HomeMy WebLinkAbout091205PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
September 12, 2005
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the September 12, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:10 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi, Keighran
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician Erica
Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 22, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
In recognition of 300 Burlingame elementary school children singing the
national anthem accompanied by the Burlingame Intermediate School band at
Burlingame Night at the Giants, the commission paused to salute the flag and
listen to the National anthem on the radio as broadcast from SBC Park in San
Francisco.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Kathy Smith, 1811 Davis Drive reported on a meeting neighbors held with
representatives of the Mills Peninsula Hospital reconstruction team, Carole
Groom and Oren Reinbolt, six families at the western end of the block
adjacent to the hospital site, participated. Neighbors concerns were that this
is going to be a long noisy and dusty construction process, neighbors would
like their homes power washed during construction to control dust, feel that
there is not enough funding in the mitigation fund to cover impacts on them
caused by demolition of the existing hospital 9 years from now; would like to
reopen mitigation to increase the money over time. Project representatives
have said they would talk with neighbors only one on one by family, would
like to know more about the construction phasing; they identified a number
of attractive nuisances: relocate the dumpster away from the shared property
line, use of the alley, and cover all trucks loaded with dirt whether required
by law or not. Conclusion of meeting was to ask to: expand the funding,
update the noise study, provide better property protection, keep truck routes
away from the houses, and provide more exits onto Marco Polo from the site.
Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive, also updating on the hospital reconstruction
from the neighbors east of the alley. Conversations have been limited to
landscaping discussion, no provision has been made for noise in the
mitigation plan, would like to reopen to address noise issues; clear for her
site EIR clear that new building will eliminate open sky view, this cannot be
mitigated, but could mitigate impacts of construction noise and noise of
cooling towers after construction, also noise from use of oxygen tank area,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
2
concerned that noise is an on going problem and asking for mitigation early
on, would like to open up later as well. Ask the Commission to put the
mitigation plan on the agenda and discuss again.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Drive, 1400 block of Balboa impacted from new
development/remodels; recent project did not include true divided light
windows because they were not specified on the plans, no one asked the
developer to include "dual pane vinyl clad" is not true divided; would like
true divided light windows to be a condition on each plan so not slip by.
Have a project on 1400 block which has a sump pump which runs regularly
during the dry season, concerned about it drawing water away from
established trees and vegetation, each project should be required to have a
soils analysis to determine the height of the water table and impact of sump
pumping. Each project should have an arborist report which evaluates and
sets out protection measures for existing street trees. In addition to requiring
that the developer replace the curb, gutter and sidewalk, they should replace
the apron of the street and fill any pot holes on the street. All the new roof
lines are going to the maximum height and then the commission grants
exceptions for taller buildings where the height is a part of the architecture,
ceiling heights should be reduced in steep pitched roof designs or the first
floor lowered below grade, so no building exceeds the height limit.
Concerned about the number of bathrooms and the increase in sewage this
represents, and the capacity of the sewer system, and the increase in run off
from the big roofs.
Carole Groom, representing Mills-Peninsula Health Services, also reporting
update, understand the concerns of the neighbors, met with them to look for
solutions. Had two neighborhood meetings: on August 3, noticed 300
households, 15 people attended; on August 31 (people on the west end of
Davis Drive), 4 people attended. Unable to give a definitive time line at this
time, will mail when have and are setting up a new web site for neighbors
which we will keep current; for condition 118 the mitigation panel, have 2
neighbors willing to serve and a representative of the shopping center, will
submit names to city and hope that city will appoint Burlingame
representative; for condition 119 mitigation plan, of 20 neighbors on Davis
Drive have met with 3, have talked on the phone with 3, 2 have asked for
appointments, 1 has asked for reimbursement; on landscaping have met with
one neighbor, have also met individually and collectively. Commissioner
noted don't know if the fund is enough, how do you address with neighbors?
Trying to explain how limitations are built into the project, hours of
construction limited, no pile driving was allowed, cooling towers limited in
mitigation not to exceed current noise level based on testing and
measurement need to mitigate if do exceed current. So standards built into
project will address many of these issues. There were no further comments
form the floor.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
3
1. 1524 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO
CONVERT A PORTION OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO ACCESSORY LIVING SPACE
(HOME OFFICE) (MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MAAK &
SULLIVAN, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself from consideration of the project, due to his involvement, and left
the chambers.
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: plan shows drainage on roof
being taken to a dry well, could Public Works please address? Concerned with three skylights proposed; at
night light could flood onto neighbors property; number of skylights should be reduced and all skylights
should be tinted; three skylights are drawn, two are shown, please clarify.
This item was set for the consent calendar, with all appropriate changes suggested, when all the information
has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:32 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.
2D. 1205 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD
ESTABLISHMENT (GEORGE R. COREY, APPLICANT; ARNIE GAPESIN, A&T DESIGN GROUP,
DESIGNER; LENCI FARKAS, PROPERTY OWNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
2E. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, C-3 AND UNCLASSIFIED (PENINSULA HOSPITAL
PROPERTY) – VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AND MAP
EXTENSION (MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
(104 RADIUS & 97 COMMUNITY NOTICES MAILED) (PROJECT ENGINEER, DOUG BELL)
Commission asked staff on the hospital issue map included, if dividing off the back property on Marco Polo
was separate from this action? Yes.
Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, asked that Item 2a, 379 Lexington Way, Item 2b, 317
Occidental Avenue and Item 2c, 1213 Cabrillo Avenue be moved to the regular action calendar.
C. Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of 1205 Broadway so he would recuse himself from that vote.
Chair Auran moved for a voice vote on Items 2d and 2e on the consent calendar noting that each project is
based on the facts in the staff reports, findings in the staff reports, commissioner’s comments, recommended
conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The project at 1205 Broadway passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal
abstaining; Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent) voice vote. The project at 1783 El Camino Real passed on a
5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi & Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded
at 7:35 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
4
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
2A. 379 LEXINGTON WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION (CHRISTOPHER MAFFEI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; HERMANN
DIEDERICH, ARCHITECT) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated September 12, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no
questions of staff from the Commission.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Hermann Diederich, architect and Chris Maffei, applicant and
property owner represented the project and had no comments. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; project has
five bathrooms; wants condition 7 to include a sewer and sanitary analysis; wants an arborist report for
protection measures for the street tree and for any neighboring landscaping so that it can be protected.
Commission brought to attention of speaker that comments made were concerning 317 Occidental Avenue,
not 379 Lexington Way; speaker recognized confusion and had no further comments. There were no further
comments, the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 31,
2005, sheets A1 through A4 and Landscape Plan sheet L1, date stamped August 31, 2005 and survey date
stamped July 14, 2005 and; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require
and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing
inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural
certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the
approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor
shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building
Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according
to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be
combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from
the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a
Building permit is issued; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall
establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7)
that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 6, 2005 memo, the NPDES Coordinator’s July 7,
2005 memo, the City Engineer’s and Fire Marshal's July 11, 2005 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's
July 13, 2005 memo shall be met; 8) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition
Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a
structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9) that the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,
2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cmrs. Cauchi
& Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
2B. 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
5
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GARY PARTEE,
PROPERTY OWNER, AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report September 12, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked
staff: if the sewer lateral is designed to city standards and if it would accommodate the number of bathrooms
proposed? Yes. Does condition to repair construction damages to curb, gutter and sidewalk areas include
repairs to the street, such as pot holes? Not generally, but it could include street repairs if they are directly
related to that particular construction activity. Does all storm water drain to the street? Yes, it is a standard
requirement for all storm water to be drained to the street.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Gary Partee, property owner, represented the project but had no
comments. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, request that an arborist report be provided that protects the
existing street tree with specific mitigation measures. There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission commented: are there NPDES conditions that include tree protection measures? Do not want to
see Burlingame lose any street trees. Staff suggested having the City Arborist note when he does his plan
check if the tree is in danger and then he could create a condition to require orange netting to protect the
tree. Commission suggests City Arborist take a look at the tree at this location and place a condition of
approval that orange netting be installed around the tree if needed.
C. Osterling moved, with direction to the City Arborist to investigate and require protection of the street tree
if necessary, to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall
be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 7, 2005, sheets A.1
through A.6, and sheet L1.0, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, landscape plan and site survey; and
that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and
that the City Arborist shall review the existing street tree in front of the property and have the property
owner install proper tree protection measures as needed; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the
first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows
and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior
to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall
provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built
as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property
owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted
to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note
compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been
built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all new windows shall be true divided light
wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible;
5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that prior to
scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide
certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection
a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 8) that prior to underfloor
frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various
surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 9) that during demolition of the existing residence, site
preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
6
practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff; 10) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any
grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site
work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
11) that the conditions of the City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official, and Fire
Marshal’s July 8, 2005 memos shall be met; 12) that the project shall comply with the Construction and
Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration
projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of
a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 13) that the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
14) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,
2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the direction to the City Arborist to check
the street tree and require protection if necessary. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cmrs. Cauchi & Keighran
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
2C. 1213 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENGR.,
INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JAN BALDWIN, PROPERTY OWNER) (66 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report September 12, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. James Chu, Applicant and designer, represented the project but had
no comments. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, would like to see an arborist report to protect the street
tree; wants to refer to neighbor’s letter concerning speck houses, this house will be short-changing the
neighbors because no changes were made to the original plans. There were no further comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission commented: follow same advice on arborist report as last project, add same condition
concerning tree protection measures; just because more bathrooms does not indicate a greater usage; Census
shows families in single family homes are smaller in size now.
C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 23, 2005,
sheets A.1 through A.6, and sheet L1.0, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, landscape plan and site
survey; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this
permit; and that the City Arborist shall review the existing street tree in front of the property and have the
property owner install proper tree protection measures as needed 2) that protection measures shall be
incorporated to protect the existing rhododendron along the left side property line, and shall be inspected by
the City Arborist, prior to commencing demolition or construction on the subject property; 3) that any
changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a
dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall
be subject to design review; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer
or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as
window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
7
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of
perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection,
Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials,
window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building
plans; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould
trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be
combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from
the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a
Building permit is issued; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall
shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that
prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the
building footprint; 9) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor
elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 10) 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; 11) that demolition for
removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building
permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District; 12) that the conditions of the City Engineer, Recycling Specialist,
Chief Building Official, and Fire Marshal’s July 8, 2005 memos shall be met; 13) that the project shall
comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected
demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling
requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition
permit; 14) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of
the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Commissioners noted that although they welcome input at public hearing and comment portions of
meetings, there is a difference in the consent calendar where projects are in good shape and already have
been reviewed in detail and discussed by the Commission in a public meeting verses the action calendar.
The study calendar is the best time to provide input on a single-family project.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi
and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m.
3. 1141 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR
SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (REMY SIJBRANT, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; YOUNG AND BORLIK, ARCHITECT) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report September 12, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Remy Sijbrant, applicant and property owner, represented the
project but had no comments. Commission commented: changes have done a lot to improve the design;
only a four bedroom house, do not need to have a 2 car garage, could have a larger backyard; sheet A3.1
shows a structure on the ground? Applicant responded there is a wall there on the left side. Wall not shown
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
8
on landscape plan; plans are greatly improved. There were no further comments and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 1,
2005 sheets A0.1 through A5.1 and ME2.1, ME2.2, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, landscape
plan (on site plan) and mechanical and electrical plan; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the
basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or
changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
Planning Commission review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief
Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal’s memos dated June 23, 2005 shall be met; 4) that
prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and
provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than
the maximum height shown on the plans; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project
architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the
architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the
certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) 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; 7) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of
Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8) 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; and 9) 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. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: the staff report should confirm that the location of the wall is to be shown on all
appropriate elevations of the plans. It’s nice to have bigger back yards, but it’s also nice to have two-car
garages, however often garages are used for storage.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi
and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m.
4. 21 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL
AND RACHEL ZYGAREWICZ, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAVID G. POLLARD,
DESIGNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report September 12, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Michael Zygarewicz, applicant and property, and David Pollard,
designer, represented the project but had no comments. Commission commented: improvement since last
time; worried with some of the detail; will be matching traditional stucco mold window trim details? Yes.
Will the windows be wood? Yes. All such details should be called out on the drawings as a condition of
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
9
approval; would add another tree towards the steps on the left side of the yard to give some height and
screening, recommend using any tree off the City Street Tree List; is there thickness to the wood on the true
divided light windows you are using? Applicant responded yes, the mullions are three dimensional on both
sides of the windows. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 15,
2005, 12 sheets total, site plan, floor plan, building elevations, landscape plan (on site plan) and window
detail sheets, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the
building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that all windows shall be wooden simulated true
divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions; and that a new landscape tree from the city
approved tree list shall be added in the front yard towards the left side to mitigate the height and bulk of the
structure; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior
to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall
provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built
as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property
owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted
to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and
note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and
flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not
visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction
plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed
surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building
Department; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Fire
Marshall and NPDES Coordinator's memos dated May 5, 2005, memos shall be met; 8) that the project
shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and
Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration
projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition
of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 10) that the applicant shall comply
with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added conditions. The motion passed
on a 5-0-2 (Cmrs. Cauchi & Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
8:20 p.m.
5. 1512-1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING, TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND
TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY, 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; THORENFELDT
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
10
CONSTRUCTION, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (142 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN (RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
A. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT
B. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AND TENTATIVE
CONDOMINIUM MAP
Reference staff report September 12, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. She focused on the revisions made since the Commission's last review and
denial without prejudice. Forty conditions including the mitigations from the mitigated negative declaration
were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff from the commissioners.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, Dale Mayer Associates, 851 Burlway Road and
Micheal Callin, landscape architect, presented the project noting that they increased the size of the
affordable unit, provided data comparing this project with the project on Primrose, reduced the deck area on
the forth floor and added low pitched roofs with tile between the third and forth floors and pushed back the
front façade of the forth floor back 6 to7 feet, added wood façade at the third floor to articulate the front of
the building, redesigned the open space providing an interior access from the building and added benches, a
BBQ and sink, and added fences between the private patios and the common open space.
Commissioners asked: will the building be a flat white? Color client wanted is consistent with architectural
style. Open space even with what added does not seem to be a place one wants to go, access to the open
space at the rear is through the patio of one of the first floor units? Added fencing between private units
which face open space, seating provided in the most sheltered area, least visible to other units. There is a
fundamental flaw in the location and access to the open space, it is off the master bedrooms of the adjacent
units, access is through a fire stair/exit, would be better if it had a more gracious access, there is a problem
with the landscaping? The open space area provided is larger than required, more available than in other
projects recently approved, it is handled almost exactly as it is in the Primrose project not recall Commission
having a problem with bedrooms off the open space in that project, put BBQ and sink to the left since there
will be less impact on the units at that location, if commission wants could have use hours for the open space
in the CC and R's, can add pots and plantings if commission wants. People's habits vary so use times
probably not effective, this open space seems to be left over after the foot print of the building was
established and other site needs met. Does the treatment of the stair to the garage at the corner, meet full
height and is it water tight? The stair at the rear has a half wall with a gate by it for safety. Where will the
utility connections be? To the left of the driveway into the garage on the front of the building.
Commission summarized issues:
• building color, this is a large building and there are a lot of colors beside white which fit the
architectural style;
• access to the open space at the rear, used the fire exit, opening through the private open
space of unit 5, with a bench facing unit 5, could break up space and offer a meandering
experience moving from one area to another, may provide more open space than required
but not quality open space, move BBQ and use area to more central location closer to
access, make it less rectal-linear, increase interest;
• Landscaping to reduce scale is an issue, can you plant vines on the stucco walls, if separate
with stucco walls use solid wooden gates on the patios, lot of Italian Cyprus in time begin to
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
11
look shaggy, use vines instead, could grow up building and soften, deciduous vines OK too,
add pattern and fall color;
• The open space should get some direct sun, the landscape pretty shady, can increase number
of shade loving plants;
• could make open space more useable by reducing the size of one unit at the northwest
corner (opposite BBQ), relocate garage access stair to other corner and create a place for
common use rather than use leftover space;
• The aesthetics were very nice, the change to the front works well, the wooden balconies are
too deep, could reduce weight by reducing to 5 feet deep, on the rear elevation the vertical
piece at the exit stair could be coordinated with the columns; and
• open space and impact on adjacent units needs to be addressed, need to improve common
area.
There were no further comments at the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling noted that the architect has come a long way; Planning Commission's direction is clear from
hearing, able to make changes, so move to continue the item to the meeting of October 10, 2005, for the
architect to make changes and resubmit. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: don’t know what direction the applicant got, lot of experience living in tall
buildings in cities, common open space which is narrow and shady is not used, need sun; he meets the
technical open space requirement but the area is not useable, if it were moved to the corner it would feel
more friendly and be more functional. Assume that we are not trying to make the building appreciably
smaller, not using open space to make it smaller.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the meeting of October 10, 2005.
The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent) voice vote. A continuance is not
appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
6. 1101 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A - APPLICATION FOR
AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR COLOR OF THE BUILDING (RIYAD SALMA, APPLICANT; SFL
PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (29 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Vistica noted that he had a previous business relationship with the applicant; he recused
himself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. Commissioner Deal clarified that he can
vote on the application because this is an amendment to a previously approved project and is a separate
application.
Reference staff report September 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission questioned
why condition number 13 is so definitive; shouldn’t applicant have other options after use is changed? Staff
responded that there is a city ordinance that states once a restaurant along Burlingame Avenue has given up
its right as a restaurant and is converted to another use, it cannot go back to a food establishment.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Riyad Salma, applicant, represented the project. He stated that
previously there was not a lot of thought given to the color of the building but that he’s now met with color
consultants and feels that the new proposal is a major improvement to the aesthetics of the building.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
12
Commission asked: plans say there’s no change to the tile, however colors are indicated? When will
restaurant open? Applicant responded that the colors indicated on the plans are for the doors and the
window frames; they are maintaining the existing tile. The restaurant will open as soon as possible. There
were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built with an operable steel sash window system and tile base, as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 2, 2005, sheets A1.1, A2.2, A2.2 and A3.2,
and shall adhere to the color sample of the exterior materials of the building date stamped August 9,
2005; any changes to the colors including the awnings shall require review by the Planning
Commission; 2) that the existing tile base along the bottom edge of the building, including on the
concrete wall on the California Drive facade, shall be retained, repaired and restored as much as
possible; new tile shall be chosen to match the existing tile; 3) that this conditional use permit
amendment for a full service food establishment shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission six
months after the opening date of the business to review any traffic and parking issues which may emerge
from this use; 4) that the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a baseline parking study
within six months of the effective date of the conditional use permit; within six months of the opening
date of the food establishment business on the site, the applicant shall submit a second parking study for
review by the Planning Commission. The permit shall be reviewed and the applicant required to
proposed mitigations if there is a substantial degradation in the availability and use of parking in the
area attributable to a food establishment business at this site or at any time upon complaint; 5) that any
changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or
parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or
pitch, shall be subject to design review; 6) that this business location occupied by a full service food
establishment, with 1,187 SF of on-site seating may change its food establishment classification only to
a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the
criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 7) that the 1,187
SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any
other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 8) that this full
service food establishment may be open Sunday through Thursday, from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and on
Friday and Saturday from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m., with a maximum of 12 full-time employees and 3 part-time
employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; 9) that this food
establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape
improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional
locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 10) that the applicant shall provide
daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the
business, including the parking lot to the rear of the site; and that the business shall provide on site a
trash room designed and sized to accommodate all garbage, trash and recycling from the business as
required by the City and BFI; all trash/garbage shall be removed on a schedule established with the
Health Department; 11) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery
of prepared food from this premise; 12) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a
window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 13) that if this site is changed from any
food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site
and this conditional use permit shall become void; 14) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Chief
Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist’s June 28, 2004, memos shall be met; and
15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Deal.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
13
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 (Cers.
Cauchi and Keighran absent, Vistica abstained). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
9:10 p.m.
C. Vistica took his seat on the dias.
7. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICT
– CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE (40 NOTICED) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 22, 2005
MEETING)
Reference staff report September 12, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report noting
that this item was continued from the previous meeting at the request of the representative of the property at
301/309 Airport, because of the wish to discuss issues relating to height, minimum lot size, minimum street
frontage and land use (allowing medical clinics/health service uses) Only one change was proposed from
the previous meeting and that was to shift extended stay hotels from a permitted to a conditional use.
Commissioners asked that there has been a lot of concern about wind, observe fewer wind surfers in this
area today than two years ago, there are other locations in the county to serve wind surfers, might it be wise
to increase the limit for height covered by a conditional use permit. CP noted that the wind standards which
are driving the height regulations as proposed for this area are established in the adopted plan, community
wind standard section; if they are substantially exceeded the specific plan will need to be amended and that
could trigger a new environmental document on the specific plan. Wasn't the part of the 16 acre site on
Beach Road subdivided off in the past? CP noted that was her understanding, however all the acreage is still
in one ownership.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, and Jim Madden and Tom Gilman
DES Architecture represented the property at 301/309 Airport Blvd.; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; John
Ward, representing the property owners at 350 Airport Blvd.; Tom Baluchi, 114 Stanley Road; all spoke on
the zoning proposal. Owner at 309 Airport wants a development of signature buildings on this site that will
cause people in airplanes and on 101 to want to come and see what's there, need good mix of buildings,
biotech and hotel, market is competitive for these uses in this area today, regulations should say "come to
Burlingame to invest", not much city can do now but maximize flexibility for development, 50 feet too
short, barely 4 stories for Class A office building, minimum 4 acre lot size too big, never seen so large a
requirement in this area-sending a message that cannot optimally divide. Did studies of various lot sizes and
arrangements within 309 Airport parcel, need to sell off buildings individually so need smaller parcels, need
enough flexibility for economic success; biotech buildings have 17' floor to floor, Class A office tight with
12.5' floor to floor; biotech also requires 15 foot penthouse for equipment which can cover 30% to 85%of
the roof area and at grade service areas for gases and other storage of 2,500 to 3,000 SF for each building,
there are covered loading areas and enclosures for trash recycling needed. So want building height and lot
size kept flexible--only way to meet master plan goals. Other communities have minimum lots sizes of
20,000 SF with 100 foot frontages, in order to finance developers have to be able to sell buildings
independently, the market in this area is not for 100,000 SF buildings but for 30,000 SF, so need to be able
to do for economics. Commissioner asked how FAR’s worked, Architect noted that smaller the site the
harder to maximize FAR allowed because of other requirements such as parking and open space. Generally
2 to 3 story buildings have FAR of 0.6 with parking at grade. What is the ideal footprint for biotech?
Generally 25, 000 SF to 30,000 SF per floor, labs need more space, research and development fits in 25, 000
SF. How tall is Gilliard, is it typical? One and two stories, and yes its typical, although Genintech is 5
stories of mixed use. Developer is proposing 3 and 4 stories in order to keep people in the same building;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
14
west coast has taken longer to get people into taller buildings. Commissioner noted that 16 acres provides a
campus opportunity with many small users. Owner wants option to subdivide later for multiple users.
Additional public comment: remember at workshop Buddhist group want to buy 301 Airport and put a hotel
on it, seems like someone tore down the drive-in too soon; wind surfing is a seasonal sport and dependent
upon winds strongest in the Spring and in October, three places to do sport in San Mateo county, County put
in Seal Point Park for wind surfers but behind a hill and no wind, this site attracts development, benefit
from open water, support recreation activities on the bay; not sure want a deadly virus in Burlingame; do not
want taller buildings, am a bicyclist, affected by wind as well; remember that the runway extension closer
to our shores will happen one day as well, this could affect building height; like 4 acre parcels, keep from
subdividing so it will not look like the Beach and Lang Road area, part of taller buildings could be put
under ground, medical uses are not allowed in this area now, does biotech open the door to medical uses?
Represent the 9 acre parcel at 350 Airport, may remember during public hearing on plan owner asked City
Council to consider "time share" ownership; innovative approach to continue strong growth in hospitality
industry, something like extended stay hotel, does not give rise to residential uses average stay is 1-2 weeks;
no plan presently for development on this site, would like to include time share with CUP for extended stay.
Resident recalled public hearing in 1960's and 1970's which called out a vision for the area similar to South
San Francisco, was concerned that the commission did not realize what opportunity the city has on the
Bayfront, there are plenty of places for the wind surfers to go, eventually the runways are going to be built,
have a gold mine at this location, allow developers to do what they want. There were no further comments
from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: compelling issues, need to think more about minimum size and time share; CA
noted that City Council directed staff to look at time share, were waiting for input property owner said was
going to provide, there is no definition or status of ownership known at this time, Council specifically
deferred action at the time of adopting the plan. Height issue is that the specific plan has been adopted,
standard was based on specific site studies and on careful technical analysis by most qualified wind people
in area, from this came the community wind standard, if change is needed, will need to amend the specific
plan (and general plan) and open the current plan document to further environmental analysis. Would like
to give the property owners some leeway over the 50 foot maximum. CA like a maximum number, without
have to do an EIR because of cumulative impact (e.g. effect of wind on water and at grade on adjacent
properties), these wind studies are very expensive, the purpose of the plan standard is to avoid these costly
studies and define what will work. Can revise height over 50 feet that requires a conditional use permit? CA
noted could go to 20 feet maximum and stay within range. Height is based on community standards where
did stories come from? CP noted that the number of stores was put in the design guidelines to illustrate how
the gradient in height caused by the wind standard was to work for development on the site. If wanted to
illustrate height gradient in another way in the plan beside stories that would require a general plan
amendment. Commission noted taking out the stories restriction might be one less restriction. Also need to
look at minimum lot size, 4 acres seems to reduce flexibility, could a Planned Unit Development concept be
used? CA noted that the city does not have a Planned Unit Development ordinance, CP noted that have done
similar in the past (301 Airport office project example) with a phased development plan at approval, actually
gives a longer time frame than a PUD. With PUD the city would have no control over how or what size
parcels would be sold off, but could have more uniform development. Subcommittee focused on a narrower
line of thinking, options within the height, work with the developer, focus on the issues raised. Difficult to
ask developer because he will always want a bigger building, more FAR. Should refer back to
subcommittee for one review; need to appoint third member of subcommittee. Subcommittee might also
consider PUD and its use; need to refer to subcommittee.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
15
C. Vistica moved to continue this item and to refer it back to the subcommittee for further review of the
items raised at this hearing. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Cauchi and Keighran absent). voice vote. Chair Auran appointed C. Vistica to the Bayfront Subcommittee.
This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m.
8. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: PROPOSED
ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT – DENSITY FOR GROUP RESIDENTIAL
FACILITIES CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 212 NOTICED)
Reference staff report September 12, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that
the Commission at their last meeting forwarded the Trousdale West regulation to the City Council without
the provisions for convalescent hospitals and group residential facilities for the elderly. Tonight the hearing
is on separating the regulation of convalescent hospitals from group residential facilities and establishing
different standards for determining density for each, based on the nature of the services offered, the needs of
the clients, and the differing number of employees required for each type of service. Commission asked if
parking numbers shown in letter from Sunrise are similar to city's experience. CP indicated that the proposed
Sunrise project meets city on site parking requirements and we have had no problems with other similar
facilities built in the city based on these on-site parking requirements.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, noted that with current
demographics more people are going to need the service of these facilities and they will not be driving,
using parking to establish density for group residential facilities for the elderly is the right direction to go;
don't think family members visiting will affect the neighbors a lot. There were no further comments from
the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling made a motion to recommend the amendment as proposed in the staff report to the Trousdale
West zoning district regulations for convalescent hospitals and group residential facilities for the elderly to
city council for action.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The motion was seconded by C.
Vistica.
Comment on the motion: using the current on site parking requirements to determine the density of the
group residential facility for the elderly is logical since it is based on the way multiple family residential
densities are established in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts, it is a standard the city has used overtime with
success and no complaints, and, in this area, the proximity to BART insures that some employees will use
mass transit to work rather than bring their cars. This action will facilitate the development of convalescent
hospitals and group residential care facilities for the elderly within this zoning district as support uses to the
hospital, consistent with the specific plan.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the Council for approval the amendment
for group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent hospitals to the Trousdale West zoning
district regulations. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). This item will go
forward to City Council for action. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
9. 110 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CESAR LOZADA, APPLICANT
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
16
AND PROPERTY OWNER; RUDOLFO PADA, DESIGNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERIKA LEWIT
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Cesar Lozada, applicant and property owner; Rudolfo Pada,
designer; Tom Bellucci, 114 Stanley Road; Phil Saglimbeni, 109 Stanley Road. The applicant and designer
had no comments. Existing house has been rented for twenty years, any change would be a significant
improvement; would like to see something that fits in well with the other houses in the neighborhood; would
like adequate screening to be provided in front of the house; would like a roof treatment other then asphalt
shingle.
Commission commented: because this is a new house, a condition should be added that requires all windows
to be simulated true divided light windows; tree shown at right front of the property is more shrub-like then
an actual tree, should refer to City Street Tree List to find larger tree that will provide more height and
screening; what style is this house? Designer followed style of house directly across the street to match the
neighborhood. Poor example to follow in the neighborhood because no overhangs, no exposed rafters,
porch does not integrate well into the front façade, project should include these details; design is ok, not
exciting, but not bad; front entry piece could use some detail; more detail needed on window types, wood
trim, stucco mold and double glaze; should update asphalt shingle to a different shingle with more shadow
lines and a heavier texture such as the Presidential 50 Year Residential Series. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented: the City Arborist should take a look at protection of the street tree out in front and
should look at a new, better defined landscape plan.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following
revisions have been made and plan checked:
• All windows shall be wooden true divided light;
• Tree T-1 shall be replaced with larger trees selected from the City Approved Tree List;
• Add exposed eaves and rafter tails;
• Incorporate the front porch into the front of the building better;
• Provide more defined asphalt shingles with more shadow lines and a heavier texture; and
• Provide a better defined landscape plan including addressing protection of the street tree
during construction.
Comment on motion: project is ok; not fitting in but not that far out.
This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been
revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cmrs. Cauchi & Keighran absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at11:05 p.m.
10. 1718 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT
ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAVID LUNG, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; PAUL NII, PAUL NII ARCHITECTS,ARCHITECT) (37NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
17
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. David Lung, applicant and property owner, and Paul Nii,
Architect, represented the project stating that copies of the plans were delivered to all the neighbors.
Commission commented: the massing is good; appropriate job of placing things; detail on window over
garage and eaves makes it not fit in with the neighborhood and do not match; stone veneer is not integrated
into the façade at all; front porch looks like two big stone monuments with front door in between; concern at
entry door crowding new first floor addition at front; could entry door be centered in that space? Windows
on second story could be coordinated and balanced with relocated entry door; shutter on one side on second
story needs to be coordinated. The architect responded that the two-dimensional elevations are misleading
with regards to the front door entry. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
Commission noted the following items to be addressed:
• project is almost there, just needs eave detail and window on second floor above garage to be
consistent;
• front entry situation should be re-worked and be made wider with door centered to avoid a
cave situation;
• stone work needs to be re-thought;
• remove the half circle windows;
• could gable one of two windows to the right on second story; and
• story poles are important in the hillside area and should be installed, they are not a big
undertaking because of a potential view blockage for neighbors across the street.
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions
have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been
revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:20 p.m.
11. 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN
REVIEW STUDY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT
A TWO-STORY OFFICE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING (FRED
BERTETTA, OLYMPIAN JV, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FARRO ESSALAT,
ARCHITECT) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
CP Monroe presented the project noting that because the scope of the environmental document includes the
envelop of the project, staff has brought this item forward for commercial design review and environmental
scoping. Procedurally, if the design requires adjustment after study the commission can identify the design
issues and determine the process for resolution so that the changes can be included in the environmental
evaluation to avoid having to do the environmental study twice. Commission asked if this building is
eligible for the state historical registry, and if it is are there additional design criteria which must be
addressed? CP noted that part of the historical evaluation for the environmental document would be to
determine if the building was eligible for the state registry, if it was determined to be eligible, then there are
criteria, including physical design criteria, which will need to be met as a part of the environmental review.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
18
The best approach seems to be to come back to the Planning Commission when we know the status of the
building and discuss what needs to be done; hopefully whatever changes might be required can be
incorporated into the project before the environmental document is completed.
Chair Auran opened the public comment for design review and environmental scoping. Mark Hudak, 216
Park Road; Farro Essalat, architect; Bonnie Bertetta, property owner, spoke for the project. Objective of the
project is to preserve the brick building, all other buildings on the site will be removed including the more
recent addition at the rear of the brick building; project presents some challenges: brick building needs
seismic retrofit and ADA accessibility; need to determine the best relationship between the old and the new
placement on the site; how to get the parking on the site without it becoming a detriment. Before could do
any project needed to get clearance from Council about access through public parking lot B-1 adjacent,
Council directed in order to increase city's flexibility in future options for lot B-1, that the project include a
12 foot setback on the west side for a driveway if needed in the future. If the driveway were on site it would
reduce the parking at the rear from 15 to 14 parking spaces, still within code requirements. The applicant
will landscape the 12 foot side setback area. Environmental review issues: don't know how city arrived at
current parking demand numbers and impact of qualifying as a 150645 historic building on project design.
Architect noted that reviewed 6 or 7 options and this is the optimal solution in terms of scale, use of
materials, land , relationship to old brick buildings, situation relative to the sidewalk; intention of new to
create a back drop to the existing brick building, a "quiet" building not vie for attention; materials influenced
by those in brick building, but more contemporary which 'mimic' historic not diminish value. Front setback
is new, designed to provide visual access on three sides of old building; ADA access provided by shallow
ramp in courtyard, combined entrance at center of site. Property owner noted want to build a nice building
will be happy to post renderings on the site.
Commission commented about the project noting the following issues should be addressed in the design:
• at front see tie to original building, but at back the connection to the original is lost
completely, need to find a way to connect, hip roof element or some other component to
bring together;
• thank you for keeping this building, basic concept of seeing three sides is good;
• lot of hard surface on the east side at the parking lot, is there a way to add landscaping or
trees to help the experience of someone going to the building;
• space at the front of the building (lawn area) is not consistent with the development pattern
in the area, is there a better way to do this, to hold the street better?; the elm tree should be
kept, maybe the brick wall as well;
• concerned about the height, could the parapet be lower, the two story glass broken up, the
trellis relates well to the horizontal line on the brick building;
• concerned about the lighting at the rear; like to see a landscaping plan including trees
planted along the parking, there is one Redwood there, could add three there;
• parking spaces at the rear could be landscaped, extend landscaping in fingers into the
parking, also add landscaping to parking lot B-1;
• selection of the actual brick for the new building is very important should be full brick, not
veneer, and should be presented to the planning commission;
• if keep front lawn should be creative with taller shrubs, training vines on the side of the new
building to soften the right side;
• make awning overhang deeper at rear to create more shadow pattern, take awning to right
side on upper floor to break up the side elevation; on west side landscape 12 foot area;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005
19
• concerned about the rear of the building, see a glimpse of the garden center structure, the
rear is lacking need columns like the front, add dentals, add concrete features, horizontal
stripes of clinker bricks;
• landscaping should be part of visual analysis; and
• at the rear stairwell/window and lighting under bench at front should be part of lighting
impact analysis for the environmental study.
C. Brownrigg noted that staff report includes the right issues, there is a significant aesthetic issue with this
project including those identified in tonight's discussion, suggest that the renderings be posted on the site at
the front for passers by to see in the near term; don’t know about historic status at this time, need to have
analysis and determine what criteria will apply; not need to refer to a design reviewer at this time, will come
back when have more information from the environmental study about any historical criteria which will
need to be met and then will determine what more needs to be done to the design in addition to what has
been identified tonight. Motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to include the appropriate comments made tonight in the
scoping for the project and to defer referral or additional comment on the design until more information is
available on the historic status of the existing building and any additional criteria from that which must be
met and might affect the design. The motion was passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent)
voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 12:15 a.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of September 6, 2005.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September 6, 2005. She noted that the
zoning ordinances for the Anza Area, Anza Point South, and Trousdale West have been set by the
Council for second reading and public hearing on September 19, 2005. The amendment to allow
real estate uses on Broadway was also set for second reading and public hearing on September 19,
2005.
- FYI – Review of requested changes to an approved design review project at 270 Chapin Lane.
C. Deal abstained from action on this application and left the chambers. Planning Commission
approved the proposed change to this project.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brownrigg, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\Minutes Template.doc