HomeMy WebLinkAbout032805PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
March 28, 2005
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the March 28, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Keighran
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erica
Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 14, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. SMART GROWTH PRESENTATION – Shelley Kildey the Outreach Coordinator for Sustainable San
Mateo County presented a summary of the 2004 Report Card on San Mateo County's quality of life placing
Burlingame in the context of the County. The presentation was based on the 2004 Indicators report for a
Sustainable San Mateo County. Ms. Kildey noted that the 2005 report, based on updated 2004 data will be
available in April.
VII. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1408 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE
FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE (SHEILA
YOUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC.,
DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: when this returns could the
commission have a table showing the FAR broken down by component parts, e.g. first floor, second floor,
porch, garage etc. This project needs a landscape plan to show how the applicant plans to mitigate the
impact of the addition on the neighbor on the north side.
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 7:15 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
2
2. PROPOSED ZONING FOR INNER BAYSHORE, SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION
SUBAREAS OF THE BAYFRONT PLANNING AREA PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET
MONROE
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report, noting that the Bayfront Specific Planning area is
divided into five subareas. As proposed each subarea will have its own zoning district. Tonight the
Commission is studying new zoning requirements for three of the five areas: the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline,
and Anza Extension subareas. The subcommittee and staff is continuing their efforts to prepare new
regulations for the remaining two subareas. CP noted that the Anza Extension subarea is in public
ownership and is fully developed with public recreation facilities and the wastewater treatment plant. No
change is proposed to the unclassified zoning now assigned to this area, except to add a requirement that any
future improvements be consistent with the design guidelines adopted for the subarea. The commissioners
then discussed the zoning proposals for the two subarea.
Commissioners noted for the Inner Bayshore subarea zoning: it is appropriate to have biotech uses
including production of product as a permitted use in the Inner Bayshore area, except for the Bayshore
Highway overlay zone; hotels and free standing retail uses should be concentrated in the Bayshore overlay
zone, and not encouraged in the interior of the subarea; from a design point of view, on-site parking should
be discouraged in front of structures along Bayshore Highway in the same manner it is discouraged across
the street in the Shoreline subarea; it seems too restrictive to limit incidental food sales to 500 SF to serve
local employees in office buildings and warehouse buildings, should be allowed 1,500 to 2,000 SF; health
services and educational uses particularly technical training should be allowed in the Inner Bayshore area, as
a conditional use with the criteria that the school be a technical school related to activities allowed in the
industrial area; like the 10,000 SF minimum lot size; class room or technical school uses are all right but
should not give a parking break if they are located in office buildings, should use city standard for classroom
uses; have a general statement about "obnoxious uses" is it possible to add visually obnoxious to that. CA
responded that all future development in this area would be subject to design review and have regulations
for outdoor storage, etc.; so commission can regulate negative visual impacts as each project is presented or
as enforcement eg. outdoor storage.
Commissioners noted for the Shoreline subarea zoning: have the minimum front setback 40% at 10 feet,
should have not less than 55% at a maximum of 15 feet to create a “street wall”; need to insure view
corridor to Bay between buildings. CP noted that to protect view corridors, the maximum width of a
building is established in the design guidelines between 40% and 60% of lot width and a minimum 10 foot
side setback has been included which would insure a minimum of 20 feet between buildings in the worst
case; asked why the office FAR is at 0.9. CP noted that it was at 0.9 in the 1981 plan and this was not
changed in the plan update, she noted that given current design guidelines, the FAR will result in taller
buildings. Concerned about encouraging trash enclosures at the rear adjacent, in most cases, to the Bay
Trail, would like to see required on the sides of buildings away from the trail; not see Bayshore Highway as
a Grand Boulevard, more like a commuter road; but the Bay Trail is an asset to the local residents and a
recreation amenity which would attract the biotech industry to the area, need to find a way to keep the trash
and loading off the rear, would like more parking at the front to preserve the trail experience; it is important
for users of Bayshore Highway to be aware that San Francisco Bay is nearby; loading docks and trash areas
wherever located should be wholly enclosed; if they must be on the rear of structures, moving the enclosed
trash/load dock areas back 100 feet from the bay outside of BCDC jurisdiction is good.
Commissioner noted for the Anza Extension Sub Area: no further comments on the proposed change to the
Unclassified zoning for the Anza Extension subarea, amendment to include design guidelines from the plan
for this area is appropriate.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
3
Staff noted that with these corrections, the zoning regulation proposals for the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and
Anza Extension subareas, would be placed on the agenda for public hearing at a future meeting. The public
hearing for these zoning regulations will be noticed in a newspaper of general circulation ten days before the
public hearing. Commission's action on zoning is a recommendation to the City Council. This item
concluded at 8:05 p.m.
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. 1340 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING
HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE IN
AN R-2 ZONE (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KEVIN
CHRISTIAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
3B. 1149 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (POKO KLEIN, TRG
ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRIAN CASSIDY, PROPERTY OWNER) (59
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
3C. 1920 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR BASEMENT FOR NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND
DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KEITH RUZICKA,
PROPERTY OWNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. C. Brownrigg noted that he wished to call off item 3E, 835 Airport Blvd.; C. Auran noted
that he would like to call off item 3D, 2301 Hillside Drive. There were no requests from the floor to remove
items from the consent calendar.
C. Bojués noted that he would recuse himself from the vote on item 3C, 1920 Carmelita Avenue, since he
lives within 500 feet of the project. C. Deal noted that he would abstain from voting on items 3C and 3D
since they were reviewed by the Commission prior to his appointment.
Chair Osterling called for a motion on the projects remaining on the consent calendar, 3A, 1340 Sanchez
Avenue; 3B 1149 Bernal Avenue; 3C 1920 Carmelita Avenue. C. Auran moved approval of the consent
calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners’ comments and the findings in the staff
reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by
C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 3A 1340 Sanchez Avenue,
and 3B 1149 Bernal Avenue and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The voice vote on 3C 1920
Carmelita Avenue passed on a 5-0-2-1 (Cers. Bojués, Deal abstaining, C. Keighran absent). Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
4
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3D. 2301 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (WILLIAM RIDDLE, BEST DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
FAI LAU, PROPERTY OWNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
C. Osterling noted that he would need to abstain from this item since he lives within 500 feet of the project.
C. Deal abstained because he did not attend the previous meetings on this project. Chair Osterling passed
the gavel to Vice Chair Auran, and left the chambers. With the City Attorney’s agreement, C. Deal
remained on the dias and commented on the proposal but abstained from the action since he had not
participated in earlier discussions.
ZT Strohmeier presented the staff report. C. Auran noted that he called this item off the consent calendar
because he felt that the project was inconsistent with the design guidelines; this project looks like the
illustration in section 8.1 of the residential design guidelines documenting what not to do, the character of
this neighborhood is that of a neighborhood built between 1920 and 1940, this house is modern, it has no
intrinsic design which reflects the neighborhood, it is located on a prominent, very visible corner lot, there is
a similar problem to what this will become on the 1400 block of Montero, feel this item should be denied
without prejudice and the applicant given an opportunity to develop a new design. Commissioner expressed
concern about the unbalanced design of the front of the garage with an eave on one side and clipped on the
other side, noted that this project has been reviewed by a design reviewer; mass and bulk has been broken
up, now steps down to corner; overall façade is balanced, the dormer on the east elevation is awkward given
what is happening on the first floor below, this salt box shape is typical in the Eastern US, the three
dimensional drawing in the packet helps understand the proposal, could remove the token triangular
pediment window does not seem to be in keeping with the rest; this is not the best example , its not perfect,
but it is better than it was, which is what design review is about.
Vice Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Bill Riddle, Best Design and Construction, Bisbane; Betsy
Murry, 1367 Columbus Avenue. This has been a long process including design review, feel got scale,
relationship to the street and a coherent building, feel it fits the site; had gables across the garage, asked to
rotate, needed to hip garage roof at back to meet setback requirements; don’t understand the rafter issue.
Commissioner noted that the garage is shown right next to property line, so the eave has to be clipped
because of building code requirements, if move garage over one foot the front barge rafter can be extended
so that it looks like an eave from the street but also meets the building code requirements for eave distance
from property line, the barge rafter would make the front of the garage look balanced e.g. look the same on
both side from the front, even though a "real" eave would not be extended the length of the structure. It was
noted that the trim detail for the windows was called out on page A6. Commissioner noted that feel that
the west elevation is severely lacking, other sides OK. Better than when went to design review, if this
original submittal may have voted no, but while not the best, it is better than original submittal. Concerned
about the floor plan, no place for a kitchen table; this is a 3100 SF house and missed the kitchen as a living
area. Commission explained that design review applies to the exterior of a structure only. There were no
further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: will support the project could be better, it is better than the original, although may
not be at level would wish, it has been through the design review process, can support; this is corner site, it
is very visible, such sites are treated differently in the design guidelines because they are more visible, if
allow this to be built will be making a mistake, we only get to do this once, cannot support; agree with
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
5
concern for corner lot and prominence in the neighborhood, not get a perfect design but recognize the
progress made, the design review process helped a lot, can support.
C. Bojués moved approval of the project by resolution with the conditions in the staff report amended to
move the garage one foot from the property line and to add a barge rafter at the front to make the appearance
of the front of the garage symmetric, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 16,2005, sheets A-1
through A-8 and L-1, site plan, floor plans, roof plan, building elevations, and landscape plan with the
garage relocated one foot from property line and a barge rafter extended one foot to balance the appearance
of the front of the structure; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, 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 the conditions of the
Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal, Chief Building Official, and the City Engineer’s April 19, 2004 memos
shall be met; 4) 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; 5) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or
earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District; 6) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate
the property corners, set the building envelope; 7) that prior to under floor 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 roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height
of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 9) 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; 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 applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
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; and 13) that the project
shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the
City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Commissioners comment on the motion: not believe that denial without prejudice is appropriate here since
does not appear that more work to be done was identified, applicant heard commission concerns and ideas
to make the project better, can incorporate; commissioner wanted an entire redesign, but did not hear
specific reasons for the need to redesign except relocating the garage and the window over the door, not
enough guidance for a redesign; referred to the design guidelines, older homes form the neighborhood's
architectural style, in this case 1920-1940's, modern design does not meet that standard, plenty in the
guidelines to give direction.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
6
Vice Chair Auran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion
passed on a 3-1-2-1 (C. Auran dissenting, Cers. Deal, Osterling abstaining, C. Keighran absent). Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:38 p.m.
Chair Osterling and C. Deal returned to the chambers and took their seats on the dais. The gavel was
returned to Chair Osterling.
3E. 835 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT TO OPERATE A "PARK AND FLY" PROGRAM FROM AN EXISTING HOTEL
(BRUCE CARLTON, DOUBLETREE HOTEL, APPLICANT; TODAY'S III INC., PROPERTY OWNER)
(7 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented the staff report. C. Brownrigg noted that he removed this item from the consent
agenda because he missed the session when this item was studied and wished to adjust condition 1 to
increase the maximum vehicles which could be stored on site for the park and fly program from 30 to 60
which would allow the program to expand. His reasoning is that park and fly programs help the hotels
increase the number of guests which nets the city more transient occupancy tax, a revenue which is greater
than that from freestanding long-term park and fly parking lots, does not feel it is a problem if such site
based programs put more pressure on the freestanding park and fly parking lots because they occupy land
that the city would prefer to be used for a higher use.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Bruce Carlton, 835 Ariport Blvd., Doubletree Hotel, represented
the project. He noted that Doubletree has never marketed this program, something they inherited from the
previous hotel, Ibis, in 1990; currently the El Rancho Motel owns the hotel stay oriented park and fly
program market; the Doubletree has the smallest amount of meeting space, 8,400 SF, in the Burlingame
area, so do not fill so many rooms with meeting guests; 30% or the rooms a occupied by airline crews,
which means guests in 78 rooms use the shuttle bus only; that leaves 198 people without cars in the parking
lot, seems using 60 parking spaces for park and fly is reasonable based on history; park and fly is a use
which increases at holiday periods when the hotel's occupancy goes down. Commission asked when was the
last parking study done? Last in depth was done when did the guest room addition, since have reviewed
thoroughly when putting together shared vehicles to pick up guests at the airport and also did manual counts
for this submittal. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve this amendment to the conditional use permit to add a park and fly program
at the Doubletree hotels increasing the maximum number of cars on site as a part of this program from 30 to
60 by resolution with the following amended conditions: 1) that the park and fly program shall be allowed to
operate at this hotel with a maximum of 60 vehicles, the vehicles shall only be parked in the north end of the
hotel parking lot, as shown on the plans date stamped February 9, 2005; no vehicles of the park and fly
program shall be parked on any part of the adjacent public park site or in the Bay trail access parking area in
front of the shared parking lot; 2) that any increase in the number of vehicles parked on site at one time
because of the park and fly program shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that the
park and fly program shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in three years (March, 2008); if at that
time the applicant would like to continue to offer the park & fly program from this hotel, an amendment to
this conditional use permit shall be required; 4) that the controlled access parking plan shall be built and
implemented as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 19, 1999,
Sheet PK-1, and the installation shall conform to all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
7
September 28, 1998 and March 2, 1999 memos and the City Engineer's March 8, 1999 memo shall be met; 6)
that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $1.00 for the first two hours, $2.00 for 2 to 4
hours and $9.00 for over four hours, and any change to this fee shall be reviewed by the city at a public hearing;
7) that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of
the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 8) that any change to the operation of the
controlled and/or valet parking affecting the fee charged, the area used, or the traffic controls shall require
amendment to this use permit; 9) that prior to use of the City landfill parking lot for paid valet or paid self-
parking, the hotel shall obtain an amendment to the Shared Parking and License Agreement with the City to
reflect this use; 10) that the use permit shall be reviewed annually for the first three years (April 2000, 2001,
2002) to assess the impact of paid valet and self parking on City landfill parking and parking on adjacent streets
and properties, and /or upon complaint; 11) that the hotel shall report to the city twice a year in 6 month intervals
the number of cars which have parked longer than 24 hours and are not registered hotel guests and the use permit
shall be reviewed if more than 10% of the on-site parking spaces are employed for this duration; 12) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 14,
1997, Sheet A0 through A11, and that the landscape plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all city
ordinances and approved by the Senior Landscape Inspector before a building permit is issued; 13) that the
conditions of the Fire Marshal's November 18, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos, and the Chief Building
Inspector's November 12, 1996 and April 21, 1997 memos shall be met; 14) that small delivery trucks or vans
with periodic deliveries may be on site during operating hours, and no trucks shall be stored or parked on site
continuously throughout the day or overnight; 15) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all
the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of
Burlingame; 16) that the overall height of the addition as measured from the grade at the first floor (9'-6"
elevation) shall be 84'-6", and the height to the top of the elevator shaft and mechanical room shall be 99'-0"; 17)
that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29
days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; 18) that in
the future, as required, the developer shall participate in an assessment district formed to provide an east-west
transit connection to CalTrain, SamTrans, Greyhound and/or any other intercity transit opportunities for
employees and guests as well as providing an on-site transit/commute coordinator, perhaps in conjunction with
other employers in the area, to facilitate employees' trips to work and reduce peak hour trips generated by the
hotel; 19) that the site shall be landscaped with vegetation which requires a minimum of fertilization and pest
control, and the maintenance of such landscaping shall follow the procedure established by a qualified landscape
architect and approved by the city for fertilization and pest control; 20) that the traffic allocation for a 101- room
addition to an existing 291-room hotel (82.2 room/acre density) which is a part of the planning approval of this
project and the agreement for use of 115 parking spaces on the adjacent sanitary landfill shall run with the
conditional use permits and shall expire at the same time the planning approval expires on the project; 21) that
the applicant shall implement a valet parking plan for the transition period between occupancy of the new hotel
rooms and completion and availability of at least 115 spaces in the proposed shared use parking lot on the
sanitary landfill site; 22) that since the applicant has elected to provide a significant portion of its required
parking by seeking an agreement with the City to share a parking area as described in the project, before
issuance of any building permit under this project approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
City that provides that the applicant will be allowed to use the City property to the north and west for parking for
at least 115 vehicles so long as the applicant's property is used as a hotel or the required parking is not provided
in some other way approved by the City; if that agreement is terminated for any reason, the applicant shall either
reduce its usage to eliminate the need for the 115 parking spaces or provide alternative parking approved by the
City; 23) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 24) that the proposed structure will be built on driven piles to mitigate potential
settlement problems and earth shaking in a major earthquake; 25) that any connections between the new
structure and the existing structure shall be designed to meet all the seismic requirements of the 1995 edition of
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
8
the California Building Code and California Fire Code; 26) that in order to minimize settlement of roadways and
other site features, recompacting or surcharging the artificial fill material should be done before any paving; 27)
that flexible joints shall be installed on all utilities to reduce potential problems associated with ground
settlement; 28) that the finished floors for any structure to be at least 9' above the mean sea level or one foot
above the possible flood elevation, whichever is greater; 29) that any new construction on the site shall elevate
the entry level to habitable floor levels to at least 9 feet above the mean sea level or one foot above the possible
flood elevation, whichever is greater. Habitable areas include meeting and conference areas and their support
facilities; 30) that this project shall comply with the requirements of the state-mandated water conservation
program, that a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan shall be submitted with
landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application, and shall be approved by the City's Senior
Landscape Inspector prior to issuing a building permit; 31) that all runoff created during construction and future
discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards; 32) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and
construction; 33) that the developer shall be required to get appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 34) that
when the level-of-service reaches LOS D, the city shall convert the northbound through lane on Airport
Boulevard at Anza Boulevard to a second exclusive left-turn lane. This improvement will improve cumulative
conditions during the p.m. peak hour at this intersection to an acceptable LOS D (V/C=0.85), and the applicant
shall pay a fee at that time toward the cost of this improvement, in proportion to the project's contribution to the
total increase in traffic through the intersection; 35) that payment of a Bayfront Development Fee to the City of
Burlingame for impacts in the Anza area shall be required in order to pay the proportional share for
improvements which would mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half
due at the time of application and one-half due before asking for a final framing inspection; 36) that the
proposed Anza Boulevard driveway access shared with the future park shall be widened from its current
proposed width of 20 feet to a minimum width of 36 feet; a stop sign shall be provided at the driveway to control
access on to Anza Boulevard from the shared parking facilities at the public park; 37) that the project sponsor
shall continue to provide an airport shuttle service to all hotel guests, which shall include connections to Caltrain
to accommodate employees at shift changes; 38) that no portion of the required parking on site or on the landfill
shall be used for long-term airport parking as part of a hotel promotion; 39) that all construction shall be limited
to the hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and no piles shall be driven
before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday; 40) that the City shall require that the
construction contractor predrill holes (if feasible based on soils) and equip pile drivers with shields, and shall
also develop a schedule for pile driving to minimize the impacts on the existing Doubletree Hotel facilities, the
Red Roof Inn and Red Rock Cafe; 41) that the hotel addition shall be built so that the interior noise level in all
rooms does not exceed 45 dBa; and 42) that in the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural
resources are discovered during construction-related earthmoving activities, all work within 100 feet of the
resources shall be halted and the project applicant shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the
significance of the find. If any find were determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, then
representatives of the project applicant, the City, and the qualified archaeologist would meet to determine the
appropriate course of action. If the discovery includes human remains, Section VIII of CEQA Guidelines
Appendix K would be followed, requiring coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission if the
human remains are of Native American origin. All significant cultural materials recovered would be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by a qualified archaeologist according to
current professional standards. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amended conditional use permit
allowing 60 on site parking spaces to be used to support the park and fly program. The motion passed on a
6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
9
4. 123 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO AN
APPROVED TWO-STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK
ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TADHG AND BERNADETTE CANNIFFE, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report March 19, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Tadhg Canniffe, 248 La Cruz, Millbrae, represented the project.
He stated that the front porch was addressed at the framing stage when the contractor didn’t feel that the
porch would work with the gables, but he went ahead with out the porch and is happy with the turnout.
Commission stated their concern that plans can just change during the construction phase, which is a breech
of contract with the City and Planning Commission, and they are disturbed with how this is worked. The
porch is a design element that enhances the property and softens the front, it was an issue discussed in the
design review. The eave line above the second story door on the front elevation has been notched out from
the original plans. The balcony on the south elevation provided character, but has been taken away. The
removal of the porch changes the way you look at the front of the house, it was an important part of the front
elevation. Mark Robertson, 918 E Grant Place, San Mateo, stated when the mock up was done, the porch
looked cluttered and did not fit the scale, and therefore owner, architect and contractor all agreed to remove
it. He feels that the gutters in the front announce the door area, that the design of the house was not affected
by the removal of the porch and that the house looks terrific. Commission asked if this project was
passively approved by the designer, even though the Planning Commission wanted a front entry that was
more prominent? This is the original design of the house that the Planning Commission did not want to
approve; it was the applicant that suggested the idea of a porch. Not a lot of articulation was done on the
front of the house; the porch was tying the whole thing together. Kieran Muldowney, 235 Victoria Rd,
stated that the second story door on the front elevation would not open if the notch in the eave and roof had
not been incorporated and that the door was not built to swing inward because of the design of the hallway.
He also said that the way the porch tied into the gabl e roofs would have looked really bad and that he has
gotten many great compliments on the house as it now stands without a porch. The Commission asked Mr.
Muldowney if he attended any of the Planning Commission meetings and he responded that he’d attended
the original meeting where materials were discussed; and that there was just miscommunication between the
applicant, the designer and the builder. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
The Commission discussed denying the project without prejudice so that the applicant could come back and
re-do the front entry, but because the opinions of the applicant, architect and contractor were that the house
is beautiful as is, they began to discuss sending the project to a design reviewer.
C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the Commissions comments. The
motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on motion: Maybe a covered porch is not the right solution, but the design reviewer will help to
find an appropriate solution, the reviewer should look at the side where the balcony was proposed and the
notch in the eave on the front façade. The covered porch would be a good way to go, looking for something
of the same magnitude as what was on the original plan; it is the job of the architect to provide ideas for the
design reviewer. A Final Inspection will not be done until this issue is resolved. The Commission feels that
this kind of action is distasteful.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
10
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the comments
made. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 9:15 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
5. 1216 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION (FARHAD ASHRAFI, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; JEFF AND JENNIFER LABORDE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel St, San Carlos, represented the
project noting that they wanted to keep the style of the bungalow with the existing roof pitch. Commission
asked about all the different window types. The applicant stated that they were limited to casement
windows in the bedrooms because of egress requirements. Commission suggested going for seven feet head
height to keep the double hung windows on both elevations because the windows need to match. Applicant
stated that windows on the side could be casements for egress. Jennifer Laborde, 1216 Drake Ave, stated
that wants to remove planter boxes, most weather exposure on that side and they will not last long, wants to
remove the shutters because they are too busy with the shingles, wants a cleaner look. Commission stated
that window boxes could be lined with copper and be weather resistant and they should be kept because they
add to the style of this house.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussed the double hung and casement windows and the egress issues from bedroom number
four. The Commission stated it is a good addition, but the following should be addressed in the plan
revisions:
the mullions add character to the house and should be kept more consistent in their patterns;
the double hung window treatments on the side of the house should carry through onto the second
floor as the predominant window type;
shutters add to the character but removal of shutters is up to the property owner.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the requested revisions have been
made and plan checked by staff and there is space on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.
6. 1440 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (EDITH AND TONY LEUNG, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (69 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
11
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. James Chu, 39 W 43rd Ave, San Mateo, represented the
project, noted that there is really only 26 SF outside of the declining height envelope because of the 35 SF
dormer exemption. The Commission stated that the front landscape screening is ok with the trees and shrubs
that are provided on the landscape plan, that there is a lot of nice detail in the plans and that this is a very
nice effort to try something different, but that the following should be addressed in the plan revisions:
the shrubs in between the two trees in the rear are too small given the mass of the house, provide
plan showing bigger shrubs;
vines should be planted along the sides of the house to soften for neighbors;
front entrance does not seem to be in character with the style of the house, more is needed at the
front;
left elevation window in stairway may be too massive;
want to see relative size of project compared to neighboring houses, show neighboring houses mass
and bulk on elevations;
chimneys do not present much honesty in the design of the direct vent fireplaces, can you find a
better solution for the elevation;
could patio area with trellis be developed into a front porch;
try to re-design the stone at the front, façade at front does not work, needs better approach.
Ed Porter, 1444 Drake Avenue, spoke in concern with the loss of light available to his kitchen.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions
have been made and plan checked.
Comment on motion: If the neighbor wants further discussion of the light issue he can pull the item off the
consent calendar at the next meeting. Something needs to be done to the front entrance. This motion was
seconded by C. Bojués.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m.
7. 1530 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION (MARTIN AND THERESA DILLON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;
JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Deal recused himself because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the
dais and left the Council Chambers.
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. The Commission wanted clarification that the drainage
would be taken to the street. CP Monroe stated that the Public Works Department determines the direction
of the drainage on a case by case basis. Commission feels that landscape screening should be provided to
add screening for the second story.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
12
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Martin Dillon, 1530 Drake Ave, represented the project. He
stated that they are the second family to own the house since it was built, his family is out of room and they
need an addition, they are trying to change the house into a craftsman and also trying to be consistent with
the way the house was built by keeping all of the original windows on the first floor. They have talked to
and shared their plans with their neighbors. Commission stated that the new family room area could be
opened up so it does not count as a bedroom, then the parking requirement would be one covered space and
existing garage could be reduced to increase the back yard. Commission also stated that this is a big design
change that works well and is nicely done. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstained and C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m.
8. 840 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK
VARIANCE TO THE SECOND FLOOR, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR
A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (THOMAS MCCARVILLE, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; PAUL AND ANN NEUMANN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (76 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Tom McCarville, 3240 Scott St, San Francisco, represented the
project. House was purchased two years ago, a little remodeling has been done on the first floor and now
they want to clean up the back yard, put bedrooms on a new second floor and open up the first floor. The lot
narrows towards the rear and the current driveway does not meet the required width. The applicant didn’t
feel that stepping back the second story added to the design of the house, feels that having it flush with the
first floor works with the project. Commissioners made the following comments concerning the project:
do not have problem with front façade and the front setback variance as proposed;
windows on second floor do not match existing first floor windows;
south elevation needs better integration;
window pattern on second floor does not match existing;
could do a better job on dormers on the east elevation;
not ok with the design of the house, feel the whole character of the house is being changed, does not
fit in with the style of the other houses in the neighborhood;
a low pitch roof also allows for a larger dormer;
would rather look at a special permit for declining height envelope then the design that is presented;
design is bulky and boxy, things can be done to reduce the mass and bulk of the structure; and
it is important before design to get a feel of the existing neighborhood.
The owner, Paul Neumann, 840 Paloma Ave., stated that they tried to emulate about six different houses
within a two-block radius of the house, including those around 1100 block of Edgehill and 800 block of
Paloma, they wanted a steep pitched roof with dormers. There were no other comments from the floor and
the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005
13
Comment on motion: house is a craftsman now and the Commission does not want to deter applicant from
changing to an English style house, just looking for consistency with the neighborhood. The motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the comments
made. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of March 21, 2005.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of March 21, 2005, noting that the North
Burlingame Rollins Road Specific Plan development fee was approved and would become effective on May
20, 2005.
- FYI: Direction on Building Replacement Concept in Subareas A, B and D and on the Retail Sales
and Service Uses Terminology
CP Monroe asked the Commission to comment on and clarify their direction regarding building
replacement requirements and retail sales and service terminology. The Commission's concensus was that in
light of a future specific plan addressing the Auto Row Subarea D land uses, regulation on building
replacement at this time is not necessary; however, it would be appropriate in Subarea A. There was also
agreement that the process and criteria suggested would work well in Subarea A. Again since the zoning
would be substantially rewritten after a specific plan has been approved for the downtown area, the
commission did not think that it was necessary at this time to address the retail sales and service uses issue.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Osterling noted that this was Joe Bojués' final meeting with the Commission. He thanked him for his
seven plus years of service and noted along with all the commissioners' appreciation for Joe’s participation
and support. He presented a resolution from the commission thanking Joe Bojués for his service.
Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Following the meeting, the Commission held a recognition and farewell reception for Commissioner Bojués
in the atrium of City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brownrigg, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\PROTECTED\2005\minutes.03.28.05.doc