HomeMy WebLinkAbout012604PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California
January 26, 2004
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the January 26, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling ; C. Vistica arrived at 7:32 p.m.
Absent: Commissioners: Vistica
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan
III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 12, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were reviewed and two amendments requested. First that Item
2, page 2 lines 16 to18: should read “Concerned that with 30% lot coverage
will cause all houses adjacent on the emerged lots to look the same, how will
we insure variation among the new houses, would prefer a sliding scale so
that one is 100% of the permitted FAR, the second 80% 90% permitted FAR
and third 75% 80% of the permitted FAR”, commissioner also asked for a
variety of revisions to Item 8, pages 8 – 11. Because these changes were
throughout the section the revisions will be attached to the minutes of the
January 26, 2004, meeting for Commission action. At that time the action
would be to correct the minutes of the January 12, 2004, meeting. With this
direction the commission approved the January 12, 2004, meeting minutes
including the correction to Item 2 and deferring approval of the corrections to
item 8 until the commission’s next meeting, February 9, 2004.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE (GRAM REALTY, INC., APPLICANT; S.J. SUNG & ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECT; CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HURIN
Plnr. Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Staff noted that applicant will only be using 7,464 SF
of the 13,995 SF tenant space, remaining 6,531 SF will be subleased to another tenant, who has not been
identified at this time. A separate conditional use permit will be required if the future tenant is a real estate
or financial institution.
Commissioners asked:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
2
• Hours of operation during the week are listed as 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but state agents may be
using office after hours, proposed hours of operation should reflect full extent of use;
• 64 agents plus 5 full-time employees is 69 employees total, at 1 parking space per 300 SF this entire
tenant space is allocated 47 spaces, but this tenant would occupy 60% of the space and with a few
customers on-site and 45-43 agents the entire allocation of parking for this suite would be used up,
how will parking be provided for other sub-leaser in this suite;
• Are the agents independent contractors that lease space or do they work for the applicant; how many
hours are they on-site; how many realtors are full time and how many are part time; how many hours
a week do they work, is this main source of employment for these contractors or do they do real
estate in addition to other employment;
• With number of people listed on application there would be 1 person per 100 SF, would need three
times the required parking as required by code not including the sub-leased space;
• How often do clients come to the site, and how many are expected at one time;
• Will agents meet clients at this site and carpool to look at properties; and
• What time of day do clients come to the site.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:12 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.
2A. 147 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND REAR
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROCQUE YBALLA,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SANDRA JIMINEZ, DESIGNER) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
2B. 1235 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENT (GYMBOREE CORPORATION, THOMAS
DULICK, GYMBOREE CORPORATION, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KIRKBRIDE C/O HENRY
HORN & SONS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (31 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. There were no requests.
Regarding 147 Loma Vista Drive, a Commissioner noted that the applicant is required to plant trees it the
public right-of-way behind the property, and asked CA Anderson if these trees are required to be removed
at any time in the future will the applicant be required to pay for the removal? CA Anderson replied that it
depends on the reason for the removal, would have to pay if the removal were the result of an action by the
property owner. Commissioner recently drove down Skyline and noted that the proposed landscaping in the
park easement will be a valuable addition to Skyline Boulevard.
C. Keighran moved approval of 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. Auran. Chair called for voice vote on the motion and it passed
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
3
6-0-1 (Cers. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 1605 SANCHEZ 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 (GAIRD SCHLESINGER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
WILLIAMSON CHAVEZ DESIGN, DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
BARBER
Reference staff report January 26, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Gaird Schlesinger, property owner, was available to answer any
question. Lori Zimmerman, 1614 Forestview Avenue, lives behind subject property. Concerned with
application because of construction hours. Submitted letter to Planning Commission that details
construction hours agreement reached with applicant. He agreed to limit construction to 7:00 a.m. to 3:30
p.m. during the week, with some work going until 5:30 p.m.. Support project. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: nice job on design, will blend in nicely with the neighborhood, good example of
design in the City; addressed concerns from the last meeting; thanks for talking with the neighbor.
C. Keighran 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 January 20,
2004, sheets S1, S2 and A1 through A4, site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan; 2)
that in addition to the limitations imposed by the City’s regulations regarding construction hours, the
applicant has made an agreement with the neighbor that construction on weekends will be limited to interior
work, and construction on weekdays will cease no later than 5:30 p.m.; 3) that any increase to the habitable
basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would
include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a
dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of
the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official’s, Recycling Specialist’s and Fire Marshal’s dated August 25,
2003 shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, and set the building envelope; 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; 7) 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; 8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff shall 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; 9) 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; 10) 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
4
a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11) that the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
12) 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. Auran.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Vistica
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:21 p.m.
4. 1449 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK
ROBERSTON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CON BROSNAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report January 26, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Cers. Brownrigg noted he
was absent at study meeting, wishes to abstain on this item.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, project designer, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo,
took ideas from action meeting, changed rear design, added single story element, changed finish from stucco
to lap siding. Commissioner noted that at the last meeting applicant was asked to reduce FAR by 10%, not
just change architectural elements, although concern was also expressed about the mass. Have been through
this design review process two times for this project, floor area was reduced on first round; when bought
calculated on using standard code allowable FAR, at the last meeting some Commissioners thought FAR
was o.k., so thought 10% reduction was a suggestion. This is a basic five bedroom five bathroom house,
hard to reduce, but changed stucco to siding to reduce the mass and not have so much stucco. Commission
asked applicant to explain what else was done to reduce the mass. Applicant noted that first floor element
was added on the north and south elevations where the original plan had two-story element on the north and
south elevations, stepped back the sides of the house. Commission commented that every bedroom has a
bathroom and that the square footage has only been reduced by 40 SF, but that the mass and bulk has been
broken up. The back of the house was re-designed and resulted in a 40 SF reduction. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Cers. Vistica arrived 7:32 p.m.
Commission discussion: Sheet 5.1 shows the proposed ridge height in relation to the two adjacent houses,
appears to fit in with the neighborhood, would like to see this type of drawing on all plans; project has been
redesigned to break up large flat surface, rear has a lot of interest; why are there 5 bedroom and 5
bathrooms, not necessary, has been designed from inside out instead of working from the outside; applicant
has come a long way, design review process works, would still like to see 10% reduction, but they have
articulated the mass; landscape plan lacks large scale materials, front yard two trees are proposed, but
Japanese Maple next to driveway will be small for a while, need larger tree like Evergreen Pear, would fit
better with larger tree, would suggest a second in the front yard; in the back there is a Strawberry Tree
proposed, but it is really a shrub, backyard screening is light, house is large need to see larger plant material;
stated at last meeting FAR was not an issues, applicant has addressed design issues by using clap board
siding and stone, better than stucco, single story element adds articulation, there are plenty of applications
with floor area that is not 10% below the maximum that are approved that don’t look massive and bulky,
applicant has addressed concerns with changes; nice front porch, there is a two car garage that is over 400
SF, so the usable floor area is 2,760 SF, size has been reduced, o.k. with project; tough one, bothered by size
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
5
and floor area, almost at maximum allowable size despite concerns raise at last meeting, close to infringing
on design review criteria to be too big for the neighborhood, need to bring FAR limit to City Council’s
attention for discussion; can see justification for height exception, sloping lot and from rear height is 25’,
blends with houses on either side, superficial response to comments; concerns with bulk and mass
addressed, two-story walls around most of house except at rear where single story element introduced.
C. Visticia 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 January
9,2004, Sheets 1 thru 6, site plan, floor plans, roof plan and building elevations; with a maximum floor area
ratio of 3,301 SF; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the 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; 4) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Official’s, Recycling Specialist’s, Fire Marshal’s, City Arborist’s and the
City Engineer’s September 15, 2003 memos shall be met; 5) 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; 6) 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; 7) 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; 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; 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 and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion
was seconded by C. Keighran.
Discussion on the motion: like clap board siding, still large mass, but made good changes; design review
process works.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers.
Brownrigg abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
5. 1129 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; JEFF AND DIANE FELTMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report January 26, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Diane Feltman, property owner, 1129 Clovelly Lane, stated that
they have tried to maximize their existing space instead of adding on the back, though it would be a less
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
6
intrusive addition and would match the existing house at the front. Commission asked the applicant what is
the hardship for the front setback variance? Jerry Deal, JD & Associates, 1228 Paloma, explained that the
existing house was built many years ago, with this floor plan it is very hard to put an addition on the back
because of the location of the dining room and the kitchen, would be a large project to remove and relocate
these rooms to add a family room at the rear, project is matching existing 17’ setback, don’t need a variance
without the porch, but porch is a nice design element, want to keep porch. Commission asked if applicant
looked at option to add where the deck is located at rear or considered a second story addition. Jerry Deal
noted that there were no drawings done for addition at deck, but yes explored rear option, owner is not
interested in second story addition. Commission noted that if 18” is removed off of front then the variance
goes away, won’t impact the design, there is no hardship other than re-doing drawings. Diane Feltman and
Jerry Deal responded that they thought the roofline would look better without cutting back 18”,
architecturally it is the best solution to keep the porch as designed without 18” cut back. Commission asked
if the hardship had to do the with current construction and design of the present home, are you trying to
retain that with the current design. Jerry Deal replied that is the exact intent of this project. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Keele moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that
the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped
December 10, 2003, sheets 1-5, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall
require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the front setback variance shall only apply to this building and
shall become void if the building is ever demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for
replacement; that the intrusion into the front setback shall only be retained as a front porch and shall be
enclosed; 3) that protective fencing, based on a licensed arborist's written recommendations as approved by
the City Arborist, shall be installed around the existing 18-inch diameter tree in the front yard prior to any
demolition, material/equipment staging on site and issuance of a building permit, and shall be maintained at
the required location until the final inspection has been completed; 4) that the conditions of the City
Engineer’s December 15, 2003 memo shall be met; 5) 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; 6) that during demolition of
the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all
applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent
erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 7) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Discussion on the motion: Six years ago there was a similar approval on a porch, porch is much less impact
than a wall, proposal will keep integrity of the design; can not support the motion, there are other
architectural solutions to keep architecture of the house; there is no exceptional hardship with this proposal,
can’t support; proposal is not making the variance worse, is not exacerbating the variance, expansion is not
bringing the building any closer to property line than it already is, it is also a porch which is open, not a
closed wall, better than extending into the back yard.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with the conditions as amended. The
motion passed on a 5-2-0 (Cers. Keighran and Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 8:00 p.m.
6. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN – PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON DRAFT BAYFRONT
PLAN AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
7
COUNCIL. (201 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN BROOKS
Reference staff report 1/26/04, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed the reasons for
the update of the plan, and gave a brief summary of its purpose and contents. Commissioners asked if there
were changes to make to the plan, such as increases in density, does the environmental document need to be
revised. SP Brooks noted that based on the direction given by the Commission, the analysis for traffic
circulation assumed a maximum of 800 dwelling units for residential development, and if the density were
increased, that portion of the analysis would have to be revised. The impact on the environmental report
would have to be decided when the effects were determined. Commissioners asked staff to explain the
future projects proposed for U.S. 101, specifically the Broadway and Peninsula interchanges. CP Monroe
noted that while the auxiliary lane project is proceeding using allocated state and current Measure A funds,
the proposal to reconstruct the Broadway interchange as an urban interchange would not be funded unless
Measure A is extended. At that point, the Broadway interchange would be a high priority project, but it
could be about ten years before it would be rebuilt. The Peninsula Interchange bridge will be widened as a
part of the auxiliary lane project, and will be two lanes in each direction over the freeway with bike lanes,
and improved on- and off-ramps. However, it will not be a full interchange, it will have northbound on and
off-ramps only, with no freeway access in the southbound direction. An upgrade to Peninsula Interchange
so it serves both north and southbound traffic is on the list for funding with an extension of Measure A.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa
Avenue, Charmaine Curtis, AF Evans Development; Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Bob Lanzone, 939 Laurel
Street, San Carlos; Scott Kirkman, USL Properties, representing New Town Hotel Inc., Russ Cohen, 605
Lexington Way; and Paul Leininger, 405 Chapin; made the following comments regarding the Bayfront
Specific Plan:
Think housing in the Bayfront area is a bad idea, it would be a misuse of the property, area is better served
by the current zoning, this update process started as a bail-out process for the owner of 301 Airport, housing
in that area with the bay views will be million dollar condos, not affordable; housing is ideal for the North
Burlingame area, that area has close mass transit with regional access, housing on the Bayfront would be a
short-term fix and a long-term disaster.
Lived in Burlingame since 1980, have been using the Anza and Anza Extension areas for recreation all that
time, have slowly watched development of the area, and it isn't half bad, the way it's landscaped, the trails,
the businesses, fit into the long term plan, it's a wonderful place, when you talk about housing, wouldn't
want to live there, its very windy, only two ways in and out traffic-wise, on top of that, it would put a second
city where there are no services, would create an East Burlingame, no place to get a loaf of bread without
getting in a car, it would take away some of the last nice open space, even with the current down slope, the
economy will come back and the hotel market will improve; in terms of wind, it was the windsurfers who
stopped the office project, if propose to put big buildings up for housing, they will block the wind.
Developer has come up with a conceptual plan for the 301 site that would include affordable rental units,
senior housing and market-rate condominiums, would also include convenience retail, our group believes it
is possible to create a viable new neighborhood, could provide a high quality living area, there are a lot of
benefits, including affordable housing, understand that the action tonight will determine if the housing
possibility is kept alive, would like the opportunity for you to evaluate our proposal, have worked in a lot of
communities to come up with solutions, hope we have the opportunity to work with you.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
8
Would like to compliment each member of the Commission and acknowledge the hard work of staff and the
people from the community, as well as the people on the Working Group who were stakeholders, now at the
end of the long process, had the benefit of their valuable input to the plan; came to the City Council
originally and requested that the City start the process to update the Bayfront Specific Plan, the plan was put
in place twenty years ago and it has succeeded, many of the goals of the plan have been reached, hotels,
offices and restaurants built, now it is legitimate to ask if we want to rethink the goals, it may be that there
are enough offices and hotels, and there are other sites where those uses can go, the Anza Point area is
different from other places in the Bayfront area, it is far from the Airport, close to Coyote Point, it is a good
idea to consider housing there because it would have less traffic impact, and it would be the only
opportunity for a good sized affordable housing project, would be a way to get mixed use, if you offer the
choice, it will give flexibility to attract different types of projects, everyone talks about affordable housing,
but the only way to get it is if you can get the land at a decent price, there is an affordable housing
component in the plan brought to you tonight, the developer is willing to donate the land for affordable
housing, this is the only way to get significant affordable housing, this would not be a bail out for the
developer, but a donation to the community, and the housing would remain permanently affordable.
Represent a property owner in the Anza Point area, whether or not to have housing is the community's
decision, there were plans approved for a 595-room hotel on client's site, economic studies indicate that
hotels and offices are not feasible for ten years, would support allowing extended stay hotels in this area, the
85 rooms per acre may not help this property that much, don't think massive buildings will be approved in
this area given the site's constraints so density may not be attainable, would support a housing overlay as an
additional opportunity, given the wind and other issues, it would allow for smaller units compatible with the
recreational opportunities in the area, would appreciate a conclusion on this issue, if housing is allowed,
owner would want to do something compatible with the site across the street.
Commissioners asked: what is the issue with extended stay and the 85 room per acre proposed density? Do
you think that housing and extended stay hotels are not compatible? What uses were looked at for that site
in the economic analysis, if the report says office and hotels won't happen for 10-15 years, there is a carrying
cost, what will your client do? Have you had any other inquiries for other uses? Mr. Lanzone responded
that given the type of hotel, would want to provide a campus like setting, probably propose about 700
rooms, would be below the maximum allowed. Other communities have extended stay and residential
together, if it is proposed it should have a retail component, the two uses are not necessarily compatible.
The economic analysis looked at hotels, offices and extended stay hotels as potential uses on that site, owner
will hold on until they can do extended stay, they have owned the property since 1989, and it has been used
for auto storage since that time. Scott Kirkman, USL properties representing New Town Hotels, the
property owner, noted that they have explored everything, housing would give another alternative, right now
the market rate for office space is $25 per SF, would need to be at least $40 per SF for a project to break
even, don't see that happening for about 20 years, we hold BCDC permits on the site for a hotel project,
studies done for the best use for this site determined that a staged extended stay hotel would be best, and that
the hotel market will recover for that niche between 2007 and 2010, could do a Courtyard Marriott or similar
project in stages, but would need to wait 3 to 5 years to begin; we did get an inquiry today from a residential
home builder, and there appears to be some confidence that there is a need for that market, staff has always
been very helpful when needed direction for this site.
Have heard considerable discussion about the opportunity for housing, Burlingame now has a requirement
for inclusionary affordable units, if developer does a project, it will have to include affordable housing,
hoping that tonight there would be discussion of the pivotal areas of land use, why is the state-owned site
designated for hotel use only, when it is a pivotal site for the Bayfront area as a whole, should provide
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
9
opportunities to make the area a destination, retail nodes should be designed around that issue, with a
cultural center or museum as a focal point. Staff noted that the State lands parcel is limited because of its
State ownership, the designation reflects State law.
Have two businesses in the Bayfront area, have participated in the workshops, felt included and welcomed
in the process, like what has been done looking at the whole picture, having a connected Bayfront trail,
bringing residents to the area, the plan is forward thinking, deliberate, well adjusted with good ideas;
housing has been the focal point of most of the discussion, in this environment with the airplanes, wind,
noise, what is the value of homes, also where are the City services, the area is isolated, there would need to
be increased police presence; also there would be future complaints from new residents about current uses in
the area, such as fishing, people walking past residences on trails; like the design component of the plan,
traffic flow on Broadway could be improved if the right turn south on freeway were designated only for
right turns and the through traffic had its own lane, it would alleviate the back up across the interchange;
everyone has been helpful in the process, people have given a lot of time to this project. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chair Bojués asked if Commissioners had any questions of staff. Commissioners asked: regarding the
negative declaration, why was the analysis of housing limited to three sites and 800 total units? There is an
existing bus route identified serving the Bayshore Highway portion of the area, could the bus route be
extended to serve the rest of the area? In looking at the noise analysis worst case, the negative declaration
notes that the noise level will increase because traffic increases, wouldn't it be less noisy if the cars are
moving slower due to increased congestion? Why is ALUC concerned with aircraft noise in this area when
the new plans are getting quieter?
Staff noted that the location and number of housing units studied was based on Commission direction at the
final study session. Bus routes are determined by SamTrans based on the ability of the area served to
recover fare box revenue equal to 25% of the cost of providing service, extension to Anza would have to be
determined by SamTrans based on estimated ridership fare box. The noise study looks at increases in noise
as an average over time, and determined that the noise levels would increase, have to also take into
consideration for speed the improved traffic flow as a result of the auxiliary lane project which is expected
to be completed in the next few years. ALUC staff is noting a possible impact from single-event noise and
potential impacts from the new large aircraft which may begin operations at SFO in 2006; it is not yet
known how noisy they will be, but it is assumed that since the planes are much larger and will require more
thrust to lift, that the noise levels may be higher than from current operations.
Commission discussion: thank staff for a great job putting the plan together, thank the Working Group for
their effort, noted that there were a meetings was held with some Commissioners with Charmaine Curtis and
Amy Bailey regarding a housing proposal, would like to commend them and the landowner for putting
together a plan that includes affordable housing, wanted to elaborate that although we do have inclusionary
zoning rules, this proposal included more affordable units than the ordinance requires, twenty-five percent
of the units would be administered so they would be affordable in perpetuity, so this option would provide a
long-term solution; to have such a sizable chunk of the housing dedicated to affordable housing is a big
asset, there is no other place in the City that this could be done at this scale.
Continued discussion: appreciate the time spent by Charmaine Curtis and Amy Bailey in presenting the
proposal, agree that affordable housing is something we need, project presented shows a mixture of uses,
senior housing, affordable rentals and market rate condominiums, the concept is good but don't agree with
the project's placement in this area; we are also working on the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
10
Plan as a potential area for housing, and looking at the Peninsula Hospital site where many of the
surrounding offices may move onto the hospital site, there will be an opportunity for housing there on the
existing office sites; that area also has BART, bus routes and Caltrain nearby, there are Transit Oriented
Development programs offered through San Mateo County which grant jurisdictions incentive funds for
affordable housing within one-third mile of mass transit, that would not work in the Bayfront, no transit in
that area, more suitable for the North end of Burlingame, the infrastructure and services are already there,
can't create that on the Bayfront, the Police Department now has one officer per shift in the Bayfront area, if
residential is added, there will be an increase in calls and they won't increase the patrols, there will be cuts in
this year's budget, if there are staff cutbacks there won't be the ability to increase services to this area, also
would have to cut down the preventative patrols for the industrial area and hotels that the Police Department
now does in this area; would look at this issue differently if this were the only area for housing, but have to
look at the long-term goals of Burlingame, would get development immediately and revenue in short-term,
but there are other opportunities, could put convention centers, once housing is developed there would be no
more revenues long-term, would get more revenue from hotels, don't see as a neighborhood that would fit or
work well with the Burlingame we have now.
Commissioners continued: seems like what we are doing is weighing the pros and cons and providing
guidance to the City Council, what struck me about the alternative plans is that the premise of the Specific
Plan was that the area provide a strong economic base, has there been a change in policy of the City that we
should deviate from that premise? still of a mindset that we should not; bothered that there had been some
analysis of the best, highest use of a property in Anza Point, would like to see that, Mr. Hudak said that the
best thing is to give the land owner the most open zoning and we will get the best product, if we open it up
to residential, they will apply, even if we don't have the other economic study, based on the data we have,
don't see a reason to change from the premise to maintain a strong economic base; other communities are
getting wise to the revenue-generating characteristic of hotels, even if we want them, other communities
have gotten wind of our secret and the market is saturated at this time, other point that came out of the
meeting with Charmaine Curtis and Amy Bailey was that even if housing is put only just on a part of Anza
Point, will have to put in infrastructure, other services, and other residential will follow, this area will not be
integrated with the rest of the community, will be a second city, not a viable integrated vibrant part of our
community.
Commission discussion continued: hate to base my decision solely on fiscal issues, good we have an
economic base in the area and it should be preserved but that is not the only issue, in reviewing the fiscal
impact, it is even positive with housing, two or three years ago, the Planning Commission reviewed the
office project at 301 Airport, we said office doesn't work and some commissioners were touting housing, in
the current economy, saying there can be no housing is a reaction, when the economy was booming and
there was plenty of revenue, it was not an issue, now with a downturn it has become an issue, no housing for
financial reasons is a reaction to the economic situation, to the north in Millbrae, there are commercial uses
supporting the Airport, and to the south are recreation and residential uses in San Mateo, housing at southern
end would fit in, and the plan shows strong industrial commercial component at the northern end; also,
would like the plan to unite the east and west sides of town, and housing will help do that more than any
other use; won't necessarily be the same as the other side, but people would come back and forth between,
there is a regional need for housing, and we would have the possibility of having affordable units in
perpetuity; have thought of this area as a strong industrial base, the current plan was written twenty years
ago, now there is a different dynamic, this is a desirable place to live with great recreational opportunities,
allowing people to live out there will tie the town together, enhance pedestrian activity and provide another
opportunity for housing for people in Burlingame.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
11
Continued discussion: the discussion about housing is not just about a bailout for the current owner,
housing was discussed and specifically left out when current plan was adopted for specific reasons, included
housing now based on points made by the economist, we wouldn't see hotels for 15 years and offices for 20
years, the revenue shown projected for hotels is phantom; also, the Bay Area Council advises cities that
when offices and jobs are encouraged, housing should also be included and that went into my decision; it
was stated tonight that financial advisors said 2007 to 2010 for hotel market to return, would like to see that
information to help us make decision.
Commissioner discussion: we have had a strong economic base in past and will in the future, there are
projections for timing of office market, but there are also increases in office rents now in Burlingame, there
is a lower vacancy rate in Burlingame than in the rest of San Mateo County, think we should have affordable
housing, but this is not the right location, North Burlingame is more appropriate for housing than the
Bayfront area, we should want to connect more to Broadway to bring visitors to the shops and restaurants;
would be a separate city in Burlingame, would they have adequate police and fire protection, based on this
information, am against housing in the Bayfront.
Continued discussion: sympathetic to land owner and high carrying costs, it is a drain on land owner, but
much as like to help corporation, for the City it is not a wise policy to let the market dictate land use policy,
the City and the Council have the responsibility to say what we want our City to be, the market will be
flexible enough to follow land use policies; take issue with the revenue-generating potential of housing,
there may be a moderate immediate return but not the magnitude of commercial for long term, this is
important to the city, bothered that if the seed is planted for residential, will grow into more retail and
residential and impact the potential for the entire area.
Commissioners continued: went out to the site and spent time sitting, concern was raised about this area
becoming and island separate from Burlingame, would we be more connected to people on Chapin than in
this area, don't know, Hong Kong is a rocky, mountainous area with many pockets and people love it, less
concerned with the island of humanity, also struck by comments that something will be built quickly if you
plan for it; land across the road has been a parking lot for 14 years, also wonder, this is a special area
underutilized by all of us, have a huge vacant site, this would bring people over there and make it more
attractive, the economy seems to be turning around, concern with freeway access at Peninsula, might be
better to wait two or three years and see what Caltrans will do at Peninsula interchange, if we decide to do
that, residences would make the area more alive than offices, which tend to be sterile.
Discussion continued: brought up a point that concerns me, if you put residential out there, people will just
sleep there, they will go elsewhere for entertainment; we need to think outside the box and make this a
destination area, there are all the people staying in hotels but no place to go, something more substantial, a
use that would attract people to go there, that may be the solution, but don't think with residential it will
work, there is not enough to keep people there, there is a demand, but once people are there and realize they
don't have libraries, retail, etc., they will be asking for those services and there won't be a place to put it.
Commissioner discussion: think we have a great lifestyle in Burlingame because it is walkable but don’t
think people will say they don't want to live there because there is no library within walking distance; it
won't be identical, but they would enjoy a wonderful lifestyle; heart warmed by input from Commissioners,
but hotel community has indicated there are hubs in other communities that have snitched some of the
golden egg, as the market comes back, it will not necessarily land in Burlingame, there is an absorption
factor with the vacancy rate, so it may be some time before anything is built; now have conference center in
South San Francisco that takes some of the market away, when plan was developed in the 1980's, housing
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
12
was discussed, but today's economy is such that it will continue as it has, should have a broader range of
what can come, and can look at proposals as they come up; with an entertainment destination such as an
aquarium, the cost is monumental and who is going to go; land will lay idle unless we broaden the
opportunity for landowners, have pros and cons, there are so many variables, we need to look at the land use
policy and look at a proposal and decide if it is something that might work; a proposal will have to go
through the Planning Department, the Commission and the Council, and the plan will give direction of
Burlingame for tomorrow.
Continued discussion: if we permit housing in the plan, and a proposal comes forward, how would you just
say no; on what basis would you refuse; if you look closely and feel the design and density fits, could say
yes, if not, no; if allow as a conditional use, there are any number of parameters; but if a developer comes to
us, if housing is a permitted land use, we won't be able to outright reject, only can look at design, form and
density, the inability to provide a straight answer demonstrates that point; let us not forget about the North
Burlingame Specific Plan, and the housing component there, it will work much better at that location, would
find it difficult to find a reason to deny once it is put into the plan as a possible use; the North end is a
wonderful place for housing, what turned it around for me was the big chunk of affordable housing
proposed, problem with the North end is there are a lot of different owners and each project will do the bare
minimum of affordable, want to see larger amount of affordable, that's what attractive about this proposed
project; from a business perspective, would say compared to Millbrae or Burlingame, Burlingame is a more
desirable location for hotels because of the Bayfront environment; try not to lose sight that we don't have a
project in front of us, as attractive as that plan is, we don't have that plan in front of us, while am a
proponent of affordable housing, not at the expense of the overall land use policy, would be going for a
short-term fix to guide for many years in the future, there are other places where housing can and will be
developed, the conceptual plan was with a segment of affordable housing which is attractive, but not the
way to make land use decisions.
Commissioners continued: are there other uses precluded that we have not considered for retail nodes,
would have to amend the plan, have goals and policies set up to encourage aquarium, other destination
features; when we look at improving the bay trail, the highest priority should be where Broadway hits the
trail north.
Commissioners requested the following changes to the text of the plan:
• correct the typo in Policy A-1 to read "a vibrant, visitor-oriented destination" and office warehouse
commercial employment center;
• Add Policy C-4: Enhance the Anza Point Area and Fisherman's Park as a recreational destination;
• Revise Figure III-5 and text to include extended stay hotels on the State lands parcel in the Anza
Area;
In the "Alternative with Housing" Errata Pages:
• Add Policy D-7: Any housing project shall have a 20 percent affordable component;
• Add Policy to encourage extension of a bus route to serve the entire Bayfront area;
• Amend the policies to encourage a destination commercial recreation feature of a large scale at the
retail nodes or along the lagoon frontage.
C. Auran made a motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The
motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The
motion passed on a 7-0 vote.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
13
C. Auran then made a motion to recommend to Council approval of the Bayfront Specific Plan as drafted.
The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve.
The motion passed on a 7-0 vote.
C. Osterling then made a motion to approve the Bayfront Specific Plan errata pages, with housing included
as an option on three selected sites. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. C. Bojués called for a roll call
vote on the motion to approve the housing overlay option. The motion failed on a 3-4 vote (Cers.
Brownrigg, Keighran, Keel and Bojués dissenting).
Chair Bojués then made a motion to approve the plan without the housing component. The motion was
seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the plan without
the housing component. The motion passed on a 4-3 vote (Cers. Osterling, Vistica, and Auran dissenting).
Staff noted this item would go forward to City Council in March or April after the Airport Land Use
Commission and C/CAG have reviewed the plan. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
7. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT A AND LOT B ZONED R-1-
a. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT A - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
b. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT B - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
c. APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT
(RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHRISTINE MUNDING,
PROPERTY OWNER) (82 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked CA Anderson if they could look at
the lot by the creek as being 85% buildable at 5,100 SF and base allowable FAR on that rather than the
entire 6,000 SF lot. CA Anderson stated that 85% buildable area can be used as a guideline. There were no
further questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Christine Munding, property owner, 1261 Balboa Avenue, noted
that she is building two houses, she will live in the smaller creek side one and will sell the other house to
support her retirement. The existing house is one bedroom, one bathroom, bought from original owner. She
moved in 1984. The garage is falling down and house is not in shape to repair. New homes will be an
improvement to the neighborhood. Oak tree on property is diseased, spend a lot of money to balance the
tree, but branches have broken off and fallen on the car, no way to save the tree. Commission asked if there
are other family members that will be living there, owner stated that she will be the only one living there.
Commission asked how far out the branches reach from the oak tree at the rear, owner stated that tree sits in
creek, tows over garage, PG&E comes and cuts chunks out of the tree, so it is unbalanced.
Randy Grange, 205 Park Road, project architect, noted house on the south side, lot A, is a style from the
teens, examples are found in Burlingame and San Mateo, has wide soffets, wide trim, grouped windows,
wood water table. The big one story section at the front has been placed under the Magnolia tree, tried work
around what was there. The creek side lot, lot B is a long skinny house, has been setback as far from the
creek as possible, all of the living area rooms look out on the creek, it has an attached garage to keep the
creek side of the lot open. The house does have four bedrooms for one woman, but wanted to consider re-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
14
sale value for the future. Tried not to have windows of two houses facing each other, there are no living
space windows facing each other. Size of house on lot A is at maximum, can look at removing a bathroom.
Looked at rotating the family room at the rear to give extra backyard space, but decided to keep as much
open space along the creek as possible instead. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
The Commission had the following comments and concerns:
Lot A
• Big house, a lot of mass and bulk with two houses on a lot where there was one;
• Windows should be coordinated between houses;
• Right side wall is big, need to see variation in plate height, bring down in some areas;
• On landscape plan there is reference to #18, but there is no #18 plant described on legend;
• Landscape plan calls out tree protection measures on a 6” diameter tree, will be tight to put around,
might just consider replacing that tree;
• Concern with lot split, across the street there are two lots, but the creek jogs 10-12’and there is a
bigger lot created; not sure second lot works here, wanted to call this issue to attention as a problem
before applicant works on design issues;
• Looks like a big train from the street, long big house, need to scale back;
• There are two 6,000 SF lots; well designed, in favor of concept;
• Designer did a nice job on both houses, lot A needs to be decreased, better articulated on sides, each
lot is 6,000 SF, but need to look at actual buildable area, want to see story poles, looks long and
narrow, there is space around house, but not sure that this is right house for the lot;
• FAR rules are met, has used open space around creek, o.k. with proposal;
• Don’t know about lot split; and
• Story poles would help visualize houses, almost necessary to decide on this project.
Lot B
• Compliment architect, front entry on lot B is set back so visitors get to walk along the creek, nice
design;
• Architect has capitalized on creek side setting, but there is a need for story poles to see if house
clears the trees;
• Need story poles to visualize two houses on the lot, lot B is long narrow house, how will this fit in
on the site, is oriented to the creek with entrance down the walkway;
• Not much of a backyard;
• Nice job on designs, nice long house on the creek lot, narrow profile to street works to keep open
space on the creek.
Commission discussion: hate to see applicant put up story poles if lot split is not right for this property; do
not want to see applicant put work into design changes if lot split is not appropriate for this site; let applicant
decide how to bring this back either bring the lot split forward by itself, or revise the project and bring it
back all together ; if just lot split need to install story poles so see now could be developed; applicant can
decide if she wants to make design changes and then erect story poles to reflect changes and bring project
back as an action item or separate out the lot split, show story poles, get that decision then work further on
the design.
Chair Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the applicant decides
how she wishes to proceed, 1) bring lot split forward as separate item with strop poles based on the current
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
15
proposal; or 2) revise plans, erect story poles to reflect changes and bring the lot split and design review
back together.
This motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the
project has been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:05 p.m.
8. 1433 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC.,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY PARTEE, PROPERTY OWNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San
Mateo, project designer, straight forward project, 4 bedrooms, 4 ½ bathrooms, project is 131 SF under the
maximum FAR allowed, there is still a lot of open space on the lot. Worked to stay within zoning limits, no
special permits with this request. Commission noted that proposed height is right at 30’, is applicant
comfortable that height will not be exceeded when constructed? James Chu stated that all construction will
be within required limits. Commission asked when construction is slated to begin. James Chu stated that
they hope to begin construction in three months. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C.
Osterling.
Comment on motion: well designed project; nice articulation; is running up against maximum FAR, but
there is a built in buffer of square footage; want to see true divided light windows on this project.
Chair Bojués 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 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory
and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:10 p.m.
9. 9 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (ANDREA COSTANZO, ADAMES DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; GLENN AND ALMA GROSSMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Andrea Constanzo, project designer, explained that when the
property owners hired her that they had four criteria to be met: 1) 4 bedrooms, have 2 children; 2) family
room; 3) front porch, want to add entrance now have double doors to get to house; and 4) remove second
unit, which is currently used for storage, just want to have garage. There were no other comments from the
floor and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004
16
The Planning Commission had the follow comments:
• Want to make sure using true divided light windows;
• Left side elevation, windows on the first floor are not consistent with the addition and the rest of the
house, all windows should be consistent; and
• Outdoor light on the second floor balcony should be removed, or designed to just shine down on the
deck, not beyond, as required by the City’s exterior illumination ordinance.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have
been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Bojués 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 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory
and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:17 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2004 AND THE SPECIAL
COUNCIL STUDY MEETING ON JANUARY 24, 2004.
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions of the Council meeting of January 20, 2004; noted the general
conclusions regarding the goals of the Council for FY 2004-05 and the budget limitations the City is
facing for FY 2004-05 and the implications for the following years.
CP Monroe asked the Commission to consider how they would like to review a possible back log of
design review projects. Commission directed that the staff fill the February 9, 2004 agenda, then
determine if, because of the agendized study sessions of the draft North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan, a special meeting should be scheduled in March to catch up. Staff agreed.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 11:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Auran, Secretary
S:/MINUTES/01.26.04UNAPPROVEDMINUTES