HomeMy WebLinkAbout101204PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
October 12, 2004
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the October 12, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Bojués, Keele, Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Auran, Keighran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:10 p.m.
and left at 9:35 p.m.)
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; Susan
Harris, Code Enforcement Officer; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell
III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 27, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were amended, Item 2, 1783 El Camino Real, page 5, second
paragraph, line 4, change "old growth" to "mature" trees; the minutes were
approved as amended.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
There were no study items for review.
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.
1B. 1257 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO REPLACE EXISTING CHANNEL WALLS
WHICH SUPPORT AN EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE (PETER HAASE, FALL CREEK
ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JUDY AND RICK KELL, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. C. Vistica noted that he would like to discuss a design option on 116 Bloomfield and
requested that it be shifted to the action calendar.
C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar (item 1b, 1257 Cabrillo Avenue) based on the facts in the
staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in
the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chair called for a voice vote on
the motion and it passed 4-0-3 (Cers. Auran, Keighran, Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were
advised.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
2
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
1A. 116 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BOB KOTMEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JESSE
GEURSE, DESIGNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
C. Brownrigg arrived at 7:10 p.m.
CP Monroe presented the staff report including staff comments, the conditions of approval and resolution.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, architect, represented the project. He noted that
he would answer any questions. Commissioner noted that the project is approvable as it is, but there is a
lost opportunity which wanted to point out, could connect the stairway to the foyer at the intermediate
landing- would open foyer and tie two together, might affect the exterior wall in a minor way. Architect
noted discussed this option with client, decided wanted to keep tower as its own element and retain the
vaulted ceiling in the room below, if follow suggestion it would affect the symmetry of the space below.
Commissioner asked about the landscaping, only see four trees, Coco palms two at front and two at rear,
these trees are slow growing and big, would you be amenable to replacing them with four trees from the
street tree list of a character which would provide screening and shade to the new building? Architect noted
they would agree. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that this was a well designed project and moved to approve the application, by resolution,
with an additional condition to replace the four palm trees, two at the front and two at the rear with four
trees taken from the street tree list which would screen the new structure front and rear and with the
following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department date stamped July 29, 2004, sheets T.0 through A.3, A.8 and A.9 and September 20, 2004,
sheets L.1 and A.4 through A.7; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall
require and amendment to this permit; and that true divided light windows shall be used throughout the
house; 2) that the four palm trees, two at the front and two at the rear, shall be replaced with four trees
selected from the street tree list which would screen the new structure front and rear; 3) that any changes to
the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),
moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject
to design review; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional 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; 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 June 28, 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 a Waste Reduction Plan and meet
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
3
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. Bojués.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Auran and Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
2. 1128 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOSEPH CONTI, CONTI-HURLEY ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT;
NILES TANAKATSUBO, TSH INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN, ARCHITECT;
STEVE IVERSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
BARBER
Reference staff report October 12, 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.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Gregg Hurley, architect, clarified that a covered porch is not
being added, only the roofline will be changing above the existing porch, after working with the design
reviewer the addition was completely redesigned, redesign keeps the charm and architectural style of the
neighborhood, the proposed addition now matches the existing footprint, new roof slopes match existing,
proposed windows are true divided light and match existing, proposed second story looks like it is part of
the original house, the modified roof slope above the existing porch is typical for this style, the existing bay
window remains unchanged, steep roof pitch at front was kept to contribute to the neighborhood style, and
the detached garage is stylistic like house. The architect also noted that the windows were redesigned and
made narrow to comply with the existing windows, windows in dormers on east elevation were changed to
comply with egress requirements, shape of dormer vents were revised to be more traditional, openings in
front porch were kept, and the wood posts for the porch at rear of house are now compatible with the overall
design. Architect summarized an email in support he received from Mark Silva, 1132 Oxford Road, noting
that the revised design reflects the spirit of the street and retains the charm of the neighborhood,
complemented the Planning Commission and the design review process and noted that process delivered a
better design.
Further discussion: Commission expressed a concern with the 36' roof height and its impact on neighboring
single story house to the east, looks like it will tower over the single story house, have difficulty making the
findings for the special permit for height. Architect noted that he spoke with Randy Hill, neighbor to the
east, in his conversation Mr. Hill noted he is satisfied with the roof slope, he has a lot of glass block facing
the new house, not going to change the glass block any time soon. Commission asked if true divided light
windows will be used? Architect noted that windows as close to true divided light as possible will be used.
Commission noted that this is a big improvement and the project now matches the neighborhood style.
Commission expressed a concern with the large front window in the living room and suggested that it needs
embellishment, appears large with grids, need to break down scale like the window above, suggest revising
this window to make it look different, consider having one large window in the center with two smaller
casement windows on each side. Architect noted that the existing window opening is being used. There
were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
4
C. Bojués noted that this is a nice design, architect addressed the Commission's concerns, height is
appropriate to maintain design integrity, 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 September 24, 2004, Sheets A0.01 through A3.02 site plan, floor plans
and building elevations; 2) that the living room window on the front elevation shall be revised to reduce its
visual scale and reflect window pattern above and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI
item prior to issuance of a building permit; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any
changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or
floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof
height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that 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; 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 applicant shall
comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance; 9) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Fire Marshal and Chief
Building Official’s memos dated June 7, 2004 shall be met; 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. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: in regards to height, there is a great example of this steep pitch is at 1104
Vancouver Avenue, appeared tall on plans but when built it turned out very nicely, the height preserves the
architectural character of the house, area of roof exceeding the height limit is reasonable and occurs towards
the rear of the house, so impact at street will be minimal; would like to see the change to the front living
room window brought back to the Planning Commission as an FYI item, can add as a condition.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Auran and Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m.
3. 1512 HIGHWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR HEIGHT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(JASSON DURHAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J & M DESIGN, DESIGNER) (49
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report October 12, 2004, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission pointed out that the
design reviewers' letter supports the project as proposed, but notes that it could be better with some
additional refinement. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Jasson Durhan, applicant and property owner, noted that he
started this process six months ago, tried to keep as much of the existing house, noted that he appreciated the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
5
design reviewers' comments and help with this project, it's a great design. Commission noted that the house
looks much better; concerned with the window operation of second floor bay window at the front of the
house, don't think it will work, upper window corners will be impacted by the roof; applicant noted that the
windows on the sides of the bay will be fixed. Commission noted that the applicant needs to notify the
Planning Department if any changes will be required to the bay window to make it work for egress.
Commission noted that the orange trees at the front of the property were not originally proposed, they will
not do well here, suggest picking a tree from the City's tree list, should be 24-inch box size; applicant noted
that there are many existing trees, will talk to his landscaper and choose a more appropriate tree.
Commission noted that in his analysis the design reviewer discussed clipping the roof, did you consider this
option? Applicant noted that a flat roof creates problems and has a high potential of leaking, would rather
not have a flat roof, only a small area exceeds the height limit. Commission suggested that the windows in
the second floor master bathroom be moved in closer together, as proposed they look very tight against the
roof eave; applicant noted that they can be moved in at least one foot. There were no further comments and
the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that the house is well designed 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 October 4, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-4, and that any changes to
building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to
this permit; 2) that the two orange trees shown at the front of the property shall be replaced with two 24-
inch box size trees selected from the City's tree list; 3) that the two second floor master bathroom windows
on the rear elevation shall be shifted closer together to avoid a conflict with the roof; 4) 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; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,
the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the
architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the
certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that
prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved
Planning and Building plans; 7) that 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
all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the conditions of
the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Inspector's and Recycling Specialist's May 24, 2004,
memos shall be met; 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and
Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 11) that the applicant shall
comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Comment on the motion: would like to see a condition added regarding the trees at the front of the property,
orange trees to be replaced with trees selected from the City's tree list, the maker of the motion and second
agreed; with regard to the height, the applicant would like to avoid a flat roof, will not have an impact since
roof is sloping away from the street.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
6
Auran and Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
4. 3036 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT FOR A NEW DECK AT THE REAR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
(WILLIAM CHIN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STEPHEN CHIN, PROPERTY OWNER) (36
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Brownrigg recused himself from this item because he was not able to meet with the neighbor because of
business travel. Reference staff report October 12, 2004, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked
if the Planning Commission received a noticed for the Hillside Area Construction Permit; Plr Hurin noted
that notices were sent to the Planning Commission, City Council and property owners with 100 feet of the
property for the initial hillside area construction permit. Commission asked if the hillside area construction
permit ordinance addresses privacy; CP Monroe noted that the hillside permit addresses obstruction of long
distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Stephen Chin, applicant and property owner, and William Chin,
engineer, noted that he applied for a building permit in July, did not realize a permit was required to build a
deck, stop work order was issued in July, was not told a hillside area construction permit was needed until
September, addressed all comments from the various departments, here only because of the concerns
expressed by the neighbor below, she is concerned about seeing the underside of the deck through openings
of existing foliage, willing to plant trees to fill in these gaps; adding lattice on the sides of the deck is not
feasible, would like to plant groundcover on the ground below deck to help support the slope, the lattice
would block sunlight and limit plant growth; would like to keep deck railing open, aesthetically would
match the existing deck railing above, a solid railing would block canyon view from inside his house and
would not look nice, the existing deck on the neighboring house to the right on Hillside Drive has the same
open railing, their deck extends out further, can consider planting vines on the posts and extending a lattice
skirt from the top for vines if it does not look bad; do not want to look into neighbor's yard either, proposed
deck will not change the view into her yard, view is already there with existing upper deck. Commission
asked if the applicant is willing to plant vines on the post and railing? Applicant noted that he will consider
planting trumpet vines on the posts and possibly add a lattice skirt from the bottom of the deck, would
extend vine growth onto the skirt to block view of underside of deck; required to plant one tree, will add one
or two more to fill in holes. Designer noted that the deck is grossly over designed and safe.
Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane, representing herself and her mother, thanked the Commission for
opportunity to express her concerns, live below the subject property, feel that the proposed deck will impact
property value, perceived privacy and shadowing, submitted photographs of the deck in relationship to her
property and angle from front door, deck is already half-built, her property is on a steep hillside, the deck
may comply with setback requirements, but because the lot is so steep the deck looms over her property, it is
oppressive, if trees are planted to screen the deck they will have to be tall, property is very close to hers,
deck will cast a shadow into her front yard making it dark and gloomy, will make it difficult to maintain
plants for lack of sunlight, already have plants in containers because they have to be moved to get sunlight;
have lived in this house since 1978, went through the Burlingame school system, have an emotional
investment in this property; there is some shrubbery behind the existing trees, concerned that if a tree dies
will have full view of the deck; consulted a realtor about property values, noted that any view of the
underside of a deck will turn buyers away, underside of deck is typically not maintained by homeowners,
underside needs to be concealed to ease buyers anxiety, deck color changes to dark gray when it gets old,
additional trees will give a sense of privacy, key is placement, type and maintenance, do not want to increase
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
7
shadow on her property; photographs submitted show how the sunlight changes throughout the day, loose
sunlight in corner because neighbors' tree is so close to property line; tried to negotiate with the applicant
without impacting property values, proposals disregarded because of costs or other issues, have a flowering
eucalyptus, when neighbor first moved in they topped my tree to maintain their view, earlier this year the
applicant stopped by to tell me that a tree cutter will be by the next day and asked if it was ok to trim the
tree, told applicant needed some time to think about it, the next day the tree was trimmed without my
permission; providing additional trees alone is not the solution, would like to see lattice and deck size
reduced.
Applicant noted that he thought the neighbor agreed to the tree trimming, additional trees offered would
have a maximum growth height of 20 feet for screening, do not want trees to block views of the canyon,
deck will not cast any more shadows than the existing house already does; neighbors' concern about the
placement of the new trees near the property line is valid, agree to place them further into the yard, but will
have to maintain a minimum distance from existing sewer laterals in rear yard. Commission asked if the
applicant would be willing to plant three trees; yes, would prefer to plant a tree with deep roots to help hold
the slope in place, with a maximum growth height of 15 to 20 feet, bushy and evergreen type. Commission
noted that the City’s tree list contains many examples with locations of trees planted throughout the City.
Applicant noted that he could not guarantee the well being of the trees, will replace trees if they die, do not
want to invade the neighbor’s privacy, deck will not be accessible from the rear yard for protection, rest of
yard is exposed to intruders, have three small children, there is no yard space for them to play since the lot is
on a slope. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: clarified that the applicant is offering to plant three trees in strategic places, bushy
growth will provide privacy between the two properties, the owner at 1510 La Mesa Lane could also plant
shrubs on her property, part of suburban living is that neighbors will be able to see into each others yards;
visited the site, understand the neighbors’ concerns with property value and loss of privacy, but can’t make
findings for denying HACP based on these issues.
C. Keele noted that because there is no obstruction of long distance views from habitable areas within a
dwelling unit, he 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
September 10, 2004, sheets 1 and 2, and that the deck shall not exceed 443 SF in area or a height of 12'-0"
above adjacent grade; 2) that three 24-inch box size trees, selected from the City’s tree list, shall be planted
in the rear yard to complete the screen of the deck from the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa Lane; the selected
trees shall have bushy growth characteristics with a growth height of 15 to 20 feet; if any of these infill trees
should die, they shall be replaced with new trees with the same growth characteristics; 3) that any changes
to the footprint, floor area, or building envelope shall require an amendment to this hillside area construction
permit; 4) that during demolition of the existing deck, site preparation and construction of the new deck, 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; 5) that demolition for
removal of the existing deck and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building
permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the
California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The
motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Auran and Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
8
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
9
5. 753 ACACIA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF HOME
OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR A CONSTRUCTION OFFICE IN A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
(REMY SIJBRANT, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
BARBER
Reference staff report October 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, the history of
the activity on the site and the action alternatives for the Planning Commission. Commissioners asked staff
what the city was thinking when they allowed a home occupation permit for this use when contractors
businesses are prohibited in the R-1 zoned. CP responded that the home occupation permit allows a
contractor to use his home address for his license, to do book keeping and other administrative office work
from his home, it does not allow all other aspects of the contracting business to occur at the residential
location. Commissioner asked who did the five week observation, noted in the staff report. Code
Enforcement Officer Harris noted that she and the City Attorney took turns during the 5 weeks.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Remy Sijbrant, owner of 752 Acacia and contractor, noted that
he has been a contractor for 9 years and has received no complaints, he is currently remodeling this house in
a major way excavating living area below and adding a second story, in addition he recently received a
permit for a garage addition; he does not dispute that the activities noted were going on at the house, but
they are consistent with the remodeling going on, should be looked at as a construction site not home
occupation; employees need to come to do the construction. He cited parts of the municipal code which say
the city cannot regulate truck activity if the truck is less than a certain weight, and the city can't prohibit
parking on the pubic street, a construction sign is allowed if there is building going on code allows 100 SF
his sign is 2 SF.
Commissioners asked number of questions and Mr. Sijbrant responded: Do employees ever come to this
site, park and leave in a company vehicle. Employees come and drop off time sheets and pick up checks on
Fridays and Mondays, have 16 employees, people not at this location daily, go the their project's address,
leave trucks at job site; do not use debris boxes, instead load on to a truck and remove daily, customers
appreciate, seems to be a correlation between complaints and each time city inspects and signs off a part of
the work. Commissioner noted Home Occupation Permit indicates that this is a secondary office, have
primary business location in Millbrae, is this a residence? Yes. Can you park a vehicle in Millbrae? One
Commissioner asked what was the status of the current building permits on the two houses, his and the one
next door, he is working on. He noted all are current- 753 remodel will expire March 6, 2005, garage will
expire December 15, 2004; 747 Acacia two permits one will expire April 11, 2005 and one December 5,
2004. Asked how work is progressing/ when finish 753 Acacia? He responded expect to complete garage by
November 1, 2004 and residence by mid-November 2004. When will project at 747 Acacia be completed?
Expect to finish the house in December 2004.
Commission discussion with Mr. Sijbrant continued: Have you seen staff report? yes. There seems to be a
comprehensive list of violations logged and documented in that report. Neighbor letters are rich in detail
which adds credibility to the complaints, need to review. How many trucks do you have on site? Three
trucks overnight, park on site. Do people report to your house to get assignments to go to other work sites?
Do assignments by cell phone, not from house. Is debris transferred from truck to truck in front of the
house? Yes, don't remember last time it happened. Do you have an employee who works out of the house?
Yes a secretary, she inputs estimates, prepares payroll, handles personal issues with employees. Do
workers come to site? Will be none when completed two construction jobs at end of November and
December. What business transactions do you do at Millbrae? All bills are paid, faxes, main phone number
is out of Millbrae. Where do you store equipment/construction materials/tools that the company uses? In
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
10
Hayward, rent the bottom level of a commercial space. You store no equipment or assign no employees
from Millbrae? Mr. Sijbrant noted when he goes to the project sites, he reassigns workers.
Chair Osterling asked if any one else would like to comment: Steve Warden , 736 Acacia; Kim Quat, 757
Acacia, Michael Bogoslavski, 747 Acacia; Ron Bland, Mother lives at 750 Acacia,; Corie Engle, 1236
Bellevue. Speaking on behalf of 30 residents who have signed petition supporting revocation of home
occupation permit, another set of pictures; should note workers assemble between 7 - 7:30 a.m, code
enforcement officer does not get by until 8:00 a.m.; neighbors approached him and asked how to deal with
problem because they cannot park in front of their houses, trucks double park in the street, trash being
transferred on the street, serve on city commission reason why picked me to speak; there problems occurred
before owner began working on the two houses, complaints back to 2002; as recently as October 8 employee
parked and left in company vehicle, feel that the owner has violated at least three of the five requirements of
the Home Occupation permit: neighbors have complained, one non-family member work three days, now
works full time; no regard for the code; want revocation, no suspension, because he will come back. Before
this house was a crack house, these are nice people trying to get a job done, when built my house 10 years
ago made a much bigger mess; have not observed workers arriving in pick up trucks, not up that early, know
that there are construction workers there. Have lived on this block since 1974, family since 1958, people
who lived there before did a lot of drugs, construction crew comes about 7 –7:30 a.m. to work on houses, not
approached to sign petition, don't know why, most of the houses on the block have 2 or 3 cars park on street
and in driveway. Have observed workers assembling between 7-7:30 a.m. and drive off, people come and
go all day; mother concerned that seeing a residential area turn into a business area, park in front of her
house so she cannot, has to walk long distance, lot of confusion early in the morning, concerned about the
pattern seeing offices in residential area, two trucks in the driveway with this business and 5 cars on the
street. Park in the space across the street, because it is available often, have relationship with the applicant,
can park elsewhere, never a problem parking on Palm. Mother's problem is that there is a Green BMW
which has been parking in front of her house for a number of weeks. Neighbor noted her family has 5 cars,
park on street in front of her house and across the street.
Commission asked Mr. Sijbrant: Do you park on street? Never asked me to move my vehicles from the
street, park two trucks in driveway, if late at night leave truck on street. You had a construction sign on site
in 2002 and on ongoing construction? City attorney sent a letter and called, sign violation of home
occupation, but have a building permit so construction sign is legal, got my first permit in August 2002. Do
employees show up on Saturday and Sunday mornings to pick up vehicles and drive off? On employee
Pedro goes to all the job sites, takes materials, comes and picks up truck with debris to dump. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: while Mr. Warden spoke as one for concerned neighbors, know a resident on
street, and there is a high level of anxiety regarding operating this kind of business at this location, the
overlap of employees arriving/departing when small children are walking to school, do not believe this is an
appropriate home occupation, disservice to neighbors, devalue property, has not met several permits for
home occupation permit, cannot support continuation.
C. Keele noted that code enforcement and neighbor logs are rich in detail, compelling, but applicant's
explanation is credible as well; established that construction on the two properties will be completed in mid-
December, moved to suspend the Home Occupation Permit to the end of the year to give the applicant an
opportunity to complete the remodeling and reduce business activity in the area, would suggest that the code
enforcement officer monitor for 4 to 6 weeks and let Commission know if he conforms or violates the
suspension, if so should be set on agenda immediately. Home Occupation permit should remain suspended
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
11
until January when the commission has had an opportunity to review the performance. The action is taken
by resolution with the stated provisions as conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Comment on the motion: problem is who is working where, given construction on going, applicant should
try to keep clean and run a tight ship, how would this suspension address a slow down on work toward
completion and possible continuation of the home occupation? Staff reviewed the options for extending
building permits, it was noted that opportunity to extend building permits could not be revoked by the
commission. Commission's only control was over the home occupation permit. Said done by November and
December, has alternative of using Millbrae site for home occupation. Code Enforcement Officer noted that
she works part time for Millbrae, and their code does not allow any employees on site so cannot move book
keeper to Millbrae site. It was noted that revoking the permit tonight would not accelerate completion of the
construction. Feel that revocation is justified to increase residential use, increase use of open space, love
small businesses but they do not mix well with single family residential uses, bring strangers into the
neighborhood. Like to have this applicant find another way to operate, in future reduce to book keeping;
this is only a suspension, commission will have further review, if does any thing else can revoke permit.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to suspend the home occupation permit issued at 753
Acacia Avenue until after the first of the year (January 2005) and the Planning Commission has reviewed
the applicant's performance in completing the construction on the two houses in the stated time frames and
removed the impacts from the neighborhood. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Auran and Keighran
absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m.
C. Brownrigg left at 9:35 p.m. because of a scheduled engagement.
6. 1300 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT TO ADD A TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDING FOR USE BY AN EXISTING
PRIVATE SCHOOL (ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA SCHOOL, APPLICANT; CATHOLIC WEL. CORP.
OF SF, PROPERTY OWNER) (128 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report October 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Russ Jackson, 835 Walnut represented the project and St.
Catherines school. He handed out enlarged plans noting the exact setbacks between the temporary trailer
and the existing buildings, felt he met all the requirements of the July 19, 2004, letter; there would be no
children in or out of the trailer, used for Vice Principal and Special Education Specialist offices, so ADA
access was not required, could not meet setbacks with ADA access; this trailer is needed as a part of
planning for future improvements at the school. Commission asked the source of electrical service;
applicant noted it would come from the adjacent building below grade, also phone and smoke alarm.
Commission asked if there would be a skirt on the building so children's balls etc. could not get under the
structure. Applicant said yes it is offered with the trailer for an additional $640; key issue is the location of
the main drain for the area, need unobstructed access to it in the event that it gets backed up. Commission
asked if trailer bolted for seismic safety. Applicant noted engineered for earthquake, meets all standards.
There were no additional comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Bojués noted that there were no negative impacts created by the temporary structure and made a motion
to approve the structure at this location for a maximum of 24 months by resolution with the following
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
12
conditions: 1) that the temporary trailer shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped September 10, 2004; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer, Chief
Building Official, and Fire Marshals’ memos of July 19, 2004 shall be met; 3) that the temporary modular
building shall not exceed 10 feet wide by 24 feet deep, to be located in the side yard adjacent to the existing
school building and the church, and shall not be located in such a way that will eliminate or impede access
to any parking spaces or thoroughfares on the site; 4) that the temporary modular building shall be used as
office space only and shall not be used for instruction of children either one on one or as a classroom; 5) that
the temporary modular building be in place no longer than 24 months from the date of building permit
issuance, and shall be removed not later than November 1, 2006; and 6) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the temporary trailer for a maximum of 24
months. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (C. Auran, Brownrigg, Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
7. 716 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE
(KENDRICK LI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BEN BEHRAVESH, ARCHITECT) (47
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Kendrick Li, property owner, and Ben Behravesh, architect,
were available to answer questions, noted that the existing house is very old, intent is to make the house
beautiful and functional, feel that the proposed house is compatible with the neighborhood.
Shelia Janakos, 720 Howard Avenue, noted that the proposed remodel looks more like a new house, has
lived in her house built in 1909 for 20 years, her house is listed with the Burlingame Historical Society,
proposed design does not match the design of her house or other houses in the neighborhood, would like to
see the existing designs found in the neighborhood continued, concerned about the size of the house, will
block views from the right side of her house, property value will be affected; there are some old trees on her
property along the right side property line, would like to see an arborist report submitted to make sure these
trees will not be damaged by the construction or site improvements, would like to work with the neighbor to
establish a design everyone is comfortable with; submitted notes and photographs regarding her concerns
with the project and written comments from neighbors at 713 Howard Avenue. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
• Submit arborist report to address any impacts that construction may have on the neighboring trees and
how they will be protected during construction, report should include analysis of how driveway will be
built and how roots will be preserved;
• Concerned that chimney at the rear of the house along the right side of the house is not tall enough to
comply with the building code, please verify that it complies with separation requirements and revise as
necessary; may have a visual impact if it needs to be taller;
• Top of chimney firebox is flat, explain how it will be built and finished;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
13
• Concerned with how second floor windows on right elevation are grouped, need to be spaced more
comfortably;
• Explain why a half-round window was used on the front elevation;
• Generally sound with regard to mass and bulk, but concerned that there is no strong style presented;
style must be consistent with the neighborhood; design needs to reflect the characteristics of the adjacent
houses in the neighborhood; concerned that the proposed design does not fit in with the architectural
style in the neighborhood, can't say exactly why it doesn't fit, could be size or design style; the house
does not come together well, it's half way there, needs more work;
• Think comments expressed by the neighbor at 720 Howard Avenue capture the concerns, the design is
not compatible with other houses in the neighborhood;
• Concerned with the project being three square feet below the maximum allowed FAR, this is a red flag
that the house close to being too big, out of context, mass and bulk needs to be consistent with the
neighborhood; design reviewer and applicant should look at reducing FAR;
• Roman columns at front of house is not stylistically consistent with the rest of the house;
• Provide more landscaping details for the front yard;
• Front entry is proposed at the side of the house, entry needs to be more inviting and emphasized more,
look at moving entrance to front of house.
C. Bojués made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the direction provided. This motion
was seconded by C. Keele.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction
given. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg and Keighran absent) voice vote. The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m.
8. 2849 RIVERA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (STAN MUI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
VAN LY, ARCHITECT) (37 NOTICED) PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Van Ly, architect, and Stan Mui, property owner, were
available to answer questions, noted that he bought the property because he enjoys the bay views, there are
no houses to the rear of the property so no views will be blocked, there are a lot of houses in the area that
have views of the bay. Commission asked where will the two replacement trees be planted on the property?
Architect noted that the trees will be planted in the front yard facing Rivera Drive. Commission noted that
the left side elevation looses continuity of design, why is it different? Architect noted that since this side of
the house provides long distant views of the bay, wanted to provide maximum glazing on this elevation to
take advantage of the views, also to bring in as much natural light as possible. The neighboring house has a
similar design. Commission noted that the right side elevation and section appear to be inconsistent.
Architect noted that the left side elevation shows the top of curb line and the section shows the grade
through the center of the house. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
14
Commission discussion:
• Replace paving in front yard from former driveway with soft landscaping; this would be an appropriate
area to add the replacement trees; trees should be chosen from the City's tree list, show new landscaping
details on site plan;
• Install story poles for proposed house, may impact views of the house to the south, story poles need to
be installed at least one week before public hearing;
• There is a lot of glass on the left side elevation, please verify that this wall will comply with Title 24 and
seismic regulations.
C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions
have been made and plan checked and when story poles have been installed. This motion was seconded by
C. Keele.
Chair Osterling 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 have been installed and reviewed by Planning Commissioners.
The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg and Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m.
9. 1126 CLOVELLY LANE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR A NEW ATTACHED CARPORT (THOMAS NILAND, APPLICANT; HOLGER
MENENDEZ, ARCHITECT; ILSE SAVERWALD, PROPERTY OWNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Holger Menendez, architect, was available to answer
questions, noted that the new attached carport and ramp are needed to provided better accessibility for the
property owner. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that this is a minor addition, meets the needs of the property owner, and made a motion to
place this item on the consent calendar as proposed. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg and Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m.
10. 156 PEPPER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOSEPH CONTI, CONTI-HURLEY ASSOC., APPLICANT; TIM
HALEY, TSH INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN, ARCHITECT; MR. AND MRS.
DAVID BERKE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Gregg Hurley, architect, was available to answer questions,
noted that a small covered entry is proposed at the front and a two-story addition at the rear of the house,
intent is to keep the charm of the existing Cape Cod design, finish and windows will match existing.
Commission asked the architect to point out the skylights on the elevations; architect noted that the skylights
are located above the nook at the rear of the house, they are shown on the east elevation, noted that the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
15
skylights will be flat and tinted. Commission noted that this is a good design and asked what type of
windows and exterior materials will be used. Architect noted that wood, true divided light windows will be
used along with redwood ship-lap siding to match the existing house. Commission complemented the
architect for a nice design. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
• Add notes to the plans identifying all exterior materials, including type of window, window trim, siding,
roofing, skylight type and tinting, and chimney materials.
C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when notes identifying exterior
materials have been added to the plans. This motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when notes have
been added to the plans as directed. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg and Keighran
absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded
at 10:25 p.m.
11. 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JACOB AND
LESLIE NGUYEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) (53
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Jacob Nguyen, applicant and property owner, was available to
answer questions, noted that proposed project is below maximum allowed FAR and lot coverage.
Commission noted that if the fireplace in the living room is relocated or removed, the required width would
be provided in the garage and the parking variance can be eliminated. Applicant noted that he considered
relocating the fireplace, but this is really the only place it could be located and kept in the living room,
would like to keep a wood burning fireplace, if relocated would have to install a gas unit, the existing brick
fireplace adds a nice feel. Commission asked if the garage is now being used for parking? Applicant noted
that currently it is not being used for parking, but will be once the project is complete. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
• Why is the garage being extended? Is it necessary? Could eliminate the side setback variance if
extension is not required;
• This is a strong candidate for design review; need to look at the quality of the plans;
• Plans are incomplete, need to show floor to top of plate dimensions for first and second floors;
• Need to provide detailed landscape plan, site is pretty barren now, landscaping should enhance addition;
should add at least two trees and large scale shrubs at front of property;
• Inconsistency in addition on second floor with the existing style;
• Should avoid different sloped roofs in redesign;
• Need to provide window and eave details;
• Second floor plate heights should be articulated, bring portions of the roof down to add interest.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004
16
C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Bojués.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this project to a design reviewer. The motion passed
on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg and Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:38 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meetings of September 20 and October 4, 2004.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council relating to the Planning Commission at the meetings of
September 20,2004, and October 4, 2004.
- Update on Neighborhood Meeting continued for Hospital Replacement Project.
CP Monroe also noted that the Neighborhood Meeting for the Davis Drive and Ray Park residents to
discuss the replacement of Peninsula Hospital occurred on October 7, 2004, and was continued to
October 13, 2004, to be held in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. There will be some focus in the
continued meeting on the interface between the residential lots on Davis Drive and the hospital site.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brownrigg, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\10.12unnaproved.doc