HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.07.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
Burlingame City Hall
Conference Room A
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday July 22, 2002
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the July 22, 2002, special meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen
Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
IV. STUDY SESSION
1. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED SAFEWAY PROJECT – CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW 69,747 SF COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR SAFEWAY AND WALGREEN'S AT 1420 – 1450
HOWARD AVENUE AND 249 PRIMROSE ROAD; PROJECT INCLUDES REZONING, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS, PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR PROJECT PARKING LOT AND PARCEL
MAP FOR LOT MERGER AND RECONFIGURATION OF LOTS; PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES
RECONFIGURATION OF CITY-OWNED PUBLIC PARKING LOTS.
Chair Keighran noted that this was a continuation of the study session to discuss the Safeway project, the purpose of
this meeting is for the Commission to review the options presented by the applicant and to discuss the direction of
the project. Since this is a continued meeting from the study sessions held on May 23, June 11 and July 2, 2002,
there will be no public comment. Commissioners noted that this project is important to Burlingame, the applicant
has done a good job providing information, now is the time for action, time to look at something for the good of
Burlingame in the long term.
Commissioners reviewed the four schemes submitted by Safeway as well as an alternative presented by the Citizens
for a Better Burlingame. Commissioners comments on each alternative:
Alternative D-3: Scheme shows a park area to be dedicated to the City, would prefer that this area stay in Safeway
ownership with Safeway being responsible for maintenance; regarding truck circulation, the large trucks would have
to enter via Fox Plaza Lane from Primrose and back into the truck loading areas, and can exit either via El Camino
Real or Howard Avenue; this is pretty much the same scheme we have seen all along with some change to the
Primrose edge, the location of the truck dock creates a strong visual barrier, will inhibit pedestrian access to
downtown; would like to see loading docks closer to El Camino Real, would prefer a scheme with two buildings;
like the park and landscaping on Primrose, but could do more; like the retail component and park on Primrose, but it
is still a massive building and still does not provide City parking near Fox Plaza Lane and Primrose Road.
Commissioners Bojués and Keele arrived at 6:05 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Session Minutes July 22, 2002
2
Alternative F-4: It doesn't appear that the location and shape of Walgreen's will be feasible for them, this proposal
is short on parking in the City lots, only 61 public parking spaces are proposed; on the positive side, there are two
buildings which reduces the mass, breaks up the parking areas and provides some parking close to Fox Plaza and
Primrose, the loading for Safeway is further from Primrose; however, the way it is laid out it would be difficult to
make Walgreen's operable; does not represent what was suggested, retail is not shown along entire Primrose
frontage, Safeway store is still too large; the truck loading area for Walgreen's may not work, it looks tight, this
proposal makes Walgreen's a second class citizen, there is very little direct access to Walgreen's, cars can only come
in northbound from El Camino or enter on Howard in front of the Safeway store.
Alternative PC3: This option has too much retail on Primrose, its too massive and bulky, don't like all of the
parking in one spot; the access with the loading off of Howard is not functional, there is no loading proposed for the
Walgreen's store.
Alternative D-4: Concerned that Walgreen's will not accept this alternative, would like to speak with a
representative of Walgreen's to see what they want, don't understand why they do not want to locate there; this
scheme creates a tie to the pedestrian environment by having Walgreen's in the location at the corner of Primrose
and Fox Plaza Lane, the way the building is articulated is a plus; the parking is broken up; some of the loading is
taken away from Fox Plaza Lane.
Citizens for a Better Burlingame Alternative: Like that this option has the parking lots separated, the location of
Walgreen's at the corner of Howard and Primrose is pedestrian friendly, like the location of the loading docks closer
to El Camino Real; concern that the trucks go from Howard through the middle of the parking lot and exit onto El
Camino Real; having two buildings decreases the mass and bulk; the parking orientation may not work for Safeway,
maybe it can be turned to meet Safeway's criteria; trucks exiting can only go north; could the store entrance be
moved to face Primrose rather than Howard, would create a link to downtown for pedestrians; there have been other
schemes with fewer loading docks, could this scheme be modified with fewer loading areas; like the public parking
at Primrose and Fox Plaza Lane, provides a continuation of Lot J and the other public lots which run parallel to
Burlingame Avenue; could be revised to have two entrances to Safeway, one facing Howard and one facing
Primrose; this scheme preserves sunlight on Primrose, there wouldn't be a 30'-35' high wall; this appears to be the
better alternative of the two which have two buildings.
Commission discussion: From review of alternatives, see some guiding principles. They include:
• two separate buildings reduce the mass and bulk;
• break up the mass of parking into two separate parking areas with some public parking close to Primrose;
• loading areas closer to El Camino Real;
• separate truck and customer traffic from pedestrians;
• proposal is pedestrian friendly;
• reinforce El Camino edge with landscaping;
• provide auto/truck access to El Camino Real;
• improve connection of site to Burlingame Avenue; and
• need direct access to both stores.
The Commission also suggested that the Citizens for a Better Burlingame alternative can be rearranged to meet
Safeway's needs regarding parking and circulation. the building could be shifted closer to El Camino Real with just
enough room for truck access, could move more of the parking to the front of the store; there could be an additional
curb cut provided on Primrose closer to Walgreen's to provide better circulation and to alleviate congestion at Fox
Plaza Lane; this option also provides a connection between Safeway and Burlingame Avenue by having the public
parking close to Fox Plaza Mall and other Burlingame Avenue merchants; the Commission has pointed out ways
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Session Minutes July 22, 2002
3
that this scheme can be further developed to address Safeway's concerns as well as meet the needs of the
community. CP Monroe pointed out that there will need to be a couple of revisions to meet City standards, the one
driveway closest to El Camino Real on Howard would have to be eliminated, and Caltrans approval is needed for
any driveway on El Camino Real. It was also noted that there is no loading area shown for the Walgreen's store,
loading could possibly be limited to off-peak hours and some of the parking spaces could be blocked during loading.
Design Concept
The group reviewed the various designs provided by the applicant and by staff. They found a preference for a clean,
simple design such as presented in the pictures of the Dublin and Kihei Safeway stores and the village appearance of
the Whole Foods store shown in the handout from staff.
Features mentioned as lending to a preferred design were:
• variation in roof heights with tower or dormer elements but overall keeping the roof below the maximum 35
foot height to address the mass and bulk of the building, the height should be consistent with the 15 foot
ceiling height required inside and placement of the building relative to the street, proportion is critical;
• details such as corbels, awnings and windows with a view to activity inside are important;
• a landscape element is very important, integrating the site and building particularly along the edges and in
the parking area;
• a covered porch does well to define the space at the front store wall from the parking, decorative pavers
are also effective in defining the change from parking to store;
• different materials are effective in breaking the structural mass as was done on the Dublin and Palo Alto
stores. In the case of the Palo Alto store the choice of rock material is nicely in scale with the size of the
area covered; and
• a nice, clean form consistent with the scale of the area.
The design chosen will be affected by the distance the structure is setback from the street, with the structure further
back, larger elements can be used; would like to see something architecturally interesting, unique to Burlingame, not
a skin like the pictures of Los Gatos; if the site plan has two stores then project should try to look more like the
Whole Foods village; should avoid the urban, industrial look of the San Jose store shown.
While commissioners noted it was difficult to give direction when the site plan was still unsettled, they recognized
the need for direction to get the project moving; also noted that one goal was to give the developer flexibility to
work within; should be clear what commissioners don’t want by the examples given that were not mentioned; feel
that with a two building solution we are closer to resolution of the project; would like to see a schematic of the
design with suggested exterior, a draft set of plans with dimensions would be good for a design review study
session, need to confirm the truck circulation; project should be discussed at another study meeting and then go to
action. It was determined that the project should return to a study meeting separate from the regular commission
meeting and give the public the opportunity to discuss it as well. The Commission thanked Safeway for the work
they did refining the options discussed earlier and for putting together the design concepts. It was beneficial for the
Commission to have time to study the alternatives and give direction.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Osterling, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\minutes7.22specialmtg.doc
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
July 22, 2002
7:30 P.M.
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the July 22, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:35 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Vistica left at 8:15 p.m.
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner Keylon; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 2, 2002, Planning Commission Special Study Session
and the regular meeting of June 24, 2002, were approved as mailed. The
minutes of the regular meeting of July 8, 2002, were amended on page 9,
third paragraph to read “affordable housing for this project which has been in
the review process so long seems to be up to the applicant”. The minutes
were approved as amended.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Doreen Campanelli, 1620 Howard Avenue, noted that she was a 32 year
resident who lives walking distance to the Burlingame Safeway store but
must drive to 17th Avenue in San Mateo because that store has everything;
Commission should push to get the Safeway store approved so that people
can shop locally. Pamela Appleby, 500 Almer, also spoke in support of
getting things moving on the Safeway project so local senior citizens who
are dependent on it can walk to the store and have a full choice of goods.
Nerkis Yaus, 2115 Hale Drive, concerned about the stop sign on Adeline
which is blocked from view by a tree.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
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.
Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2002
2
1A. 543 CORBITT DRIVE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALFREDO REYES, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT
AND ARCHITECT; DANIEL AND LAURA BERTERRETCHE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (56
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE
1B. 1033 BALBOA AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. (CHARLES SCHEMBRI,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (62 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
C. Auran 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. Osterling. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the
motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
2. 826 ALPINE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK
VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; DAVID MANI, PROPERTY OWNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN
O’ROURKE
Reference staff report 7.8.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: can a room be
rented in the single family zone, staff noted yes so long as there is no second kitchen in the house; what
constitutes a kitchen, staff noted a cooking element; will this house be inspected for the removal of the
kitchen, staff responded yes, a building permit will not be finaled until the plumbing has been removed,
decommissioned or employed for some other use such as a bathroom, commission action can be so
conditioned. There were no further questions from the Commissioners.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dave Mani, property owner, 825 Alpine, apologized for trying
to do construction without a permit, he did not think that replacing and expanding a shed built by his father
and not visible from the street, was such a big deal; he provided documentation of work done previously by
his father at the rear of the original garage, he noted that the in-law unit was added in 1952 but had been
remodeled a number of times including most recently in 1984 so that there was nothing left of the 1952
improvements, therefore it did not qualify for amnesty; his second alternative was to treat the in law unit
area as an additional bedroom, decided to make it a master bedroom suite with a gym area off of it; wants to
appreciate the value of the property. Commissioner asked where is the garage and room attached to the
house. Applicant noted that the front side of the garage and house are attached for about 6 feet at the rear
side of the house, the room is at the back of the garage and accessible only by going through the yard, the
only way to access the room from the house would be to put a door in the rear wall of the garage and use the
door from the kitchen into the garage. Commission asked about the hardship on the property for the 2’9”
rear setback. Applicant noted that he is only replacing what is there, there is no other place on the property
which makes sense for this addition, will take too much yard, is located in a rear corner of the lot away from
neighbors. Commission discussed with the applicant the possible uses of the room and possibility of taking
off the shed area and replacing the original rear wall of the garage which appears to be about 13 feet from
the rear property line. Applicant noted that he wished to appreciate the value of the property by adding to it,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2002
3
wanted to make it family friendly. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed. C. Vistica excused himself from the meeting.
Commissioner discussion: difficult to support this request, cannot make the findings required, the addition
would be close to the neighbor’s fence, there are other places on the site to build this exercise room, cannot
support; the existing room at the back of the garage could be used as a gym; cannot see hardship on the
property for the variance, other houses in the area are required to meet rear setback, once a variance is
granted it stays with the property, would not be surprised if this area were used as an in-law unit in the
future, there are lots of other ways to add a gym.
C. Bojués noted that there are a lot of ways to add a gym to this property, in side the house, add on to the
existing house, add a second story, therefore a hardship does not exist on the property for this application
and moved to deny the application by resolution based on the facts presented in the record and the absence
of hardship on the property, there are alternatives. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: object to both the replacement of the rehabilitated shed and the additional
construction of the gym, concerned that if it were in a detached structure in the rear yard could consider it
with a conditional use permit; the code requires the primary structure to have a 15 foot setback for the gym
and office, does not meet; if applicant wants he can make a different proposal.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the request for side and rear setback variances.
The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 8:20 p.m.
3. 36 ARUNDEL ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (STORAGE) (MICHEL C. MINERVA,
APPLICANT; JIM GARCIA, DESIGNER; RITA MINERVA, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE
Reference staff report 7.8.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Mike Minerva, applicant and property owner represented the
project. He noted that he would request a change to the conditions to allow electricity in the storage shed,
and he would be happy to answer questions. Commissioners asked for clarification of the size of the
existing shed and the need for a roll up door; were other types of doors less “storage unit” appearing
considered; how wide would the roll up door be; why was so much storage space needed outside of the
house?
The applicant responded the existing shed is 120 SF, the roll up door will make it easy to move large items
in and out as well as a motor cycle; no other type of door was considered since this is just a storage shed; the
roll up door will be about 6 feet wide; want to keep furniture stored clean and out of the house. There were
no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: concerned that this large shed can be built to the rear property line when a house
cannot; this is a large accessory structure in a single family neighborhood, could have 600 SF in a garage
without a conditional use permit and special permit and get the storage needed; could be reduced to from 35
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2002
4
feet to 28 feet; proposal will be addition 40% the size of the house, overwhelming cannot support; it would
be visually better to expand the garage; there are other options on the property.
C. Bojués moved by resolution to deny this application because there is no strong rational for the special
permit and conditional use permit and there are other alternatives on the site, including expanding the garage
which will retain the integrity of the neighborhood and would fit the house better without such a large
structure in the rear yard. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the request for an oversized accessory structure
in the rear yard. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
4. 1462 VANCOUVER AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KEVIN AND LAUREN O’SULLIVAN, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS; MICHAEL PALZA, HUNT, HALE AND JONES, ARCHITECT) (65 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report 7.8.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Kevin and Lauren O’Sullivan , property owners, stated that they
didn’t know what to expect a few weeks ago at the Planning Commission study meeting, but they tried to
address the Commission’s concerns expressed at the that meeting. There were no further comments and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Nice job, came back to Commission with a more simple design, the window
change with trim added really helped along with the planter boxes; nice refinement of the design. Appears
that applicant is not living there now, would be nice to trim weeds in the driveway.
C. Bojués moved to approve the application for the reasons stated in the record, 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 July 12, 2002, sheets SP.1 and A.1 through A.5, and date stamped June 10, 2002,
the Landscape Plan and the Site Survey, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building
shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing
and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert
Company, Inc. and date stamped by the Planning Department July 17, 2002; 3) that any changes to the size
or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),
moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject
to design review; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal’s, Chief Building Official’s, and
Recycling Specialist's June 10, 2002, memos shall be met; 5) that the project shall comply with the proposed
demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 6) 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; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer
or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as
window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of
perjury; 8) 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2002
5
the approved Planning and Building plans; and 9) 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.
The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers.
Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:43 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
5. 1336 CARLOS AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (ERIC
JOHNSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RALPH JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (63
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Commissioner Osterling recused himself from the discussion because he lives within 500 feet of the project,
and stepped down from the dias.
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if the house has any historic
value, staff stated that they would research further to find out if it was designed by a well known architect.
Commissioner asked if area over 12 feet in height counts twice toward the floor area, and if so, how much of
the area in this project is over 12 feet in height. Staff stated that only the area of the pla ne at 12 feet in
height counts toward floor area, not the area of the floor below; there is 205 SF in the plane at 12 feet in
height and is counted.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Eric Johnson, property owner of 1336 Carlos Avenue stated
that he has lived in this home for 12 years and is active in his neighborhood. It sounds like a lot of square
footage, however there is no FAR credit for an attached garage, so there is a 400 SF bonus to other
properties. Not interested in detaching the garage due to the sloped roof of the garage that ties in with the
house. The front bedroom is actually an office, so house has 3 bedrooms. The garage is setback 60 feet
from the curb, and 30 feet from the face of the house; some people actually thought the garage was already
detached. Have to walk out of the house to get into the garage. Want to keep storybook look of the house,
don’t want to be penalized for the garage or high ceiling. Commission asked why addition does not have a
rolled roof consistent with the rest of the house; owner stated that it costs too much and would not allow for
gutters, and that could cause serious water problems. Owner stated he would match existing roof pitches on
the house but that it would require a special permit for declining height envelope, and he changed the pitch
because he wanted to come in with as few requests as possible.
Commissioner comments on the design;
• existing house is beautiful, addition should enhance the existing house;
• why doesn’t addition have angles like the existing house;
• addition looks stuck on; looks like an addition to the house when it should be continuation of the
existing house; addition is not consistent with the existing house;
• addition should be just as charming as the house;
• concerned with FAR variance request, FAR is over by 600 SF, looks massive; just because garage
is attached and there are areas with ceiling height over 12 feet, does not mean you don’t have to
follow code; even if you take off 205 SF of floor area that is counted in ceiling height, still looking
at a 400 +SF variance; see no need for a floor area variance;
• concern with size and mass;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2002
6
• addition to house appears to have two different styles merged together-bottom has half timbers and
the top has siding; roof lines and pitches are not consistent;
• have sympathy for large peaks with this design;
• do not encourage detaching garage;
• call out arched windows; and
• house has good façade now with a box at the rear.
Design review process will help with addressing these issues; doing this addition right will help preserve the
demolition of this house in the future. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This
motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to design review. The motion passed on a
voice vote 5-0-1-1(Cmsr. Osterling abstaining and Cmsr.Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action
is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
C. Osterling took his seat at the dias.
6. 2115 HALE DRIVE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN AND
ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RICHARD HARBER, PROPERTY OWNER)
(68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Richard and Maureen Harber, 1434 Columbus Drive, property
owners were available for comment. Stated that they want to enhance the neighborhood and are not asking
for any variances for this project, the project is within the allowable FAR. Nerkis Yaus, property owner of
2121 Hale Drive, to the right of the subject property, stated that she has no problem with the design but
expressed concern over the duration of the demolition and construction and the construction hours. She just
leased her property to a new tenant that has a small child. There were no other comments from the floor and
the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revision has
been made and plan checked:
• more articulation is needed on the right elevation, break up mass.
The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: nice design; can’t support motion, there is no backyard, house is at maximum
FAR, tired of whole lot being taken up, design elements are nice but concerned with the size of this house,
loss of green space.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting and C. Vistica
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:11p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2002
7
7. 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE – ZONED R-1- SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A
PROPOSED CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO EXTEND AN EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT
(WARREN DONALD, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAVE LUZURIAGA, P.E. LTI INC.,
ENGINEER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Osterling recused himself from the discussion because of a business relationship and stepped
down from the dias.
Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Warren and Jennifer Donald, applicants and property owners,
and Dave Luzuriaga, 1840 El Camino Real, project engineer, were available to answer questions. They
noted that in the past the creek had eroded near the sewer line and the City sandbags with concrete as a
result. There is a step drop to the bottom of the creek and they want to make it safe for their children,
existing condition is dangerous. Soils engineer has stated that the proposed creek culvert will help stabilized
the sewer main. Commission asked how much water flows through the drain. Applicant stated that during
the summer the drain is dry, but during heavy rain storms in the winter there is a lot of water flowing
through the drain. Last summer had a sewage back up into the creek. Commission noted that the applicant
consulted with the Department of Fish and Game, asked if the applicant had also contacted the Army Corps
of Engineers. Project engineer stated that they have been working on this project since May 2001 and have
spent a lot of time working out issues with Fish and Game. They are two-thirds of the way there. Property
owners are interested in adding usable open spaces since this 2.7 acre site has 75 trees and is very steep,
there is little usable space. Two trees are proposed for removal under this application, but they would be
replaced with four new trees.
Valerie Carlos of 2818 Easton Drive, support the project since it will make it safer for the children.
However, she is concerned because she lives down grade from the subject property and during hard rain
storms the surface water from the property drains onto her driveway. Twenty years ago during heavy rain
the City had to sandbag her driveway because water was draining down her driveway, through her garage
toward the house. Will the area of run-off increase as a result of this project?
Project engineer responded that the improvement would not add to the drainage, the project is only a change
in the method of transfer of water. Area of creek is diminished, calculations show that the 30” pipe can
contain the volume of run-off in the creek. Commission asked where the water goes from the 30” pipe, and
will this channeling increase the velocity. Project engineer stated that the water will go into an open channel
same as now, but 80 feet upstream and the velocity will not increase because the transfer of water is under
the driveway in a flat portion of the lot which will slow the flow.
Issues for inclusion in the environmental review and/or project review identified by the Commission were:
• if there is a large storm event and the rain flow exceeds the 30” drainage pipe capacity will there be
flooding upstream (above the culvert) and will this overflow increase the site run-off to neighboring
properties;
• will this project increase surface run-off to adjacent properties; and
• explain culvert fill process and fill stability: type and amount of material; how will it be laid; will it
be compacted; and what will be the surface finish over the fill.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Staff was directed to
address the identified issues in the Initial Study and environmental document. Commission agreed that this
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2002
8
item could be brought back directly to action after the notification period for the environmental document
has expired. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.
C. Osterling took his seat at the dias.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Update on status of North (west) End SAP and Bayfront/Anza SAP
CP Monroe discussed the time line for the advanced planning and current planning projects for the coming
year. She noted the meeting dates in September for workshops for the North End Specific Area Plan and
Bayfront/Anza Area SAP update as well as the variety of subcommittee meetings. She noted that the
Council would be considering the appointments for the Bayfront/Anza SAP advisory board in August and
this group, with three Planning Commissioners included, would sponsor the workshops for the
Bayfront/Anza planning effort. Chair Keighran noted that the Mills-Peninsula Hospital project would
probably be submitted for City review within the next year. It would be appropriate for a subcommittee of
the Commission to become involved in learning about that project during the preparation of the DEIR. For
that reason she wished to appoint another subcommittee to oversee that work when it happens. She
suggested Cers. Brownrigg, Keele and Auran, who agreed. CP Monroe said that she would let the
subcommittee know when the project was submitted. The subcommittee to work with staff on the
implementation of the first year’s work program for the Housing Element (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg,
Osterling) agreed to try to meet before the end of August; CP Monroe will try to find a date.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Osterling, Secretary
APPROVEDMINUTES07.22