HomeMy WebLinkAbout032904PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
March 29, 2004
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the March 29, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:02 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: C. Keele left at 11:00 p.m.
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineers Phil Monaghan and Doug Bell
III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 22, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved with revisions on page 3 that the east side of the
gateway at the south end of Rollins Road should extend north, up to the P G
and E substation; that the Broadway interchange will be rebuilt in the future
to be an urban interchange which may affect the gateway properties and
design, and that the southern gateway area should include the properties on
both sides of Rollins Road at Broadway. The minutes were approved with
these revisions.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 7, 1537 Drake Avenue, was moved to the last action item because the
applicant’s representative had a conflict which was scheduled before this
meeting was moved to the fifth Monday.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1861 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
FITNESS AND WEIGHT LOSS CENTER (CHARLOTTE HOLLAND, APPLICANT; STEVE AND
MERRY-LEE MUSICH, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Will any classes or group instruction be offered at this site;
• Concerned with the increase in the number of customers expected at the site from 30 when the business
opens to 150 customers in two years and 170 customers in five years, applicant should explain the large
increase;
• Applicant should explain why the number of employees is not expected to increase while the number of
customers will increase so significantly;
• Will disabled accessible facilities be provided, such as bathrooms, showers or a laundry facility;
• What is the maximum number of people allowed in this tenant space at one time, provide building
occupancy;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
2
• The applicant's letter notes that massage and other related services will be provided, please provide a
detailed explanation of these services;
• The staff report indicates that 13 parking spaces are required for this use and that a total of 59 spaces are
required on this site, how was the total number of required spaces for this site calculated, what was it
based on; and
• Concerned with customer safety for this business, is one door at the front and one door at the rear
enough, will the rear door also be used as an entrance for customers.
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 7:15 p.m.
2. 1080 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A NON-AUTO RELATED USE (FOOD ESTABLISHMENT) (RINO BETTI,
APPLICANT; NORTHBAY RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT & DESIGN, DESIGNER) CITY OF
BURLINGAME, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
C. Auran recused himself because has a business relation with the applicant, and stepped down from the dias
and left the chambers.
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• What percentage of the business will be take-out compared to on-site consumption;
• Is there any historic significance of this building;
• Does the applicant intend to remove the existing greyhound signage/logo as part of the changes for their
business;
• Provide the number of customers per day at the existing location, this calculation could be based on
daily receipts;
• Will there be many deliveries and how will deliveries to this site be handled; and
• Provide the number of seats available in the outdoor seating area and a plan showing their location.
This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the
Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:18 p.m.
C. Auran returned to the dias.
3. 1704 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PARKING VARIANCE AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE
(BATTING CAGES) (TERRY WHITFIELD, APPLICANT; PETER VALENTI, PROPERTY OWNER)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Why did the batting cage business close at the previous location;
• Provide a more detailed schedule of people on site during the day and evening hours;
• Will there be a waiting list for people to use the batting cages and what is the average wait time;
• Will the batting cage facility be open to the public or only for user of the Prime Time Athletic Club next
door;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
3
• How many customers are anticipated to come to the site by carpool;
• Provide a detail description of what activity will occur at this site, describe activities such as washing
machines, showers, locker rooms, etc.;
• The previous batting cage facility was located on a site twice as big, did the previous location have any
parking problems, were there any complaints;
• Provide the number of customers who are under driving age, will kids come in groups;
• Applicant indicates that he anticipates five additional customers in five years, is this correct;
• Will a bicycle rack be provided and if so, where; and
• Commercial Application is not complete, please provide employee and customer data for business in
five years.
This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the
Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:30 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.
4A. 123 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A
DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TADHG
CANNIFFE, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
4B. 1318 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDALL AND KATHRYN KARP, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) (62 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. C. Osterling noted that he would abstain from voting Item 4b, 1318 De
Soto Avenue, because he lives within 500' of the property.
C. Brownrigg moved approval of items 4a and 4b on the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff
reports, commissioners’ comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in
each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote
on the motion to approve the projects at 123 Dwight Road and 1318 De Soto Avenue. The motion passed 7-
0 for the project at 123 Dwight Road and 6-0-1 (C. Osterling abstaining) for the project at 1318 De Soto
Avenue. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
5. 1341 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR
A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RENE ARIAS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
CESAR SIFUENTES, DESIGNER) (82 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report March 29, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
4
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Rene Arias, architect, was available to answer questions.
Commission pointed out that the note on sheet 1 of the plans indicating "relocated sewer meter" should be
"relocated water meter". Commission noted that the plans indicate new non-fruit trees to be planted along
the right side of the house and asked what type of trees will they be? Architect noted that he did not know at
this time but would follow the Commission's suggestion. Commission expressed a concern with the
increased amount of hardscape now proposed with a two-car garage and asked why is a two-car garage
needed and why is it set back two feet from the side and rear property lines. Architect noted that the
property owners wish to have a two-car garage for their vehicles and that he understood that the garage had
to be set back from the property lines. The Commission pointed out that a detached garage in the rear 30%
of the lot is exempt from setback requirements and that it can be as close as one foot from the property line
without requiring a survey. Commission noted that its unfortunate that the with the two-car garage there
will be more paving, two trees will have to be removed and the rear yard will be reduced in size. There
were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: there is no reason why the garage can't be shifted further back so that it is located
one foot from the side and rear property lines, can be added as a condition of approval; should also add a
condition that the new trees to be planted along the right side of the house be chosen from the Burlingame
Tree List and that the City Arborist shall approve the tree species to be planted, conditions should also
include protection of the existing trees.
C. Keighran noted that the proposed changes are consistent with the design of the house and that the two-car
garage was appropriate in this case, and 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 date stamped February 24, 2004 sheets 1 through 5 (Revised Drawings), site plan, floor plans
and building elevations; and that the detached two-car garage shall be relocated further back so that it is
built 1'-0" from the left side and rear property lines; 2) that the four, new trees to be planted along the right
side of the house as shown on the Site Plan date stamped February 24, 2004, shall be chosen from the
Burlingame Tree List and that the species chosen shall be approved by the City Arborist; the existing trees at
the front of the property shall be protected based on protection measures recommended by the City Arborist;
that the tree protection measures for the existing trees at the front of the lot shall be installed and that the
protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building
permit; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that the conditions of
the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal’s memos dated June 30,
2003 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 to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that
it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 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. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building
Department; 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 the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the
City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
5
in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 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. Osterling.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m.
6. 1521 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (MARK AND SHEILA BURAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY
GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the project. She stepped
down from the dias and left the chambers.
Reference staff report, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Project was represented by Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park
Road and Mark Buran, property owner. Neighbors Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; Carol Oushani, 1527 Drake;
Janet Garcia, 1557 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake; Denise Balestieri, 414 Cost Rica/1550 Bernal; Jerry
Deal 1228 Paloma; Jani Ochse, 1512 Drake spoke. Applicant noted revised plans took out square footage
affecting closet, laundry room, affects mass and bulk, tried to keep the building one and a half stories with
dormers to reduce impact, feel that addressed the volume of the house, that more important that square feet;
this would be the third house on the block that is shingle clad, felt it would balance the other two, but could
make stucco if you want; three key elements, the house is only three bedrooms, the basement which is 700
SF does not count in FAR but has no effect on mass and bulk because completely below grade; and the
garage may require one car but two cars will better address the parking on the street issue, has two-car
garage now. Commissioners asked is there a reason that you did not have a hydrology report prepared to
evaluate the impact of the basement on the drainage in the area; are the windows true divided lights; how
many 4,000 SF houses are there on this block; is fireplace gas or wood burning? Applicant responded: did
not know who would do such a drainage study, water table in area moves up and down depending upon
rainfall, did drawing to show water would flow into drain rock on site and then into street and the city’s
storm drain; windows will be true divided lights; do not see this as a 4,000 SF house, only is that big if add
garage and basement area which is only a game room, not a bedroom; do not know how many 3,500 SF
houses there are on this block; fireplace is gas. Applicant noted would pump water to curb and go through
gutter to closest catch basin which is toward the dead end of the street.
Neighbors commented: represent 9 different properties and their owners, at the last meeting the commission
asked that this house be “downsized”, only 114 SF were removed, the FAR of the house is still 125% of the
original, design does not reduce mass and bulk, does not fit in neighborhood; should not grant unless 700 SF
is taken off the top of the house, the principle of the basement is good if it reduces mass and bulk by
relocated square footage; concerned about the lack of drainage study, live across street, the off flow from the
basement will go into her driveway, want study before go forward with project; average size house on block
is 1,800 SF, this is 70% larger; there are 22 houses on the street which are stucco, counter productive to add
shake to solve problem at 1553 Drake; there are five new houses to be built on this dead end block, send this
back it’s almost identical to the original. Concerned about drainage, have small cellar with sump, runs all
the time when it rains, the water will go to the properties on the sides or across the street, this is a charming
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
6
house it could be remodeled; feel that house at 1529 Drake on streetscape is in error, it is shorter than her
house, driveways appear to provide more space between buildings than they really do; applicant’s tend not
to provide requests that commission makes, should not go forward without drainage study; not just about
getting what allowed, neighbors are being hammered with proposals for big houses on this block; down size
was only to remove less than 3%, when commission suggested 5 to 10 percent; did not assign to design
reviewer last time thought they would be responsive and sorry that they weren't. Drainage may go to
basement area but it will not be directed when it is pumped out so will affect neighbors. Water ends up in
my front yard, compacting the soil at 1537 increased water flow, plugged new drain, water flowed over
straw, this project is going to increase the problems, both Tredwell ROC and URS engineers do such
hydrology/drainage studies and can answer these questions, this house is just too big, the current cellar on
the site is 5’ x 8’. Am in favor of project, applicant is property owner, pays taxes, is following the
guidelines of the city; purpose of design review in 1998 was to help design houses to build not to reduce
size, more people work from home, need bigger houses. When the 700 SF was added for basements it was
to be completely below ground, not as a trade off for SF above ground; understand that the number of new
houses in a row can create a problem, but this house is not bulky, put garage at rear, architect did things to
reduce the mass of the second floor; water in the basement will be addressed by putting in a drain designed
for greater than the flow generated, will not deflect water on to adjacent property; would like legislation to
prevent multiple new houses in a row but it would penalize individual property owner, can’t just address
size, because could take it all off the back and the smaller house would look the same from the front;
professionals would all say the same about drainage, take water from soil and roof to the street gutter at
front, not need to hire an expert, not provide any new information and cost $5,000; people want larger
houses now, not double up kids as used to. Neighbors have rights, every project does not need to be built to
maximum, that’s what the guidelines are for; this block is under siege, this is the cutest house on the block,
some intent should be made to retain that character.
Applicant responded they are willing to remove the 700 SF basement area; do not agree that the design is the
same, this house is one and one-half stories, not massive, prepared the streetscape as close to scale as could,
houses are shown in perspective, the giant yellow house for example looks smaller, but this was done to one
eighth scale, and field measured the distance between the houses. Commissioner noted help neighbors
more to take 700 SF off the top of the house and retain the basement, could only do by reducing one of the
dormers and put a bedroom in the basement. There were no further comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commissioner discussion: two issues basement and water/drainage; same water issue in my neighborhood,
sumps run day or two after rain, three new houses behind actually reduced the surface flow across his lot
because required to take drainage to the street at front; water will follow the path or least resistance. Asked
Sr. Eng is city drainage system adequate? Will the larger basement (40 SF to 700 SF) increase flow in the
storm drain? Front of this lot flows toward the dead end of the street and the creek, ground water will rise
and fall in this area; might get a lot of water in the basement but can engineer around, this neighborhood has
problem with tree debris blocking drains and resulting water backup so can flow down driveway at end of
street at creek; the larger basement at 8 feet will not affect drainage because there the ground water is lower
than 8’ most of the year, major affect on flow will be during storms. Will it make a design difference if the
basement is a bedroom? Staff noted that a separate door and stair would probably be required. Don’t know
much about water, but persuaded by testimony, that given drainage problems in the area now, proximity to
the creek, and the increased density of use in the area, commission should have information/data on soils
from a hydro-geologist to determine the impact on the neighborhood; at the time design guidelines were
developed did not contemplate seriatim development in a neighborhood, but design criteria seems to
address this when speaking of intensity of use, increas e in size relative to what is there now; this house is
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
7
too large for the lot and neighborhood, the reduction in size, footprint and FAR was not enough given the
commission’s direction at study. Feel that the architecture is very well done, respect the choice of variety
when using shingles, that type of variety happens on almost every block.
C. Bojués made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C.
Osterling.
Comment on the motion: problem is that have five applications on this block, not one, would challenge the
applicant, don’t know what the square footage the block can take, that is what "discretion" means, think
design is fine, know it is bigger, less than maximum height, 26/27 feet from grade and looks like a story and
a half house; basement water issue is unknown, don’t know if design review would help, should consider
approving. Agree don’t know if sending to design review would fix, it is well designed given the impact is
on the total neighborhood, the cumulative impact is significant; need to see more work done; suggested
design reviewer for a third party to expedite process; don’t think design review proper place, many options
discussed for change, better to let applicant.
C. Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to send the item to a design reviewer suggesting that the house
size be reduced by looking at the bathroom in the second bedroom, reduce size of dormer, pull the second
floor back from the front.
Chair Bojués asked for a roll call vote. The motion failed 2-3-1 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, Keele, Vistica
dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining).
C. Vistica moved to continue this item for the applicant to revise the plans given the direction given
including a redesign including the idea of putting a bedroom and bath room in the basement in order to
reduce the mass and bulk above grade. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Comment on the motion: should a hydrology report be required? Maker of motion added a condition that it
was all right to come back without a hydrology report, but applicant should be aware that the site drainage
issue would have to be addressed when they applied for a building permit. Second accepted added
condition. Commissioner pointed out given the circumstances of the area need some expert information
regarding hydrology.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue with conditions. The motion passed 5-1-1
(C. Keele dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining). It was noted that this action to continue is not appealable and
the item will be renoticed when it returns to the Planning Commission. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m.
C. Keighran took her seat on the dias.
7. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MEG
MONROE/RUBEN HURIN
A. LOT 11 – APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING
LOTS TO SEPARATE AND AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT TO
DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
8
B. LOTS 9 AND 10 – APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND FOR ADDITIONAL
TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS.
Item 7A and 7B, 1537 Drake Avenue, was moved to the last action item because the applicant’s
representative had a conflict which was scheduled before this meeting was moved to the fifth Monday.
8. 137 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE
FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CLEMENT
HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (51 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report March 29, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer, 1228 Paloma Avenue, Burlingame, noted the
copy of roof plan included in the staff report was not highlighted to show the locations of the installed story
poles, submitted a highlighted copy of the roof plan, the gable ends were replaced with hip roofs as
suggested by the Commission and neighbor, ridge will be lower than the house on the right, will now be less
bulky. Commission asked if the next door neighbor is present; no, the designer noted that he agrees with the
change in roof design. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 17,
2004, sheet 1, date stamped January 8, 2004, sheets 2 through 4, G-1 and L-1, and date stamped March 17,
2004, sheets 5 and 6; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and
amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the roof height, pitch or design, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the
foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the property corners, set the building corners and certify
the first floor finished elevation of the new structure(s) and have the datum accepted by the City Engineer;
4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations
and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the
project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury;
certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning
Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type,
etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all new
windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the
existing trim as close as possible; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where
possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that
these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that the conditions of the
City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's January 12, 2004,
memos shall be met; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris
Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
9
a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance
1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) that the
project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
C. Keele noted that he was originally not in support of the project, but the applicant has worked well with
the neighbor to address his concerns and after reviewing the revised roof design and story poles on site he is
now in support of the project.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m.
9. 2711 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION (TOM CARRUBBA, SQUARE THREE DESIGN STUDIOS, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; MONIQUE AND LEO REDMOND, PROPERTY OWNERS) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report March 29, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that the was an error made
when the story poles were installed, they were installed showing the roof ridge one foot taller than proposed.
Commission asked if the neighbors were notified of this error; no. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Leo Redman, property owner, was present and noted that he
bought the house in September, 2000, with the idea to remodel the house to accommodate his family and
three children, so far has invested $35,000 in designs for this project, intent is to blend in with the
neighborhood, tried to minimize the impact on views with this design, like the rear yard but is willing to
reduce the yard space by 10' to place the addition at the rear instead of adding on the second floor in order to
have the least impact on neighbors, spoke to eight neighbors including Mr. Wong at 2720 Martinez Drive,
looked out of neighbor's window and verified that there will be minimal view loss, will not lose view of the
bay, visited the next door neighbor on five occasions after the story poles were installed but was not home;
the proposed design is within the height limit, only increasing the height by 1'-9" where the code allows an
increase of up to 5'-0", neighbor at 2707 Martinez Drive completed a major remodel in 2001, this addition is
smaller in scale; would like to build before the rainy season, if not may reconsider the whole project;
consider it a tacit approval from Mr. Wong since he is not present at the meeting; family has been involved
with the community, school and fundraising, would like to remain and Burlingame and ask that the
Commission approve the project. Commission asked if the project was discussed with the uphill neighbor at
2715 Martinez Drive and did they have any complaints? The property owner noted that he spoke to them
and they shared no issues with the project. Commission suggested that the property owner add more
windows in the kitchen since there are nice view from this part of the house; owner thanked the
Commissioner for the suggestion and will seriously consider it.
Tom Carrubba, architect, Square Three Design Studios, clarified that the story poles as installed are in their
correct location, discrepancy was in the civil engineering data and the way the drawings for the original
house were prepared, initial survey showed the roof pitch to be 4:12, the actual roof pitch is very odd and is
more like 4½:12, contractor correctly installed story poles based on points shown on the plans and survey.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
10
C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January
29,2004, Sheets EC1 through EC5, A1 through A3.4, and sheet C1, site plan, floor plans, roof plan and
building elevations, with a maximum height of 25’3” (elevation 122.77’) as measured from average top of
curb elevation at the front of the house; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or
second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the
conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s and Fire Marshal’s January 30, 2004 memos, and the City
Engineer’s February 30, 2004 memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the Construction
and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and
alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 5) that demolition of the
existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6) that prior to scheduling the foundation
inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 7) that prior to
under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the
various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 8) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,
a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 9) that
prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall
provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built
as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property
owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 10) that prior to final
inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim
materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and
Building plans; 11) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 12) that
the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance; and that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and
construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm
water runoff; and 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Comment on the motion: wanted to note for the record that it doesn't appear that Mr. Wong is in support of
the project; visited the site and the view from neighbors house, don't think view will be obstructed; disagree,
think there will be some view blocked, can easily address by altering the roof, will not support the project;
visited the neighbors houses today, have full panoramic view, only the bottom of some trees will be blocked,
addition is modest, overall distant views will be maintained.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Vistica
dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
11
10. 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
FOR A NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ROBERT
AND CYNTHIA GILSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN &
ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report March 29, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Twenty-three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Robert Gilson, property owner, 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, was present
and noted that the design of the house is not changing, the additional square footage is being requested at the
rear of the house, the roof configuration will also change in some areas, master bathroom will be extended
out an additional five feet, noted that the existing house is five to seven feet taller and therefore the proposed
new house will be less of an impact, large existing trees surrounding the house will provide screening and
reduce the impact on the street, there will be no visible change from the street since the added area is at the
rear of the house. Commission asked what is the reason for adding 284 SF? Property owner noted that the
previously approved floor plan seemed cramped, the family room, master bathroom and closest is too small.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: the originally approved project was a package, two houses in one project, when a
single house is demolished and replaced with two new houses, the idea is to make each house smaller to
reduce the cumulative impact, if the floor plan doesn't meet your needs, the changes should be made within
the interior of the house, not by adding more square footage; feel that the proposed changes are acceptable,
house is within the allowable FAR, other new house has been reduced, house is located on the downhill side
of the street, proposed height is at 25', houses across the street on the high side are much taller, the large oak
tree and a 70' tall Redwood tree at the front of these properties will screen the houses, the house is well
designed and articulated throughout, front right side of the house will be screened by the existing Oak tree,
lot slopes downward and therefore mass and bulk will go away; we need to be careful when reviewing two
houses simultaneously as one project, do not want to be nickel and dimed later with changes, the house was
previously revised by reducing the size of the house by 3 to 4 percent off the maximum FAR, this is not an
issue if the lot can accommodate this size house, but that an agreement was reached at a certain house size
and now the property owner want to add more; there were a number of comments when the project was
originally reviewed, there was more flexibility at that time, owner addressed a number of issues, came back
to the Commission with revised plans and those plans were approved, now want to make changes to increase
the size of the house, this is not acceptable, Commission's original decision based on the applicants proposal
should be respected; with present proposal also concerned with the increase in lot coverage from 34% to
39.7%, reduction in front setback from 22' to 20', reduction in the side setback from 5'-6" to the minimum
required 5'-0", need to look at the principal and philosophy, a decision was made and the property owner
needs to abide by the decision, not in support.
Continued discussion: this is a tough decision, feel like the process has been abused, in principal the request
should be denied, was submitted as one application for two new houses, there were criteria for both houses,
now the property owner would like to make changes to one of the houses, does not satisfy the design review
criteria addressing the impacts on the neighborhood or the interface of the two structures. CA noted that the
property owner asked staff how to process this application for changes to the project, based on staff
direction he submitted the application to make changes to one house rather than resubmitting the entire
project for two new houses. Commission suggested that another option is to submit a new application for
reconsideration of both new houses. Commission asked if the current request for a design review
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
12
amendment is denied, will the approval of the original application still stand? CA noted that the original
approval would still stand and that they have a certain timeline in which to have building permits issued.
C. Brownrigg moved to deny the application for design review amendment. The motion was seconded by C.
Keele.
Comment on the motion: wanted to make it clear that the Commission did not interpret any malice with this
request after the project was approved, comments focus on the changes and how that affects the mass and
bulk of the project.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Auran dissenting).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m.
11. 1132 DOUGLAS AVENUE, ZONED R-4 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND
VARIANCE FOR DELIVERY VEHICLE PARKING FOR A NEW THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN,
PROPERTY OWNER) (99 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR DELIVERY VEHICLE PARKING
B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP
C. Vistica recused himself because he owns property within 500 feet of the project. He stepped down from
the dias and left the chambers.
Reference staff report March 29, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Forty three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked SrE.
Monaghan if a curved driveway at grade at the front could be installed given that the driveway is sloping
downwards to the garage from the curb level. SrE. noted that a curved driveway is possible, but that you
would end up with a cross-sloping driveway and that it would eliminate one more on-street parking space.
There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, Burlingame, noted that
the tree species was changed to evergreen as requested by the Commission at the study meeting, considered
adding a space for delivery vehicles, provided a drawing to show what it would look like in front of the
building, would have a double slope because the ramp slopes down to the below-grade garage, considered a
circular driveway but would lose one on-street parking space, felt that it was more important to provide the
front setback landscaping rather than the delivery vehicle space, would be better for the street, don't think
there would be many deliveries to the site with a three-unit building. Commission noted that the Leyland
Cypress trees to be planted along the left side property line are very messy, suggest replacing these with one
of the other tree species proposed. Commission asked if true divided light windows will be used, yes;
concerned with the west elevation, can the long expanse on this side of the building be articulated more?
Architect noted that the rear one-third of this site faces the new multi-family residential project to be built at
512 Primrose Road, feel that this wall is not broken up, carried the chimney up at the front of the building,
have bay windows towards the back of the building. Commission asked if the architect read the letter dated
March 29, 2004, submitted by Mr. Jacobson? No, did not see that letter, staff then provided a copy of the
letter to architect.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
13
Matt Jacobson, 1137 Douglas Avenue, spoke in opposition of the project, noted that the variance for
delivery vehicle space is unjustified, the lot is not problematic, this lot is not big enough to accommodate a
project this large, approximately half of the neighborhood is multifamily residential, the rest are single
family houses, there are a number of lots in this neighborhood which are too small to handle multifamily
residential buildings, have several concerns with the project: concerned with safety, project is located close
to downtown, have many traffic problems with large intersection at Primrose Road and Douglas Avenue,
traffic on Douglas Avenue is heavy and fast, delivery trucks double parking on street creates a dangerous
situation; parking on the street is terrible, on-street parking is limited to two hours, not enough on-street
parking, the library, City Hall and dental office are located within the same area and add to on-street
parking, parking requirement is not realistic; need to consider the structure being demolished and what will
replace it, a small Victorian house will be demolished, this is the signature house on the block, City needs to
define the area and arrive at a good balance between single family and multifamily uses, small house will be
replaced with very large multifamily structure, too much concrete with this project, existing multifamily
projects are less massive and bulky, more articulated, project will change the feel of Burlingame, ask that
the project be denied as proposed, project needs to pr ovide a parking space for a delivery vehicle, project
should comply with all of the city's development requirements without exceptions, project should be
compatible, the neighborhood character should not be changed.
Dale Meyer, architect, noted that the property and surrounding area is zoned R-4, there are ways to design in
the delivery vehicle parking space but that there are trade-offs, it would take away from the front
landscaping if the delivery space is provided at the front of the lot, on-street parking would be reduced if a
curved driveway is proposed, feel that with a small project such as this there will be fewer deliveries made
to the site, proposed project complies with the parking requirement based on the number of bedrooms per
unit, provides the required amount of landscaping within the front setback, project is not oversized, the
design will be an asset to the neighborhood, could have designed a building with more units but decided to
keep the project small. Commission asked what is the size of each unit; approximately 3,200 SF per unit.
Commission asked the architect to explain the hardship on the property to justify the variance for delivery
vehicle, why not make the units smaller? Architect noted that if the unit size is reduced, the number of
required parking spaces would not changes since parking is based on number of bedrooms per unit, the
sloping ramp to the below-grade parking would create difficulties for the back-up space for the delivery
vehicle, there will be a double slope in the back-up area, because the lot is narrow a curved driveway would
require two curb cuts and therefore eliminate on-street parking, feel that the front setback landscaping is
more important to the community than the delivery vehicle parking space. There were no further comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: seem to have trade-off between the front setback landscaping and delivery vehicle
parking space, could have landscaping on the site full-time and also lose a full-time on-street parking space,
prefer landscaping to off-street parking; agree, could use turf-block for the delivery space but in this case the
ramp slopes down and requires a wall parallel to the driveway for safety, hardship on this lot is the width;
don't see this as a trade-off, this is a function of design and unit size, can have both parking and landscaping
since this is a new project, feel confident that the architect can figure out a design that would provide both
landscaping and a delivery vehicle space, there is no hardship on the property for new construction; not sure
if reducing the size of the units would provide enough space for a delivery vehicle, prefer to keep the
landscaping, eight parking spaces are provided for the three dwelling units including a guest parking space,
this is more than enough parking for the units, don't know if there is a high demand for the delivery vehicle,
see the hardship as being the narrow width of the lot and the double-slope on the driveway, but see the
neighbors concern with the design of the project, concerned with the west elevation, no articulation, there is
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
14
room for improvement, the front and rear are well articulated but the side elevations need to be more
articulated.
C. Osterling made a motion to approve the condominium permit and variance for vehicle delivery parking,
by resolution, with the amended condition that the Leyland Cypress trees along the left side property line be
replaced with another species taken from among the other trees proposed on the site. The motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: the neighbors concern have been thoroughly stated, the problem is that their house
is located in an R-4 zoning district, surprised with some of the projects which have been approved and built
in this area, see no hardship for not provided a space for a delivery vehicle, would like to see a design
without a variance, project would work better without variances, would like to see a no variance design, this
is a landmark area in the downtown area, cannot support the project.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the condominium permit and variance for
delivery vehicle parking. The motion failed 2-4-1 on a roll call vote (Cers. Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran
and Keele dissenting, C. Vistica abstain).
C. Brownrigg made a motion to continue the project based on the direction provided by the Planning
Commission to come back with a no variance design alternative. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on the motion: not sure if there is a better answer to this problem, will know when the revised
project returns, architect needs to pursue a no variance design alternative.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue the project with the direction provided by
the Commission. The motion passed 5-1-1 on a roll call vote (C. Auran dissenting, C. Vistica abstain). This
item concluded at 9:54 p.m.
C. Vistica took his seat on the dias.
12. 1755 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR SITE
IMPROVEMENTS (STEVEN FLANAGAN, W.L. BUTLER, APPLICANT; JASON BELL, CARLILE
COATSWORTH ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT; GRANT RIGGS, THE WESTYE GROUP WEST
INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report March 29, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that condition #1 has
been amended to include the following: with 19, 60-degree on-site parking spaces with 12 to 16 foot back-
up space where 18 feet is required for the parking spaces along the north side of the building. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Steven Flanagan, applicant, 204 Franklin Street, Redwood City,
noted that they would like to add more landscaping along the north side property line, new trees in
landscaping pockets next to the parking spaces would screen the view of trucks parked on the street, because
the City is requiring that a new sidewalk be installed along the same property line the landscaping and
parking spaces had to be shifted, in order get the additional landscaping in, the parking configuration will
change from perpendicular to angled parking, the angled parking will make maneuvering easier for vehicles
and will allow more landscaping to be added, the existing perpendicular parking configuration is
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
15
nonconforming. Commission noted that the plant materials were not provided on the plans. Applicant noted
that plant and irrigation details are still being worked and will be shown on the construction plans submitted
for a building permit. Commission asked if the parking variance is approving the nonconforming parking
count or just the nonconforming back-up? CP noted that the variance only applies to the nonconforming
back-up dimension of the spaces identified. There were no further comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion: support the project as proposed, most landscaping of the buildings in this area is
marginal, this is an improvement, clarified that the parking variance only applies to the nonconforming
back-up space and not the nonconforming number of on-site parking spaces.
C. Vistica 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
February 24, 2004, sheets A1.0 and L0.1, site plan and landscape plan; with a total of 56 on-site parking
spaces and 11,030 SF of on-site landscaping, with 19, 60-degree on-site parking spaces with 12 to 16 foot
back-up space where 18 feet is required for the parking spaces along the north side of the building; 2) that
the building shall have 65,888 SF of warehouse, 8,083 SF of office and 10,000 SF of showroom, any change
to this configuration shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and may require Planning Commission
approval; 3) that the maximum number of employees on site at any one time will be 50 persons; 4) that all
the existing and new landscaping to be installed on site will be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system
that shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times; 5) that all signage
shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; 6) that the conditions of the
City Engineer's March 1, 2004 memo shall be met; and 7) that any improvements for the use shall meet all
California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was
seconded by C. Keighran.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve noting that the parking variance only applies
to the nonconforming back-up space and not the nonconforming number of on-site parking spaces. The
motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m.
7. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MEG
MONROE/RUBEN HURIN
A. LOT 11 – APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING
LOTS TO SEPARATE AND AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT TO
DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
C. Keighran recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of this site. She left the chambers. City
Attorney Anderson also recused himself from advising the Planning Commission because of California
State Law and he left the chambers.
Reference staff report for 1537 Drake Avenue, Lot 11, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. 36 conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners
asked are the issues raised in the Levinson report attached to the neighbor’s letter; addressed in the
conditions of approval for lot 11. CP Monroe responded that they were in the amended conditions. Does
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
16
this apply to the conditions for Lots 9 and 10 tonight as well. CP noted yes; in those conditions all
previously
Lot 11
approved were brought forward, those no longer in effect were shown as strike outs, and the amendments to
the others shown in italics to reflect what is known so far, knowledge is evolving on Lots 9 and 10. Is it
the consensus of the arborist that it is all right to build on Lot 11 and the staging area on Lot 10? CP Monroe
responded yes, there is a comment to that effect from the City Arborist in the staff report.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road represented the project. Long
process to arrive here, the result of much compromise by all involved, hope not to re-do entire; only reason
here is unfortunate error by grading subcontractor; not here to apply for anything new, want to break Lot 11
from 9 and 10, and proceed as originally approved, except to build the house one foot taller; we will return
with Lots 9 and 10 later. All three arborists agree that there are no significant roots on Lot 11; only want to
raise the house on Lot 11 one foot to bring it into better aesthetic alignment with the houses on Lots 9 and
10; on Lot 9 need to know compaction of fill soil, test was done, compaction will allow roots to grow; have
proceeded with foundations, investigated roots as were able given conditions, investigated location of each
pier within the root zone, when done will come back to the Commission for final approval of houses on Lots
9 and 10, findings suggest raising foundations one to two feet to avoid grade at back of the lot. On Lot 11
would like Commission to remove condition 12 regarding the water line being installed before foundation
inspection, in discussion with City Engineer, may want to relocate line to the center of the street on Drake,
would like to delay until before the city issues a certificate of occupancy on Lot 11. Also to cleanly break
Lot 11 from Lots 9 and 10 do not want mitigations for Lots 9 and 10 tied to Lot 11 could create a legal
problem if wish to sell Lots 9 and 10, so would like conditions 4, 16, 25-33 and 35-36 removed from Lot 11.
These same conditions are proposed to be added to Lots 9 and 10, so are redundant and create technical
problems for Lot 11, all protections for Lot 9 and 10 are in place and we will be back in 30-45 days with
final foundations for these two lots.
Commissioners asked: If someone buys Lot 11 couldn’t the buyer and seller address the reservation and
indemnity. Hudak, no way out from obligations, only like to indemnify against things one can control. From
economic point of view understand cash flow reason for breaking off Lot 11, but doesn’t it raise questions
about the redevelopment of the other lots, foreclosing options if you build a smaller house on Lot 11.
Hudak, independent arborist more confident after foundation investigation, has looked at ways to build
driveway on Lot 9, owner believes it will evolve in the way he intended within the modifications and
mitigations the arborist’s will insist on, pretty confident they are going to do what they agreed to. What
time lapse do you expect between Lot 11 and Lots 9 and 10? Lot 11 is ready now, house could be occupied
this year; 30-45 days before sure on Lots 9 and 10, then back to the Commission, don’t know if we can do it
this year, possible.
Neighbors spoke: Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake; Jani Ochse, 1512 Drake; Mark Thomas, 1520 Drake; Dave
Taylor, 1556 Drake; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; Sean Abshire, real estate attorney; Denise Balestra, 414
Costs Rica. It is unclear how the arborist report is evolving, seems applicant is trying the change Mr.
Levinson’s report; the compaction analysis has been done, OK; now he wants to break off development
contrary to the Commission’s request to see the whole as one picture; two years ago expressed concern
about the Redwood Grove, have attended 12 meetings, he keeps coming back about the trees, this process is
dragging out in the absence of data, it is on the agenda without data; last time he asked to separated the
conditions the City Arborist was not here and he is not hear tonight, the 20 foot staging area does not agree
with the arborist report of March 23; should not decide on Lot 11 without information and don’t know if
Lots 9 and 10 are buildable. All tried for a workable plan, one issue keep the Redwood trees, no one knows
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
17
how to build around asked for an independent arborist, first few days property owner worked on the site put
the trees in jeopardy, he is very casual, want to be sure that he is supervised. There is an application for a
Lot 11
fourth lot, 1551 Drake, next to Lot 11, applied for a permit to demolish and rebuild; these lots should be
looks at in their totality, 4 parcels, asked City Attorney before if the standards are stricter for four lots, he
said yes, not get full picture if you take Lot 11 out, premature. There are photos to show how extensively
the roots were ripped up; developers behavior indicates he does what he pleases; deny all applications, City
Attorney said that council would be provided the Planning Commission for the revocation of all permits,
here is a newspaper article to show the Mark Hudak also has a conflict of interest. First issue is the
Redwood Grove, on December 8 commission’s direction was independent arborist is not obliged to accept
project, he notes that development could result in a decline in the Redwoods over the long term; now
applicant is back making changes to Lot 11, wants to increase the height one foot, and the roofs of the other
houses 2 feet taller, this is a bate and switch pattern, rather it returns us to ground zero, and discussion of a 4
lot development.
Public Comment continued: Represent the neighbors who wish to preserve the Redwood trees, concerned
about the General Plan and the goals in the Housing Element, project proposed by Miller threatens to impact
the neighborhood, I would suggest a process like that of a subdivision, and process all lots as a single unit,
evaluate as one project under CEQA, General Plan and impact on neighborhood; now the developer is back
and wants to parcel off, this is a process to amend the conditional use permit, is it in accord with the General
Plan; the conditions protect the city, by dividing he increases his opportunity and city decreased his risk; he
needs to protect his investment to divide off Lot 11 and has taken advantage of the emerging lots.
Commission has not asked if the conditional use permit should be revoked, to do that the Commission must
provide notice and proper findings; the project cannot be built as originally designed, he has done
detrimental damage to the property, he has not preserved the trees and has violated city ordinance, the
project needs to be changed, he may not come back with Lots 9 and 10 for a year. Live behind this project;
all property owners all have rights, Miller owns the trees, neighbors simply looking for loop holes to stop
him from developing; property was on the market for 9 months as a development project.
C. Keele left the dais and chambers at 11:00 p.m.
Public Comment continued with applicant's response: Comment made that applicant wishes to piecemeal
development, staff is actually adding conditions; remind that city holds a $120,000 cash bond against
damage to the Redwood Grove; at the last meeting asked the City Planner the number of times this
developer had been in trouble with the city, she answered none noting he had taken over a problem property
; grading done in December was unintentional, still have a red tag on Lot 11, developer has a right to
proceed. On Lots 9 and 10, even conditions as currently approved expected additional investigation, this has
not changed, it is what you intended. There were no further comments from the floor and public hearing
was closed.
Commissioners comments: can the approvals on Lots 9 and 10 be revoked later? CP noted that she believed
so particularly based on the situation of the tree roots or needs of the trees or site cause the applicant to
make changes to the structures; applicants requests for changes to the conditions of approval, plus any we
might add, makes it appear that we should discuss and bring back the conditions of approval before acting
on this request; part of the problems is the three lots, this house on Lot 11 is a good design, modest size,
contributes to the neighborhood, that is not the fact of all three houses; the root investigation report indicates
concern about trenching within 30 feet from the Redwood trees, that is well into the second half of the Lot
10; availability of Lot 11 during construction may facilitate options for building on Lots 9 and 10, there may
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
18
be some risk that Lots 9 and 10 may not be developable as approved without Lot 11 available during
construction—is Lot 11 a part of the solution for Lots 9 and 10? No ordinary family is going to be able to
Lot 11
live up to and around these trees, not inclined to break this project up. Agree that applicant is requesting a
lot of modifications to the conditions; could continue and look at revised conditions, by then may know
more about two lots and determine the impact on Lot 11; report indicates that in this case roots have grown
in an unusual pattern, location of piers and cantilevers will be key. All arborists have agreed it is all right to
use the 20 feet of Lot 10 for staging; need to look at conditions, there is a clear read from the City Arborist.
Key issue is permission to separate Lot 11 or look at the development as a whole. What has been approved?
Are there three lots? CP Monroe responded there are presently three lots.
Chair Bojués made a motion to approve the revised conditions for Lot 11 which separates it from Lots 9 and
10 with all the conditions in the staff report and by resolution. C. Auran seconded the motion with the
addition to condition 12 that to insure a continuous water source from the distribution line to the required
soaker hose irrigation in the Redwood Grove the property owner maintain and continue to use the existing
water line along the rear of the three lots or replace it as required by the City Engineer and add a condition
that when the certificate of occupancy is granted for Lot 11 and the construction fence along the 20 foot
construction zone is removed, Lot 11 shall no long be responsible for any conditions which apply to Lots 9
and 10 and these conditions shall become void. The maker of the motion accepted the additional conditions.
The amended conditions of approval for Lot 11 are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 9, 2004, sheets A.1 through A.5 and L1; and that
any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require and
amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors,
or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003,
because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development
approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 9 and 10; 3) that when the certificate of occupancy is
granted for Lot 11 and the construction fence along the 20 foot construction zone on Lot 10 is removed, Lot
11 shall no long be responsible for any conditions of approval which apply to Lots 9 and 10 and these
conditions shall become void; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect,
engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed
professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under
penalty of perjury; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note
compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been
built according to the approved Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all
required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the
redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation
was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met including
appropriate removal of the construction staging area fence on Lot 10; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents,
and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof
not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction
plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineers March 15, 2004, May
31, June 4, August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the City Arborist's April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos,
and the Recycling Specialist's March 10, 2004 memo shall be met; 8) that demolition of the existing
structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
19
overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit
issued by BAAQMD; 9) that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends
or holidays during the development of Lot 11; use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the
City's noise ordinance; 10) that no construction equipment, construction material storage or construction
worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as
much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site or in the construction staging area
during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the
redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lots 9 and 10; 11) that all construction shall be done in
accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and
limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no
construction on Sundays or holidays; 12) that the existing water line at the rear of the properties shall be
retained and maintained in operable condition to supply the required soaker hose irrigation system for the
Redwood tree grove on Lots 9 and 10 or a new 2-inch water line as approved by the City Engineer to
provide to water source for the required soaker hose irrigation system to serve Lots 9 and 10 shall be
installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the City; and that all new utility
connections to serve Lot 11 and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current
code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems any increase in capacity
required shall be at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works
Department; 13) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the
interior noise level within the building and inside each unit shall not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas;
14) that the new sewer connection to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required
by the development; 15) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is
determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to
the site; 16) that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the
property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist;
17) that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supply the maintenance
irrigation system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving
a building permit, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works
department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 18) that the property owner shall
arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue,
1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with
the permission of the affected property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property
owners of this condition of approval, noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 19)
that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 20) that the development on this site
shall comply with Burlingame Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 21) that the property
owner shall comply with Burlingame Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance; 22) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction,
work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City
Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 23) that
the property owner shall submit a complete landscape and irrigation plan for approval by the City Arborist
prior to a Building permit being issued; the plan shall address the landscaping, flat work, driveway design
and materials, and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, retaining walls,
soil deposits and driveway construction details; landscaping shall be inspected and approved by the City
Arborist before the City shall issue an occupancy permit for the house; 24) 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 or edition in effect at the time a building permit is issued; 25) that before any grading or
construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather-
proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are
readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 26) that if work is done in violation
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
20
of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist and the
Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a
Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation;
27) that the property owner shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe from its
connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as
directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the existing line past lot
9; 28) that at the south property line of lot 9 the property owner shall extend a temporary, above ground,
water line as approved by the City Arborist from the new 2-inch copper water pipe in the public easement to
provide at least 250 feet of dry weather soaker hose irrigation to the redwood groves, there shall be no
excavation for the temporary water line on lot 9; 29) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective
Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lot 11, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective
Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or
tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective
Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the
building permit for each development on lots 9, 10 and 11 has been finaled and the removal authorized by
the City Arborist; 30) that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 11, the property
owner shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout
stakes 24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City
Arborist; there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any
substantial tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent
movement or alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 31) that prior to issuance of a building
permit for construction on Lot 11, the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove
Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of
mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period;
this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of
these professionals; 32) that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11, the
property owner shall cause to have a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark)
and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree
Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method
approved by the project arborist and City Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be
supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist
of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and
inspection can occur; 33) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11 and starting
in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of
approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot
9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing;
irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all
three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be
soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated;
the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 34) that prior to
issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11, the property owner shall affix at least four (4), 8-
inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it
is a “Tree Protection Fence”, “Do Not Alter or Remove” and in the event of movement or problem call a
posted emergency number; 35) that the property owner shall establish a twenty-foot wide staging area strip
along the north property line of Lot 10 by installing a permanent six-foot tall, chain-link fence at the
location shown on the Site Plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 9, 2004,
according to the specifications of the City Arborist; this fence shall be posted with the same laminated
waterproof warning signage as used on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing at the same intervals; at
no time during the construction on Lot 11, including installation of landscaping, shall this fencing be moved,
removed or relocated without the approval of the project arborist and City Arborist; this fencing shall be
removed prior to any construction activity on Lot 10; 36) that all protective fencing, staging area fencing on
Lot 10 and Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the
project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 11; violation of the fenced areas and/or
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
21
removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has
been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and
they have been approved by the City Arborist; and 37) that before issuance of a building permit, the property
owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly basis, a licensed arborist
inspector selected by the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading
on Lot 11 and in the 20 foot staging area on Lot 10 to support construction on Lot 11 to insure that the
mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the
project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by
additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure
that adequate funding is available to cover this on-going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain
the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall result in a stop work order on the
project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and c.
that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued
until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue;
and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in
this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount
determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work
order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the
property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and
approval of the five year maintenance plan/ program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot;
and f. that this same account may be used for the City Arborist’s selected licensed arborist inspector on lots
9 and 10.
Comment on the motion: have not had much time to review arborist report, assume modified conditions
reflect these findings so am uncomfortable changing staff proposed conditions tonight, realize that the
conditions for Lots 9 and 10 will come back to the commission later; its OK to separate Lot 11, it’s a good
idea to ease into construction, will reduce impact on the neighborhood, like seeing consensus of the three
arborists, report contains a clear set of modified conditions. Independent arborists concerns are on Lots 9
and 10, he agreed that Lot 11 is OK as well as using the 20 feet on Lot 10, I agree professionally that its OK
as well. What is the issue regarding the location of the water line? Sr. Engineer commented that there is a
10 foot wide right-of-way at the rear of the houses where the water line is presently located, plan to move
the water line to the front in the street, the line will come off Adeline and down Drake. Does commission
want to consider allowing the property owner to use the rear of Lot 10, out of the area affected by the
Redwoods for additional staging area so long as the proposal is endorsed by all three arborists.
Commissioners determined that they did not want to add this option as a condition at this time.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the conditions as amended for Lot 11 which
would allow Lot 11 to be developed independently of Lots 9 and 10. The motion passed on a roll call vote
4-1-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining, C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 11:45 p.m.
7B. LOTS 9 AND 10 – APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND FOR ADDITIONAL
TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS.
C. Keighran continued to abstain because she lives within 500 feet of this project. CA Anderson continued
to recuse himself. Both were not present in the chambers.
CP Monroe presented the staff report noting that these conditions although separated into two sets, one for
Lot 9 and one for Lot 10, remain the same as those approved by the Commission on May 27, 2003, except
for being amended to require additional Redwood Grove maintenance and protection for the term of
construction on all three lots and the placement of a barrier fence on Lot 10 for the 20 foot construction
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
22
staging area to be used while building on Lot 11. CP noted that the conditions which have already been
completed are shown by strike through and the changes are shown in italics. Although the initial studies of
root location and impact areas and probing at specific locations for foundation piers have been done, the
applicant still has foundation design and other work to complete and get approved by the arborists before
these conditions are complete to cover construction. As a result the project proposals and conditions of
approval will return to the Planning Commission again. Commissioners asked if the chain link fence
protecting the trees should be expanded immediately. CP noted that Lots 9 and 10 would be protected from
all construction on Lot 11 by the fence placed along the inner edge of the 20 foot staging area on Lot 10 and
by the continued supervision of the Redwood Grove maintenance including proper placement and ongoing
fence inspection by the arborist. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing for Lots 9 and 10. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, represented the
applicant. Shean Abshire, attorney for the neighbors, Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake; Ann Thomas, 1512 Drake,
spoke. Applicant noted that there is an existing water source on the site that the applicant can use for the
soaker irrigation on Lot 9; agree with the way the process is evolving, believe as the independent arborist
becomes more familiar with the site and more work is done on the foundation design, the lots will be found
to be buildable; view these conditions on Lots 9 and 10 to be interim, know that they will be finalized later.
Other comments from the floor: No question given the Levinson report in the record that the projects on
Lots 9 and 10 do not comply; do not like the implication of Mark Hudak that the independent arborist is
coming around “to our way”; foundation as designed is not buildable so there is no project to attach
conditions to; can’t find that it is not detrimental to the property based on the record here, if it has been
revised need to deny the application. Report which was given to her was not in the staff report or any
finding from Mr. Levinson, a February 20 report was referred to; don’t know if the conditions of approval
include; the three arborists agree on the 20 foot construction staging area on Lot 10 but based on what? CP
Monroe noted that there was a staff comment from the City Arborist in the Commission packet. Have been
asking for two years for an independent arborist report to be put into the record, have denied due process,
outrageous. Applicant submitted his arborist’s report stating that there were no significant roots affected,
also regarding the pier locations only 2 were affected based on site investigation on February 4, 2004. This
is not a new approval for Lots 9 and 10, there are amendments to the existing report based on additional
study, now the conditions as presented reflect what city wants as interim. There were no more comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: in the original 32 conditions it notes that location of the pier and beam foundation
are yet to be determined and these conditions represent no change from that; on that basis should move to
approve the amendment to the conditional use permit to separate the conditions of approval for Lot 9 and
Lot 10. Staff was asked if these conditions are more stringent than the original? CP responded yes, these
conditions provide more protection for the trees during the entire time of any construction on the lots; also
more investigation will need to occur for the foundation locations, for that reason the arborist report is still
being prepared, an arborist analysis/report will accompany any resubmitted plans for Lot 9 and/or Lot 10,
including revised conditions.
C. Auran moved approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit to separate the conditions of
approval including mitigation monitoring for Lots 9 and Lots 10 at 1537 Drake Avenue, including
additional conditions to address the on-going maintenance of the Redwood Tree Grove during construction
on all three of the originally merged lots. C. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
The conditions for Lot 9 are:1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the
Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.5 and date stamped April 25,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
23
2003, sheet L-1; and that any changes to the structure including but not limited to foundation design, height,
building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building or the tree protection plan or to
tree trimming shall require review by the Planning Commission and an amendment to this permit; 2) that
any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the
roof height or pitch; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on
May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall
development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 10 and 11 shall be subject to Planning
Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or
other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as
window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of
perjury; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to
the approved Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection
measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate
tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and
any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues
shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not
visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction
plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineers April 8, May 31, June
4, August 15 , August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the Fire Marshals September 3, 2002 memo, the
Chief Building Inspectors August 5, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002 memo, and the
City Arborist's September 3, 2002, and April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos shall be met; 7) that demolition of
the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading
permit, be overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all
the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit
issued by BAAQMD; 8) that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends
or holidays during the development of Lot 9; use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the
City's noise ordinance; 9) that no construction equipment, construction material storage or construction
worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as
much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of
development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective
fencing on Lot 9; 10) that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code
requirements in effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours
of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no construction on
Sundays or holidays; 11) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that
the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping
areas; 12) that the existing water line at the rear of the properties shall be retained and maintained in
operable conditions to supply the required soaker hose irrigation system for the Redwood Tree Grove on
Lots 9 and 10 or a new 2 inch water line to serve lots 9, 10 and 11 shall be installed before an inspection for
the foundation will be scheduled by the City; and all new utility connections to serve the site and which are
affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards; and local capacities of the
collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be
necessary by the Public Works Department; and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be
approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur
on site without continual supervision of a licensed arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 13) that the
new sewer to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 14)
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
24
that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City
Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 15) that prior
to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for
approval by the City Engineer; 16) that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections to
the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 17)
that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supplying the maintenance irrigation
system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving a
building permit, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department
to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 18) that the property owner shall arrange for
a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake
Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the
permission of the affected property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property
owners of this condition of approval, noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 19)
that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be
approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition
material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the
implementation of this plan; (completed) 20) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge
from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards;
21) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 22) that the
project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house
and/or accessory structure or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues
which may arise during construction; 23) that the property owner shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the
City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 24) that should any
cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by
a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been
executed to the satisfaction of the City; 25) that no installation work on the driveway or landscaping on the
site shall occur until the timing, design, method of construction and materials have been approved by the
City Arborist, and a licensed arborist shall be on the site continually to supervise the installation of the
driveway and to make adjustments based on any root impacts identified during the process of construction;
the construction activity shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist during construction compliance
with the approved materials and method of installation; it shall be the responsibility of the property owner
to notify the City Arborist when construction of the driveway on Lot 9 is to begin; 26) A. that the root
protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lot 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a
Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the
root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the
inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any
demolition or construction permit; B. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected
regularly by the City Arborist and shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or
construction unless approved by the City Arborist;
C. that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10,
except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install
the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb
the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; 27) A. that a licensed arborist
shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated
tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, during
the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots 9 and 10, and during digging
for removal or installation of any utilities; B. that a licensed arborist, selected by the City and funded by the
property owner, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently as required by the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
25
conditions of approval and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree
protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; C. that no
materials or equipment shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously approved by the City
Arborist; D. that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the property owner and be obligated
to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the
protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and E. the City Arborist shall also stop work
for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the
site; 28) A. that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand
dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required
by the City Arborist; excavation activity for the foundation shall be limited to the months of May to
October;
B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes,
the property owner's on-site arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier shall be
relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve that the requirements of
the building code are still met; C. if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam
foundations roots greater than 3 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the
certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 29) A. that, based on
root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner shall submit a detailed
foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the
bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the issuance of a building permit
for construction on the site; B. if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to
accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department
prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 30) that the property owner shall submit a complete
landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the
landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining
walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the property
owner's arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be
stopped and plans revised if any roots of 3 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new
landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 31) A. that the fence post holes shall be hand-dug
under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line
between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter
is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the property owner's Certified arborist and as
approved by the City Arborist; 32) Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for
maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program
for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon
final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended by the City Arborist based on site
studies and experience during construction; B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified
arborist to the Planning Department that discusses the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance
on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of
construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition
permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four (4)
Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount
shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any
demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a
form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees
die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed
to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any
unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; nothing contained in this
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
26
condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other
person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 33) that for purposes of these conditions a certified
arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 34) that before
issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the
lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that
these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: A. The trees may cause damage or
inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the
property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the
trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and
utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must
be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in
penalties and possible criminal prosecution; 35) 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; 36) that
a soils compaction analysis shall be performed by a soils engineer on the area that was excavated and
refilled during the week of November 24, 2003, to determine what the existing compaction is. The soils
engineer and a certified arborist shall then determine what corrective steps if any must be taken to restore
the area to the compaction existing in the surrounding soil and shall submit this determination to the City
Arborist and City Engineer for approval. The corrective steps will then be completed before issuance of any
construction permits for the site (completed); 37) that before any grading or construction occurs on the
site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather-proofed story board at the
front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available
to all persons working or visiting the site; 38) that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these
conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division, work
on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to
determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 39) that the property owner
shall receive an encroachment permit from the City and shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-
inch copper pipe from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of
lots 9, 10 and 11 as directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the
existing line south lot 9; and a connection provided to Lot 9 at a location approved by the City Arborist; 40)
that at the south property line of lot 9 the property owner shall extend a temporary, above ground,
water line as approved by the City Arborist from the new 2-inch copper water pipe in the public easement to
provide at least 250 feet of dry weather soaker hose irrigation to the redwood groves, there shall be no
excavation for the temporary water line on lot 9; 41) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall
be maintained during construction on Lot 9, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be
temporarily altered, moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind
are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the
protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit
for the development on Lot 9 has been finaled and an occupancy permit issued; except for modification of
the protective fencing as approved by the City Arborist in order to install the driveway on Lot 9; 42) that
prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall reinforce the
existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes 24-inches into the
ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist; there shall be one
stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial tree roots, with steel
wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or alteration of the
protective fencing once installed; 43) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9,
the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection
access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status
of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
27
the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 44) that prior to
the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall cause to have a three-
inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic
compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation
of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City
Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City
Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood
chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 45) that prior to issuance of a
building permit for construction on Lot 9 and starting in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property
owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an
active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot 9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10
within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two
weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by
the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks,
until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil
moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 46) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9,
the property owner shall affix at least four (4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the
Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a “Tree Protection Fence”, “Do Not Alter or
Remove” and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 47) that the Redwood
Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City
Arborist during construction on Lot 9; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the
fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the
City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved
by the City Arborist; and 48) that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit
$7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly basis, a licensed arborist inspector selected by
the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading on Lot 9 to insure that
the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the
project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by
additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure
that adequate funding is available to cover this on-going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain
the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall result in a stop work order on the
project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and c.
that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued
until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue;
and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in
this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount
determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work
order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned
to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and
approval of the five year maintenance plan/ program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot;
and f. that this same account may be used for the City Arborist’s selected licensed arborist inspector on lots
9, 10 and 11.
Conditions of approval for Lot 10 are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to
the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 and A.6, date stamped April 2, 2003,
sheets A.2, A.3 and A.5, and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheets A.4 and L1 for Lot 10; and all changes
shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans
were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
28
same time on adjacent lots 9 and 11 shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 2) that any changes to
the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or
enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height
or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans
which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in
scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 9 and 11;
3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations
and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the
project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4) that
prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved
Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures
were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree
maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any
redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall
be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible
from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before
a Building permit is issued; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineers' May 31, June 4, August 30,
and October 15, 2002, memos, the Fire Marshal's September 3, 2002 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's
August 5, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002 memo, and the City Arborist's April 3 and
May 21, 2003 memos shall be met; 7) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth
moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by a licensed arborist,
inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 8) that there
shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the
development of Lot 10; use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance;
9) that no construction equipment, construction material storage or construction worker parking shall be
allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as much employee parking
as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of development; construction
activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lot 10; 10) all
construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in effect at the
time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by
the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 11) that the
method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the
building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 12) that the existing water line
at the rear of the properties shall be retained and maintained in operable conditions to supply the required
soaker hose irrigation system for the Redwood Tree Grove on Lots 9 and 10 or a new 2 inch water line to
serve lots 9, 10 and 11 shall be installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the
City; and all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be
installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall
be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department;
and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building
permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of a licensed
arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 13) that the new sewer to the public sewer main shall be
installed to City standards as required by the development; 14) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall
be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any
existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 15) that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
29
site, the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 16) that
prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the property owner shall
submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 17) that prior to installing the new
water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supplying the maintenance irrigation system to the redwood grove
in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving a building permit, the property owner
shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in
the City right-of-way; 18) that the property owner shall arrange for a licensed professional to install
backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and
1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the permission of the affected property
owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval,
noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 19) that the contractor shall submit the
"Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building
Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the
waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan; (completed)
20) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 21) that this project shall comply
with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 22) that the project property owner shall
obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house and/or accessory structure or
necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues which may arise during
construction; 23) that the property owner shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 24) that should any cultural resources be discovered
during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as
qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction
of the City; 25) that the driveway and the detached garage it serves for the proposed house on Lot 10 shall
be shifted to the north side of the lot within 5 feet of the north side property line and the driveway shall be
designed to be pervious material as approved by the City Arborist, and installed according to approved plans
with the supervision of a licensed arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist; 26) A. that the root
protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lot 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a
Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the
root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the
inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any
demolition or construction permit;
B. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall
not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City
Arborist;
C. that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10,
except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install
the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb
the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; 27) A. that driveway on Lot
10 shall be constructed of pavers set in sand, with a maximum cut below grade of 10 inches and a base
compaction determined by a certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist; B. that if any roots
greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during grading for the driveway on Lot 10 and must be cut
to install the driveway, the situation shall be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City
Arborist prior to cutting any roots; C. that if at any time the certified arborist on site or the City Arborist
feels the number of roots to be cut to install the driveway on Lot 10 is significant, a stop work order shall be
issued for the site until the City Arborist determines whether it is necessary to relocate the driveway; 28)
A. that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take
place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
30
grade beam foundation, during the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots
9 and 10, and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; B. that a licensed arborist, selected
by the City and funded by the property owner, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more
frequently as required by the conditions of approval and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning
Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are
being met; C. that no materials or equipment shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously
approved by the City Arborist; D. that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the property
owner and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of
approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and E. the City
Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and
maintenance of trees on the site;29) A. that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for
the foundation shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole
shall be protected as required by the City Arborist; excavation activity for the foundation shall be limited to
the months of May to October; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during
the digging for the pier holes, the property owner's on-site arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine
how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve
that the requirements of the building code are still met; C. if at any time during the installation of the pier
and grade beam foundations roots greater than 3 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be
documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut;
30) A. that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner
shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City
Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the
issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; B. if at any time during the construction the pier
locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by
the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 31)that the property owner shall
submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued
to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity,
fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by
the property owner's arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and
work shall be stopped and plans revised if any roots of 3 inches in diameter or greater are found in post
holes or any new landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 32) A. that the fence post holes
shall be hand-dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of
the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3
inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the Certified arborist and as
approved by the City Arborist; 33) Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for
maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program
for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon
final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the April 28,
2003 Mayne Tree Company report as well as such additional recommendations as the property owner shall
receive from a certified arborist; B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to
the Planning Department that discussed the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the
trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of
construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition
permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four (4)
Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount
shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any
demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a
form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
31
die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed
to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any
unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; nothing contained in this
condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other
person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 34) that for purposes of these conditions a certified
arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 35) A. that the
fence post holes shall be hand-dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along
the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a
root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the
property owner's Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 36) Tree Maintenance: A. The
property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project
and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including
deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended
by the City Arborist based on site studies and experience during construction; B. The property owner shall
submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discusses the health of the trees and
any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one
year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5
years; C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an
appraisal for each of the four (4) Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of
the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the
appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall
then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should
one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after
completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any
necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding
the trees; nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal
penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 37) that before
issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the
lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that
these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: A. The trees may cause damage or
inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the
property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the
trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and
utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must
be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in
penalties and possible criminal prosecution; and
38) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001
Edition or the edition approved by the City and as amended by the City of Burlingame at the time a building
permit is issued; 39) that a soils compaction analysis shall be performed by a soils engineer on the area that
was excavated and refilled during the week of November 24, 2003, to determine what the existing
compaction is. The soils engineer and a certified arborist shall then determine what corrective steps if any
must be taken to restore the area to the compaction existing in the surrounding soil and shall submit this
determination to the City Arborist and City Engineer for approval. The corrective steps will then be
completed before issuance of any construction permits for the site; (completed); 40) that before any grading
or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather-
proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are
readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 41) that if work is done in violation
of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
32
the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a
Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation;
42) that the property owner shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe from its
connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as
directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the existing line past lot
9 and a connection provided to Lot 10 shall be provided at a location approved by the City Arborist; 43)
that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lots 9, 10 and
11, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed
during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even
temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection
measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for each development on lots 9
and 10 has received an occupancy permit and the City Arborist has approved removal of the protective
fencing; 44) that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner
shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes
24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist;
there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial
tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or
alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 45) that prior to issuance of a building permit for
construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective
Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil
moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area
shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these
professionals; 46) that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property
owner shall cause to have a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a
two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove
Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved
by the project arborist and City Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by
the project arborist and the City Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of
installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can
occur; 47) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10 and starting in the late
Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of
approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot
9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing;
irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all
three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be
soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated;
the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 48) that prior to
issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall affix at least four (4), 8-
inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it
is a “Tree Protection Fence”, “Do Not Alter or Remove” and in the event of movement or problem call a
posted emergency number; 49) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10,
shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 10; violation
of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped
until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all
corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; and 50) that before issuance of a
building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly
basis, a licensed arborist inspector selected by the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all
construction and grading on Lot 10 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
33
declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are
met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to
maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this
on-going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15th
of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the
appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and c. that should the monthly billing during any
single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account
have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to
issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account, the
property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover
the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and e. that the
unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the
installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/
program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and f. that this same account may be used for
the City Arborist’s selected licensed arborist inspector on lots 9, 10 and 11.
Comment on the motion: asked are these conditions more stringent than the original? CP responded yes,
these conditions add requirements to both Lots 9 and 10 for maintenance and protection of the Redwood
Grove for the time of construction on Lot 11 and through the completion of whatever construction to be
determined on Lots 9 and 10. CP also noted that more investigation will need to take place for the
foundations of structures and driveways on these lots, depending on the design and location proposed so the
arborist report is evolving and will continue to be worked on since no foundation or driveway submittals
have been made yet. Whatever the proposal is made it will be brought back to the commission with a full
arborist report. Feel that this is a bad policy at this time, however the conditions are more restrictive, and
will not be harmful, but this is not a good habit for processing.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to amend the conditional use permit by separating the
conditions of approval for Lots 9 and 10 and amending them for additional maintenance of the Redwood
Tree Grove. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Keighran abstaining, C. Keele absent).
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
13. 312 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (TOM AND TRISH NICHOL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; ROBERT MEDAN, ARCHITECT) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Robert Medan, architect, noted that the applicant's family has
three children and that they need more space, proposing to add a third bedroom. Commission asked if the
top of the roof was cut to stay within the 30' height limit? Yes, tried to stay within the height limit and did
not want to change the roof pitch to lower the height, changing the roof pitch would have altered the overall
design envelope. Commission noted that a special permit to exceed the height limit would be appropriate in
the case of this architectural style in order to have the roof terminate at a point. Architect noted that he
would make the suggested changes to the roof as long as it would not delay the review process. There were
no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
34
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions to the roof
have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on motion: Commission requested that the architect provide information on how the chimney will
be stabilized with the next submittal.
Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been
revised for the roof and chimney stabilization as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C.
Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
12:15 a.m.
14. 1125 JACKLING DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(MAURISSA HEFFRAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL MOYER, ARCHITECT)
(32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the 100-year flood flow limit is
shown on the plan. Plr. Hurin noted that the 100-year flood flow limit is indicated by the thick, black line
on the Site Plan and that the it was determined by hydraulic calculations as required by the City Engineer.
Commission asked if the proposed "L" foundation footing near the existing 48-inch oak tree, as proposed in
the arborist report, was reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. Plr. Hurin noted that the City Arborist
reviewed and accepted the recommended mitigations in the arborist report. There were no further questions
of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Dion Heffran, part owner and designer, and Maurissa Heffran,
property owner, were available to answer questions. Submitted three letters of support from neighbors,
noted that the proposed design is not bulky, primarily single story with a high pitched roof, will be using a
stone slate roof, design is French Normandy, will have little impact on the existing landscaping which will
be retained. Commission noted that this is a great design and that two of the existing nonconforming
conditions have been eliminated with the new project. The Commission asked the applicant if he was
positive that a slate roof is going to used, asked if this is a real slate product and not a simulated material, do
not want to see it changed during construction. Applicant verified that a real slate product roof will be used
for the roofing, feels that this is an important aspect of the structure, the roof structure was designed to
handle 13 lbs/SF, proposed slate roof weighs 11 lbs/SF, and therefore the roof structure has been designed to
handle the loads of the proposed slate roof. Commission expressed a concern with the proposed
construction near the existing 48-inch oak tree and asked if the house and roof will encroach into the canopy
of the oak tree, have seen other projects get too close to tree canopies, do not want to see major tree limbs
cut for the addition. Applicant noted that the oak tree is located on an upward slope and several feet higher
than the finished floor of the house. In addition, the house is single-story at that point and the roof pitches
away from the tree, the house and roof will not encroach into the canopy and no tree limbs will have to be
cut, recently trimmed the tree to remove dead limbs. The area adjacent to the existing oak tree is currently
paved so there will be no additional impact to the tree roots from construction. Commission commented that
the designer has done a great job, appreciates that the applicant also approached the neighbors on Easton
Drive who will look down on this property, it was a good idea to contact them. Commission noted that it
appears that a small portion of the house will remain, why not just make this a new house? Applicant noted
that some existing walls and foundation will remain to preserve a nonconforming rear setback, existing
house sits awkwardly on an odd-shaped lot and it would negatively affect the floor plan if it had to conform
at that section.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
35
Denise Balestieri, 414 Costa Rica Avenue, San Mateo, spoke in favor of the project, has seen the applicants'
work and they do a very nice job. 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 as proposed with no changes. This
motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Comment on motion: Commission discussed if a single pole was necessary near the oak tree to verify that
the addition will not encroach into the canopy, because the oak tree is located on an upward slope and the
roof pitches away from the tree, it was determined that a story pole would not be necessary.
Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed
on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable.
This item concluded at 12:30 a.m.
15. 1608 MONTE CORVINO WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELIZABETH QUINTO, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
BEVERLY CHEN AND S.J. XIONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Elizabeth Quinto, architect, 1212 Beattie Lane, Sebastopol, and
Beverly Chen, property owner, 167 San Pablo Avenue, San Francisco, were available to answer questions.
Noted that the owners bought the property because they like the neighborhood, the property has a large rear
yard, wanted to add to the house and also preserve the rear yard space, also would like to change the look of
the house. Commission asked if true divided light windows will be used? Architect indicated that because
of the high cost, true divided light windows are not proposed, could possibly add them to the front of the
house. Property owner asked if the Commission would have to review any changes to the interior of the
house after approval? No, only changes to the exterior would have to be reviewed as an amendment to the
design review. Owner asked if converting the existing den into a bedroom, making it a fourth bedroom
would be a problem? No, since the existing single-car garage meets the requirement of a four bedroom
house. Commission noted that access to the laundry room and backyard is provided from the garage, but
don't see access directly into the house from the garage, please explain. The architect noted that direct
access from the garage to the house is provided by a stairway located in the left rear corner of the garage.
Commission commented that the 12' x 15' laundry room is very large and recommended that this area be
used for additional storage. Architect noted that the laundry room is existing and larger because it contains
a washer/dryer, storage area, furnace, and water heater all within one room. There were no other comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar as the project is proposed with no
changes. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Comment on the motion: would like to add a condition that requires true divided light windows be used on
the front elevation. Make of the motion and second agreed.
Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar with a condition that
true divided light windows be used on the front elevation. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
36
Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
12:40 a.m.
16. 1544 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE
FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KATHY PHENGRASAMY, JAIDIN
CONSULTING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PETER LIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter dated March 29, 2004, was
submitted by Amit Chopra, 1547 Los Montes Drive, was submitted after preparation of the staff report. The
letter expresses concern with possible view obstruction from the proposed addition. Commission asked staff
to clarify where encroachment into the declining height envelope occurs, it is not clear on the plans. Plr.
Hurin reviewed the plans and noted that the declining height envelope was not drawn on the building
elevations. Staff sketched it in and determined that an exception is required for the proposed addition and
noted that the existing house encroaches into the declining height envelope. Staff will have the architect
correctly show the declining height envelope on the revised plans. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Barbara Roczniak-Kugay, architect, was available to answer
questions. She noted that she will resubmit plans showing the declining height envelope, also wanted to add
a 5' x 5' window in the family room along the left side of the house to meet light an ventilation requirements,
will also show on revised plans for the next meeting. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Commission asked since a letter of concern was submitted by a neighbor regarding
view obstruction, should story poles be installed to view potential impacts? Commission agreed that story
poles should be installed and their location and height surveyed. Commission also requested that a phone
number for the concerned neighbor be provided in the staff report so that the Commission can make an
appointment to view the story poles from his dwelling.
C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the plans have been
revised to show the declining height envelope, added window in the family room, and story poles installed
and surveyed). 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 plans had
been revised as directed and story poles installed and surveyed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1
(C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded
at 12:50 a.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2004.
CP Monroe briefly reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of March 15, 2004.
- FYI - CHANGES TO APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AT 1504 ARC WAY
Commission had no comment on the proposed changes and approved the request.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004
37
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 1:20 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Auran, Secretary
MINUTES03.29.04