HomeMy WebLinkAbout072406PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
July 24, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the July 24, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Terrones
Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi, Osterling, Vistica
(Osterling arrived at 8:15 p.m. and left at 8:35 p.m.)
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen
Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 10, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Chair noted that he would hold the option open to move the consent
calendar item when the commission reached that point in the meeting. There
were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, noted that she had counted all the projects
which have been processed through the design review since it began and it is
almost 300, few bear any visual relationship to the houses removed, the
number is significant; designers should be required to propose really new
designs because these new houses are the driving force of change in the
neighborhoods. The developers are quick to learn the language; they know
the Commission has no say about the interior, this is not right since the floor
plan drives the exterior design. Make two requests: it is time to pay attention
to the floor plans of houses and Commission should take a field trip to see the
impact of the new residential construction. There were no further comments
from the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1300 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR
SUBSTANDARD UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
FOR HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (STEVEN
PEDIGO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TWYLA KABATCHNICK, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Need to readdress the findings for the conditional use permits and variance, ones presented cite
only existing conditions, need to be based on physical hardships on the property;
• Review building code requirements for this structure, if they are not met, indicate clearly on the
plans how they will be met;
• Clarify when applicant first contacted the contractor, when he hired the contractor to work on the
garage, and how it happened that work was done without a building permit;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
2
• State that this is a repair, please clarify since saw all new material with a few recycled members,
explain how it was that nothing added and that this is a repair;
• Survey markers should be in place before applicant returns to the Planning Commission;
• Contractor’s sign has been on this property a long time, so long that it has become an
advertisement, it should be removed or dramatically reduced in size;
• Review in the staff report what happens when there is a series of repairs on a building, when does it
become a new building;
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m.
Chair Brownrigg asked, and all commissioners agreed, that they had visited all the projects on the calendar
tonight.
2. 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR ANTENNA EXCEPTION
TO INSTALL WALL MOUNTED ANTENNAS ON AN EXISTING BUILDING (OMNIPOINT/T-
MOBILE, APPLICANT; MSA ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING, INC., ARCHITECT; 3 CALIFORNIA
DRIVE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Ask the applicant how they will address the exposed conduit up to the upper roof and down to the
equipment, provide a letter describing how this would be handled, painted to match the wall,
concealed, etc;
• Color photo shows screens to be 1.5 to 3 feet projections, but in visual simulation not in scale with
wall projection, document wall projection and relationship between screens and this wall, revise
photo simulation;
• Would like to visit a location where these same screens are installed, provide location in this area so
can see them in place.
Chair Brownrigg set this item for the consent calendar with commission concurrence. He noted it should
be brought back when all the information has been provided, checked by staff and there is space on an
agenda. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
3. 1731 ADRIAN ROAD #11, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
PARKING VARIANCE FOR GROUP INSTRUCTION (TRAINING FACILITY) (TODD PAWLOWSKI,
VIRGIN AMERICA, APPLICANT; GEORGE S. AVANESSIAN, ARCHITECT; ROBERT J.
MANTEGANI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Conditional use permit should be specific and limited to this use;
• Bussing should be required and because of the limited number of parking spaces available to this
suite on site, busses should be limited to small vans, large buses should not be brought to this site or
parked on the street nearby.
Chair Brownrigg set this item for the consent calendar with commission concurrence. He noted it should be
brought back when all the information has been provided, checked by staff and there is space on an agenda.
This item concluded at 7:30 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
3
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Brownrigg noted that he would have to recuse himself for the consent item at 1535 Vancouver
Avenue because he lives within 500 feet of the project. He asked if anyone in the audience or on the
Commission wished to call 3066 Hillside Drive item off the consent calendar. There were no requests.
4a. 3066 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MIKE MA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIMI SIEN,
PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Deal noted that he did not want to call 3066 Hillside Drive off the consent calendar but he would like to
amend the conditions of approval to require:
• that the applicant retain the original front porch without a clear-story, triangular window over the
front door - which the applicant indicated he was willing to do;
C. Auran moved for approval of the consent item at 3066 Hillside Drive with the amendment that the
originally approved porch without a window over the front door be included in the project. The motion was
seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote to approve the consent item at 3066 Hill side Drive with the
addition of one condition regarding the front porch. The motion passed on a voice voted 4-0-3 (Cers.
Cauchi, Osterling, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
Chair Brownrigg then asked if the applicant for item 4b, 1535 Vancouver Avenue, was in the audience. He
was. The Chair noted that at this time there was not a quorum of the Commission present to act on this
project, however, C. Osterling who had a work emergency would arrive later in the meeting so that the
commission could act on this item tonight. For this reason he would continue the consent calendar until C.
Osterling arrived. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
5. 1315 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A
FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN SCHLENKE,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ELISEY SOKOLIK, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER
Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the FAR
shown for this project includes the detached garage? Staff noted that it did and the bonus is up to 400 SF, if
the detached garage is smaller than 400 SF, applicant only gets the amount actually in the garage.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Schlenke, architect; Elisey Sokolik, daughter, Alex
Sokolik property owner, represented the project. This is a single story house because the applicant is unable
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
4
to climb to a second story. Property owner noted that he has health problems and needs a room the size
proposed so that he can get around with a cane, the other rooms in the house are too small. Needs the
separate bath and room for privacy and independence when there are visitors in the house. Commissioners
asked if the applicant lives by himself. Applicant noted that he did. Commissioners noted that they need to
think about the impact of this construction in the next 20 years and this approval goes with the property,
would like to approve but this is a large request, seems to be space which could be saved by consolidation of
the bathrooms for example, and other ways to reduce the floor plan and lot coverage; appears this addition
could easily be converted to a second unit, this would be harder if the two bathrooms were consolidated into
a single larger bathroom; cannot find the exceptional circumstances on this lot, might be for less given lot
size if the footprint were reduced, asked for change at study and none was given; Commissioner noted that
the property is zoned R-2, if did create a second unit there is no place for the on site parking. Applicant
noted needed space for an exercise machine.
Other comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Question of code compliance comes up a lot from older
residents who want to add to their houses so that they do not need to move, if applicant can reduce lot
coverage to within a point or two, commission can tie future development on the property into that, require
removal if want to expand later. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was
closed.
Commission comments: CA noted that could add a condition which would not allow FAR to increase on
the lot over what is present and that the envelope and foot print cannot be changed, so would need to return
to the Commission to make any change to the structure; uncomfortable have recent experience, do not want
to commit future Commission, could see a request for 43% lot coverage not being a special privilege since
41% is a minor modification, this is a substandard lot and commission does need to consider what people
want. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran noted he agreed that there is some justification for a smaller exception to lot coverage and made a
motion to deny without prejudice this application for 46% lot coverage, with this action the applicant can
come back with a reduced project. The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Commission comment on the motion: willing to consider an overage of lot coverage, but not to the extent
requested, can revise and return with this motion; CA noted with an FAR limit the applicant could not add a
second floor to this footprint, could be granted to address this applicant's special needs, would need to come
back to the commission to remove later if want to expand, however, cannot remove the applicant's right to
petition the commission in the future. Commissioner noted that he would not mind seeing a couple of
alternatives at study if the applicant wishes to resubmit.
Chair Brownrigg called for a denial without prejudice on the request to increase the floor area to 46%. The
motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling, Vistica absent).
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
5
6. 1601 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARGARET
JENSEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER
Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Margaret Jensen, 1601 Howard Avenue, applicant, noted that
the way Crescent Avenue curves, all of the houses have varying setbacks but match the curve of the street,
this house follows that pattern so it lines up with the others.
Commissioners asked: has applicant considered putting tile instead of stucco molding at the top of the roof
edge, it would go with the Spanish style of the house. The applicant noted that Styrofoam molding with
stucco applied over it is proposed, molding would go below the existing metal cap on the roof to provide a
softer line at the upper edge. Would applicant be willing to add a chimney to the gas fireplace to make it
look like a true fireplace, it would add aesthetic value. Yes. Original plans showed shutters removed, asked
that they be put back but not shown on the drawings, would applicant agree to a condition requiring that the
shutters be installed that mimic the existing ones in size and shape? The applicant notes that will agree to
put on shutters; the ones that are there now are 30 years old and will be replaced.
Commissioners noted that the French doors shown at family room are proposed to open out and an 8-inch
drop is shown to the patio, building code requires that the drop to the patio be less if the doors open out.
The applicant notes that the patio will be raised or the door swing could open inward. Would like to see tile
on parapet, it is typical to use Spanish tile to define the roof edge.
Commissioners asked why the parapet with flat roof was not carried through for the addition to match the
existing structure. The applicant noted that originally there were pitched roofs on certain details of the
house, rather not have a tar and gravel roof on the addition, there have been leakage problems with the
existing flat roof.
C. Osterling arrived at 8:15 p.m.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: Would like to see tile added at the top edge of the roof, would enhance the charm
of the house, should add shutters to mimic what now exists, replace with same size shutters; don't have a
problem with the pitched roof, agree that tar and gravel roof can be a problem, they have a tendency to leak,
roof as proposed is okay; variance can be justified because of the placement of the existing house on the lot
this is the most logical place for the addition, a chimney should be added to the fireplace to add charm.
C. Deal 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 9,
2006 (Sheets 1 through 10 and L-1) and the plan submitted to the Planning Department stamped July 12,
2006 (Sheet 11), with the following changes: that tile shall be added at the top edge of the roof to visually
cover the flashing; that the existing shutters shall be replaced with shutters of the same size and shape; and
that a chimney should be added to the gas fireplace on the exterior of the house; and that any changes to the
footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
6
the Chief Building Official’s May 26, 2006 memo, the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal’s and NPDES
Coordinator’s May 30, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist’s May 31, 2006 memo; 3) 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; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing
inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural
certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the
approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor
shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building
Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according
to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be
combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from
the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a
Building permit is issued; 7) that prior to 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 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; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and
Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration
projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition
of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10) that the applicant shall comply
with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion
passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Osterling abstaining and Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS (Consent Calendar continued)
Chair Brownrigg noted that C. Osterling had arrived, and that the commission would now act on the
remainder of the Consent Calendar. He reminded the audience that he had to recuse himself from action on
this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project. Chair Brownrigg left the chambers. Vice Chair
Deal took over as Chair.
Vice-Chair Deal asked if the applicant, any Commissioner, or anyone in the audience want to remove 1535
Vancouver Avenue from the Consent Calendar. Pat Giorni, a resident, asked to have the item removed from
the consent calendar because this house is almost the same house as 1443 Balboa, and that house had not
required a height exception, so why did this one?
4b. 1535 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GARY PARTEE,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER)
(70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
7
Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff how
height was measured. SP noted that height is measured from average top of curb at the front of the house;
lot slope has the greatest impact on height measurement. There were no further comments from staff.
Vice Chair Auran opened the public hearing. James Chu, 39 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, and Gary
Partee, contractor, represented the project. He noted that the reason the house at 1433 Balboa was 30 feet
tall is that the pitch of the roof was different; also the second floor layout was different. Knew neighbors on
Vancouver did not want a Colonial, this time tried for a style which would satisfy the neighbors, invited
them all to see the plans before they submitted, only three came, but felt that they were happy with this
design.
Additional comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, this is essentially the same second floor as the
house on Balboa, with a bump out on the left side at the master bedroom, an increase in the slope of the roof
and a French style. On Balboa they reduced the height to 30 feet because the neighbors opposed it; this lot
is only 100 SF larger, it is flat; should be able to meet the height limit. Applicant noted that the layout is
directed by what people want in a floor plan, this layout is not identical to Balboa. There were no further
comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioners noted: the height issue is minor, it is a 2'-5" wide by 13'-4" long area which extends over 30
feet by a maximum of 2'-5" at the ridge, the impact on the total mass and bulk is minimal, certainly within
the range for a special permit since it contributes to the consistent and overall architectural style of the
structure; not reviewing 1433 Balboa this evening, it is not relevant, most houses in the city have similar
layouts because the majority of the lots have the same configuration, long and narrow.
C. Auran noted that the special permit for height was needed to complete the architectural style which is
allowed in the design guidelines and consistent with the intent of a special permit and moved to approve the
project at 1535 Vancouver Avenue by resolution with the following conditions in the staff report: 1) that
the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 21,
2006, Sheets A.1 through A.7 and L.1; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building
shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s and City
Engineer’s June 9, 2006 memos, the Fire Marshal’s June 8, 2006 memo and the NPDES Coordinator’s and
Recycling Specialist’s June 12, 2006 memos are met; 3) 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; 4) that prior to
scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide
architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown
on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or
contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note
compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been
built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues
shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not
visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction
plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that prior to 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 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
8
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9) that the project shall
comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected
demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling
requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition
permit and that all construction debris boxes shall be kept on site for the duration of the work on this
project; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of
the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
C. Osterling seconded the motion.
Comment on the motion: last thing want a designer to do is to clip a roof in order to meet the height limit,
the flat portion of the roof not only hurts the architectural character of the project but is can be a
maintenance problem; the applicant did a good job on this design.
Vice Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-
2 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
C. Osterling left the dais and the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
9
7. 1505 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (MICHAEL AND
AMY GONG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN STEWART, AIA, ARCHITECT)
(53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present, but several residents were in the
audience wishing to speak regarding the project. Commissioners decided to hear the public testimony,
comment on the project, and then continue the item until a time when the applicant could be present and
address any issues raised.
Christina Habelt, 1509 Balboa Avenue, James Cacciato, 1600 Adeline Drive, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa
Avenue, spoke, asked how would the style of the proposed house be described, not sure what defines the
style; at last meeting, the Commission asked for more articulation, not sure what that means, only changes
can see that were made are that one window was added and another was taken away, will see a huge mass of
wall, there is a similar wall on a new house at 1464 Vancouver, it is massive, still have concern about
design; met with owner, had discussed modifications to the fence along the shared property line, don't see
that change on plans; the fireplace as proposed is massive, concerned with size and coverage of proposal,
understand that it falls within the zoning code limits, but it is still too big; this is a spec house, owner has
built others in Burlingame, will not live there, have a few suggestions: if front setback were increased to 20
feet and house were pushed back it would not be so imposing, will tower over the one-story house next door,
could have better siting; the porch entryway extends into the front setback, appears to bring the building
closer to the street, that is another reason to set it back, would not be so massive if it was set back; chimneys
are overly large for a gas vented fireplace; and since this is a five-bedroom spec house, should have less
floor area to reduce mass and bulk. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
CA Anderson advised the Commission that comments can be made at this time and staff will pass them on
to the applicant to address before the project comes back to the Commission for action. Commissioners
made the following comments regarding the project:
• Reducing the mass of the house by burying it is inappropriate, house looks buried; concerned with
submerging property by 2 – 3 feet, not a good solution to the height problem; creates other problems;
• Don't like the idea of a flat roof, not the proper solution, if this is to be a Spanish style house should
propose something different;
• Rafter spacing is shown as 36", is that the intent?
• Like to see the tile details on the drawing, as it is currently drawn, it looks like a composition shingle
roof;
• Concerned about the rear element, facade will be massive;
• Concerned with massing on right side of front elevation;
• Front elevation of garage shows curved wall on sides, looks flat on the side elevation, like to see how
much curve there is, tile is not drawn in on garage roof, is that the proposed material?
• What material will be used on the roof of the house?
• There are a few areas where the materials are not called out, need to show on plans, what is the material
on the awning;
• There should be a tile roof on the bays, consistent with the Spanish style;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
10
• Clarify what is the logic on which downspouts have ornamental leader heads, should be carried
throughout;
• Not enough articulation on the right side elevation, elements appear tacked on; and
• Concerned about the mass of the two chimneys, two are one too many, it creates an industrial feel;
Commissioners requested that the applicant bring in response to these items; the project will be brought
back at a time when the items are addressed.
C. Terrones moved to continue the item until a time when the applicant has addressed the Commission's
comments and there is space on an agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers.
Cauchi, Osterling and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:57 p.m.
8. 1840 OGDEN DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,
SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR A
NEW, 4-STORY, 45-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH TWO LEVELS OF
UNDERGROUND PARKING (ALEX NOVELL, BURLINGAME HILLS MANOR, LLC, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER AND TOBY LEVY, LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT) (36
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Thirty conditions were suggested for consideration, including the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Ward, 792 Willborough Road; Toby Levy, project
architect, 90 South Park, San Francisco; John Hickey, 60 South Market Street, San Jose; and Alex Novell,
property owner represented the project, noting that this project provides an opportunity to fulfill the
objectives of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to provide high density housing and transit
oriented development within walking distance of the Caltrain and BART station. The project architect
reviewed the changes made to the plans to address the Commission's design comments, gave a lot of thought
to the issue of the front "build-to" line, revised the front to have a 30" high stoop with a 2'-6" railing, total
will be 5'-6" high, working with the intent of the requirement and compatibility with neighboring properties,
residential building to the north still has a long life, is set back 15', the office building to the south will most
likely be replaced using the TW regulations, this project will provide a transition between the two; living
spaces on the first floor need some separation from the street for privacy, the porches will provide a semi-
private area for bedrooms that are facing street, the activity at the stoops will enliven the street. She
presented a materials board, noting that the design has been revised to incorporated stone rather than brick,
will provide more texture and richness, and more vertical elements were added to complement the stone, the
copper being used will keep its color, the cedar planks will only be used as railings for the porches, there
will be a 6" recess for the windows to give depth, they will be edged with a thicker material, mechanical
equipment on the roof will either be in a well or it will be screened; the landscape architect added a sink and
bathroom near the courtyard, and the planting was modified to carry the curve of the planting to the front of
the street, a bench was incorporated along the street.
The architect continued, noting that have incorporated many energy efficient and sustainable elements, will
not be full LEEDS compliant, but will embrace the concept where possible, the stone is manufactured in
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
11
Napa, will use low VOC, non-toxic paints, the transformer will be housed in a Cedar enclosure, increased
the guest parking by having only one assigned space for each one bedroom unit, ask that condition No. 11 be
modified, it now states that the designate spaces can only be assigned to owner, would like that revised to
include “occupants,” in case the units are rented.
Commissioners asked: The stone finish proposed, will it be stucco stone? Yes. Looking at the fascia detail,
note that the top of the fascia will be painted with a vented wood soffit, could that soffit be made of Cedar?
Yes, it is not specified but could use Cedar. Like the change from brick to stone, nice palette proposed;
where will the kids play, there are nearby schools but would have to cross busy streets to get there, should
have some amenities for children on site. Hoping that the courtyard space will be used, there are only a few
units facing into it, not meant for activities such as soccer, meant for quiet play, the grass area and the area
under the trellis would be likely play areas, hoping residents will use the private decks and porches, on the
south the patios extend over to cover the parking area, are fairly large, the courtyard area was not intended
to include playground, but as an area for hanging out with kids, usually play yards are provided in projects
with more units, the insurance the condominium association would require for the playground makes it
infeasible for smaller projects such as this one, see this as an intergenerational project, will be some kids in
the three- bedroom units, but generally see a lower number of families with children in this type of project.
Commissioner's questions continued: Would the applicant be willing to consider having the affordable units
run for 30 years rather than the 10 years required? The applicant noted that the issue of the inclusionary
housing is a big one because of the cost, made the decision when application submitted not to propose 30
years because it was not financially viable, understand it is important, would be willing to propose 15 years
as an option, it will add to the cost of the project, each suggestion made on its own is great, but they all add
up and add to the project cost, willing to have the five units deed-restricted for 15 years, at this point, plan to
retain the units as rentals, but want the option to be able to sell as affordable units if market conditions
warrant. Appreciate that a restroom was added near the courtyard and the change in materials, could
applicant explain the area where the side setback variance is required? The area where there is an
encroachment in the side setback is limited to an area over the parking garage, could have left it open and
not required a variance, but wanted to add deck to make it more desirable both for the neighbors and the
residents. Concerned about the front setback conforming to the plan, Sunrise project was required to bring
their building forward to comply. Commissioners noted that there is an opportunity for activity on these
decks as well as to provide privacy from being directly on the street for these units, with the three distinct
sets of steps, it will provide a connection to Ogden, units will be more desirable because of the buffer, and
have two points of access, one from inside and one from outside.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners noted that the applicant had done a good job addressing the Commission's comments, like
the addition of a Cedar soffit under the fascia, would amend condition No. 10 to extend the affordability to
15 years, think the project has addressed the issue of the build-to line, the wall proposed creates a private
space for the units, variance is reasonable because if this area were left uncovered, it would be a detriment to
both the neighbors and the condominium residents; valid use of conditional use permit for lot coverage, are
providing more open space in exchange for the added lot coverage, the environmental document adequately
addresses the potential impacts of the project and provides mitigation, would like an amendment to
Condition No. 11 that the assigned spaces be for unit owner or occupant, would also like to state that the
vehicle shall be registered to the occupant and be operable.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
12
C. Deal 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 22,
2006, sheets A0.0 through A6.1, L1, L2, L2.1 and L2.2, and that the soffit material shall be Cedar; 2) that
the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 100.93'' as measured from the
average elevation at the top of the curb along Ogden Drive (54.93') for a maximum height of 46'-0", and that
the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing
proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The second level garage floor finished floor
elevation shall be elevation 38.10'; garage level one finished floor elevation shall be elevation 46.93'; first
floor finished floor shall be elevation 57.43'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 67.43'; third floor
finished floor shall be elevation 77.43'; fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 88.93'; and the top of
ridge elevation shall be no more than 100.93'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it
shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum
height shown on the approved plans; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which
would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that the backflow
prevention device shall be placed on the side of the courtyard where it will be hidden from both the street
and project residents; 5) that the project shall incorporate the following features to comply with general
environmental planning principles: a) the glazing on the south side of the building shall be minimized; b)
overhangs and recesses shall be provided for the west facing windows; c) the materials for the stone finish
shall be manufactured in Napa; d) the paints and interior finishes shall be low VOC; e) native plants shall
be used for plant materials to the extent feasible; f) all appliances shall have energy star ratings; 6) that
the conditions of the City Engineer's August 24, 2005, memo, the Chief Building Official's July 29, 2005,
memo, the Fire Marshal's July 31, 2005, memo, the NPDES Coordinator's August 15, 2005, memo and the
Recycling Specialist’s August 1, 2005, memo shall be met; 7) that storage of construction materials and
equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 8) that prior to issuance of a
building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road
Development fee in the amount of $14,685.93, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the
Planning Department; 9) that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium
building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in
the amount of $14,685.93, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning
Department; 10) that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the City to establish the affordability of the five below market rate units required as a part of
this project; the affordable units shall be retained as affordable for a period of fifteen years; the applicant
shall also submit a below market rate housing plan which shall describe in detail the applicant's proposal for
meeting the inclusionary housing requirements as required by Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal
Code; the applicant shall enter into an agreement with a third-party non-profit organization approved by the
City to administer the program; 11) that 'guest parking stall' shall be marked on the eight guest parking
spaces and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be
owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for
parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; and that in addition to the eight guest
parking stalls, 85 parking spaces shall be available on site for owners, and none of the on-site parking shall
be rented, leased or sold to anyone who does not own or occupy a unit on the site; and that the vehicles shall
be registered to the occupant of a unit and shall be operable; 12) that the Covenants Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the eight guest parking stalls shall be
reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 13) that the final inspection shall
be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 14)
that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the
condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
13
contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and
fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but
not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 15) that the trash receptacles,
furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and
landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a
building permit is issued; 16) that any security gate system across the driveway shall be installed a
minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system
connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access
to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 17) that prior to scheduling the foundation
inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 18) 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; 19) that prior to scheduling the roof deck
inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that
height; 20) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface
drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be
provided that discharges to an interceptor; 21) that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water
conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with
complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 22)
that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be
protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 23) that project approvals shall be
conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump
pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors,
etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City’s noise requirement; 24) 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; 25) 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; 26) that the applicant shall implement feasible control measures for construction emissions of
PM10. Using the methodology outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, for projects with less than 4
acres per day of ground disturbance during construction, basic control measures such as watering, covering
loose materials during transport, and sweeping would be sufficient to reduce PM10 to less-than-significant
levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 below would reduce potentially significant localized dust
emissions to a less-than-significant level; a) water all active construction areas at least twice daily; b)
cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet
of freeboard; c) pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; d) sweep daily (with water sweepers) all
paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; e) sweep streets daily (with water
sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; 27) that the applicant shall conduct
pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and implement protective measures if identified. The removal of
trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting
period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no
surveys shall be required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds should
be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs,
grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21
days following the survey. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging
areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise
determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in
other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
14
least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the
nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; 28) that the applicant shall implement
best management practices to reduce construction noise. The City shall ensure the project applicant
incorporates the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project
contractor; a) maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such
separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary
equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; use shields,
impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors;
locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and minimize backing movements
of equipment; use quiet construction equipment whenever possible; impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers
and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust
silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using
impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible; prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines; select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the
Burlingame Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are
avoided as much as possible; the project sponsor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” for construction
activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding
construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration
complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem; the construction contractor
shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the
construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the
construction site; 29) that the applicant shall implement measures to reduce construction vibration. The
City shall ensure the project applicant incorporates the following practices into the construction documents
to be implemented by the project contractor; the project sponsor shall require that loaded trucks and other
vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses
to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals; 30) that the applicant shall conduct
protocol and procedures for encountering cultural resources. The following provisions shall be incorporated
into the grading and construction contracts to address the potential to encounter currently unknown cultural
resources: prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel
shall receive environmental training that will include discussion of the possibility of buried cultural and
paleontological resources, including training to recognize such possible buried cultural resources, as well as
the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are encountered; if potential historical or unique
archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be
suspended and alteration of the materials and their context shall be avoided pending site investigation by a
qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant retained by the project applicant. The immediate
vicinity wherein work shall be suspended shall be approximately 50 feet from the discovery or within an
appropriate distance to be determined by the archaeologist or cultural resources consultant. Construction
work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been given an
opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional
exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to
any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered.; if the find
is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, and if avoidance of the resource would
not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical
excavation of those portions of the site that would be adversely affected. The plan shall be designed to
result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non-redundant archaeological data to address important
regional research considerations. The work shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources
consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports shall be submitted to the California
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
15
Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall be
accomplished in accordance with current professional standards and shall not recommence until this work is
completed; the project applicant shall assure that project personnel are informed that collecting significant
historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project is prohibited by
law. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points,
mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or
human burials. Historic resources can include nails, bottles, or other items often found in refuse deposits; if
human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or
any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has
complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In general, these provisions
require that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are found to be Native
American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The
most likely descendant of the deceased Native American shall be notified by the Commission and given the
chance to make recommendations for the remains. If the Commission is unable to identify the most likely
descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be re-interred with
appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If
recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the
problem. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion
passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 9:40 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
There were no design review items for review.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 24, 2006
16
X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
The commissioners present discussed several issues raised as the Subcommittee continues its work on
the El Camino North zoning district. Several of the issues affect the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan. The impact of the existing subdivision pattern and ownership on the planned
development in the area was discussed along with how this pattern would affect the character of El
Camino and the change anticipated to establish the northern part of El Camino Real as a gateway to the
tree-lined portion of the street to the south. The group decided to put this item back on the agenda at a
meeting when the full commission was present. Staff suggested that the Subcommittee would not be
meeting again immediately, so would target to discuss this item further at a Commission meeting in
August, before the Subcommittee's next meeting.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of July 17, 2006.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of July 17, 2006.
- FYI: 1718 Escalante Way - changes to a previously approved Design Review project.
Commissioners agreed to the change in roofing materials, although it was noted that some of them
felt that this should have been noted on the original plans because the roofing material contributes
significantly to the appearance of the house.
- FYI: Summary of Planning Programs for the El Camino Corridor.
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the number of programs currently focusing on the El Camino Corridor.
She noted that awareness of these as the City enters into planning for the downtown area is
important since the remaining blocks on El Camino not planned for and where the most change is
likely to happen, are in the downtown area. Possibly the city could consider doing an El Camino
Corridor study along with the Downtown Specific Plan. Adoption of a C/CAG corridor plan would
enable the City to apply for TOD funds for residential development within the corridor.
- Chair Bownrigg noted that he had received a message from the City Planner informing him of her
intention to retire in the Spring of 2007. He wanted to pass on this information to the Commission
while acknowledging that she would be fully engaged, no lame duck, until her last day with the city.
He noted he was looking forward, with her help, to a busy year for the Commission.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Terrones, Acting Secretary
S:\MINUTES\unapproved 07.24.06.doc