HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.05.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday May 12, 2003
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the May 12, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Barber; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan
III. ROTATION OF OFFICIERS
Chair Keighran stepped down from her post as Planning Commission Chair
noting that her year as chair ended with this meeting. She thanks her fellow
commissioners and staff for the long hours they had spent in a year with
many accomplishments including adoption of the Housing Element, action on
the Safeway project, and commencement of two specific area plans. She
handed the gavel to new Chair Bojués who thanked C. Keighran for her
service to the commission and city.
IV. MINUTES The Commission noted that they were still reviewing the minutes of the April
28, 29,30 and May 1, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission and
asked for additional time to complete this review. Noted that these minutes
needed a closer reading than usual minutes because they establish the
concerns for this applicant or some other large project which may to build
downtown in the future. Because it could be a different Commission the
reasons for this action need to be clear. Format was discussed and the
consensus was not to change format. City Planner requested that each
Commissioner bring edits on a copy of the April 28, 29,30 and May 1, 2003,
minutes to next Planning Commission meeting and staff will revise as
requested.
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
VI. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VII. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1415 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS AND FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG
ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAVID DEWEY, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
2
Planner Barber presented a summary of the staff report.
Commissioners asked:
• What is the height of the current garage;
• What is the height of the house;
• Commission noted that with a 600 SF garage the applicant will have less square footage to add to
their house if they want to expand in the future; and
• Driveway is only 7 feet, very narrow, applicant should consider making driveway wider.
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. 2825 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT AND REAR AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW REAR DECK (ROBERT AND
REGINA CHAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Planner Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Commission noted that in the application the owner
states that they are not exactly sure where the property line is located, do we use their numbers or do they
get a survey? CP noted that we will use their numbers unless the Commission requests a survey. Letter
from neighbor notes grade change in rear yard, Commission asked if someone could build a retaining wall
and level their yard and then building a deck less than 30 inches without hillside review? CP stated that the
Code addresses grade differently for certain situations, can not usually measure from artificial grade, but
landscape grading is not restricted and would not require a hillside permit unless a building permit is
required for the work, will address this issue in the action staff report. Commission asked if neighbors were
noticed about this project. CP responded that the study meeting is not noticed, but will be noticed for action
meeting.
Commissioners asked:
• Can Planning Commission get access to the rear yard to look at deck;
• Clarify hardship, there are identical adjacent properties that are sloping lots with a view;
• What is hardship for rear setback, side setback is understandable due to location of the stairs;
• It is noted that trees will be planted on the left side, please indicate size, species, and spacing on
plan;
• Have a problem with side setback variance, unnecessary, there are alternatives to stair location;
• Is there a remodel of house proposed because there does not seem to be access to the rear yard from
the house; and
• Show landscaping detail for existing landscaping.
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 7:30 p.m.
3. REVIEW OF NEW REGULATIONS TO REQUIRE INCLUSION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IN NEW
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH FOUR OR MORE LOTS OR THREE OR MORE
MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS- CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report summarizing the major points of the proposed inclusionary zoning
provisions noted in the staff report, dated May 12, 2003.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
3
Commissioners asked: feel that affordable units must be consistent with market rate units, a size limit
should be included to insure that they are livable; language does not seem to address same standard of
construction materials, design layout with market rate; how does the height incentive work; if the developer
chooses the subsidized value, we will never get any units that are affordable for very low and low income
households; what if the developer does not find any of the incentives attractive and does not want to include
affordable housing. Is there a minimum size proposed for an affordable unit? CA noted that providing
affordable housing will become a requirement in all developments of four units or more, however, the
developer may propose other incentives which work better for him and the Planning Commission can decide
to offer those instead of the ones proposed in the regulations. Would the height incentive apply any place in
the city? Who is responsible to see that the unit remains affordable for the required time? Requiring that
one of a four unit project be affordable is a big stick, the incentives offered are not worth much on a small
project; what is the minimum sized development which is required to include affordable units when a city
has a Redevelopment Agency? CA noted that the requirements for Redevelopment Agencies is different, a
percentage of all the dwellings in the redevelopment area are required to be affordable, they may not
necessarily be dispersed in each project. What experts were involved in the creation of this ordinance? CP
Monroe noted that staff researched what other jurisdictions without Redevelopment Agencies had done;
since our method of establishing density based on parking is unique, it is diffic ult to find a comparable
operating ordinance, we should arrive at what we think is fair and use it for a year or two and re-evaluate it
after we see the results. Maybe we have something to offer in terms of parking stall dimension; can we
include inclusionary zoning in the any new residential standards we might develop for the Bayside and
North End/Rollins Road planning areas? There were no more comments from the commission.
Chair Bojués directed staff to address the questions and suggest any appropriate changes to the ordinance
and return for public hearing at the next Commission meeting. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
VIII. 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.
Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. Alisa Ruiz-Johnson, 1228 Cortez, requested that item 4b., 1310 Bayswater Avenue be moved to
the regular action calendar. Commission asked if item 4a. lot merger for 1348-1368 Rollins Road and 1355-
1373 Marsten Road was part of a project that was before the Commission. CP Monroe noted that this is a
lot merger for a new warehouse building which does not require Commission review. Commissioner noted
that the staff report for item 4c Proposed Change to the Time Period for Appeal of Planning Commission
Actions to the City Council states that the new time period is ten calendar days, but the ordinance attached
states ten days. CA noted that the fact that the days are calendar, not working, is set by California law.
Commissioner asked if that also meant end of the business day on the tenth day; CA responded yes. There
were no other requests or comments.
4a. 1348-1368 ROLLINS ROAD AND 1355-1373 MARSTEN ROAD - APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE
AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF PARCEL 76 (APN 026-123-050) AND
PORTION OF PARCEL 52 (APN 026-123-060), ACREAGE, 1348-1368 ROLLINS ROAD AND 1355-1373
MARSTEN ROAD, PM 02-09 (22 NOTICED) PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG
4c. ORDINANCE TO CHANGE APPEAL PERIOD- CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
4
C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion and
it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4b. 1310 BAYSWATER AVENUE – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR A ONE YEAR PERMIT EXTENSION
TO AN APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR
EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY (ST. CATHERINE OF SIENNA CHURCH,
APPLICANT; KODAMA DISENO ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF
SAN FRANCISCO, PROPERTY OWNER) (111 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report May 12, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. CA Anderson noted that the request before the Commission is for a permit extension,
which does not include review of the project. Grounds for denial of the extension would be for things such
as new environmental factors not know at the time of the application or changes proposed to the project.
Neither is the case here.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Maritza Delgadillo, 1725 Montgomery Street, San Francisco,
project architect representing St. Catherine’s was available to answer any questions. Have submitted for
building permit. Planning on starting construction in June, but were not sure if the building permit would be
ready by May 20th.
Public commenting on the request, Alisa Ruiz-Johnson, 1228 Cortez, and Elizabeth Tentant, 129 Avilla
Road, San Mateo, concerned that the children attending the school will be losing pay area as a result of the
parish hall construction; have child attending St. Catherine’s school for two years, was not aware of parish
project; today chalk lines were drawn outlining the building; can not image losing so much playground, for
pick-up area and parking space on this small site. There were no further comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Commission discussion: there was quite an extensive review of this project by the Commission before; this
is only a time extension; Commission is not here to review project again, only extension request; encourage
parents to bring their concerns to the parish church board and try to discuss issues about plans with them;
applicant did a lot of work with the Planning Commission to make sure that the project will work by
strategically scheduling events and organizing use of the playground/parking area; architect can convey
concerns to church.
C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 3,
2002, site plan, floor plan, roof plan, elevations, tentative and final parcel map, sheets A0.1 through A4.0,
sheet 1 and sheet, figure 6, and landscape plan, sheet L1.0; 2) that the church shall require valet parking on-
site for large groups using the church facilities outside of school hours or in special circumstances during the
school day and the church shall maintain cooperative agreements for joint use of available off-site parking
lots nearby to alleviate the on-street parking demand created by single large events or overlapping large
events using the church facilities; failure to maintain the valet parking opportunity shall be cause for the
conditional use and parking variance to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 3) that one year after the
completion of the project(2003) and every subsequent year for five years (2008), and/or anytime upon
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
5
complaint, the applicant shall submit a parking and circulation status report to the Planning Department for
evaluation; 4) that if the applicant wishes the green screen shown on page L1.0 on the plans date stamped
May 3, 2002, proposed for the northeast elevation, shall be eliminated and the area converted to usable play
area for the students at the school; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would
include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 6) that the conditions of the
City Engineer’s September 14, 2001 memo, the Fire Marshal’s September 6, 2001memo, the Chief Building
Official’s August 27, 2001memo and the Recycling Specialist’s August 29, 2001memo shall be met; 7) that
an application for a parcel map to merge the four lots shall be processed and granted before the foundation
inspection is scheduled; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code
and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 9) that the applicant shall
provide to the City a construction employee parking plan, construction delivery and staging plan, and a
safety plan demonstrating what safety measures will be implemented to ensure the children’s safety on-site
during the construction of the parish hall; a building permit shall not be issued until the proposed plans have
been approved by the City Engineer; 10) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge
from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards; off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be
diverted around exposed construction areas; 11) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or
traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil
blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain
temporary erosion controls and sediment controls continuously until permanent erosion controls have been
established; 12) that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum
products, chemicals, washwater or sediment, shall be stored, handled and disposed of properly to prevent the
discharge of all potential pollutants into stormwater; 13) that no vehicles or equipment (construction) shall
be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in designated areas where runoff is contained and treated;
14) that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public
right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 15) that if construction
is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), prior to October 15 the developer shall
implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting,
maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment controls prior to, during, and immediately after each
storm event; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or
tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way;
covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 16) that trash receptacles shall be
placed throughout the common pedestrian circulation areas and shall be regularly emptied; 17) that trash
enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that, if
water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that
discharges to an interceptor; 18) that the site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and
construction and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 19) that St. Catherine of Siena School shall compile a
set of guidelines to distribute to all parents with clear and detailed instruction as to the new drop -off and
pick-up configuration. The following criteria shall be included as part of the guidelines: 1) that each parent
shall be required to stay with his/her vehicle during the drop-off and pick-up process and shall not leave
their vehicle unattended in the playground area; and 2) that all vehicles shall enter the school drop-off and
pick-area from Park Road and shall exit onto Primrose Road, with all vehicles in the left lane making a left
turn only onto Primrose Road, heading southbound on Primrose Road and all vehicles in the right lane
making a right turn only onto Primrose Road heading northbound; 20) that St. Catherine of Siena school
shall provide teachers, staff and/or volunteers to monitor the morning drop-off and escort the children to the
appropriate vehicles for pick-up in the afternoons to ensure that children are safely making their way to and
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
6
from the vehicles and keep the flow of traffic going through this area; 21) that all construction shall be
required to be done in accordance with the limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of
Burlingame Municipal Code; 22) that the existing water meter in the proposed driveway on Park Road shall
be relocated to outside of the driveway approach in the public right-of-way; 23) that the project shall comply
with City of Burlingame’s exterior illumination Ordinance 1477; and 24) that if any prehistoric or historic
archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully
investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts selected by the City, can be
implemented. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m.
5. 320 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR HEIGHT FOR
A NEW ENTRANCE ARBOR (KEITH HERBERT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (66 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report May 12, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission suggested that the
fence regulations be amended to address arbors separately, look at public hazard but not a findings for
hardship. Commission noted that findings #2 and #3 are appropriate but that the other two findings are not
necessary for an arbor. CA Anderson noted that arbor definitions vary, need to be careful how we approach
the change.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Keith Herbert, 320 Clarendon Road, property owner, hard to claim
a hardship, but if you look at the aerial map you can see that Concord Way has large scale trees and the
subject property is at the end of the block; his house looks small at the end of the block, the arbor will help
to define the end of Concord Way. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the
entrance arbor along the front property line shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department date stamped April 9, 2003; and that the entrance arbor shall not exceed 8'-3" in height as
measured from highest adjacent grade to the top of arbor structure or deeper than 3'-0" or longer than 6'-0";
2) that no portion of the entrance arbor shall extend into the public right-of-way; and 3) 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: nice addition to the fence; arbor does not create a hazard at this location.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m.
6. 1655 SEBASTIAN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, TEMPORARY PERMIT AND PARKING
VARIANCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING CLASSROOM BUILDING WITH A NEW, SINGLE-STORY
CLASSROOM WING ADDITION (MITCH REITMAN, PENINSULA TEMPLE SHOLOM, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER; ALEX SEEFELDT, HERMAN & COLIVER ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT)
(66 NOTICED) PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
7
Reference staff report May 12, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Twenty five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission expressed
concern with the interface of construction and school operation; where do construction works park and
where is construction equipment stored? Staff suggested the applicant address this, there were no further
questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, members of the temple, project
architect and head of the pre-school were present. This project is important to the long term viability of the
Temple the Burlingame community. The Temple did a couple of neighborhood outreach meetings, no
opposition to the project. The building is deep in a bowl on the site, can not be seen by neighbors, no
obstruction of views. Construction material and construction workers park at the rear of the lot, it is not
near the children’s drop-off area, with Phase I they have had no complaints about construction. The
topography of the site is unique, they did not want to cut into the slope and building a large retaining wall
just to accommodate 4 additional parking spaces. The parking requirement for class room use at one space
per 50 SF of classroom area is very high. Looked at other cities; San M ateo requires one space for every
employee and a small amount for the pick-up/drop-off area; Belmont requires one space per employee; so
we would be looking at about a 35 space requirement. The Safeway project required 149 spaces, and here
there is 13,00 SF building where most people in the building do not drive and 150 parking spaces are
required. Parking study reports that the peak parking on the site was 87 spaces that were only occupied for
two hours. Uses on the site do not overlap, pre-school is over before religious school begins, and there are
no religious services overlapping with the school. This project does not create a parking problem for the
neighbors, and there is not visual impact. Commission noted that the Saturday parking counts showed 35
spaces occupied on both Saturdays that the study was done. Notice that the application states that there will
be a maximum of 50 adult visitors on-site, how big is the congregation. Mark Hudak responded that there
are 850 members of the congregation, however the maximum usage of the site is only on two days a year, on
most Sundays the parking lot is not full. Commission asked if there is an anticipated increase in enrollment
for the school? Responded that the number of students is based on the size of the congregation, do not
anticipate an increase in enrollment. CA Anderson noted that it would be a good idea to condition the
project for religious and school usage only, including adding age limit for school usage so that in the future
a college or high school that has more drivers coming to and from the site could not take over the property.
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, including the temporary portable buildings, shall be built and installed as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 2, 2003, sheets A0, A1, A3, A8 and A9, and
date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A0.1, A2, and A4 through A7, and that the roof height of the
classroom addition shall not exceed elevation 123.75' (27'-0" above average top of curb) as shown on sheet
A4; 2) that all construction employee parking shall occur on-site only in the second parking lot off Arguello
Drive and that no parking spaces in the main lot shall be used for construction employee parking or staging;
3) that the conditions of the Traffic Engineer's April 23 and April 7, 2003 memos, the Fire Marshal's April
24 and March 17, 2003, memos and the Recycling Specialist’s February 3, 2003, memo shall be met; 4) that
the new portable buildings (including one, 24' x 40' office portable and four, 24' x 40' classroom portables)
shall not be installed before August 1, 2003, and that the new and existing portable buildings (one office,
one restroom, and five classroom portables) shall be removed one month after completion of construction or
by August 1, 2004, whichever comes first; an amendment to this permit shall be required prior to August 1,
2004 if the temporary buildings are not removed by August 1, 2004; 5) 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; 6) that the applicant shall obtain necessary permits from the City of Burlingame Public Works
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
8
Department, Building Division, for construction of the addition, and meet the standards of the permitting
agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, if applicable; 7) th at the project shall
follow the recommendations of the soils engineer as specified in the geotechnical report (prepared by
Lowney Associates) dated June 11, 2002; 8) that any connections between the new structure shall be
designed with flexibility to meet all the seismic requirements of the 2001 edition of the California Building
Code and California Fire Code; 9) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the
site including drains in the reconfigured parking lot, which shall have petroleum filters, shall be required to
meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. All drains shall be maintained
according to NPDES requirements. Off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-
site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 10) that drainage from paved surfaces,
including streets, parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed through swales (also known as vegetated
channels), buffer strips, fiber rolls, sand/gravel filters prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the
property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning all filters on a biannual basis as well as
immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1); 11) that methods and
procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check
dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded
areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment controls continuously until
permanent erosion controls have been established; 12) that all construction materials and waste, including
solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediment, shall be stored,
handled and disposed of properly to prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into stormwater; 13)
that no vehicles or equipment (construction) shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in
designed areas which runoff is contained and treated; 14) that construction access routes shall be limited in
order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks
using dry sweeping methods; 15) that if any construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through
April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the
potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and
sediment controls prior to, during, and immediately after each storm event; stabilizing disturbed soils
throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access
to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and
other chemicals; 16) that trash receptacles shall be placed through out the common circulation areas and
shall be regularly emptied; 17) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from
roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage
system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 18) that the site shall be sprayed with water to
control dust during grading and construction. Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance
with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 19) that Peninsula Temple Sholom
shall compile a set of guidelines to distribute to all parents with clear and detailed instruction as to the drop-
off and pick-up procedures during and after construction. The following criteria shall be included as part of
the guidelines: that during construction, all vehicles shall access the temporary school drop-off and pick-
area from the northern driveway on Sebastian Drive, and shall exit the site using the southern driveway
making a right turn only out the southern entrance; 20) that Peninsula Temple Sholom shall provide
teachers, staff and/or volunteers to monitor the drop-off and pick up periods during and after construction
and escort the children to the appropriate classrooms during drop off periods and to vehicles during pick-up
periods to ensure that children are safely making their way to and from classroom and vehicles and to keep
the flow of traffic going through the drop off and pick up area; 21) that there shall be a minimum of 98 on-
site parking spaces available during construction and that a total of 125 code compliant paved parking
spaces shall be provided no later than 30 days after the occupancy permit is issued and the temporary
buildings are removed; 22) that before the classroom building is demolished, any asbestos found in the
building shall be properly removed using appropriate removal methods; 23) that all construction shall be
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
9
required to 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; 24)
that the project shall comply with City of Burlingame’s exterior illumination Ordinance 1477; 25) that if any
prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction, all work will be halted until
the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts
selected by the City, can be implemented; and 26) that the site shall be used for religious and school use,
with the school use limited to pre-schoolers and elementary/middle school age children only. The motion
was seconded by C. Keighran.
Commission discussion: excellent project; parking is sufficient for the use; not in favor of adding conditions
for age since this use will not change; encourage amended condition suggested by the City Attorney since it
will not affect the applicant if they don’t change their use and do not move, but need to the neighborhood
for future uses; large parking variance, but the parking study notes no shortage of parking on the site and
there are no complaints by the neighbors; the motion maker agreed to amend the motion to add condition
#26, that the site shall be used for religious an school use, with the school use limited to pre-schoolers and
elementary/middle school age children only; the second of the motion agreed to the added conditions.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added condition. The motion passed
on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:31 p.m.
7. 1029 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (CHARLES SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report May 12, 2003, with attachments. Plnr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eighteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked how much
buildable area is on the site, and how much coverage the buildable area on this site. Planning staff would
have to calculate. Commission asked if there was an envelope study done when the lot split was originally
reviewed. Staff noted that the building envelope proposed was narrower and not as deep as the one shown.
Commission asked if the story poles on the site reflect the exact building envelope, did not appear to show
the family room at the rear. Staff noted that the story poles show the second story envelope but not the
single story portion at the rear (family room); the applicant can verify. There were no further questions of
staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. John Stewart, project architect and Charles Schembri, 804
Bromfield, San Mateo, property owner were present to answer questions. John Stewart stated that he
listened to the design review study tapes. Project was revised with smaller footprint and not as tall.
Commission noted that the story poles show that there will be very little clearance between the roof and the
tree canopy, need to address this issue now not later; corner of the house need to be cut back from oak tree.
John Stewart noted that the plate height could be reduced at that point so the roof will clear the tree
branches, the foundation at that point will be a pier and grade beam to address soil and tree issued, will only
be 6 inches in the ground. Commission stated that they would like to see an engineering analysis for the
walls between the house and the creek, look at volume flow in the creek. Property owner noted that to date
there have been no studies done on the existing walls since the two lower walls will not be touched. The top
wall will be removed and reconstructed with pier supports, concrete above grade, and will be faced with the
old rock. The flow of the creek will not be altered, the flood plane is at 34.5 feet and the finish floor is
located above the 100 year floor plane. The Army Corps of Engineers has stated that they have no
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
10
jurisdiction. Commission asked to see this conclusion. Notes 1, 2 and 3 speak to these issues. Commission
asked what story poles on lower terrace represented. Charles Schembri noted that they represent the
cantilever of the hall closet and the corner of the living room between the Redwood and the Oak.
Commenting on the project, Bill Roberts, 1020 Cortez, Robin Sommer, 1012 Balboa, Dave Laverna, 1012
Balboa, Denise Balestrieri, owner of 1017 Balboa Avenue, Andrew Stypa, 1029 Cortez Avenue, Anna
Marianella, 1037 Balboa Avenue, concern with proximity to the creek; volume of structure consumes his
light; back of house not shown on story poles; house is within 30 SF of the maximum allowed; house
pressures the trees and creek; run-off is limited; property as a single lot with one dwelling; tree touches the
poles; floor are in the area where the oak and redwood are located; how can foundation not affect the trees;
takes away continuity of the neighborhood; owner has rights, but there has to be a limit to make sure new
houses fit in with the site; there is no parking already on this block. The houses are too close together;
parking is a problem on this block. Proposed design is very nice; house that is being built by owner at 1033
Balboa is turning out nice. Lives behind subject property, so will have two new houses and is going to lose
sunlight; owner doesn’t live in Burlingame; will be a whole row of new houses; a lot of projects in this area
on Balboa, Carmelita; this year creek flooded; if trees are lost properties will not be worth as much; back of
house looks like an apartment building. Concern with trees, read arborist report and the City Arborist’s
comments say that the arborist report provided appears adequate; arborist report reads “Piers limit root
damage by 40%”, but doesn’t say how much roots are impacted; removing top wall support will impact the
oak, not immediately but maybe in years will affect oak; project is too tall, hits trees. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: only change to structure one foot taken off of family room, there are similar sites
in the city that are not maxed out or stuck in under trees; good work on design, but house is too big for the
lot; footprint is too big for the buildable area of the site; concerned with location of house walls and flow of
creek; if project goes forward want to see analysis of walls; project does not fit the site; it is not a huge
house (dimension wise) but close to adjacent house and close to creek bed; not the right project for this lot;
story poles almost touch the tree, too much house for the lot; potential damage to trees is a major concern;
compliment architect on design, fit house into setting, floor plan opens to the trees and creek, but story poles
show conflict with trees, can only access the rear yard from the house.
Commission asked CA Anderson if the project is denied does that restrict the applicant from coming back
for one year without substantial change. CA Anderson responded that yes, a denial of the project would
require that the applicant wait one year before coming back with the proposal, unless there are substantial
changes to the project, as determined by the City Planner.
C. Brownrigg moved to deny the project based on the scale and size of the project in relation to the lot, and
the impact on the surrounding environmental and on the neighboring properties. The motion was seconded
by C. Vistica.
Discussion on the motion: respect the architect, but the applicant must scale down the project no t a easy
site.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m.
8. 1805 ASHTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
11
AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR
ADDITION (KEN ZINNS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RUSSELL AND MARLENE HOM, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report May 12, 2003, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Ken Zinns, architect, and Russell Hom, property owner, 1805
Ashton Avenue, represented the project. He summarized the changes made as a result of working with the
design review consultant noting that the attached garage was now the same width as others in the
neighborhood; have discussed the changed project with the neighbors who support the project; submitted
letters of support from neighbors at 1809 Ashton and across the street. There were no other comments from
the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Keighran moved to approve the application because the issues of concern have been addressed, the plate
line has been lowered, the width of the garage reduced and the entry brought forward to reduce the
dominance of the attached garage, by resolution, with addition of a condition to replace the tree in the front
yard with an evergreen tree selected from the City’s Street Tree list and that the glass on the two skylights
on the roof facing the street be tinted to reduce the night glow; and with the following conditions: 1) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 23,
2003, sheets A1-A5, that the two skylights on the face of the roof facing the street shall be made of tinted
glass/plastic to the degree that night glow from the skylights shall be substanti ally reduced, and that any
changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that prior
to final inspection, the applicant shall remove the birch tree in the front as shown on the plans and plant a
new 24-inch box size larger scale evergreen tree selected from the city’s street tree list be planted in the
front yard as a replacement as shown on the Site Plan, dated stamped April 23, 2003; 3) that any changes to
the size or envelope of the first floor, 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
February 13, 2003 memo, the Chief Building Official's February 6, 2003 memo, the Fire Marshal's February
5, 2003 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's February 11, 2003, memo 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 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
12
the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: feel that this project is a testimony to the design review process; suggested that the
Japanese maple be replaced with a larger tree, the plum suggested is not much bigger, would like to add a
condition that an evergreen tree selected from the city’s street tree list be placed in the front yard to enhance
the house and increase the visual setback and that the two skylights on the roof facing the public street be
made of a colored material which will greatly reduce possible night glow which can affect the neighbors.
The maker of the motion and second agreed to the additions to the motion.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with amended conditions for tree
replacement in the front yard and tinted skylights on the roof facing the street. The motion passed on a 7-0
voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m..
X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 9. 1261 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN
& ENGR. INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (41 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Planner Barber briefly presented the project description, noting that the owner for this project has changed
and is now Craig Suhl. Two letters were received addressing this project and put at Commissioners desks.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Craig Suhl, 365 El Portal, San Mateo, property owner and James
Chu, project designer, were present to answer questions; noted that in response to the two letters of concern
received, that the rear fence will be replaced with a 6 foot tall wood fence as part of the project and that
there will be a soils report for the retaining wall and the wall will be constructed per Code; they will also
look at the run-off surcharge and will work with the neighbors on landscaping issues. Just received a
revised arborist’s report at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon. Re-evaluation of the oak tree from last year, notes
disease in the tree and the arborist is now suggesting removal of the tree. Would like to retain the tree, asset
to property, but looks like tree will have to be removed. Pole is currently supporting the tree, without the
pole the tree would have died a while ago.
Neighbor comments: Brian Anderson, 1249 Vancouver Avenue, recommend that Planning Commission
reject the plan, concern with project. His concerns were: 1) safety hazard, will crate at 13 foot drop off from
his driveway, drop-off is 11 inches from edge of his driveway and will look unappealing and pose a safety
hazard; 2) damage to driveway at 1249; 3) removal of soil in left corner for new garage will have negative
impact on the structural integrity of the foundation for the driveway at 1249 as well as the house; 4)
removing landscaping at retaining wall and no replacement proposed; 5) loss in property value for 1249
Vancouver. There will be a lot of soil removed from rear left corner that is the foundation for his home and
driveway, driveway wall will create a 13 foot drop off from his property. CA Anderson noted that all
construction must occur on the subject property.
The Planning Commission had the following concerns with the proposed project:
• The proposed driveway is next to the oak tree, there seems to be a conflict with the arborist report
which says a fence needs to be 10 feet from the base of the tree;
• If oak comes out would like to see replacement trees be evergreen to provide a better screen;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
13
• If oak removed might consider widening driveway, or modify the corner of the house if oak stays;
• How will drainage next to retaining wall be addressed;
• Need City Arborist to review revised arborist report on the oak trees and tree removal;
• Tree is too close to driveway, either the tree is removed or the driveway needs to be changed;
• Need to study retaining wall, provide proper engineering for retaining walls, need information on
hydrology and soil conditions;
• Nice design and nice articulation;
• Look at rear elevation, balcony should be eliminated, looks into neighbor’s house;
• What is the driveway surface and how will it work with the tree; and
• Install 2 foot curb rather than 6 inch curb at property line to prevent cars on adjacent driveway from
rolling over the retaining wall.
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 regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions
have been made and plan checked. Commission asked staff include minutes from any previous project
hearings for this site in the next staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
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. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m.
10. 1550 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE LAUGESON BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (55 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Cers. Keighran and Brownrigg noted they live within 500 feet of the subject property and recused
themselves from this item. They stepped down from the dais and left the room. Plnr Barber briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Denise Balestrieri, 414 Costa Rica Avenue, San Mateo, property
owner, and James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions. Noted that the previous proposal was
withdrawn so that they could work with the neighbors and resolve. Issue with side setback and utility line
easement that affected a neighbor on Devereaux; resolution is she will underground the utility line and
easement on her property. Commission asked how far the foundation is from the top of bank; it is 5 feet.
Commenting on the project: Lucciano Deglinnocenti, 1556 Bernal Avenue, stated that is concerned that the
removal of landscaping will allow people to look into his backyard, would like to see large, tall trees added
to screen his yard; oak tree has 3 – 4 feet of dirt at base that was placed there after excavation; limbs of oak
over creek need to be trimmed; should add fence at drop from top of bank to the creek, dangerous for kids
walking by; could make house smaller. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission had the following concerns:
• Front elevation is blank, needs more windows; increase proportion of glass to solid wall;
• Left side elevation porch and balcony could be improved, beef up column; can porch step down to
yard;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
14
• Looks like crown of two oaks in the front will project into the roof line, need to address to protect
tree;
• Landscape plan shows tree ferns at the front of house, not typical for Burlingame, change to
evergreen shrubs, something fragrant;
• Would like to see story poles in corner of the building where den/living room are on the first floor
and bedroom #2 and bedroom #3 on the second floor, as well as to show the garage location and
impact on oaks;
• Look at stability of the oak tree as a result of grading;
• Adjust landscaping to screen the neighbor’s yard.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions
have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués.
Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when
plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5 -0-2 (Cers. Keighran and
Brownrigg abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 10:25 p.m. Commissioners Keighran and Brownrigg returned to the dais.
11. 11. 1021 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE
(JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER; RICHARD PROPERTY OWNER) (62
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Two letters of concern were received. Commission
requested staff provide the square footage of the house and creek side lot that recently was approved on
Carmelita at Cabrillo. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Richard Dwyer, 4086 23rd Avenue, San Francisco, property
owners and James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions. It was noted that design of house was
trying to re-create bungalow feel with porch, trellis , and a taller roofline. Approximately 250 SF of the total
FAR is porch and trellis area, design is 500 SF below maximum FAR for this double lot.
Neighbors commented: Andrew Stypa, 1024 Cortez Avenue; Bill Roberts, 1020 Cortez Avenue; Denise
Balestrieri, 414 Costa Rica Avenue, San Mateo, James Chu, 1032 Balboa Avenue; stated that the proposed
house is too big for the property; double wide lot but not for two houses; house infringes on the trees. Like
architecture and articulation of the proposed house, but too big; need to reduce the volume; request story
poles; could be very attractive but shouldn’t crowd creek and vegetation; his property located behind
subject property and is slightly lower, would like to see new 6 foot fence with 1 foot of lattice placed on the
higher elevation on neighbor’s property. Hard to build a house that fits in with this block, planning on also
building on this block, supports the project. Have a small two bedroom, one bathroom house with a one-car
detached garage, will also be re-building a two-story house on this block. There were no other comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns:
• What is height of existing structure, should be reduced;
• What is the height of the house on the left;
• House is 43 feet wide, don’t usually see houses this wide most lots are 50 feet wide, this should be
addressed; as seen from the street this lot appears to be 60-70 feet wide, design should be adjusted;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
15
• Documents for a lot merger should be included with this application;
• Need to articulate the roof more, generally like a simple roof, but because this house is so big, would
be better to break up the mass;
• Interior designs needs work, there is blank wall facing the creek from the family room and kitchen;
floor plan incorporate views of the creek on the site; re-arrange water heater/furnace room to other
side to capitalize on visual amenities of the site; flip flop kitchen and family room;
• Suggest pulling back a foot or two from the rear to gain additional useable green yard space;
• Bulk and mass need to be reduced; house is big given the “frame” created by the lot; 5,000 SF is a
big house; scale down the design;
• Front and left side landscaping should have more bulk and include evergreen screening to tie
together better with the shingle look and the porch and the screen the house on the left;
• Put up story poles to show the envelope of the house;
• On revised plans plot the two-story house next door on the elevation drawing; show the height of the
existing house and the height of the trees near the creek, note location of windows in the adjacent
house.
Commissioners also made comments regarding the project in general: This is a double lot, not splitting, so
you can get a bigger house on the lot; covered porch takes up 200 + SF of FAR and lot coverage, but
covered porch adds character; broken up nicely; nice match with creek; nice job; size of house is too big and
massive; not consistent with other homes in the neighborhood, too wide, but design is nice; not a double lot
in terms of buildable area, does not appear visually as a double lot from the street; if sent to a design
reviewer as house on Cabrillo was would get a design that is more oriented to the creek on the site.
C. Osterling noted that the discussion covered the concerns of the Commissioners, the designer is capable of
revising the design to capitalize on the views of the trees and creek, concerned about the front landscaping
On the left side, should be replaced with larger, bulkier evergreen trees to screen the house on the left and
that story poles documenting the footprint and height (envelope) of the proposed structures, poles should be
installed at least 10 days before the action meeting; with those observations and requirements move to put
this item on the regular action calendar when it has been revised according to the changes discussed. The
motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on motion: no need to refer to a design reviewer, porches and dormers break up the house, its up
to the applicant to decide about the changes among all the concerns expressed; asked that the maker and
second of the motion agree to add a requirement that the applicant install story poles to document the
footprint and height of the proposed structure, maker and second agreed to the requirement for story poles;
creek side house on Cabrillo and Carmelita was referred to design review and benefited from the process,
may be good for this project; feel architect is capable of capturing view of trees and maker proper revisions
to address concerns; architect knows what he is doing, changes are up to applicant; no need for design
review process at this time; feel that given the proximity of the creek and the interior layout which
disregards the creek amenity on this site, this design would benefit from going through the design reviewer
process.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when
plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a roll call vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Keele and Vistica
dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
11:05 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
16
12. 12. 405 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (JESSE AND MARIA GEURSE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;
JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS, DESIGNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Jesse Geurse, property owner and architect, was available to
answer questions. He noted that the existing house is small and in order to expand their family they need a
larger home. Do not want to move out of Burlingame. Looked at existing style of the house and tried to
keep it. Plate height on second floor is 5’-11” in order to stay within the declining height envelope. New
windows will be double hung, wood with stucco mold, can not afford to replace lower level windows at this
time, but plan on matching lower windows when they have the money. There were no other comments
from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns:
• Add evergreen trees at the front to blend the second floor;
• Right and left side elevations look boxy, need to add articulation between the first and second
floors, or add decorative tile or stone;
• Concerned with inconsistency of windows;
• Side wall on second floor is just carried up from first floor, need attention, can you push in or
hang out; and
• Look at stucco detailing such as mock arch, brick work or tile; need to make walls visually
interesting; but not artificial.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the proposed
following revisions have been addressed and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on motion: applicant is an architect, can address comments; can easily take off of consent
calendar if there are items to discuss.
Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion failed on a roll call vote 4-3 (Cers. Bojués, Keighran, Keele and
Vistica dissenting).
Commission discussion: not comfortable with placing this item on the consent calendar; there are more
than minor adjustments to make to the design; entire neighborhood is single story homes, this project
will set expectation and it needs work.
C. Keele made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested
revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. The motion
passed on a roll call vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This
item concluded at 11:16 p.m.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of May 5, 2003.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 5, 2003.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003
17
XII. ADJOURNMENT
- Review of City Council regular meeting of May 5, 2003.
CP Monroe Reviewed the actions which related to planning at the Council meeting of May 5, 2003.
-FYI – Changes to an Approved Design Review Project at 344 Pepper Avenue
CP Monroe noted that this request was for some minor changes to windows and window placement. The
Commission acknowledged the change and noted that they did not affect the design as approved.
-FYI – Changes to an Approved Design Review Project at 721 Concord Way.
CP Monroe noted that this request was for elimination of two windows in the kitchen to allow for more
cabinets, the applicant suggested installing trellises on the wall where the windows were removed to break
up the mass. The Commission acknowledged the changes and noted that the change with the mitigation did
not represent a substantial change to the design.
- Discussion of the Role of EIR’s in the Planning Review Process.
CP Monroe reviewed with the CA the city’s responsibility regarding preparation of an EIR and the role of
the Planning Commission in the preparation. CP Monroe noted that the city was about to embark on the
preparation of an EIR for the Mills-Peninsula Hospital and asked the Commission how the EIR review
process might be better tailored to their needs. The discussion touched on the fact that the EIR looks at the
proposed project compared to the existing condition and evaluates if the proposed project will make the
existing condition worse. It does not address the fact that the existing condition may be bad optimum and
how it should be made better. In their review the Commission can use the facts of the EIR to support the
argument that as a part of the project, less than optimum situations in the area should be improved beyond
the impacts noted in the EIR. The project can be conditioned accordingly. This way the EIR and project
work together, the EIR as a disclosure of the current situation and any negative effects posed by the project
on the current situation; and the project action can build on the disclosures and add requirements to make the
effects of the project more positive and beneficial to the community than the existing situation, or even the
EIR identified marginal improvements that may be created by a new project. It was concluded that the
review process might be improved by bringing the Response to Comments document to the Commission for
their review for completeness before the Final EIR is presented with a project.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Auran, Secretary
APPROVEDMINUTES05.12