HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.02.22REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 22, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Deal called the February 22, 1999, regular meeting of the 'Planning Commission to
order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Coffey, Keigh.ran, Key, Luzuriaga (in
@ 7:09) Vistica and Deal
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry
Anderson; City Engineer, Frank Erbacher; Fire Marshal, Keith
Marshall
MINUTES The minutes of the February 8, 1999, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission were approved with the following
corrections; page 5, 1516 Forest View Avenue, "C. Luzuriaga
moved approval of the vafianee, conditional use permit and
special permit applications; and page 7, 1212 Donnelly should
have an added condition as follows: "if applicant chooses, the
entrance can be recessed with same square footage. "
APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved, noting that the applicant
on Item #12 should read Mansa Construction Corporation
FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
STUDY ITEMS
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO LENGTHEN AN EXISTING GARAGE WHICH
IS WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT AT 1336 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
(JOE LA MARIANA & THERESA BALDOCCHI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: the roof is called
out with a 3:1 slope but it does not seem to be drawn that way; don't think pitch of roof is a
problem just nomenclature shown as a 3 inch rise over a 1 inch run clarify; concerned that the
addition to the garage does not match the existing architectural style of the garage, looks "stuck
on" should add a condition that the rear of the garage should match the architectural style of the
garage. There were no further questions from the commission.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
C. Vistica suggested that if the project complied with the suggestions it should be put on the
consent calendar for action; C. Key agreed. By unanimous voice vote the commission agreed
with the suggestion and set the item for public hearing on March 8, 1,999.
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT
SERVICE TO EXPAND SEATING AREA AT 1318 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1,
SUBAREA A. (WORLD WRAPPS, APPLICANT AND SHIRLEY KING TRUST, PROPERTY
OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: does the applicant
plan to keep the two tables and chairs at the front of the business in the public right-of-way; this
is an increase in 112 SF of seating area, could the applicant overlay the existing and proposed
plans so commission could see exactly what the change in the configuration of the uses on the
site are; what is the rational for the need to increase the seating area by 35 % and the number
of seats by 50 %; how did they arrive at the maximum number of people on site being 49; notes
that owner and employees will park in metered parking, at what location; seems this proposal
would increase usage, increasing seating from 28 to 42, why so few additional customers with
more seating and good business, observation is that the place is often packed with people. There
were no further questions from the commissioners and the item was set for public hearing on
March 8, 1999, providing all the information is given to Planning staff in a timely manner.
APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AREA OF SIGNS ON THE PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY FRONTAGES AND FOR PROJECTION INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY AT 1200 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A. (NEON SIGN
SYSTEMS, APPLICANT AND BRUCE C. KIRKBRIDE, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: would like to see
the palate of colors for the sign program; how will the "open" sign work, will it flash when the
store is open or change to closed when it is not; how will the projecting sign be lit, also how
will the clock be illuminated; could see this sign being reduced by 3 SF so it would not need an
exception for size; open neon tubing is inappropriate for this period of sign, explain why it is
needed; will the stripes of neon tubing on the site be removed along with the signage; why need
florescent lighting for the sign, why no use indirect lighting it is the more traditional way to light
such signs. There were no further comments and the item was set for public hearing on March
8, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTION FOR AREA OF SIGN AT 1477 CHAPIN AVENUE,
ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B. (ARROW SIGN COMPANY, APPLICANT AND WEIMAN
SYNDICATE, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: is this a similar sign
to that on other Molly Stone's, would like to see a picture and the color, how is the tomato lit
and presented; sign on primary frontage is OK but the sign facing; the city parking lot is
designed as if it were to be viewed from a street, because it is at eye level it will also create
glare at the public parking lot access driveway, should be at a different location and reduced in
-2-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
size; need a stronger justification for the exception than "balance"; a picture at night of a similar
sign might address "white glare" issue; seems the applicant is asking for more than allowed,
understand two signs on primary frontage and Chapin, what is the justification for so much
signage on the parking lot. Item was set for public hearing on March 8, 1999, if all the
information can be provided to staff in time.
APPLICATION FOR LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AND AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL AGENCY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICES AT 820 MALCOLM ROAD, ZONED O-M. (HARVEY HACKER, HARVEY
HACKER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND JOHN MONFREDINI, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the commissioners asked: could the action
packet include a copy of the original staff report and conditional use permit with conditions;
need to provide information on the number of rental transactions and customers before they
moved to SFO; are there any rental cars on site; why do they need 80 parking spaces if there
are no rental cars on site and why then can they not meet the landscaping requirements; need
a table showing the number of cars rented each during the day and each day of the week;
understood Enterprise is not transferring to the airport, have they transferred; the conditions of
the original use permit were tight, especially about the addition of personnel and the impact of
the use on the site, now want to add more people to write more rental contracts will increase
the impact, explain; have received complaints about this site in the past regarding loading and
unloading of vehicles on the street, how will that be addressed now; indicate that they have 81
on site parking spaces but cannot count tandem parking spaces, except: as previously approved
to use as car storage, how much car storage will be needed and how many actual parking spaces
will be provided for the new office use; would like a picture of existing landscaping and fencing
on site; if fleet cars are parked here are the customer contracts written in Burlingame for these
cars; what is the number of cars in the fleet rented from this site; what is the relationship
between the operation of this business in Burlingame and the new parking garage at the airport;
confused adding 5000 SF of office to process rental contracts but show an increase of 5 cars per
day rental, how does this work; present permit indicates a maximum of 14 employees on site
at once, but indicate that there are 20 employees on site now, why are they violating their
current conditional use permit; if compare original permit with information in this staff report
there are more areas of noncompliance, explain. The item was set for public hearing on March
8, 1999, if all the information is available to staff in a timely manner.
ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE.
THEY ARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION ANDIOR 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.
Regarding Item #6, 1405 Mills, Commission asked if the project review could include the garage
being as it would in a major remodel. CA responded the building permit has already been
issued so if want could consider whether the architecture of the remodeled house matches the
proposed garage. The garage itself cannot be reviewed as a part of the remodel of the house
-3-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
because a building permit has been issued for that structure. A commissioner asked how the
public works conditions would be applied. CE Erbacher responded that these items would be
reviewed when the building permit is issued.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
AT 1405 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
JACQUELINE FOSTER, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM
JANUARY 25, 1999 AND FEBRUARY 8, 1999
C. Deal has a working relationship with the applicant and therefore will not comment or vote
on this project. C. Coffey moved approval of item #6, 1405 Mills Avenue on the consent
calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the
staff reports. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion
and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining.) Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1260
BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (KEN IBARRA, APPLICANT AND RICHARD
MEDEGHINI, WILLIAM R. AND M.A. MEDEGHINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (51
NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 8, 1999
and
APPLICATION FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCE AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 820 MAPLE AVENUE,
ZONED R-1. (MICHAEL FROELICH, APPLICANT AND JOSEPH SZUECS, PROPERTY
OWNER)
C. Coffey moved approval of items #7, 1260 Bernal Avenue and #8, 820 Maple Avenue on the
consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings
in the staff reports. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice
vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
REGULAR CALENDAR
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT EVALUATING WIND AND RECREATION AND TRAFFIC EFFECTS IN SAN
MATEO FOR A MAJOR OFFICE OR OFFICE/HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT 301 AIRPORT
BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (CARL DANIELSON, GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST,
APPLICANT AND GOLDEN CROWN LAND & INVESTMEN T, INC., PROPERTY
OWNER) (29 NOTICED)
Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
recirculated draft environmental impact report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department
comments. CP Monroe and CA Anderson reviewed the purpose of the meeting, to take
comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR for the proposed office project at 301 Airport Blvd.
The commission should take testimony on the two items addressed in the Recirculated document
-4-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
wind and recreation and traffic impacts in the City of San Mateo, comments on the previously
circulated DEIR taken during its circulation period, will be addressed in the Response to
Comment Document.
Chairman Deal open the public hearing. The following persons spoke: Richard Lavinstein,
property owner on Beach and Lang Roads, Burlingame; William Robberson, 1230 Clay Street,
San Francisco; Peter Thomer, 390 Alcatraz Ave, Oakland; Dr. Mark Tischler, 1204 Rembrandt
Drive; Lev Belov, 280 San Benito Way, San Francisco; Edward Penrose, 468 Littlefield Ave.,
South San Francisco; Karina O'Connor, 915 Ashbury, San Jose; Ken Poulton, 884 Los Robles
Ave., Palo Alto; Mark Showen, 133 Valdeflores, Drive, Burlingame; Bob Whitehair, 1530
Edinburgh Street, San Mateo; Doug Gottschlid, 595 Mr. View Ave., Mountain View; Suzanne
Suwanda, One Bay Road, Fairfax; Clement Wang, 906 Hyde Ave, Cupertino; Andre Volant,
1238 Shelter Creek Lane, San Bruno; Noel Mackisoc, 3000 El Sobrante Street, Santa Clara;
Byron Wilson M.D., 834 Viewridge Drive, San Mateo; Stephen Hile:y, 2004 Pierce St., San
Francisco; Kathleen Doerr, 3731 Fillmore St., San Francisco; Dianne Thomas, 325 Avila Road,
San Mateo; Peter Birch, 272 Cumberland St., San Francisco; Dick Rayner, 714 Esther Lane,
Redwood City; Geraint Owen, 3265 Greer Road, Palo Alto; Robert Dow, 3729 Red Oak Way,
Redwood City; George Haye, 1191 Compass Lane, Foster City; Mary Firentze,1210 Patlen
Drive, Los Altos; Jaime Cordera, 1210 Patlen Drive, Los Altos; John Bateman, 585 Kelly Ave.,
Half Moon Bay; Beth Krasonic 1429 Bernal Drive, Burlingame; Dan Farmer, 2340 Perich Ct. ,
Mountain View. Appeared before the commission on the previous DEIR for this project, still
concerned about traffic and mitigation B.10 and City of San Mateo's comments; impacts at
Peninsula and 101 interchange and traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods in San Mateo;
indicates that there will be an impact at the intersection, especially if it remains unsignalized,
share the concerns of all property owners in the area about how this congestion problem will be
addressed for this project and cumulatively; feel that the origin destination assumptions should
be reevaluated since his observation today is that more traffic comes into the area from the south
now and the origin destination was based on a 1987 evaluation, if traffic signal were to be
installed in the Airport/Coyote Point/Peninsula Ave. area it would be in the City of San Mateo,
how will it be installed and what will the impact of the improvements and/or signal will be.
The remaining speakers addressed the wind and recreation portion of the recirculated DEIR.
They were convinced that the wind study was done by an expert, but it did not address
turbulence and "dirty air" that comes along with this type of development; convinced that further
study and alternatives for this project need to be done; be willing to put time in at a future
meeting with the developer and consultant to discuss in detail; people present represent the
largest windsurfing organization in the United States; Coyote point :is one of the few water
contact, access points on the bay; if consider how big these proposed buildings are, the amount
of dirty air they will create and the wind sheer effect, afraid will devastate the area for wind
surfers and San Mateo County park will lose a lot of revenue; concerned that the definition of
significant impact is based on a 10 % reduction in wind velocity when wind velocity is only part
of the equation, wind swirling and gusting up and down are also important since sails have only
a narrow range of adaptation; wind velocity is useful when determining what people feel on their
faces; have worked with wind tunnel studies, they are state of the art, but they measure the
reduction in steady air speed; the people who did the study also have data on variation and
increase in turbulence, they have recorded that data should analyze it and report on variation
-5-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
found; wind tunnel measures mechanical, wind also includes thermal variation, don't know what
effect that will have from wind tunnel, but thermal variation can increase wind shadow and can't
be measured in tunnel; report was alright for what it did, but need more analysis; Coyote Point
is unique, only place in San Francisco Bay which is safe enough for beginners and intermediates,
with stable winds, the tall buildings will change that; only place in the mid -peninsula along the
bay that does not have limited parking; attractive because place where you can bump and jump
wind surf.
Comments on the wind and recreation continued: safety is a key concern, experienced
windsurfers use boards that do not float, if there is a lot of variation irk the wind people cannot
get their sails up; if need larger sail to get out to open water, and need less sail out there, have
a safety problem, wind surfer can be carried down wind and current or can "fly over head";
asked who windsurfs at Candlestick, candlestick is more a beginning, area, the water is flat
compared to Coyote Point where the wind causes a swell that windsurfe:rs can jump off of, most
premiere area is off Crissy Field, Coyote Point is second; at Candlestick the wind blows off
shore, people can be blown out to sea, Coyote Point is one of the few spots where the wind
blows toward shore; wind shadow will affect the beginner and intermediate more, Coyote Point
is good for them because can practice without fearing that will be blown out too far; used to sail
Coyote Point, not so much any more but it has the biggest and best amenities on the Peninsula;
flaws in the study atmospheric stability was not addressed and other issues in the letter submitted
from Mike Godse, local meteorologist; some users of Coyote Point are Burlingame residents,
others come from though out the region and world; when designed the project no one thought
that wind was an impact now aware and the project should reflect; wind is not affected much
close to the shore but wind surfers need to make it all the way in and variation is in the middle
area; opposed to project, buildings will make it harder to get in and out, need to look at height
and layout, need to move the tallest structure to the back; there are 50 people here tonight who
feel as I do, and 500 more who aren't here; this is a significant issue and there is no recognized
standard of significance; from experience, when next to 20' buildings people have to swim or
walk in; the wind shadow of a 20' building can knock you off your board, what will a 120'
building do, significantly more than a 20' building; need to look carefully at the height and
consider before grant variance, also before grant variance for width of the buildings; Coyote
Point is a jewel for wind surfing in terms of facilities and being within an urban area, do all you
can to save it; a wind surf board moves by wind moving in a steady stream across the sail, if
it is not smooth the wind surf board will loose speed and will go down into the water; wind
surfers pick the size of their sails carefully for the speed of the wind., not much tolerance for
error; would also note that the traffic is pretty terrible on 101 from 92 north to Dore exit to
Coyote Point, this project will not make it better; if Coyote Point is diminished it will affect
business in Burlingame; began wind surfing in Foster City on lagoon, biggest problem was tall
buildings which shut down wind and increased turbulence; wind surfing affects my health, in
summer when can wind surf blood pressure lower; should limit all building heights to the height
of city hall; wind surfing is a good advertisement for the bay area, especially for people arriving
at SFO, it is a clean sport does not pollute the water, and it invites people to use the bay for
many recreation activities; bought a house in Santa Clara just so I could be close to Coyote
Point; relocated from the coast to San Mateo so could be close to Coyote Point; described the
effects of changing wind conditions on surf boarder; one would not build a bicycle path with pot
holes, this is the same idea; wind surfing here is premiere in terms of metropolitan areas in the
no
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
United States; used to wind board in New Jersey, area used was affected by construction of
single family houses, two story houses affected wind 1000 feet off shore; Coyote Point is used
by hundreds of people on the best days; invaluable if lost no other area that would offer the
same; the park will lose revenue.
Comments continued: many wind surfers carry wind pagers that tell them where it is windy, so
know that there are a limited number of places that are windy at any one time; Coyote blows
steadily in the summer, if build buildings Coyote won't even be on the pager any more; born
and raised in area, use Coyote Point in the summer, hundreds of sails are beautiful, city should
maintain this beauty; know buildings will impact winds at Coyote point, its a complicated
technical issue, but from personal experience surfing behind a barge know that not just slow,
one slams into the water; if buildings go up wind surfing at Coyote Point will not be a viable
option; came from New Zealand, the advantage of coyote Point is the on shore wind; the
sheltered area close in is good for the beginners; not a good wind sailor, can tell you that
turbulence and gusty winds are terrible for a poor sailor, the change in velocity will make it
more tricky to use Coyote Point. There is access for wind surfing at other places in the bay,
Chrissy Field an old military base where there are many development proposals, Berkeley
Marina where there are problems with access, Candlestick Park where the property may be sold
and there are real problems with parking, Flying Tigers lost access at north end of SFO although
there is some limited access at high tide, Third Avenue in Foster City made improvements but
reduced parking capacity, Coyote is also threatened by expansion at the airport, need to take the
long view this resource is irreplaceable once it is gone, need access and use of water; people
have been wind surfing at Coyote Point for 25 years; not going to have more bay; the
photographs make the area look big, the swimming area limits launching, if increase
windshadow will push in -bound traffic into out -bound traffic, with the cumulative impact on
wind the area gets even narrower and pushes the in- and out -bound traffic even closer together,
can't launch off the bulk head along Airport Blvd., Foster City put a ramp down the rip -rap but
reduced parking by half so less access; if you move the launch north it is not good for
beginners; 300 to 350 wind surfers park in the parking at Coyote Point Park, when it is full they
park on the streets in Burlingame; with hundreds of wind surfers need a expanse of beach; the
water is shallow along Coyote Point beach and is safer for learning to windsurf, too deep off
Fisherman's park, would not be safe for beginners, have to swim in too far become
hypothermic; people wait in line in water now to launch if sail area is narrower have to wait in
line on the beach, space is important; proposed buildings A, B and C make a complete wind
block, need some forethought about wind, there must be a way to solve: and still do the project.
There were no further comments from the public and the hearing was closed.
The Planning Commissioners then commented on the Recirculated Draft EIR: it should be made
clear that the City is not undertaking this development, the property is privately owned, the city
is not designing the project, the project is not a done deal, the purpose here is to review the
Recirculated DEIR and the impacts and proposed mitigations it includes; the developer needs
to hear your concerns; on the Peninsula land is scarce and something is going to be put on this
site; concerned about traffic on south bound 101 at Poplar and north bound, did more study of
these effects; concerned about traffic impact, it is hard to get to this site and see other property
sold on bayfront don't know how cars will get in and out; would like a clearer explanation of
the origin and destination assumptions of how traffic will get in and out of the site; need to
-7-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
address traffic flow and the impact on the Broadway interchange; San Mateo study only reacted
to their city streets, what about the impact on the Anza and Broadway interchanges; want more
elaboration on the Broadway on ramp; where does the traffic come from north and south bound,
how will it compare to what we see now; lot of words would like to see a map showing the
location of the intersections in San Mateo that they were concerned about. There were no more
questions from the commission. Staff noted that these comments would be incorporated in the
Response to Comments document which, along with the DEIR and the Recirculated DEIR would
compose the Final EIR. The closing date for comments on the Recirculated DEIR is 5:00 p.m.
March 8. Following that the Response to Comments document will be finished and the
document will be set for public hearing and acceptance before the Planning Commission. There
were no further comments from the staff or commission and the item was closed.
Chairman Deal called for a five minutes break at 9:25 p.m. for the members of the audience
concerned with 301 Airport Blvd. to leave if they wished.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1400
ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (TORIN KNORR, AIA, APPLICANT AND DAVID
M. & REGINA A. MCADAM, PROPERTY OWNERS) (51 NOTICED) CONTINUED FROM
JANUARY 25, 1999 AND FEBRUARY 8, 1999
Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested
for consideration. There were no questions from the commission.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Torin Knorr, architect, commented that used
commission's previous review to re-evaluate the entire project, new front elevation is a more
compatible architectural design, redid the stair way so no longer a winder; reworked the
bedroom on the corner and reoriented away from the street with a stop sign, reduced the
windows on the front. Commissioner asked have a skylight which faces the street, concerned
that it will be a beacon of light at night, would consider removing, like the skylight and based
on review don't think it will affect neighbor, have installed such skylights in Portola Valley
using smoked glazing to reduce reflectivity; concerned about the window above the three which
make up the bay window, can you delete the triangular one above the bay because it looks as
if it does not belong, that is the north side of the house where there is the least light, it is
isolated from the neighbor because of the existing landscaping, want to keep to maximize the
light inside; concerned about the general size of the project, the rooms are big, could you reduce
the overall size, concerning massing look at elevation on Hillside, moved bathroom off 1.5 feet
to improve appearance of elevation, project below allowable square footage, used extra square
footage in redesign of stairwell which did not affect the bulk of the original design. There were
no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed..
Commission comments: in favor of the project, concerned about the skylight, if can mitigate
favor the project; has come a long way, can support but the skylight needs to be addressed; can
put mini -blinds in the skylight operated by a sensor to close at night; will have to have a bubble
for height in stairwell; condition one which addresses building according to plans submitted,
plans show plate at 8 feet but will actually have to be 8'-1" to meet C]BC requirements, should
Ef
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
plans be changed to reflect this requirement; CA Anderson noted that can give direction that
plate height should be done to conform to CBC; concerned about the master bedroom window
(bay with clear story), this is the dark side of the house, neighbor cannot see because of
landscaping so no harm to anyone if top window is kept, not care about the shape of the
window, but would like to keep it for light.
C. Coffey moved approval of the project as submitted, by resolution, with the conditions in the
staff report and the additional condition that upon complaint by a neighbor the skylight shall be
required to be covered by a blind which is operated by a sensor at night to screen light. The
motion was seconded by C. Key.
On the motion: people who drive on Hillside will also be affected by the light from the skylight,
not just the neighbors; would like to add a condition that the plate height may be 8'-1", the
maker of the motion and the second agreed to the amendment to the conditions; think we should
deal with the skylight right now, have seen too many beacons, bay window is not as important
an issue, OK, if do not remove triangular window; CA Anderson noted that commission could
make a motion to amend the motion on this issue.
C. Luzuriaga moved to amend the motion to change the condition regarding the skylight to
require installing photo sensitive blinds as a part of construction. The :motion was seconded by
C. Deal.
On the motion to amend: what would be the additional cost, a couple of hundred dollars; what
if the battery goes out, who would know.
Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to amend requiring a condition to have
photo sensitive blinds in the skylight to block light at night. The vote was 6 -1 (C. Coffey
dissenting) in favor of amending the condition in the original motion.
C. Luzuriaga then moved to amend the original motion to add a condition to remove the
triangular window above the bay in the master bedroom. The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
On the motion to amend: this window does not affect anyone, it helps the dark side of the house;
not opposed to window, just to placement at the top of the bay.
Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to amend the conditions and add the
removal of the triangular window over the bay in the master bedroom. The motion to amend
failed on a 2-5 (Cers. Bojuds, Coffey, Keighran, Key and Vistica dissenting).
Chairman Deal then called for a voice vote on the amended main motion, 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 February 10, 1999, sheets A 1.0, A2.1 and
A4.0, and date stamped February 17, 1999. sheets A2.0, A3.0 and A3.1 except that the finished
plate height may be at a maximum of 8'-1" in accordance with the California Building Code;
2) that the landscaping on the east side of the property shall be retained, and shall be protected
during construction by employing a program developed by a professional landscaper and
In
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope
of the second floor, 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 the skylight shall be fitted with blinds which are photo sensitive and
automatically close during the evening hours; and 5) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City
of Burlingame.
The motion was passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION FOR NUMBER AND AREA OF SIGNS AND
FOR HEIGHT OF A GROUND SIGN AT 212 EAST LANE, ZONED C-2. (ALI KAZEMI,
SIGNS OF ALL KINDS, APPLICANT AND ALICE L. AHO & JUDITH A.
SCHENKOFSKY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (45 NOTICED)
Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested
for consideration. Commissioners commented that the information requested at study was not
submitted, wanted to see how this application compared to signage on California Drive, staff
noted could ask the applicant; the photos of the site requested were not included, understood that
they would be brought to the meeting; there is extreme lighting projecting from the building over
a recently paved parking lot, who installed it and does the city have regulations addressing it,
yes the city has an illumination ordinance, do not know if permits were issued for this lighting,
ordinance limits the cone of light to the site. There were no other questions from the
commission.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Mike Harvey, the applicant was present to answer
questions. The signage requested for the Myrtle frontage will not be lit. The lights installed
on the building on East Lane do spill over onto the JPB right-of-way, they feel this is necessary
for security purposes because a lot of cars are stored on this piece of right-of-way. There have
been no complaints. Do not know if a permit was issued for the installation of the lights, was
handled by a manager who is no longer working for him. Commission asked: if service business
is closed why need internally lit sign, much of profit in the car sales business is from the service
need these signs to be lit at night for advertisement, especially since this location is on a
secondary street; what is the height of the existing pole on East Lane, about 15'; the new pole
is 16'; compare your property signage to that on California, almost every auto dealer on
California has more than 600 % of the signage allowed under the sign code, it has been that way
to support the automobile sales businesses, this request is far less than the facilities on auto row;
the height of the existing pole sign is 20 feet and the proposal is 24'-6" why; the plans and the
staff report materials do not agree on the type of illumination, is the pole sign internally
illuminated or not, don't know will install this sign at a later date top portion will be internally
lit; seems clear that this building does not need a taller sign than allowed by code and have
signage for brand on California, applicant noted that dealership on California may be relocated
to the Broadway area after 2001, so signage here is important especially if there is no sales on
California; what are the hours of operation for the service business, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. could go
as late as 8 p.m., the sign on Myrtle (partially residential) will not be lit at all. There were no
WIZ
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
more questions from the commission or comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Key noted that auto dealerships have always received more signage than the code allows, this
use is on a secondary frontage and Honda needs the exposure no matter if they move in 2001,
they are in competition with others and they need the same exposure, the signs on Myrtle will
not be lit which would require a change in condition number four, understand the need for
lighting across East Lane for the railroad right-of-way storage area, security is an issue there.
For these reasons move approval of the sign exception request noting that the conditions should
be amended to allow no illumination of any of the signage facing Myrtle Drive. The motion was
seconded by C. Coffey.
Commissioners on the motion: cannot support because of the number of signs and the maximum
height of the free standing sign, can only support if free standing sign lowered to 20 feet; feel
the same; cannot support because assume this area is a part of auto row, this is a transition area
between auto row on California Drive and a large residential area, to assume that it is auto row
now is a mistake, signage here needs to be more subtitle; several problems, installed a couple
of large, obnoxious lights on East Lane side without permits, been cited for illegal signs and
asked to remove but have not; will find on Myrtle and Putnam on Anita and Peninsula same
level of signage requested here next to residential, need to look at whole picture, there is the
same benefit; not asking that much concession, operation needs more directional signage than
other businesses, since auto row is just across the railroad tracks; favor the application since
there is no lighting of the signs on Myrtle.
Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The vote was 3-4 (Cers.
Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica, Boju6s dissenting). Chairman Deal noted that the motion failed.
C. Keighran moved approval of the sign exception request noting that this site is not located on
California Drive in auto row with the changes to the application that there shall be no
illumination of the signage on the Myrtle street frontage and that the maximum height of the
proposed ground sign on the East Lane frontage shall be 20 feet. The motion was seconded by
C. Luzuriaga.
Commission comment: does this exception go with the property, CA Anderson noted that it was
permissible to limit this sign exception to vehicle sales and service uses on the site; C. Keighran
moved that the conditions be amended to include the condition that the sign exception shall be
limited to vehicle sales and service uses on this site, C. Luzuriaga, the second, agreed. Not
opposed to the 24'-6" height, but will support the motion, the applicant can always appeal;
agree, but feel that the additional 4 feet will be just enough to make the sign visible from
Howard Avenue and will contribute to the success of this use at this location.
Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with the following amended
conditions: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped January 25, 1999, except that the free standing ground sign shall
be a maximum height of 20' as measured from adjacent grade and none of the signage on the
Myrtle Road frontage of the site shall be illuminated; 2) that any increase in the number or the
-11-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
signs on the primary frontage shall require an amendment to this sign exception; 3) that the
placing of illegal private signs which restrict the use of public parking or any other illegal sign
placed on this site shall cause this sign exception to be reviewed; 4) that the sign exception shall
be limited to vehicle sales and service uses on this site; and 5) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the municipal code and of the 1995 edition California :Building and Fire Codes
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote. The
motion passed on a 5-2 (C. Bojues and Vistica dissenting) vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AT
1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT, AND
MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION. PROPERTY OWNER) ( NOTICED).
Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. CE Erbacher and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Public Works Department comments. Five conditions were
suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Key recommended the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map to Council, for the reasons
stated, with conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) a final parcel map for lot merger must
be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by Subdivisions Map Act and City's
Subdivision Ordinance. Action on this map should be considered as both Tentative and Final
Map to facilitate processing; 2) all property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel
map; 3) all existing and proposed lot lines shall be clearly shown with bearings and distances;
4) all existing and proposed public and private easements shall be shown on the map; and 5) the
map shall show the width of the right-of-way for California Drive, including centerline of right -
of way, bearing and distances of centerline, and any existing monuments in the roadway.
Motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion
to recommend the map to the City Council. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote
Chairman Deal requested that the agenda be revised and the project at 38 Lorton Avenue be
taken before the general plan conformance determination at 1775 Gilbreth Road since the
applicants for 38 Lorton Avenue had been waiting a long time and there appeared to be no one
in the audience for the Gilbreth Road action.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION ON HEIGHT OF BUILDING FOR A 4-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 38 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (STEVE
BELLUOMINI AND MARK CASTELLUCL APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Commission asked: how did
-12-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
signs on the primary frontage shall require an amendment to this sign exception; 3) that the
placing of illegal private signs which restrict the use of public parking or any other illegal sign
placed on this site shall cause this sign exception to be reviewed; and 4) that the project shall
meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1995 edition California Building and
Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote. The
motion passed on a 5-2 (C. Bojues and Vistica dissenting) vote. Appeal procedures were
advised.
APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AT
1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT, AND
MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) ( NOTICED).
Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. CE Erbacher and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Public Works Department comments. Five conditions were
suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Key recommended the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map to Council, for the reasons
stated, with conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) a final parcel map for lot merger must
be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by Subdivisiions Map Act and City's
Subdivision Ordinance. Action on this map should be considered as both Tentative and Final
Map to facilitate processing; 2) all property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel
map; 3) all existing and proposed lot lines shall be clearly shown with. bearings and distances;
4) all existing and proposed public and private easements shall be shown on the map; and 5) the
map shall show the width of the right-of-way for California Drive, including centerline of right -
of way, bearing and distances of centerline, and any existing monuments in the roadway.
Motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion
to recommend the map to the City Council. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote
Chairman Deal requested that the agenda be revised and the project at 38 Lorton Avenue be
taken before the general plan conformance determination at 1775 Gilbreth Road since the
applicants for 38 Lorton Avenue had been waiting a long time and there appeared to be no one
in the audience for the Gilbreth Road action.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION ON HEIGHT OF BUILDING FOR A 4-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 38 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (STEVE
BELLUOMINI AND MARK CASTELLUCI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Commission asked: how did
this happen; height was a condition of approval, other jurisdictions require foundation survey
-12-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
to see that this does not happen, such survey was required here; CA Anderson noted that the
issue here was the definition of "de minimus", staff needs direction; were surveys required along
the way of construction, yes.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Mark Castellucci, property owner and developer
spoke, building permit said could build a maximum of 35 feet in height, architect took
measurements from adjacent grade not top of curb as planning requires, so top of structure was
4" off; have surveyed volume of each unit for final map. Charles Kavanaugh, 470 Chatham
Road, Engineer, spoke plans show building 35 feet tall from right Corner of the building as
measured from finished grade, city measures from average top of curb; plans show elevations
but not referenced to point of departure or average top of curb; did measure garage slab, first,
second and third floors, all fit as shown on plan (without reference to point of departure). CA
Anderson noted that it was Mr. Castellucci's responsibility to meet the height as shown on the
plans submitted to the planning department which were the basis for the condominium permit
and as the height was conditioned in the action letter he received at the end of that approval
process, it was not the architects responsibility. Mr. Castellucci noted that this was a very flat
lot and it was hard to work with it to get proper drainage, when discovered the problem did
reduce the roof pitch because it was 6 to 7 inches over 35 feet. CA. Anderson noted that Mr.
Castellucci was aware before the construction drawings were made what the city's requirements
were. Commission asked if at any point realized that datum point used was incorrect, no.
Kavanaugh noted that checked after the structure was framed because doing the final map for
the condominium and city required measurement of the roof height, them was when the problem
was found. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comment: made site inspection, saw peaked roof, don't know what to do, not
serve any useful purpose to take off peak of roof; don't know how got: to this place, the height
was written and went with the project; mistake can't imagine architect, surveyor creating on
purpose of 4-7" problem with a multi -million dollar project, this is de minimum; if asked for
a variance it would be hard to say take the top off the building, have a hard time thinking there
was an ulterior motive; need to catch such errors before they happen, this is building department
responsibility not planning. CA Anderson noted that the commission needed to determine what
is de minimus about 4 inches over 35 feet or you need to amend this conditional use permit to
state that the height of this building is 35'-4.44".
C. Coffey moved by resolution to amend condition 3 to say that the maximum height of this
building is 35'-4.44" as follows: 3) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall
not exceed eleveAiea 34-� 35'-4.4" as measured from the average elevation at the top of the
curb along Lorton Avenue (36.65'), 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. 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. The motion was seconded by C. Key.
Comment on the motion: do not want to set a precedent with this action; need to get tougher in
the Building Department and not let proceed to next step until survey in and accepted; this is just
a determination for this project, it is not a precedent. CE Erbacher noted in this case the
-13-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1999
property owner did the surveys as required he just picked the wrong datum point, he did reduce
the roof slope to keep the error as small as possible.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to amend the conditions of approval to
allow the maximum height of this building to be 35'-4.44" inches. The commission voted 7-0
to approve the motion. Appeal procedures were advised.
DETERMINATION ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF AN 80' TALL TOWER
FOR A LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ALERT SYSTEM AT THE CITY'S SEWER LIFT
STATION AT 1775 GILBRETH ROAD, ZONED O-M.
Reference staff report, 2.22.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. CA Anderson noted that
representatives of the Federal Government are entitle not to be at this meeting, they could
condemn this land, the general plan compliance is required because they are leasing the land
from the city. What does this tower look like, 18" in diameter at the base, 80' tall red pole; 80'
is about 8 stories tall. There were no more comments or questions from the commission.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: would have liked to hear from the FAA and to have a description of
the antenna; could put on a tall building like the Marriott and no one would see it; staff noted
that placing any object on the Marriott would be an aviation hazard; could condition it to be a
different color.
C. Coffey commented that this proposed installation of an 80' tall. tower for a low level
windshear alert at the City's sewer lift station is consistent with the General Plan. It should be
noted for the record that Planning Commission asked that Council review the application for
color of the pole with the request that it blend with the surroundings. :Further, it was requested
that a condition be added noting that nothing be attached to the pole. He then moved
recommendation of approval to the City Council noting consistency with the General Plan. The
motion was seconded by C. Key.
Comments on the motion: assume that the pole is 18" in diameter based on field observation;
do not consider it to be consistent with the plan because it is not sensitive to put next to the
freeway in a highly visible place, at 80 feet it exceeds by a lot the 35 foot height review line
applicable to every thing else; agree is it possible to find another site not next to the freeway or
on top of a building. CA Anderson noted that they need a site that lines up with the runways.
Chairman Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend consistency with the
general plan. The motion passed on a 6-1 vote (C. Luzuriaga dissenting). The item will be
taken to the City Council for action.
-14-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
PLANNER REPORTS
February 22, 1999
- CP Monroe briefly reviewed the City Council regular meeting of February 17, 1999.
- Discussion of when to meet to review revised regulations for food establishments.
The commission decided to meet at 6:00 p.m. before their meeting on March 22,
1999, if the revisions to the draft ordinance were completed by then. If not the
commission would meet before the next meeting when the revisions were available.
- Discussion of nonconforming structures, additions and enlargements section of the
code. No changes were suggested to the draft ordinance revisions and the
Commission directed staff to set the proposed revisions to the nonconforming
structures section of the zoning code for public hearing before the commission.
- Commissioner Key commented that the commission might want to consider reviewing
the sign code requirements and setting some standards for when property owners must
apply for a master signage program.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m.
MINUTES2.22
-15-
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary