HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.27.06 PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
November 27, 2006
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the November 27, 2006, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Terrones and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi and Osterling.
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician Erica
Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 13, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were reviewed. The following amendments were adopted: page
3, item 3, bullet 3 “… upper signs need could be moved down to be
parallel…; page 5, item 4c, line 13, “…9 inch beams are small and look ugly
stick out through the roof…”; and page 11, item 8, line 4, add ‘the elevations
for the proposed façade were posted on the construction fence before the
Commission action meeting. CP noted that there have been no comments
from the public as a result of the posted plans,”… C. Vistica moved to
approve the plans as amended. C. Terrones seconded the motion. Chair
Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion
passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers Cauchi and Osterling absent) voice vote.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Oscar Braun, Executive Director, Half Moon Bay Coast Side Organization
which is community based, submitted information to the Commission about
the S.T.O.P.P. program in San Mateo County and requested an EIR on the
plan amendments because it allows ‘confined animal facilities,’ concerned
that there will be legal action if the city allows confined animal facilities
which will affect the city broadly and would disqualify the city from
eligibility for funding in the future.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1251 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (LILY LI,
APPLICANT; CLEMENT YEN, TOYO COMPANY, DESIGNER; K.J. NICKMEY LLC, PROPERTY
OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of both this project site and 1327 Broadway (Item # 2), and that
he would recuse himself from both actions. He stepped down from the dais and left the council chambers.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
2
ZT Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
How many specialty food establishments are left in the Broadway Commercial area?
How does this use fit the criteria of a full service food establishment?
The conditional use permit application explains that this is a well established food establishment.
Where are there any other Big Joe’s Café’s in the Bay Area?
What caused the delay in this project?
Is the exterior of the building really going to be painted the same color as existing? Does this
business have a brand identity? and
Where is garbage going to be stored? Where will garbage cans be washed out? This should not take
place in the public sidewalk. Where is the food establishment next door storing and washing out
their cans?
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 7:15 p.m.
2. 1327 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE
SEATING ARE OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (BAR) (GERARD MITCHELL,
APPLICANT; STEPHEN T. HIGGINS, DESIGNER; BOB NERLI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
ZT Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
Would like some clarification from the Chief Building Official about the two required exits from the
patio; is there enough separation? Is paving allowed in the service area and adjacent so that patrons
can safely exit into this area?
Some room should be left unpaved at the rear of the patio so that the planting can be done in the
ground to grow up the trellis; would like to see an irrigation system for planting at the rear and for
the potted Italian Cypress trees; like the addition of the landscaping to this area;
Is there a plan for making this the only place that people smoke so that people do not smoke on the
street in front?
Concerned with people being outside on the patio area later in the evening; are there specific hours
that the patio is open? Does the inclusion of the patio area require a review of the Amusement
Permit? and
Because of the possible impact on the neighbors living nearby, this application should be reviewed
immediately upon complaint as well as after the first year.
This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the
Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 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.
3a. 711 LINDEN AVENUE ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A CHANGE TO THE HEIGHT OF A CARPORT (KURT MEISWINKEL, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) (32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERICA STROHMEIER
3b. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2007 - SENIOR PLANNER: MAUREEN
BROOKS
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience, on the Commission or staff wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests. CP Monroe did note that on the 711 Linden Avenue project there
were two conditions added to require that the driveway pavement be installed and the accessory structure be
inspected for the removed pipes before a final inspection can be scheduled. C. Deal noted that the applicant
appears to have made changes on the engineering drawings and there is no letter from the Civil Engineer
giving permission for these changes, he asked that a condition be added to require the applicant to submit a
letter from the Civil Engineer granting permission for the use of his plans before a final inspection is
scheduled. CP also noted that there was a change to the Commission Calendar and the Joint City Council/
Planning Commission meeting will be held Saturday March 24, 2007.
C. Deal moved approval of the consent calendar with the added condition to 711 Linden Avenue and the
change to the Planning Commission’s Calendar for 2007, based on the facts in the staff reports,
commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff report for 711 Linden with recommended conditions
in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Brownrigg called
for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers, Cauchi and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. AMEND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND REVISE AND
RECLASSIFY THE ZONING IN THE EL CAMINO REAL NORTH SUBAREA (CONTINUED FROM
OCTOBER 23, 2006) (271 RE-NOTICED AND NOTICE IN SAN MATEO TIMES) CITY PLANNER:
MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff report November 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
the Subcommittee’s recommendations noting how they were incorporated into the El Camino North (ECN)
zoning district and into North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and included in the addendum to
Negative Declaration 533-P. All the documents are attached to the Staff Report. She noted that tonight is a
continued public hearing from the October 23, 2006, meeting. The public hearing includes the amendments
to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the El Camino North zoning district regulations, and
the reclassification of the area currently zoned C-1/R-4 to ECN. Commissioners asked staff: the
Subcommittee recommendations include integration of public service facilities in the industrial area, feel
that people who work in the industrial area need nearby services including services for animals, and medical
clinics, are public services restricted in size to meet the immediate needs of people in the area? Staff noted
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
4
not specifically in the plan. Are restaurants allowed in the ECN zone along El Camino? Yes, restaurants are
mentioned specifically in the examples of permitted retail uses. Clarify how the sidewalk recommendation
works; does it include the build-to-line? Yes. The visual opening for the sidewalk includes the minimum
sidewalk width on public property plus the required setback of any structure on the private property, for
example on Trousdale the side walk is 10 feet and the build-to-line is 10 feet so the visual opening is 20 feet.
It is not the intention to widen the sidewalks on to private property. There were no further questions of
staff.
Chair Brownrigg noted that the first meeting on the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan was 4 ½
years ago, over that time the Commission has spent a lot of time thinking about the North El Camino
Gateway Corridor and the Rollins Road industrial area; there were some 15 public meetings on the plan and
zoning plus 5 public hearings before the City Council; Commission has worked hard on the rules and plan
and now it is time to bring the plan and its implementation to closure and move forward.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Al Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road; David Lewn, 1333 Bayshore
Highway, Hyatt Hotel; Victor Baiz, 1750 El Camino Real; Henry Keikler, owner 40-50-60 Edwards Court;
Representative of Stanley Moore,1400 Capuchino Avenue; Dave Moutoux, tenant 1400 Rollins Road;
Herman Christensen, 1429-1499 Rollins Road; George Chavez, property owner 1860 El Camino Real;
Marco Chavez, property owner 1860 El Camino Real, Vincent Muzzi, 1766 El Camino Real and 1100
Trousdale Drive; Oscar Braun,1589 Higgins Canyon Road; Tony Musich, Burlingame Plaza Shopping
Center; Jim Knapp, Citizens for Accountability; John Levi, 1116 Hamilton Lane; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa
Avenue spoke. Do not like the new addition of animal shelters to the plan will hurt the industrial area long
term, Commission should look at the plan longer to see the impacts on the area, what is the purpose of
putting animal shelters in the area if not for SPCA, the odors will go across the freeway to the business/hotel
area and across the tracks to the residential areas, violates the current city ordinance which only allows 2
dogs on a site or 3 with neighbor permission, here we were not notified, even if allowed in the plan do not
think shelter will ever be built, violates too many things, need an EIR, this amendment is not consistent with
the General Plan which says nothing about this use. Chair Brownrigg noted that he is aware that people are
concerned about a specific project, this hearing is not about that project; the question of that project will
come before the Commission at another time; this hearing is about the planning now and the future for the
Rollins Road industrial area and the El Camino North zoning district, and the zoning for the North El
Camino Corridor.
Public comments continued: Enjoy the static sound of the freeway and the pleasant smell from Guittard
Chocolate, do not want any change that would not be positive to the hotels and to the tax base, do what you
can to protect us. Questions about the zoning of El Camino North: how were people noticed for all the
meetings? Did the city consider the vacancy rate in the area when considered new zoning regulations? Did
you consider how existing businesses would operate during construction in the area and after? What
consideration have you given to access to the medical buildings from El Camino Real? Did you consider the
safety of the elderly parking on El Camino to go to the doctor? Did you consider the impact of the zoning on
property values? Own property in the Rollins Road area, also operate in another county a licensed dog
kennel, like animals, see introduction of doggie day care and animal shelters as a demunition of my property
values and those of others as well, to date have opposed zoning changes, would like answers tonight.
Representative of Stanley Moore submitted a letter to the Commission. Concerned only about allowing
animal shelters in the industrial area, don’t think you can do it without an EIR, this is a new use not
analyzed in 2004 when you adopted the plan, violates CEQA; there are negative impacts caused by PHS,
significant impacts are identified in the DEIR for that project; PHS experience raises significant impacts for
a use that was not on the radar screen at that time. Concerned about the Specific Plan including an animal
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
5
shelter, talk about the industrial area being a vital component of the city’s economy and adding new
development to enhance the industrial area and its employment base, an animal shelter is opposed to all
these things, many property owners are opposed; to pass an amendment which allows something that would
discourage existing property improvements is not wise, understand that this amendment will not affect the
application of PHS, that it is on a separate track, question is who sponsored this amendment to the Specific
Plan, is there another organization waiting to come? What is behind it?
Public comments continued: own a 50,000 SF office/medical office building on the first block on El
Camino Real, a change to mixed use will be detrimental to the population of Burlingame, there is a shortage
of medical office space now and this will increase the hardship for those who live in the area and need to
see doctors because the doctors will move away, zoning allows 0.5 FAR for office with high density
residential above, this is a 6 fold reduction in office uses now allowed, with current code could build 90,000
SF of office with new can build 15, 000 SF of office, reduced the value of his building, it was built in the
1970’s as were other all office buildings in the area, will see many more years of service, ask to postpone
decision and investigate negative impact of this decision on office use. Chair Brownrigg noted that nothing
in the rules will change how a building is currently used now or in the future, the building will become non-
conforming and can continue its use and plan is not a taking; this affects how the property might be used
when it is rebuilt in the future. Yes, but cannot rebuild 40,000 + SF with current parking if the property is
destroyed more than 50% of its value, earthquakes and fires occur; property has lived only half its life, this
change could injure the property owner, El Camino will not change in our life times. For the past 2 years, 2
doctors a month have contacted me for office space, there is no place for them to go as the hospital expands;
recently refinanced building, lender determined that the useful life is 35 years, will be there at least that
long; postpone this action for more discussion so can see the effect of this proposed zoning. Concerned
about the required 25 foot sidewalk width on El Camino Real, remove the density incentive provided by 0
foot build-to-line because it will reduce the lot size which is the basis for density, also concerned with 0 foot
build-to line because there will be little landscaping around buildings, are you willing to accept the aesthetic
result; so the 25 foot sidewalk reduces the development density as well as the aesthetic setting of the
building; at least the density of the sidewalk should be transferred to the development on the site, for
example, the development is allowed to incorporate the frontage road into the site, but to remove 25 feet of
that for sidewalk, can have a substantial impact on the density of the development; plan bases density on 40
units to the acre, this is too low, if there is any area in the city that can handle higher densities without
impacting existing development this is the area, in the area north of Dufferin Avenue need to get up two
floors to have any view because of the railroad, now allow mixed use on the first two floors which will help
address this issue; 40 units to the acre is not enough given the type of construction required, if go to steel
need 6 or 7 stories to off set the cost difference, the number on a project will only work in today’s market
when the building is over 7 stories; have been involved in Millbrae’s redevelopment area which is in the
airport landing pattern, need incentives for the plan to be real, this area is not blighted, not a redevelopment
area, so people are not driven to revitalize on their own; there is a shortage of medical office especially in
the El Camino Real-California area, hard to justify the cost now however, it will be different in this area
when the hospital is completed.
Public comments continued: Plan amendment does require an EIR, problem is in the rezoning and storm
water pollution in the industrial area where the storm water systems empty into the Bay, sensitive species
habitats have been identified in the drain; concerned about the run off from ‘confined animal facilities’; the
new ordinance does not grandfather non-conforming uses if it is shown to discharge into sensitive habitat,
same for all facilities in the zone; Burlingame is a signator of the S.T.O.P.P. permit, the animal shelter will
violate it; an order will soon be filed to abate the current facility in the county; need to be in full compliance
so that are eligible for bond funds. Commissioner asked: what does City “in full compliance” mean? In
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
6
San Mateo County have NPDES which defines a maximum daily load for each community, the city exceeds
that load today and any additional development will exceed it; if you change zoning to allow confined
animals, the EIR will have to be reviewed by a host of state agencies. Commissioner asked how would that
facility contribute to pollution, other than to the Waste Water Treatment Plant? Water will run into the
storm drain. The aviary is outside, it will wash down the parking lot into the storm drain and into the bay
resulting in pollution, you only need to follow the science, follow the rules or don’t get the money if you
degrade under the Clean Water Act; non profits who violate can be stripped of their non-profit status. What
would be an appropriate location for a confined animal use? No place in an industrial area, in the
unincorporated area that does not drain into sensitive area and with low enough density, with all waste
contained on site; in an urban area more than two dogs on site are a problem. San Mateo has a problem, the
County owns the facility and it is inspected by County health, concealed the fact that the installation has
been polluting the ground. Support encouraging pedestrian connection between Trousdale and Magnolia,
encourage development of residential uses west of El Camino Real, plans to enhance frontage road is good,
will benefit the shopping center; medical offices on the east side of El Camino Real make sense. Is this an
amendment to the General Plan? CP noted that the specific plan is a part of the General Plan and was
adopted as such in 2004. Have never won a vote but never lost a case in court, political pressure will not
win out; adoption of this plan will put the tax payers of the city at risk and take the city down a path to
litigation. When the wind blows with Guittard like chocolate smell, dog shelter is not as good. Should
listen to Chavez’s about office space, Sutter Health will not be here forever, the office space being built at
the hospital is for Sutter, need office space nearby for others, allow existing to be rebuilt or new office
condos; do not like uninstall concept, cars are getting bigger; will not allow veterinary services in Plaza
Shopping Center, if vet goes away, can he sell to another vet? CP commented yes. Am not speaking to
SPCA project but Rollins Road zoning regarding comments from Half Moon Bay speaker, tried to pass a
bond which failed by 2% to fix storm water runoff community did not support, dog waste and human waste
is the same in terms of treatment by the Waste Water Treatment Plant and can be treated the same; do not
see the problem with bird guano doesn’t seem to affect the millions of birds which migrate through this area,
smells will be in a closed building with a filter system like the one proposed for the hospital, why are the
neighbors not bothered now by the smell of the chickens in the existing building; there is an animal shelter
on 16th and Bryant in San Francisco in a mixed use neighborhood and there is no problem. There were no
further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comments: Checked there have been 15 meetings over 4 ½ years on this plan, many of the
goals in this document came right out of the community, we looked at putting housing in the Rollins Road
area, if it had been permitted at the north end and near BART property values would increase; when
considered decided that we needed an industrial area, industrial areas permit food processing, painting and
other uses which are incompatible with housing; also decided that all office use would not be permitted, now
only have office in the industrial area if it s an adjunct to manufacturing use and less than 25 % of the FAR,
we acknowledged that the best place for all office in the city is in the Bayfront area which we zoned for that
use, and is an amenable environment for white collar workers who do not like to be next to industrial uses.
The City Council had five hearings on this plan. As a part of the rules we do not expect people to have to
put up with negative ‘externalities’, rules ask if have discussion about certain uses then do environmental
evaluation; presently one can have a fish processing plant on Rollins Road but such a smell would not be
allowed without mitigation; think we should have conversation, not prohibition, at the outset. Industry
includes a lot of things we don’t want next to us, if we did not care about that we would allow housing; we
decided with the plan that we need a ‘back yard’ in Burlingame to do those things that we don’t want next to
our houses. It is not a matter of a small sized use with pollution being bad and a big sized use with pollution
being OK; rules are forged in the kiln of public comment, increased density does not mean that it feels like
Manhattan. Need to decide some standard. Subcommittee did a lot of hard work, this is not a game, there
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
7
are no back door dealings, this is a serious endeavor, have no objection to the Subcommittee’s
recommendations and have read all the detail. Most efforts went into increasing the density on El Camino
Real, allowed what was there plus some; should talk to the City Planner about how the proposed regulations
will apply to actual properties; objective was to create an identity for the El Camino North area; worked 4 ½
years, long and hard, time has come to move forward, right step is to make a recommendation to the City
Council. Those who spoke to the ECN zoning should note can go up to 75 feet with FAA approval, pretty
rare in a suburban area, clearly we recognized the importance of the transit corridor and proximity to
BART/CalTrain, wider sidewalks, 25 feet on El Camino are good for restaurant seating and free flowing
pedestrian activity to help people get to doctors offices, tried for a vision that is greater than you envision;
the industrial area could support a veterinary clinic if there was a limit on the size, concerned about the
impacts of a large facility, if it were limited about 4,000 SF a veterinary medical clinic not a problem would
be sized to serve the people who work in the area similar to an emergency medical clinic, do not favor an
open definition of veterinary hospital and animal shelter, should make a limitation on size to 3,500 to 4,000
SF. If shown in an EIR there is no difference in noise, odor, etc. why does size matter? Clinic should serve
the needs of those who work in the industrial area, not appropriate as a destination, a hospital or rehab center
can serve 300 people; vet should be like the small office in the Burlingame Plaza that was always the
intention of the zoning for the industrial area. If the EIR shows no negative externalities use should be OK,
the community decided that there should be no vets in the R-1 or on Trousdale, only place left to allow this
use was in the M-1 because not next to residential uses, if that is the case why should they be limited if EIR
shows no negative impact on the neighboring properties or uses? Difference between a veterinary hospital
and a huge animal shelter.
Commission comment continued: Commission is charged with making the best possible recommendation to
the City Council, think that this is it; there are issues remaining which will be addressed as projects are
reviewed; have already recognized a problem with the build-to and setback lines and got an early view of
what El Camino would look like, feel good about where we are.
C. Auran made a motion to amend the Specific Plan to limit veterinary hospitals and animal shelters to 4,000
SF. The motion failed for lack of a second.
C. Deal noted that included in the staff report was a list of communities in the Bay Area which allow, as
conditional uses, animal shelters in their industrial areas, do not want to limit animal shelter or veterinary
uses by size, needs an EIR on the proposed project to decide if the proposed size is correct, might be 4,000
SF; so move by resolution to recommend the amendments to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific
Plan, the El Camino North zoning district and the reclassification map for the El Camino North zoning
district to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan, the El Camino North zoning district regulations and the reclassification map for the ECN
zoning district to the City Council for action. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Auran dissenting, Cers.
Cauchi and Osterling absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00
p.m.
Chair Brownrigg called for a brief break to allow the room to clear. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
8
5. 1404 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING
VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY REMODEL (DAVID AND JANIS SPIVACK,
APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; LARRY KAHLE, METROPOLIS ARCHITECTURE,
ARCHITECT) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (continued from November
13, 2006 meeting)
Reference staff report dated November 27, 2006, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission
asked if the removal of the steel bar between the bollards was proposed as part of the revised application.
Staff responded that removal of the steel bar would be appropriate to add to the conditions of approval.
There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. David Spivack, property owner, stated that there are two
existing bollards with a steel bar running between them; they would like to keep the bollards, but have
proposed removal of the steel bar; the bollards are about 1 or 2 feet wider than the actual driveway; and the
driveway is 9’-6” wide at the gate. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica 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
November 15, 2006, sheet A1, and date stamped September 12, 2006, sheets A2 –A9, and that any changes
to the automatic gate location and footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this
permit; and that the existing steel bar and all the attachments of the bar to the existing bollards must be
removed prior to final inspection; (2) that the variance for no covered parking and the variance for floor
area ratio shall only apply to this configuration of buildings and shall become void if the footprint or
buildings on the site are ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for
replacement; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshall’s
July 5, 2006, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's July 10, 2006, memos shall
be met; (4) 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; (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; and (6) 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 (7) 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. Auran.
Comment on motion: the maker of the motion agreed to the removal of the steel bar and the members that
hold it in place as part of the conditions of approval; the reason to approve is because in this unusual
circumstance this gated driveway situation with tandem uncovered parking spaces is more likely to get two
cars off the street than a parking structure; the curb cut for this property is at the rear off a dead end street
and the access to the property from the street is only 8.5’ wide at some points because a part of this parcel
was sold to a neighbor in the past, still opposed to the solution of not having any covered parking, should
have a covered parking space or garage even if there is less onsite parking, will not park in rear yard; first
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
9
time to approve a project that has no covered parking on site, and feel this is granting a special privilege to
one property owner.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Deal
dissenting, C. Cauchi and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
9:20 p.m.
6. 2828 MARIPOSA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PHOI PHAN,
PHAN ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; LOUIS LARRAZABAL, PROPERTY OWNER)
(50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Vistica noted that he did not attend the study meeting for this item, and that he had not listened to the
tapes from the study meeting so he would recuse himself from the action. The City Attorney noted that he
may remain on the dais and may comment on the project, but that he could not vote.
Reference staff report dated November 27, 2006, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Phoi Phan, architect, represented the project; stated that
working with a consultant was progressive and positive, and helped the design. William Chen, 2832
Mariposa, stated that he had submitted a photograph to the Commission showing the story pole view from
his bedroom window and explained that his view of the east bay hills and Mt. Diablo will be blocked with
the proposed addition. Commission commented:
The roof over the top on the right side elevation agrees with the roof plan but does not agree with the
front elevation; there is a gable extending out 1’ beyond the other gable;
This is an improvement over the previous design; like the 10 x 10 columns by the deck;
The projection at the rear elevation begs to have some windows; this elevation looks odd with no
windows on the projection; there a lot of cases where you can put a window on the bed wall; could
put a high window in the bedroom niche;
Why are the triangular vents on the side elevations different sizes? Vent on side elevation needs to
be moved down; eave vents could be a nice aspect of the gables and should be made bigger;
The 2 x 12 fascia detail is fairly large for the neighborhood and should be paired down;
Vinyl windows are shown on the plans, would encourage wood clad windows instead;
Front elevation fascia board is shown as 18” deep, it should be lessened in size;
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further comment: Overall, the architect did a good job on the project but there is a large problem with the
view blockage issue; can’t support the project because there is going to be blockage of the distant East Bay
views, which the picture reflects; and reluctant to deny the project because the changes made substantially
enhance the design, but problem with view blockage.
C. Deal moved to deny the application because of the view blockage issue. The motion was seconded by C.
Auran.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
10
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Vistica
abstaining, C. Cauchi and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
9:45 p.m.
7. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE
SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG
ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JAY AND JANET GARCIA, PROPERTY OWNERS)
(48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report November 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that there was a
letter from Otto Miller received today at the Commissioners desks. Commissioner asked: what is the
required front setback for a double car garage? ZT noted that when off set the closest door must be set back
20’ the second door 25’,when one double door it must be setback 35 feet. There were no further questions
of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, architect, represented the project. Jay Garcia,
property owner 1561 Drake. Tried to find a balance between the function of the garage, the creek setting
and the setbacks; this revised project appears to be the best balance, increases the space between 1561 by
moving the house to the left, flipped the inside 10 feet on the right side of the garage, pushed the garage
back to the rear wall of the existing garage, can maneuver in and out easily now, does create a side setback
variance because of the ‘T’ in the lot; changed the design of the dormer to eyebrow so garage looks like a
carriage house at the end of the street, eyebrow balances the curved entry; with this solution can landscape
the area between this house and the one to the east. Commissioner asked if had prepared a streetscape
drawing. Yes, architect submitted to the Commission, noting that with a flat dead end to the street is a
problem to document, but can see the carriage house feel. Commissioner asked why not put the garage
where the entry porch is so go directly from street into the garage? Looked at that but resulted in a long
narrow corridor inside the house to get past the garage before getting to the living area. Commissioner
noted willing to look at variances given problems with the lot, but would like to see more direct access to the
street and reduce the FAR. Architect noted to reverse the garage and porch would need to bring the porch
forward 7 feet in front of the garage so it could be seen, then have 35 foot hall inside house and resulted in a
larger FAR and a worse floor plan. Concerned that misunderstood when developed the idea of this house,
existing house at 1561 Drake is 1900 SF, have a family of 5, been in existing house 24 years need a larger
house which is affordable to live in permanently; will stay in this new house as long as possible; believe this
design is respectful of 1553 Drake, house will be comfortable for family. There were no further comments
from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: think existing residence with entry and garage location are the best given the 10
foot frontage and entry courting area and existing conditions; porch addresses the front of the lot
appropriately, garage address access and safety, development back in to the “T” area into the creek is less
desirable, push mass to the rear have a problem with 1553 Drake; this effort increases the front separation to
10 feet with interior modifications and not shifting house to the rear, support, like added landscaping which
will allow for a future property line fence and will diminish the presence of the garage for the neighbor,
eyebrow reduces the massing of the garage, makes the roof mass more consistent with the rest of the house.
Met with architect and discussed different options for locating the garage, none were as functional or
elegant as this, this moves the house back from 1561 Drake 10 feet and improves the existing garage
arrangement, there is no opposition in the neighborhood present, seem to support; best use of this site for the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
11
particular house. Like design of the house, this is a large property built to the maximum, put the garage in
the front to keep the back yard, on another standard lot would not allow, where the patio looks to redwoods
have a 7 foot setback on both sides at the rear, should relocated the garage, move it to the left, cannot
support, need to be consistent. No street parking at this end of the block, would like more space for parking
on this site, 10 feet is not enough separation from 1561, there is room to incorporate the garage into the
house and have the same size house.
C. Vistica moved approval of the revised project as presented for the reasons stated in the record 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
November 13, 2006, sheets A-0 through A-3.1, L1.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior
finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; (2) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and NPDES Coordinator's
September 11, 2006, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 20, 2006, memo, shall be met; (3)
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; (4) that any changes to the size or envelope
of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or
changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
Planning Commission review; (5) that the wall between the garage attic and house attic shall contain no
openings and that the area in the rafters over the garage shall only be accessible from inside the garage and
shall only be used for storage; (6) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor
shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (7) 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; (8) 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; (9) that prior to
scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide
certification of that height to the Building Department; (10) that prior to final inspection, Planning
Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type,
etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; (11)
that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (12) that the project
shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame; (13) that the project shall comply with the Construction and
Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration
projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition
of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; (14) 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; (15) that the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
(16) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation
Water Management
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
12
Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was
seconded by C. Terrones.
Comment on the motion: CA noted that variance findings require that there be a hardship relating the
property in this case the configuration of the lot, relationship to the creek, and the determination of the front,
rear and side setbacks impacted the layout of the house resulting in variances, the house is located properly
on the site given the surrounding conditions and adjacent properties. Discussion of adequate parking, if
there were a way to get three cars on this lot would support it, but given the parking issues at the end of the
street this is a covered garage which will be used, added space between the houses is important for livability
and also a justification for exception.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve this project with the conditions in the
staff report. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (Cers. Auran and Deal dissenting, Cers. Cauchi and Osterling
absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m.
8. 3 RIO COURT, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MONICA LIANG,
STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFFREY MARK, PROPERTY OWNER)
(36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report November 27, 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. John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, stated
that all architectural comments have been addressed; the issue tonight on this project is view blockage; and
that the only part of the view from 1821 Loyola Dr. being blocked is the view of some trees.
Other comments from the floor: A. Tabrizzi, 5 Rio Court; Mario Muzzi, 1814 Loyola Drive; and Lawrence
Barulich, 1821 Loyola Drive, spoke. Only 4 houses on Rio Court, all houses are built on fill, because of this
the soil on the hillside is vulnerable. All houses are currently almost the same weight, what will happen if
the weight is changed on one side of this curved court? If the soil collapses it could cause a catastrophe; has
a geometric study been conducted as part of this project? A second story on this house will block a view on
one side of 5 Rio, will remove existing privacy and will obstruct afternoon sunlight to the property; would
like to ask the Commission not to approve the project; view from the rear of the proposed house facing west
is all windows and applicant will have direct view into existing living room and master bedroom of 1814
Loyola; surprised that privacy issues are not addressed in the code; this is first time these concerns have
come into the neighborhood because this is the first and second story requested; homes in the neighborhood
were built right next to each other because they are all one-story; parking has been a problem, can imagine
that an increase to the number of bedrooms would only increase the parking problem; thank you for coming
out to house; invited the project architect and homeowner to come by but they did not; house was built to
take advantage of the view and the addition will severely impact that view; the architectural balance of the
neighborhood is all single story; hate to see a precedence started over view blockage in the neighborhood;
and it is devastating to have the potential to lose existing views. The architect responded that a soils report
will be conducted by a soils engineer as a part of the Building Permit Application.
Commission commented to architect: could look at cedar roofing material; should install bigger 6X knee
braces; has a window manufacturer been picked? Wood window with simulated divided light would be
better. Feels there are improvements, like the front, not the back, overall feel of the back is completely
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
13
different; the issue of privacy, the orientation of this cul-de-sac puts one to two rooms looking straight into
the neighbor’s back yard; could these windows in the bathroom and the office be made of obscure glass?
The architect responded that secondary windows were put on this side and that obscure glass could be put in
but they rather it not be fixed glass. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: Massing of the house has been handled nicely; added detail is a nice improvement;
stone base at front is not repeated anywhere else; real issue is views and setting a precedence; cannot
support the application the way it stands now, there are significant view blockage issues; if a second story
were built, it would be creating views that the homeowner didn’t have before and then creating a problem if
a different neighbor were to propose an addition that would block those new views; when the CC&R’s in
this area expired, people in the neighborhood began putting up second stories and creating new views that
then became protected; and proper engineering for the hill will be done.
C. Deal moved to deny the application because of view blockage issues from habitable areas within
neighboring properties. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment amended on motion: this was a close decision based upon the percentage of the distant views that
would actually be blocked; maybe the plate height could be lowered; there are ways to add onto the ground
floor; the view blockage here is not as extreme as with the previous project; views being blocked are not
really distant views; and would the maker and second of the motion consider denial without prejudice so the
applicant can redesign a one-story addition? The maker of the motion and the second amended the motion
to a denial without prejudice.
Comment on motion: no matter what changes are made to the project, there is going to be an issue with
view blockage; a denial without prejudice will give the applicant the opportunity to change the project,
which will be difficult; most compelling argument is that there are no two-story homes in the neighborhood,
do not feel that project is blocking distant views.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the amended motion to deny the project without prejudice.
The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Cauchi and C. Osterling absent). Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m.
9. 1613 MCDONALD WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR
AS-BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PATRICK AND ANNETTE DOHERTY, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report November 27, 2006, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Annette Doherty, property owner, stated that she couldn’t find
a roofer who would frame the eyebrow and that there are no other eyebrow dormers in the neighborhood.
Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa; John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel St. San
Carlos; RG Development is a reputable building company; time to talk about levying some kind of fine for
people coming in with as-built changes found during the final inspection; don’t think the changes are
significant; it is a good thing to have the architect certify the architectural details at the framing inspection.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
14
Commission commented: had a discussion with the applicant in regards to the front dormer changing from
an eyebrow to a gable; issue couldn’t be fully discussed as an FYI item; and although a dormer like this
would usually have a window, a window could not fit into this dormer as now designed. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Terrones moved to approve the application to amend the design review, appreciating that all questions
have been answered, 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 November 1, 2006 sheets A4 and A5, date stamped January 12, 2005, sheets A1 and A3 and
date stamped December 15, sheets A2, A6-A7 and boundary and topographic survey and that all new
windows shall be true divided light windows and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the
building shall require and amendment to this permit; (2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the
first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing
windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design
review; (3) that 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; (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 the
conditions of the Chief Building Official’s November 11, 2004 memo, the City Engineer’s, Recycling
Specialist's and Fire Marshal's December 6, 2004 memos and the NPDES Coordinator’s December 8,
2004 memo shall be met; (8) 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; (9) that the applicant
shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control Ordinance; and (10) 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. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi
and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
15
10. 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS-BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT (JOEL CAMPOS, LA CORNETA TAQUERIA,
APPLICANT; J. MARK CRONANDER, ARCHITECT; KARIM A. SALMA) (28 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report November 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked
staff: what was the basis in arriving at the one car parking space? CP noted that the mezzanine was reduced
in square footage. Was the size of the mezzanine as built checked? CP noted will be done with the final
inspection. Was the security screen at the patio entrance shown in the original application? CP noted that
she did not think so. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Joel Campos, applicant; Mark Cronnander, architect; Herman
Lopez, general contractor; represented the project. Applicant was one who decided to change the design,
when constructed found structural beam across all the commercial spaces in the building, property owner
did not like the original design wanted all the windows the same height in the building, felt that the tile was
too busy so put better tile on one side with granite top, did not install trellis features because was concerned
with a bird problem in the out door seating area, this has been a long process almost two years, need help,
need to open soon, no Mexican food on the Avenue and are ready to do business. Commissioner asked:
when original plan was developed, did you not think that the tile was too busy on both sides? Asked the tile
man to put the same, he felt that it was too much so put in one and the granite, trellis problem with birds
talked to architect, did not know where top and bottom of structural beam was. Architect noted that he was
not involved in the construction or would have convinced Mr. Campos not to flagrantly disobey approval,
know most commercial buildings have a large beam to support the entire front, did not know where when
prepared the drawings. Contractor noted that took windows to the bottom of the beam, the beam is 12
inches. Commissioner asked: photo shows almost the exact size of the beam also shown as a dark line on
the original plans to support trellis, even with beam could transom windows above on the front and arch
them on top of beam very similar to the original submittal? Tried to keep the line of the windows the same
as on the other buildings. Commissioner asked: your tenant space and the tenant space next door share the
beam, not see in photo big beam supporting the rest of the building, if a small beam could install the arched
windows above. Architect commented understand but did not know where the beam was in the original
design. Commissioner asked: at some point you could have revised the design to achieve the general intent
of the original design? Commission action is a contract between the city and applicant, you had a pleasing
asset, now it is something that the Commission would never approve, with an important location you have
greater responsibility to the presence on the street; took every positive aspect and threw it away, light
fixtures are too small, disappointing. Combined two properties both of which were more interesting than
what you have created, the community is worse off. Contractor noted that the planter will still have plants
on top of the granite.
Other comments at the public hearing: Carol Serratto, 8 Peninsula Avenue; Karim Salma, property owner;
Archie Offield, 223 Dwight Road. Do not know what is involved in the building code; know these were
judgment calls, if any leeway ask for it on matters that are not public safety. Maybe commission has a point
about changing the arches, but am happy with the design, feel it matches the block, everyone on the street
likes it. I do not; the drop down gate is ugly. Commissioner noted he could not support these changes.
There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
16
C. Terrones noted that this does not match the rest of the block, may match portions further down
Burlingame Avenue but is not consistent with the detail and scale and character of this end of the Avenue;
blank stucco walls do not create pedestrian atmosphere; can’t support this, could be easily adapted back to
what was originally submitted and approved so move to deny this request for amendment to the design
review. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Comment on the motion: full denial would allow to come back with a new design; fix may be different
from original design could look at such things as trellises, wood work, variation on the façade, tile as
originally proposed flanking the entry. CA noted that with denial of this amendment the original approval
still stands.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the amendment to the design review. The
motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 11: 25 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
11. 50 BRODERICK ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW,
PARKING AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCES FOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (MCA ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HACOR, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) ( NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Commission asked: there is an in-flight kitchen on
Cowan Road that has parking problems including no on-street parking and cars parking in tandem on-site;
have there been any recent complaints about the Cowan site? Staff noted they were unaware of any. The 11
truck bays have been counted in the parking requirement, why? Staff responded that the truck bays were
included in the Safeway project and that the same assumption was used here, although in this case trucks
will be stored in the bays when not in use. Can this project be assessed a parking in-lieu fee? Staff
responded that there the parking in-lieu fee currently applies only to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area. Is there a third party that can get involved in the shuttle service? Staff responded that a third party
could manage an on-site program. All parking spaces are 9’ wide, could they use the uninstall mitigation?
Staff responded that yes, uninstall could be included as a mitigation in the conditions of approval, but a
variance for dimension of all spaces would be required. Do the 75 employees on site include the truck
drivers? Are there any complaints about parking on Broderick Road now? Staff responded that the
Commission should ask the applicant to provide a parking study. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jeff Wright, MCA Architects, and Jae-Young Noh,
representing the property owner, stated that the use of the 11 truck bays as parking spaces was brought
forward by staff; contracts for a shuttle service have been sent out and are being reviewed by the property
owner, they are very expensive; would commit to providing the employees with an incentive to take mass
transit; the facility is an in-flight kitchen, preparing food for flights out of SFO; currently have an operation
in Los Angeles; operate around scheduled flights, 365 days a year; it takes about 2 to 3 trucks to upload all
of the meals for one 747 flight.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
17
Commission commented:
The in-flight kitchen is the only use of the building?
Will you provide food to other areas outside of the airlines, such as hospitals, schools, etc?
Application says there are 75 employees with a maximum of 45 people on site at any one time; what
happens during the shift change?
This same use exists on Cowan Road; it is a very intensive use; parking is always terrible there; on-
street and on-site parking should be addressed; there is very little parking on Broderick;
Entrance to the building should be enhanced, it would improve the front façade; the entry is not
apparent, something should be done to visually enhance it, such as a canopy or an overhang;
Do you anticipate you would actually get many employees to take BART? You are relying on a lot
of people to take mass transit; it is hard to convince employees to take mass transit when taking a car
is just as fast or faster; what is the incentive offered? Would like to see a program.
How many employees earn the minimum wage or close to it?
Clearly indicate the number of parking spaces on the site plan; truck stalls are not really available as
parking spaces and should not be considered since they will frequently be filled with trucks and
drivers still need to park on site;
What materials are going to be used? Please provide a materials board and color samples;
Why are there high windows along the right side elevation?
There are some big trees behind the building; would like to see more large scale trees on landscape
plan; would like to see landscape variance go away;
The proposed use is right in keeping with what the City is trying to encourage in the Rollins Road
District; will this use bring sales tax to the area? Would like the point of sale to be in Burlingame;
Have you pursued the possibility of valet parking on site for consolidating the parking and getting
more cars parked on site?
The architect and property owner responded that: the long term goal of the applicant is to work with a
maximum of four airlines; there is some lag time between the employees shifts; currently there are just 17
parking stalls on site; the existing entrance is going to remain in the same location, could provide a canopy
or an overhang; there will be a large incentive program for employees to take mass transit, such as payment
of BART ticket and payment of gas if employees carpool; when the facility opens at 3:00 a.m. there will be
4-5 employees on-site; most employees get paid approximately $7.00 per hour; it is anticipated that the
business will be at full capacity in 2-5 years; the proposed metal material is similar to that used at SFO; the
high windows along the right side elevation were not required, just installed for extra light; and the total
landscaping could be changed to comply with the 10% requirement. 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 regular action calendar at a time when all questions have
been answered, when there is room on the agenda and when the requested revisions have been made and
plan checked by staff.
Comment on motion: This is a great use, only have a problem with the parking variance; want more
information on what the parking situation in the area is; want no parking on street; do not want to see
building occupied and take all parking on the block; facility just might be too big for parking that is there,
it’s being squeezed in; should not count truck bays as parking spaces; this situation could become a model
for how an employer could create an incentive program to have their employees use mass transit; and
building just needs a little bit of work. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Staff commented that the
applicant might also want to contact the Peninsula Alliance to work with them as a third party to manage the
proposed TDM program to increase employee use of mass transit and reduce on-site parking permanently.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
18
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when all
questions have been answered, when there is room on the agenda and when the requested revisions have
been made and plan checked by staff. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and C. Osterling
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:01
p.m.
X. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
- Update on Commercial Design Review: Construction in Conformance with Approved Plans.
CP Monroe asked, given the late hour, that the Commission refer this item to the Permit Processing
Subcommittee which is meeting on December 8, 2006, and have them report back to whole
commission. There was a consensus that the item be referred to the Permit Processing
Subcommittee.
- Comments on Draft Scope of Work for the Downtown Specific Plan
Because of the late hour Chair Brownrigg continued this item to the next Planning Commission
meeting, December 11, 2006.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
- City Council regular meeting of November 20, 2006.
CP Monroe reported on the rotation of Council officers noting Councilwoman Nagel is now Mayor and
Councilwoman O’Mahony is Vice Mayor. CP noted that the City Council set a special meeting for
December 13, 2006, at which they will accept the election results, hold a study session on the ECN
zoning and the relationship of that zoning to the clarifications in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan, and do other business.
- FYI: 1418 Benito Avenue – changes to a previously approved design review project.
Commission acknowledged these changes and had no comment.
- FYI: 1718 Escalante Way – changes to a previously approved design review project.
Commission asked that this item be placed on the action calendar for further discussion.
- FYI: 270 Lorton Avenue – changes to a previously approved commercial design review project.
Commission acknowledged these changes and had no comment.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Deal, Vice Chair