bathrooms in accessory structures are very strongly discouraged because we don't want to create a
situation where it can be turned into a rental unit, this has been a policy for many years;
• Don't see any hardship or overriding consideration to take a use that would usually be found in main
dwelling and put it in an accessory structure particularly when the house is being remodeled;
• there are very large skylights in the accessory structure proposed close to the property line, it will light
up the area to the rear, affect adjoining properties, where the rear yard area is supposed to be for outdoor
recreation;
• The proposed addition to the house looks too much like an addition, needs to be made to blend with the
existing character of the house;
• There are awfully large skylights proposed on the front façade of the house, goes against the character of
the house, could be replaced with dormers;
• The drawings do not reflect many of the existing elements of the house such as the shingles, it looks like
a stucco house in the plans, need to show how it will look;
• The barge rafter tails shown on the north elevation need to be shown as they will actually look, need to
show design detail;
• The front of the house has a lot of character, this is not carried through on the west and south elevations,
when you get to the back, the character of the front of the house is completely gone.
• Not sure of the details of the trellis, posts look spindly;
• A lot of the details where the existing and new are tied together are missing;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
12
• On the west elevation, it appears that the second floor window in the shed roof area encroaches into the
roof structure, needs to be shown accurately;
• The large shed dormer which extends across the full width of the house screams that it is an addition, it
should be made subordinate to the main roof;
• Roof deck is out of character with the rest of the house, put roof over lower first floor, play with second
floor roof;
• The new "fixed and awning" wood windows shown on the west elevation are too contemporary and out
of character with the existing window pattern;
• Commend that roof over porch is being extended, but don't see how it is supported, that depth can't be
cantilevered, need column pairs like existing columns, should harmonize with the other pairs of
columns;
• Regarding the accessory structure, the skylights should be eliminated; if the accessory structure is to
remain, also need to eliminate the window on the back;
• The accessory structure is intended to be shingled, but it is not shown on the drawings;
• When this comes back for action, could staff provide phone numbers to contact for site visit for both the
applicant and the neighbor to the left;
• On Sheet A4.2, the area off the living/dining rooms is called out as patio, should be porch; on Sheet
A4.0, the declining height envelope is labeled as "reclining height envelope", please correct; and
• The second floor deck is generally a place where people congregate, is large, could affect adjacent
neighbors, should be modified.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Deal. Commissioners asked that the design review consultant listen to the tapes to get
the gist of the comments made. It was also noted that the accessory structure may be okay if it is revised;
can be done in such a way that the home office doesn't overly impact the neighbor to the left.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion
passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 9:50 p.m.
10. 701 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND
PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED
GARAGE. (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JEFFREY
BASHAW, PROPERTY OWNER) (77 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Cauchi recused himself from the discussion on this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project;
he stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers.
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Commissioners noted
that they visited the site on Sunday and met the owner; originally had a concern about the lack of an off-
street uncovered parking space, but when you look at the area, there are other homes on Bloomfield with the
same garage configuration, if the uncovered parking space were put beside the garage, would have to put in
a wider curb cut, which would take away street parking. This pattern seemed to occur at many corner lots in
the area.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road, project architect, noted that this is
a deceptively tricky project, it is a modest addition, the allowable floor area is reduced both by attaching the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
13
garage and because it is a corner lot; are proposing to remove an "L" shaped portion of the existing garage,
the owners are asking to keep the existing garage configuration, there won't be an intensification of use, one
bedroom is being added, but there are still two cars in the household; looked at the other options to push the
garage back to create an off-street parking space in the driveway or a new detached garage, but either of
these options would have a significant impact on the available yard space in the rear; this is the dominant
pattern in the neighborhood for corner houses.
Commissioners noted that the plate height in the garage is 9.5 feet, explain; are the proposed French doors
going to be 7'-6" tall; there is a planter shown on the stairwell, will that window be operable to access the
planter? The vertical element at the stairwell seems prominent, did you look at ways to reduce the mass?
The existing house has a couple of pieces which have gutters, will there be gutters on the new house, will
obscure some of the character provided by the nice rafter tails. The architect responded that the 9.5' plate
height was done to tie in the garage proportionally with the rest of the house; the floor level of the main
house is three feet above grade, so the higher plate height in the garage makes it look proportional. The
French doors were not drawn to scale; they will have a typical door height. The window at the stairwell will
be operable. Commissioners noted that this is a great job on a very difficult addition. Looked at putting a
shed roof over the stairwell, but think the gable roof ties it together better. There will be gutters on the new
portions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions
have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
• On the existing front elevation, two different window patterns are shown, plans note that existing
windows are to remain, but shows different mullions, will the existing windows be changed, clarify.
• Look at scale of window in the stairwell, look at changing to three separated vertical panels, the large
window proposed contribute to the large mass of the stairwell;
• Might want to consider adding a window in the dining room facing the neighbor on Vernon, would be
nice for the dining area and break up the wall for the neighbor; and
• Should consider putting a gated fence for the kids to put their bikes in the back yard.
Chair Auran 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 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi abstaining). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:04 p.m.
C. Cauchi returned to the dais.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of February 6, 2006.
CP Monroe briefly noted the actions taken by the City Council. She noted that the Council had
discussed having a charrette in the downtown area in the Fall, and had suggested that the Commission
might assist in determining appropriate areas for study. She will bring this item back to the
Commission as an FYI at a later date.
- Review of FYI items:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
14
Commission noted that in the future the FYI items could be reviewed in a more collective manner as a
consent calendar would be reviewed. In that spirit the Commissioners noted that they had no problem
with the requests for 716 Howard Avenue and 1553 Drake Avenue. However they would like to
discuss 1101 Burlingame Avenue and the status report on the hospital.
- FYI – 716 Howard Avenue – changes to approved design review.
Approve as submitted.
- FYI – 1553 Drake Avenue – changes to approved design review.
Approve as submitted.
- FYI – 1101 Burlingame Avenue – changes to approved commercial design review.
Commissioners noted that the elevations submitted with this application are not the elevations originally
approved, including that the awning is a different shape and the windows extend to the floor in some
areas, reducing the tile area on the face of the building. Before action on this item, staff should provide
commission with a history of the approved project and the action on any previously requested revisions;
what standards does the city have for hanging heaters on exterior walls focused down to heat sidewalk
areas; how far can such heaters extend into the public right of way area. Noted that not think the plans
show the tile area and shape of the awning correctly, confirm with approved elevation. Needs to be set
for the action calendar when the information is available.
- FYI – Status of Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project: Fire Lane and Street Light Design.
CP Monroe reported on the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Implementation subcommittee's public
meeting regarding the fire lane pavement and street light fixtures on and along the hospital site. She
noted that a brushed concrete and asphalt pattern was approved for the fire lane. Two commissioners
who attended the meeting volunteered to help reduce the number of light standard options to a workable
number. CP Monroe pointed out that in San Mateo the city has a steel base designed with an El Camino
Bell on it which might work well as an add on to achieve street level consistency and amenity along El
Camino. Commissioners who participated in the meeting noted that the neighbors had given in put on
the fire lane paving but the commissioners did not understand this was the final review. Wanted the
Commission to review the landscape drawings which would have more, and accurate detail. The sketch
reviewed at the meeting was not to scale so the proportions of the mix of materials was unclear, as was
the relationship of the materials to the adjacent landscaping.
- FYI – Subcommittee Assignments
CP Monroe reviewed the current subcommittee assignments, noting that members of the commission
had changed and some of the assignments are coming to an end. The Chair suggested a new
subcommittee be formed to address the implementation of the hospital conditions. This would free up
the North Burlingame/Rollins Road subcommittee to finish up the El Camino North zoning. The Chair
appointed Cers. Terrones and Brownrigg to the subcommittee on the implementation of the hospital
project. In discussion the commissioners directed staff to make note of the need to review office uses in
accessory structures in residential areas, to set a defining policy on the placement of garages relative to
side and rear property lines, and to establish regulations for skylights including that they be tinted, not
placed on the front of the house and establish a maximum size. Finally, it was noted that the
condominium guidelines should be revised for the higher density areas, including the Burlingame
Avenue downtown area. CP Monroe noted that revision of the condominium guidelines for the
Burlingame Avenue downtown area would flow out of the policy and design decisions made in
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2006
15
developing the Specific Plan for the area, so might be delayed until that planning program was
completed.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Deal, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2006\minutes.02.13.06.doc