HomeMy WebLinkAbout092605PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
September 26, 2005
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the September 26, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg and Osterling
Staff Present: Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson
III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 12, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved with one correction on Page 14 regarding Item 7
as follows: Generally 2 to 3 story buildings have FAR of 0.4 0.6 with
parking at grade.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Diane Mason, 1451 Balboa Avenue, wanted to speak to Commission and
neighbors about the tear down of existing houses and the impact on the
neighborhood during the construction process, during the hearing process for
the project at 1453 Balboa, had submitted letters of concerns about privacy,
livability, now under construction looks like it is shoved against our home;
Planning Commission should ask for story poles, when a project is sent to a
design review consultant, they work for the developer not for the neighbor,
no one came to see the impact, as a resident, you need to consider changes to
grade or drainage caused by the project, how it will affect your trees or
shrubs, it’s a good idea to take "before" pictures; expressed concern with
windows looking into living spaces, told to put up shades.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN:
DRAFT ROLLINS ROAD DISTRICT REGULATIONS CITY PLANNER: MARGARET
MONROE/CITY ATTORNEY LARRY ANDERSON
Chair Auran noted that this is a study item and asked Commissioners if they had any comments on the
proposed ordinance. Commissioners asked for clarification for what is meant by "day rooms" for ambulance
services. CA Anderson clarified that this is a waiting area for use by ambulance personnel waiting to
respond to calls for service, similar to what is found at a fire station. Commissioners noted that the hours of
operations for incidental food establishments should be expanded to accommodate the different work
schedules of employees in the area; it was recommended that the hours of operation should be from 5:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commissioners noted that the proposed zoning regulations discuss unified signage
approaches in the Auto Row overlay, would that be a new process. SP Brooks clarified that the signs would
be reviewed under the sign code regulations as they are now. Commissioners asked if there would be
standards for enclosures for outdoor storage areas. CA Anderson noted that the design guidelines and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005
2
conditional use permit process offer tools for review. Commissioners noted the proposed ordinance is in
good shape, should be brought back for action with the minor changes noted. This item concluded at 7:11
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.
2. 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) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER /
MAUREEN BROOKS
Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. There were no requests. C. Keighran noted that she lives within 500 feet of 1524 Columbus
Avenue so she would recuse herself from that vote.
C. Deal moved to approve the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and
it passed 4-0-1-2 (C. Keighran abstaining; Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 1021 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (FARSHID SAMSAMI,
APPLICANT; SAMUEL KWONG, ARCHITECT; KWANG PAK, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report September 26, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Samuel Kwong, architect, was available to answer questions,
thanked staff for assistance with processing this project, noted that the design review consultant was very
helpful, Commission's comments and concerns have been addressed on the revised plans, most notable
change is on the front façade with the addition of a covered porch, which adds articulation along the front of
the house, second floor deck at the rear of the house was eliminated, an additional tree was added in the rear
yard for additional screening, window trim was reduced and landscaping was modified. Commission noted
that the front porch is a big improvement to the project but that there are several concerns which still need to
be addressed.
Virginia Wiemers, 1469 Bellevue Avenue #506, representing a property directly behind this project on
Cabrillo Avenue, concerned with the back wall of the garage being so close to property line, appreciates the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005
3
removal of the second floor balcony at the rear of the house. There were no further comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission noted the following items to be addressed:
▪ concerned with the depth of the front porch, only 2'-10", it is very narrow and should be made more
substantial; porch should be revised to be at least 5'-0" in depth;
▪ concerned with the size of the knee braces proposed, they are appropriate to this design but appear
too small, house will look odd with miniaturized knee braces, should look at the proportion, feel they
should be bigger;
▪ knee braces should also be added to the gable end at the stairway on the North Elevation;
▪ clarify if glass panels are proposed in garage side-access door; if so, a conditional use permit will be
required for a window within 10'-0" of property line;
▪ consider adding mullions to the sliding doors on the West Elevation consistent with the proposed
mullion patterns on the windows;
▪ concerned with proposed half-timbering on the gable above the front door, seems out of place for the
proposed style, consider using a specialized knee brace, the diagonal design is not compatible;
▪ concerned with the design of the chimney on the North Elevation, still looks short and stubby,
should make it proportionally taller, stone veneer works well;
▪ vent on the rear wall of the garage needs to be eliminated to comply with building code
requirements; and
▪ it appears that the garage eaves adjacent to the side and rear property lines do not comply with the
building code requirements, may have to pull eaves back, can use barge rafters to create the same
look as an eave.
Commission comment: feel that house can be revised to accommodate a larger porch, project is now 141 SF
below maximum allowed FAR, there is enough room to enlarge the porch.
C. Auran made a motion to continue this item to the October 24, 2005, consent calendar at a time when the
suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Brownrigg and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
4. 1416 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CATHERINE ANDERSON, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; CLEMENT & EVA HUNG PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
Reference staff report September 26, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff
to clarify the proposed building height, is it 32'-2" or 31'-11"? Staff verified that with the revised plans, the
proposed height is 32'-2". There were no further questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005
4
Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Catherine Anderson, designer, was available to answer questions.
Commission noted that the project has improved, overall design concept has always been good, but that
there are several concerns which still need to be addressed.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Mrs. Sperman, 1417 Balboa Avenue and Mrs. Leri, 2701 Hillside Drive,
expressed concerns with the project; there are a number of neighbors here tonight that are concerned with
the proposed height of the building, read and submitted letter expressing concerns from Donna Cerna, 1457
Balboa Avenue, concerned about new development changing the face of Burlingame, urge Commission not
to approve special permit for height, proposed house is located on the highest point of Balboa Avenue,
discussed the project with a friend who is a contractor and felt that the house will be massive, concerned
with drainage from the increase in amount of roof area, most of the flat roof is over a hallway and laundry
room, don't think a 12'-0" high ceiling is needed above these areas, roof looks like it was chopped off,
proposed house is three times as large as the existing house; concerned that many new houses being built are
not owner occupied but rather proposed by developers, would like to see story poles installed showing the
envelope of the building, this is a modest block, the street is narrow and therefore the houses appear closer
to each other, this street is a Fire Department emergency route but is rarely used because the street is so
narrow; would like to see the second floor pushed further back despite its' 20' front setback, complicated
roof pattern and rolling roof at front of house will be in your face, could move bulk of second floor towards
the rear since there is more open space at the rear of the lot; house is so tall and will be close to side property
line there is not enough room to use a ladder to clean gutters; look at all other Tudor style houses in the
neighborhood and none of them had this much roof area; live across the street from this house, this block has
changed dramatically with all of the recent construction, feel like we have been living on a construction site
for the last 2-3 years, houses in Burlingame are getting bigger and taller, new houses are not compatible
with the existing houses; developers are building big massive houses, living in a building bonanza, seems to
be construction on every block in the city, houses being built are too big for the lots, there should be a
moratorium on building new houses to stop and evaluate what is going on, it is getting out of hand; the 1400
block of Balboa has a potential of four houses to be built at the same time, this should be taken into
consideration; talked to the property owners about the project, would not object to the project if no
exceptions to the code were requested. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission noted the following items to be addressed:
▪ concerned about the amount of flat roof on the building, there is something wrong when there are so
many flat roofs on a Tudor style;
▪ there are still discrepancies between the floor plans, for example at staircase with windows, check
roof plans and building elevations, need to review all plans again to make sure all inconsistencies are
corrected;
▪ shading technique on building elevations hides the details in the design, there is a lack of
information, can't see the details on the exterior of the building, need more delineation;
▪ concerned with having a consistent plate height in an English Tudor style, makes the second floor
appear more massive, should consider varying the plate height for a more authentic look;
▪ height, mass and bulk can be diminished by reducing some plate heights; and
▪ front and rear elevations work well, but side elevations are too massive.
Commission comment: noted that the same set of rules apply to a property owner or developer, cannot
differentiate between the two; we have special permits for building height for situations where the lot slopes
upward, it is appropriate in this case, the architectural style of the house could be negatively impacted if this
house were to be restricted to 30' in height.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005
5
C. Deal made a motion to send this project back to a design review consultant with direction provided. The
motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this project to a design review consultant. The
motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 8:15 p.m.
C. Vistica thanked the neighborhood residents for coming to the public hearing and for being involved in the
process.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
5. 1461 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, MARK & ILKA HOSKING,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mark Hosking, property owner, and Jerry Winges, architect, were
available to answer questions, property owner noted that he has been a Burlingame resident since 1962,
would like to build a new house and maintain large rear yard for his children, would also like to preserve
trees on site, a detached garage would reduce the rear yard space and would eliminate several trees.
Architect provided a handout with neighborhood information, summarized how the project complies with
the five aspects of the residential design guidelines, feels design is compatible with the neighborhood and
fits in well, footprint is smaller than other houses on the block, proposing smaller footprint to preserve
greenery on site, giving up 400 SF with this project because a detached garage is not proposed, using steep
roofs with dormers to get more light and air, this is an eclectic neighborhood, using varying plate heights to
keep the scale and mass down, using true divided light windows throughout; requesting a special permit to
preserve the steep roof design, feel that the proposed landscape design enhances the property, the rear yard
landscaping was designed around the existing oak tree; property owner would like to have an attached
garage, attached garage will have two separate carriage style wooden doors, each door is slightly different in
style and are offset by 3'-6", plate height at the garage is brought down to reduce impact of the attached
garage, left side of house is set back further to reduce impact on that neighbor, driveway on the adjacent
property to the right provides separation between the houses, noted that there is a neighborhood pattern of 8
foot separation between houses.
Commission comment: architect has done a good job with the design, handout references several newer
houses built with attached garages, these houses with attached garages caused design review to come about,
concerned that this proposal is still a two story house with an attached two-car garage facing the street and
that it sets a precedent for future development, the massing is the same whether an attached or detached
garage is proposed, also noted that several of these houses in the handout are smaller houses with attached
single car garages; feel that the attached garage has been designed to fit in with the house and works really
well, rationale for using an attached garage is strong, will preserve trees and backyard space, impact of this
house is much less than the previous house reviewed tonight. Commission asked the architect if he found
anything in the zoning code which was troublesome to work with? Architect noted that he feels a nice house
was designed within the zoning code, it was a challenge but ended up with good results. Commission asked
why two different style door are being proposed for the garage? Architect noted that he looked at many
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005
6
options, this seemed to work best. Commission noted that the staggered garage doors and each door being a
different style makes the garage fit in well, not usually a proponent of attached garages but this design works
really well, house is articulated well, varying plate heights makes the house appear less massive, appreciate
the large amount of landscaping proposed and that the driveway is single-wide at the entrance and widens to
double-wide near the garage; use of two different style garage doors looks odd. Commission asked if garage
doors will be natural wood? Yes. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions
have been made and plan checked:
▪ Concerned with plain front entry opening, needs to be articulated better, add more detail and show
front door on building elevation.
This motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Comment on the motion: attached two-car garage dominates the front façade, concerned that houses with
attached garages change the neighborhood, do not want to set a precedent, what do we say to the next
applicant with a similar proposal, in the past many project with attached garages were denied and they were
steered in a different direction; do not usually like to see attached garages, but in this design the garage
doors are staggered, traditional carriage style doors are proposed and landscaping is incorporated well,
zoning allows for staggered garage doors, the design is well executed and a substantial front setback is
provided.
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 4-1-0-2 (C. Deal dissenting; Cers. Brownrigg and
Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded
at 8:41 p.m.
6. 2412 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JAMES WONG,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, ALVIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. James Wong, architect, was available to answer questions.
Dr. Hsiao Lieu, 2415 Hale Drive; Susan May, 2408 Hale Drive; Faina Medzonsky, 2414 Hale Drive; and
Stan Clark, 2501 Poppy Drive, expressed concerns with the project; moved to this block because of its
charm, this house will take the charm away, lot slopes upward from the sidewalk, concerned with the bulky
front façade, it will be monstrous, house design and height does not blend in with the neighborhood; there
are no trees on the lot to screen the addition; concerned that the garage will not be used for parking, cars
parked in driveway will diminish the front yard space; City has changed from a modest town to one of the
most desirable places on the Peninsula, concerned that the addition will eliminate natural light into our
kitchen and master bedroom, design is not in keeping with the existing houses on the block, there is no
landscaping proposed to mitigate the addition, concerned with the new front door location along the side of
the house being 10' from our window, concerned with drainage because our house is downhill, respect the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005
7
right to improve the property but want to make sure it is compatible with the neighborhood, also want to
make sure tree on property line will remain; would like to know what the purpose is for having a door on the
rear of the house, does not allow access to the rear because of the railing, why are more windows proposed
at the rear of the house? There were no other public comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission noted the following items to be addressed:
▪ have serious concerns with the project and consistency with the neighborhood; front façade, design
style, massing and details are inappropriate;
▪ front façade is very vertical and does not match the rest of the house, this looks like an addition, does
not blend in well;
▪ proposed handrail is contemporary and not compatible with the traditional style in this
neighborhood;
▪ concerned with the relocation of the entry from the front to the side;
▪ concerned with the lack of windows on the right side elevation on the second floor, too many blank
walls, need to add more windows and break up the mass; also concerned with the small section of
roof extending to right of chimney;
▪ window treatments on front elevation don't match the side and rear elevations; window style needs to
be consistent throughout;
▪ concerned with gables ends on the front façade while the rest of the house contains hip roofs;
existing house is a sequence of hipped roofs working up the hill;
▪ want to make sure that architect understands that a major redesign is required to address
Commissions' concerns, do not want to see this project come back with minor changes;
▪ concerned with 9'-0" plate height on second floor, gives extra height and creates a layer cake look;
▪ would like to see additional large scale landscaping at the front, at least 1-2 additional trees chosen
from the city's tree list, should consult with the City Arborist on the appropriate species;
▪ gently sloped roofs are not appropriate, concerned with the vocabulary of the arched windows; and
▪ discourage use of stucco trim around windows, should use a traditional wood stucco mold.
C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the direction given. This motion was
seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on motion: have noted a lot of the concerns on the plans, staff should forward these plans with
notes to the architect and design review consultant, suggest design review consultant also listen to the
meeting tapes to make sure he understands all comments, design approach is not cognizant of the design
review guidelines, need to carefully study these guidelines and incorporate them into the project.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction.
The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m.
7. 1604 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR GARAGE WIDTH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SIZE OF GARAGE FOR A NEW,
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE (RANDY
GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, GORDON & RANDI MURRAY, PROPERTY OWNERS)
(36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005
8
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, was available to answer questions, noted
that this is a large lot, more than twice the size of a standard lot size, new property owners like the large lot
and its proximity to downtown, decided to build a new house because the existing house is in bad shape,
tried not to make the house too massive, looks more like a 1½-story house, wanted to keep the existing
bungalow feel but also vary the style a little, proposing more of an arts and crafts bungalow style; lot is over
70 feet wide, feel that the three-car garage with staggered doors is appropriate to this larger lot and is
compatible with the style of the house; owners wanted to keep the existing maple tree at the front, but the
arborist report recommends that it should be removed.
Commission comment: architect has done an excellent job, massing has been handled well, and this is an
appropriate design for the neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions
have been made and plan checked:
▪ Suggest that the architect consider adding a clipped gable over the set of three windows along the
right side elevation towards the rear of the house to match the other clipped gable on the same
elevation; and
▪ Landscaping in front yard needs to be enhanced, should add one large scale tree in front yard,
consult with landscape designer to choose a species which would be most appropriate.
This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
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 (Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:13 p.m.
8. 1123 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, MARK & CAROLYN QUILICI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (66
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, Mark and Carolyn Quilici, property
owners, were available to answer questions, architect noted that this is a difficult house to add onto, addition
will be an improvement to the house, the front façade will be enhanced, side setback variance to extend an
existing nonconforming wall would be a minor modification if no other Planning Commission review was
required, 3' side setback is common in this neighborhood, others have extended their nonconforming walls
similar to what is proposed. Commission asked the applicant if they had considered eliminating the side
setback variance by jogging the new wall in to meet the side setback requirement. Applicants note that they
feel strongly about keeping the 3' setback rather than extending further into the rear yard, the additional foot
would provide the needed space in the living room, felt it wouldn't be a problem since so many others in the
neighborhood have built similar additions. Commission noted that in order to approve the variance there has
to be a hardship, but also noted that the request to encroach into the side setback is typically a minor
modification, is only a variance because Commission review is required for design review. There were no
other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005
9
Commission comment: side setback variance is for an extension of an existing side setback which would be
considered a minor modification, this is a minor encroachment into the side setback, proposed addition
compliments the existing architecture; the existing garage is 18'-2" in length and can still accommodate a
car, would be a hardship to the property owners to ask them to increase the existing length.
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with no changes recommended. This
motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on the motion: staff should include a condition of approval which states that the side setback and
parking variances shall only apply to this residential building and shall become void if the building is ever
expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar as the project is
proposed with the added condition regarding the variances. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers.
Brownrigg and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This
item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
9. 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED M-1 – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND
DESIGN REVIEW STUDY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND
EXCEPTIONS TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD
SPECIFIC PLAN FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR
THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY AND SPCA (KEN WHITE, PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY
& SPCA, APPLICANT, GEORGE MIERS & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT, HENRY HORN & SONS,
PROPERTY OWNER) (14 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked about the determination that the
aviary count in the floor area ratio, is it just netting over a frame. Plr Hurin noted that it is fixed netting
supported by a painted tube steel metal frame. Commissioners noted that they understood that there are CC
& R's which cover this area that do not allow metal on the building and require fire walls within twenty feet
of any structure. CA Anderson noted that CC&R's are not something that the City is concerned with, City is
not a party to the CC&R's so it is a matter between property owners to resolve.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Ken White, President of the Peninsula Humane Society and
George Miers, architect made a presentation, displayed a model of the proposed building and presented a
materials board showing the proposed building materials. It was noted that this is not like a typical "dog
pound" of the past, it would be one of two facilities operated by the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA,
animal control would not occur at this site; there are similar facilities in Walnut Creek, Oakland and San
Diego, most of the activities are indoors, there will be no spay/neuter clinic; the habitat for animals are in
individual rooms. Regarding the height, the conditional use permit is required for the screen wall being
placed around the mechanical equipment on the existing building, it will not be any higher than the
equipment which it will screen. The initial analysis of parking was done based on the overall floor area,
however, based on similar facilities and actual space occupied by people, believe the facility won't need as
much parking. The construction methods used will attenuate the noise of dogs barking, shouldn't be able to
hear them from the adjacent sidewalk, special mechanical equipment is used for the animal areas which will
reduce the emission of odors.
Commissioners asked what types of locations are typical for these types of facilities. The architect noted
that the facility in Walnut Creek is located in a business park which includes high tech labs, a college and a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005
10
daycare facility and they coexist well, in Dublin, there is housing directly across the street and in San Diego,
it is in a residential area. Commissioners asked how noise will be attenuated, what precautions do you take,
what about odor control? The architect noted that they use a two-fold approach; in this environment, the
dogs are not as stressed out; the dogs are in individual rooms, there is very little barking; second, there are a
series of features, such as sound walls and glazing, designed into the construction to provide soundproofing,
there will be sound walls between each animal room as well, all dog handling facilities are interior and have
their own HVAC system, there are twelve air changes per hour, all animal areas will use outside air and
there will be no recirculation of air, all air will be exhausted to the roof where it is screened and the air is
filtered with either carbon or HEPA filters; animals are in sealed rooms with insulated glass, only two dog
rooms are next to an exterior wall, and double glazing is used there and elsewhere.
Commissioners asked about traffic, how many cars do you expect at various hours, how many people at a
time will come to events, how does this facility compare to other facilities as far as the parking demand and
what is provided. Mr. White noted that most of the uses which generate heavy traffic such as the
spay/neuter clinic and lost and found will stay at the existing facility near Coyote Point, in addition to the
volunteer and staffing needs of 30 parking spaces at peak hours, there are expected to be at most 20
additional cars in the lot, for a total demand of 50 parking spaces and 62 spaces are proposed. The Dublin
site is most comparable and has 30 parking spaces, most of the time there is available space, one of the other
sites has 80 parking spaces, but there are more events held at that site than there will be here; the public
hours at the existing site are 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., propose that the hours at the new site will be 10:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m., the peak hours on weekends are 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and on weekdays they are
between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Commissioners asked about the classes, will buses be used to shuttle the
children to the site from schools; the plans show an area for special event planning, what will that be used
for? The applicant noted that the programs will be after-school and parents will drop of the children, the
people working with the children will be trained professionals; the special events planner will work on fund
raising, however the special fund raising events will not take place at this site, except for some minor, 15
person events.
Further Commission questions: How will the dog/habitat areas be cleaned and how will the waste be dealt
with? The waste is taken care of in the same way as human waste, there will be a built in cleaning system
with a recessed connection in the wall, a hose plugs in and the area is power sprayed using chemical
cleaners, the surfaces are epoxy resin and are durable. The animal rooms are under negative pressure, so air
goes into the room when the door opens, the chemicals used are similar to household bleach.
Commissioner questions continued: The model shows the same color glass in the existing building and the
new, will they match, are the use of angles to differentiate the new from old, how important are they to the
design; wonder about use of corrugated metal, would you consider using textured metal similar to what was
used on the Moscone Center, what will the finish be on the animal shapes? The architect noted that they are
not proposing to change the glazing of the existing building, the new building will have green tinted
windows, the lower portion of the existing building will be clad with sandstone to match the new building.
The architect noted that the angles are very important to him as a designer, angles were used because it felt
better by connecting and yet pulling away the massing. It is proposed that the corrugated metal will be
painted three colors; the finish on the animal shapes will be a durable shop painted finish such as powder
coating.
Public Comments: David Moutoux, 1400 Rollins Road; Herman Christensen, 1429 Rollins Road; Gary
Goldberg, 25 Edwards Court; Albert Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road/1400 Marsten Road; Steve Porter, 887
Mitten Road; Eric Lundquist, 1384-1390 Rollins Road; Jack Kuechler, 40 & 50 Edwards Court; and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005
11
Geraldine Leri, 2701 Hillside Drive, spoke and expressed the following concerns with the project: have
concerns about the project relocating to Rollins Road, should verify the number of animals passing through
this facility, the Peninsula Humane Society web site states that 20,000 animals per year pass through the
Coyote Point facility, projections for this site are 5000, need to account for difference in numbers; question
if this is a use that is compatible with the balance of uses in the M-1 District, seems to exclude boarding
facilities, this is a unique use in Burlingame and is not in keeping with others in the area; regulations state
that uses should be contained in a structure and noise levels should not increase by more than 5dba at
property line, but the sound of a dog barking is 70 decibels, seems that it will certainly exceed standards;
dog barking would be aggravated by noise from ambulances and fire trucks which operate in the vicinity.
Public comment continued: need to look at on-site parking, feel more spaces are needed, concerned about
the amount of animal waste which will be disposed of via the sewer system; served on a committee to revise
zoning regulations, this is not an appropriate use, not what was envisioned, pictures shown are of facilities
on larger parcels, there are outside uses proposed close to the street, will contribute to problems with noise,
odor and parking; it is already difficult to park on Edwards Court, with the project it will be a bigger
problem, the model shows tall trees, it will take many years for trees to grow to mask the building;
concerned about the height of the building, concerned about safety, there is a lot of traffic on Rollins Road
and it is difficult to get to the proposed parking area, people may park on Rollins Road and it is not safe for
children; if you look at the housekeeping at the SPCA today, can see chemical storage, debris boxes, debris
at front door, didn't see any of the other facilities that had animals outside; when dogs are walking through
the parking structure and bark, it will echo, the hard surface proposed will make it worse; employees in this
area like to eat outside, now get smells from Guittard chocolate that come across the freeway, Planning
Commission should consider odors and noise; concerned with the lack of parking spaces on site, there could
be 100 people in the classrooms, there was a fatality on Rollins Road this year, it is very unsafe, there are no
stop signs; concerned with aesthetics, it is not compatible, should consider adding to their existing facility;
operate a manufacturing facility adjacent to the north of this site, have many delivery trucks which use the
shared access easement between the two properties, will be traffic conflicts with parent arriving with
children when workers are leaving businesses, they won't be looking out for children and animals crossing
the street; plans look nice, but it looks like more thought was given to people than to animals, animals need
fresh air, might want to look at another, larger site.
Chair Auran noted that a petition had been submitted with about 40 signatures, as well as letters from David
Moutoux, Albert Guibara, Henry Kuechler, Joe Gurkoff and James Hannay. There were no other comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners noted that the following issues should be addressed in the environmental review process:
▪ Add an analysis of the chemicals used, the amount of waste generated and the impact on the sewer
system;
▪ Would like to see comparative information regarding noise levels and odors at the facilities
mentioned in the presentation;
▪ Comparison of floor area and lot coverage of the other examples shown; and
▪ Parking analysis should look at the other facilities, compare parking provided and size of facilities as
well as comparison of programs and services offered.
C. Deal made a motion to defer comment on the design of the project until after the environmental document
is complete and questions are answered. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005
12
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to defer design review comments until the environmental
studies are complete. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Osterling absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:15 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of September 19, 2005.
SP Brooks reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September 19, 2005, noting that there were
several zoning items acted on by the Council on the consent calendar, including Anza Area and Anza Point
South zoning, amendment to Broadway Commercial Area to allow real estate uses, and Trousdale West
Zoning. In addition, it was noted that the Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision regarding the
off-premise signs at 1400 Burlingame Avenue.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Deal, Acting Secretary