HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.08.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
August 12, 2002
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the August 12, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Bojués
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; Senior
Engineer Philip Monaghan
III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 22, 2002 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1847 EL CAMINO REAL – ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT
(DAN LORENZON, APPLICANT; STEVE MUSICH, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: How bright will this sign be
relative to the other wall signs on the shopping center, will the amount of lumens change from the sign that
is presently up on the wall; how long has the present sign been in place, was it installed at 12 feet to conform
to the code? Why does the applicant want to change it now? Was the present sign installed before a change
in the code requirements?
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 7:10 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
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 August 12, 2002
2
2a. 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
C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff report with the recommended conditions in the staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3. 1408 ALVARADO AVENUE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE TO
ALLOW PARKING WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (MARINA FERER, APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE
Reference staff report, 8.12.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission
acknowledged receiving a letter dated August 12, 2002, submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Rodgers. Commission
asked if the photographs referred to in this letter were available? Yes, the are in the staff report.
Commission noted that the plans indicate that the driveway is 42'-9" long and asked what are the dimensions
required for a parallel parking space? CP Monroe noted that an on-street parallel parking space is 20'-0" and
typically an additional 4'-0" is provided between two parallel parking spaces. Commission commented that
the applicants' letter indicates that she has a tandem garage; feel that two cars can be parked in garage and a
third in the driveway, why is more parking needed?; concerned with height of the hedge, staff noted five
feet is maximum allowed in front setback; current height of hedge is six feet, hedge appears to be in the
city's right-of way, and height of hedge may have an impact on site line to cars on street. CP noted that if
the height of the hedge is greater than five feet it will require an exception and if it is located in the right-of-
way, an encroachment permit will be required.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Marina Ferer, property owner, noted that the existing garage is
not wide or tall enough to accommodate her car and van, if two vehicles are parked in the driveway in
tandem the van encroaches into the sidewalk, 2001 white Chevrolet van is used for her business, intent is to
keep vehicles off the street, trying to create a safer situation for traffic at intersection of Alvarado and
Hillside Drives, a blind spot is created for the neighbors if the van is parked on the street in front of the
house.
John Rodgers, 2800 Hillside Drive, noted that he lives across the street, intent of the zoning code is to
maintain the residential character in the neighborhood, feels that the large van parked in the front yard
creates a commercial character and detracts from the neighborhood, he and other neighbors have spend a lot
on landscaping to beautify the neighborhood, alarmed to hear that the existing hedge may be nonconforming
and may have to be trimmed down to five feet, van will be more visible if hedge height is reduced, this
property is not different from other properties in the neighborhood, need to follow regulations in the code;
applicant just bought a new vehicle, could have purchased a smaller vehicle to fit in garage. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: familiar with this area, in this case priority is safety, there is a problem with cars
speeding on Hillside and Alvarado Drives, applicant tried to listen to the concerns of the neighbors to the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
3
left, neighbor has a blind spot, parking pad is hidden behind the hedge, van will be less visible than if parked
in the driveway; can relate to the problem of having a small garage, trying to park a 1990's car in a 1940's
garage, this is a good solution to the problem.
C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that
the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 16,
2002, sheet 1; 2) that the parking variance for parking within the front setback shall expire in five year s,
September 4, 2007, or if the house or garage are demolished or remodeled before that time; and 3) 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. Keighran.
Discussion on the motion: would like to see other options based on time. CP noted that a condition could be
added to limit this variance to a specific length of time. Commission suggested that this variance be limited
to five years and that if the applicant wished to extend it she would have to reapply at that time. The maker
of motion and second agreed. Commissioner noted that this intersection is dangerous in both directions, it is
generally unsightly to see two vehicles parked side-by-side in a driveway, support this request because of
the hazardous situation.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:27 p.m.
4. 1133 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION FOR DESIGN
REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT
FOR ADDITIONS TO THE BASEMENT, FIRST AND SECOND STORY LEVELS (DAVE HOWELL,
PENINSULA BUILDING DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JIM AND KATHY WARD,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report 8.12.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dave Howell, applicant and designer, 2825 Hillside Drive, noted
that the letter and staff report explains the project and problems with the foundation, experi enced some
erosion during excavation, submitted photographs of the problems encountered during construction.
Commissioner asked if a window is being eliminated with this amendment? Applicant noted that a window
is not being eliminated, but a new one foot tall hopper style window is proposed in the basement on the right
side elevation. Understand the need for a more solid foundation, but why is additional floor space needed?
Applicant noted that the added floor space is practical, need to excavate more area than expected to resolve
foundation and erosion problem, can add in a wall but it would be more costly and cause more unnecessary
disruption; concerned that the attic could be converted to living space. There were no further comments and
the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 26, 2002,
sheets 1 through 10, with 1207 SF of basement area with a ceiling height of over 6 feet and 297 SF with a
ceiling height of 5'-11" or less; areas less than 7'-6" cannot be used as habitable space; and that any changes
to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes
to the size or envelope of the 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
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
4
be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist's February
11, 2002, memos shall be met; 4) that the portions of the basement that are shown with a 5'-11" ceiling
height shall have a ceiling height of no greater than 5'-11", that these portions shall be back-filled with a
cement floor; and that the ceiling height in these areas shall never be increased to greater than 5'-11" and
that these areas shall never be made into or used as habitable space; 5) that the project shall comply with the
proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 6)
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. Keele.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:38 p.m.
5. UPDATE RULES OF CURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES
Reference staff report 8.12.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report. Commissioners noted
that maybe staff could prepare an overhead to be on when the meeting s tarts to direct members of the
audience to the handout on Commission procedure available at the door; regarding item V, D, 2 look at
wording, as written it implies that all environmental scoping sessions include design review; on item IV C if
a commissioner is absent at study, is it sufficient for him/her to just read the minutes of the previous meeting
before s/he can vote at action or must they listen to the tape, whichever it is, the rules of procedure should
be corrected.
C. Vistica moved that this item be continued to the next meeting for clarification. The motion was seconded
by C. Osterling.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojués
absent). This item concluded at 7:46 p.m.
6. 1137-1145 PALOMA AVENUE – ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, VARIANCE FOR DWELLING UNITS IN THREE
BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT, AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW THREE (3) STORY,
TWELVE (12) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FU-LEN CHENG, PROPERTY OWNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
a. Variances And Condominium Permit
b. Tentative And Final Parcel Map For Lot Merger And Tentative Condominium Map
Reference staff report 8.12.02, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Forty-seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission
commented that in the previous plans for the project there were four 9' x 20' uncovered parking stalls
provided at the rear of the site and now there are only three spaces, one of which has the dimensions of a
disabled accessible parking stall, why did this change? Planning staff noted that the architect double-
checked with the city's Chief Building Official (CBO) and verified that a disabled accessible space is
required for the larger common open space provided. The Chief Building Official noted that this space is
not required to be exclusively labeled as a disabled accessible space. Commission noted a concern with the
parking impact on businesses and residents in the area during construction, currently there is construction on
Broadway for the Broadway Streetscape program, construction employees for this project should be directed
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
5
to park somewhere else, do not want to see equipment parked on the street overnight, would like to see
parking plan, condition should be added.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, architect, 851 Burlway
Road, Suite 408, noted that in regard to the disabled accessible/guest parking space, he received a notice
from the State regarding new disabled accessible parking requirements, called the CBO to discuss the
interpretation, CBO confirmed that a disable accessible space needs to be provided; based on that discussion
made the changes to the parking space at the rear. In regard to providing a construction parking plan, do not
object to controls on construction parking, but as an architect it is difficult determine how the contractor
will address construction parking at this time, do not have a problem with a condition being added requiring
a construction parking /staging plan, feel that all other concerns raised by the Commission at the previous
meeting have all been addressed. Commission asked what type of roof tile will be used; intend to use a red
Spanish style tile. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: the changes made make a big difference to this project, nice useable common open
space provided now, increased articulation on the front of the building breaks up the mass, mass reduced by
eliminating the bridges between the buildings, new buildings are consistent with existing buildings on street,
project has come a long way, in favor of project; it is unfortunate that applicant has not pursued different
funding resources to provide affordable housing, understand that it is voluntary at this time; concerned with
making findings necessary for the variances; felt it was important to preserve and enhance the common open
space at the rear of the building, which caused the buildings to be pushed forward on the lot, setback is
consistent with existing residential buildings on this block, increased articulation on the front of the building
will improve the neighborhood, and variances are needed to match the existing character of the
neighborhood.
Commission suggested that the applicant look at ways to provide affordable housing from the start of the
this project, didn't see an effort made by the applicant, Housing Element discusses median household
income which is less than needed for a median value house, Burlingame relies on service workers, average
wage of service worker in Bay Area is higher than other areas, but still can't afford to buy a home in
Burlingame, city employees can't afford to live here either, disappointed that twelve units are being added
with no effort to set aside one dwelling unit as affordable, cannot support project.
Further discussion: project has come a long way, revised project is a big improvement, agree that a
construction plan should be developed for construction staging and parking, this is a very busy street, do not
want to see impact on neighbors. CP noted that a condition could be added to require the City Engineer to
review and approve a construction staging plan, require construction staging plan and construction and
employee/workers parking plan before a building permit is issued. Commission noted that the construction
staging plan should provide the least impact on the surrounding area, could include a limit on the
construction hours if needed, street should be kept open, stop work order should be issued if failure to
comply with plan; staging plan should incorporate punishment for lack of cooperation from contractor.
Commission asked who is responsible for implementation of the staging plan; CP noted that the contractor is
responsible, enforcement would be based on complaint.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that
the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August
2, 2002, sheets A-01 through A-13 and L-1; with 1,457 SF of common open space and a front setback of
15'-6" in order to increase the articulation of features on the front of the structures; and that the site shall be
graded to elevation 97.34 and this shall be confirmed by a survey approved by the City Engineer prior to
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
6
scheduling a foundation inspection and the roof shall be covered with red Spanish tile; 2) that the maximum
elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 133.25 as measured from the average
elevation at the top of the curb along Paloma Avenue (99.98') for a maximum height of 32'-3", and that the
top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing
proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor elevation shall
be elevation 98.67'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 107.42'; third floor finished floor shall be
elevation 117.42'; and the top of ridge elevation shall be 133.25. Should any framing exceed the stated
elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall
not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of
the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or
relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
4) that a construction staging plan and construction workers parking plan to include subcontractors shall be
submitted and approved by the City Engineer before issuance of a building permit; the construction staging
and parking plan shall be developed to create the least impact on the neighborhood and shall show the
location of construction materials to be stored on-site, location of construction equipment, and location of
construction employee parking; 5) no construction materials or construction equipment shall be stored on
the street; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12, 2002 and February 12, 2001 memos, the
Chief Building Official’s February 12, 2001 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 12, 2001 memo, the City
Arborist’s February 13, 2001 memo, and the Recycling Specialist’s October 17, 2001 memo shall be met; 7)
that the applicant shall submit for approval of the City Engineer a construction staging and parking plan
prior to issuance of a building permit; 8) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street
or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 9) that the applicant shall receive a Tree Removal Permit
from the City before removing the existing 18-inch diameter (56-inch circumference) and 26-inch diameter
(81-inch circumference) black acacia trees at the rear of the lot, and that a building permit shall not be issued
before such permits are issued; 10) that ‘guest parking stall’ shall be marked on the two guest parking spaces
at the rear of the site and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit,
but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be
accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 11) that the Covenants
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall
shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 12) that the final
inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of
each unit; 13) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of
directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and
address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of
appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property,
including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 14) that the trash
receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking
and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before
a building permit is issued; 15) that if a security gate system across the driveways is installed in the future,
the gates shall be installed a minimum 20’-0” back from the front property line and shall provide a minimum
opening of 10’-0”; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling
which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by
pushing a button inside their units; 16) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor
shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 17) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the
surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be
accepted by the City Engineer; 18) 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; 19) that the design of the new
building shall incorporate the seismic standards of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition; 20) that the
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
7
project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame for structural stability; 21) that all runoff created during
construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 22) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation
control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from
entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and
proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas;
areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures;
watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction
access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 23) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the
construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 24) that methods
and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection
such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to
maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls
have been established; 25) 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;
26) that if 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 control prior to, during, and
immediately after each storm even; 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; 27) that common
landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run -off, promote surface filtration and
minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 28) 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; 29) that drainage
from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs, shall be routed through buffer strips where
possible and shall be filtered through fossil filters or other petroleum absorbent system inserted into
stormwater inlets prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for
inspecting and maintaining all filters on at least a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once
during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) or as required by the City upon inspection; 30) that this
project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water
Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided
at the time of building permit application; 31) that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay
shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering;
32) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 33) that this proposal
shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the
City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans
shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during
construction as required by the City Arborist; 34) that an irrigation plan consistent with the City’s water
conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit;
35) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central
station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 36) that all construction shall abide by the
construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 37) that the method of construction and materials
used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not
exceed 45 dBA; 38) that before a building permit is issued for the project, the applicant shall perform a
study and capacity analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system to analyze the impact of the proposed
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
8
project to the existing collection and processing system. The study shall include all the existing flows and
proposed flows, the capacity of the system using the peak factors governing the existing conditions, increase
in BOD/TSS (Biological Oxygen Demand/Total Suspended Solids) due to the project volumes, and
mitigation of impact to the system; 39) that the developer shall pay (proportional share) for the installation
of any necessary sewer line improvements. If the developer does not install the new line himself he shall be
required to pay for the development’s portion of the installation cost. If the City Engineer determines that
the pipe will not be installed at the time of development, the developer shall make a cash deposit to the City
for a portion of the estimated cost prior to issuance of a building permit for his construction. The City shall
use this deposit at the time of the pipe installation for this development’s share of the cost; 40) that all new
utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet
current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at
the developer’s expense if necessary; 41) that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any
transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 42)
that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city
standards as required by the development; 43) that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 44)
that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be
collected and pumped to Paloma Avenue; 45) that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of
an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all
mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators
shall be housed so that they meet the City’s noise requirement; 46) that the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a
waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a
demolition permit; 47) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination
Ordinance: 48) that any existing street trees shall be protected during construction; and 49) that should any
cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by
a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been
executed to the satisfaction of the City. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C.
Brownrigg dissenting, C. Bojués absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20
p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
7. 1441 CORTEZ AVENUE- ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RONALD AND PAUL DE
DIOS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; HECTOR ESTIPONA, DESIGNER) (68 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked about how the process for
changing the address, staff noted that address changes are applications handled by the Public Works
Department and input from the Post Office was required; it was noted that the former address on this site
was 1439 Cortez. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Ron De Dios, property owner, spoke noting that he applied for
the change of address on July 12, at the same time he submitted for the planning approval; he noted the letter
from the neighbor expressing concerns about privacy and light access on the north side; he noted that they
had been renting this house for 4 years; the size of the new house is based on the neighborhood standard
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
9
established on Cortez; looked at design initially within height limit, roof looked chopped off, design requires
steeper pitch, there are no cathedral ceilings inside. Family tried to live in the house as it is, the upper
bedroom was converted from the attic, hot, no insulation in the roof, stair access less than 3 feet wide,
existing house is inadequate for comfortable living; unable to add to rear because of placement of garage, as
is have designed house around the garage.
Commission asked if willing to cut the rear of the addition some; yes, don’t know what architect would say.
Commissioner noted that house is massive especially the right side elevation which presents a tall, vertical
wall without break, the rear presents a large area of stucco as well; what would the window detail be,
applicant noted wooden casement; need finer detail to break the first and second story and break up mass;
need to add articulation on the sides and rear similar to that on the front. There were no further comments
from the floor and the public comment was closed.
Commissions noted the following:
• Height, size and mass of proposed addition is too big for the parcel and surrounding properties;
• Need a landscape plan which should include tall plant material to screen the addition;
• Would like to see the height of this structure compared to the height of the structures on either side;
• Need to break up the mass, side walls are just too long, reduce the rear by a few feet;
• Add articulation on the rear and sides similar to that on the front;
• Need to do something to the windows to help reduce the mass, trim detail or fenestration.
C. Osterling moved to refer this project to a design reviewer based on the fact that it has potential which
will be improved by the changes discussed. The motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent) The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:46 p.m.
8. 1524 LOS MONTES DRIVE- ZONED R-1- AMENDMENT TO AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGN
REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(LIONEL J. RECIO AIA, C/O SIDNEY HOOVER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
MICHAEL BERMAN AND BETSY HAUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked what is the status of the project.
CP note that the applicant is asking for and amendment to the approved project and for a one-year extension.
Revised plans were submitted on June 25, 2002, before the planning approval expired. There were no
further questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Betsy Haugh and Michael Berman, property owners, were
present to answer questions. They noted that slight modifications are proposed to the project, scaling back
the project but able to create family room space, reduces work on the roof, can keep current roof, proposed
changes are not visible from the street, minor change to footprint but almost identical to original plan, not
exceeding FAR, moved to Los Montes Drive because it has a nice view, big backyard, current floor plan is
poor, do not want to impact the neighbors, need space for growing family, would like to update house,
request that project be placed on the consent calendar. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
10
Commission had the following concerns about the project and asked the applicant to address the following
items:
• concerned about the encroachment of privacy into the neighbor's yards from the proposed deck at the
rear of the house; applicant should provide photographs taken from the rear of the house at the level
of the proposed deck showing views towards adjacent neighbors, photos should be included in the
resubmittal; and
• recall discussing landscaping at the previous meeting, please add landscape plan back in plans for
next meeting.
C. Auran noted that the project does not exceed FAR maximum, will not be visible from the street, there is
no change to the setback or declining height envelope and made a motion to place this item on the consent
calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when photographs
have been provided and plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C.
Bojués absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at
8:46 p.m.
9. 1109 PALM DRIVE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DALE
MEYER, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROBERT AND CHRISTINE
FRUDENBERG, OWNERS) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, architect, 851 Burlway
Road, Suite 408, noted that the two second floor windows on the front elevation are not balanced on the
drawings, but will be equally distant, will show correctly on the revised plans; declining height envelope
encroachment is minor, encroaches only 18-inches along the top of the wall. Commission asked if the
proposed windows will be true-divided light; yes. The Commission expressed a concern with the addition at
the rear, existing house at the front is broken up with different roof shapes and windows, addition is not
consistent with proportion of small house at the front, second floor overwhelms the first floor. There were
no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comments on the design:
• should look at reducing the plate height on the second floor from 9'-0' to 8'-0" or 7'-0" with a sloped
ceiling;
• suggest using a different window treatment on the second floor on the front elevation;
• second floor addition needs to be more consistent with the existing house, suggest using a bay
window or knee braces; second floor is not well integrated;
• the break in the solid wall at the rear of the house does not reflect the craftsman style at the front of
the house; existing house has lots of interest but it has not been carried to the second floor;
• need to provide landscape plan, tall landscaping should be added between the project and the fire
station to the left, look at using large scale shrubs at the front and year yards; see 1112, 1117 and
1120 Palm Drive for good examples of landscaping;
• should also look at possibility of adding landscaping between the project and house to the right, two
driveways adjacent to each other create a large concrete pad, need to break up the landing pad look;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
11
• use of splayed base walls on second floor looks awkward, need to address how to tie the first and
second floors better;
C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested
revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: feel that this is a strong candidate for review by a design review consultant, the
design has a long way to go to be a good interpretation of a craftsman style, do not want to delay the project
further, needs articulation and finer details.
Chair Keighran 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 failed on a voice vote 3-3-1 (Cmsrs. Keele, Keighran
and Vistica, dissenting, C. Bojués absent).
C. Keele made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was
seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: this is a good start, but design review will help to streamline the review process, in
this case will help to clarify issues for the applicant; feel that this is a talented architect and can incorporate
the changes as suggested by the Commission but will go along with the majority.
Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the
comments made. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m.
10. 1108 CORTEZ AVENUE- ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (LARRY AND VERONICA MORSELLO, APPLICANTS
AND PROPERTY OWNERS; BRUCE BALLENTINE, ARCHITECT) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that the north elevation on sheet
A-2 indicates that the house will be 31'-2" tall and the south elevation notes that it will be 29'-10" tall, will
house be dug out? Is there a slope on the lot? Architect can provide explanation. There were no further
questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Bruce Ballentine, architect, noted that there is a slight
downward slope on the lot from front to rear, 32'-1" is house height measured from grade at the rear of the
house, by the city's definition of house (measured from average top of curb level at front), the house is less
than 30 feet tall, declining height envelope exception is needed for this colonial style house, there is a
driveway adjacent to both sides of this lot and therefore will not impact the neighbors. Commissioner noted
that the design of the new house is nice, but likes the design of the existing house more, asked if the
applicant looked into the history of the existing house; applicant noted that he did not look into the history,
the existing house is in poor condition, would loose most of the house based on what the client wants.
Commissioner encouraged the applicant to salvage the existing windows and fixtures. Asked the applicant
what is the height of the house at 1116 Cortez Avenue; approximately 30 feet. Commission expressed a
concern with using Hardi plank, 1x4 trim on corners of house and around windows, trim package will not be
visually interesting, provide more information on trim; applicant noted that he was happy to add detail to
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
12
trim, but generally has found that a more simple trim package is appropriate for a colonial style house, did
not want to add too much. Commission asked if the large existing palm tree at the rear of the site can be
relocated; tree is old and tired, would not fit in with colonial style house, this is a protected tree and would
require a special permit from the Parks Department to be removed. Commission asked if there was access to
the attic; architect noted there was no access to the attic.
Deborah Magid and Tom Haygel, 1104 Cortez; Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; and Jennifer Lee, 1109
Cortez Avenue, spoke concerning this project: like the existing house, has vintage features, unfortunate that
applicant cannot work with the existing house, house has lots of history, was originally built as a wedding
gift, can't get maximum space using the existing house, proposed house is massive, design is nice but could
be better, several trees and shrubs which provides screening between the properties will be removed to
accommodate the new garage, area will be denuded, small bungalow on the other side will be dwarfed by
this project; should review files at the Historical Society to research history of this house; there are a few
colonial style houses in this neighborhood, would like to see more design elements incorporated to break up
the mass, many of the tudor and bungalow style houses have verandas at the front of the house, provides
more breathing room at the front of the house, would like to salvage the fixtures in this house if it is to be
demolished; existing house was built it 1917, this is not a true colonial style, does not fit in with the
neighborhood, most are craftsman style, every time a new house is built there is less air space, looks like
row of blocks, too many trees being removed in the city. There were no other comments from the floor and
the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: hear what the neighbors are saying, this design is good, unfortunate to loose the
existing bungalow house, project is acceptable with a little more work, colonial style is refreshing compared
to recent new house designs.
Commission had the following concerns about the project and asked the applicant to address the following
items:
• would like to see existing fixtures and windows salvaged; suggest using some of the existing
features in the new house;
• need to pay more attention to the details, provide more information on trim package and windows;
• need more faster growing larger shrubs or small scale trees to provide screening; and
• garage door is not consistent with the style of the house, suggest using two single doors with a
column in the middle or using trim to break up the appearance of the double-wide door;
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the suggested
revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on motion: this project is better than what is typically seen for a new house design, as a
community need to take a hard look at the issue of large homes and floor area ratio.
Chair Keighran 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 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
13
11. 1301 BURLINGAME AVENUE- ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A- APPLICATION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE-
STORY, RETAIL BUILDING (ROBERT BRADSBY, 8 INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AVTAR
JOHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description noting that this public comment session was for both
environmental scoping and design review for the project proposed now. Commissioners asked: can the
awning shown on the rear of the building overhang the public right of way to the extent shown, staff noted
that an encroachment permit is required for an awning overhanging the public right of way and public works
will review the proposal; why were the last subcommittee minutes on this project not included in the staff
report, staff noted it was an oversight; what is a “bulb out”, staff noted that bulb outs are a part of the
streetscape design for the area and function to extend the sidewalk at certain intersections in order to narrow
the walking distance across the street for pedestrians and slow up traffic, examples can been seen on
Broadway at Chula Vista across the street from the new Walgreens; why is the bank use nonconforming, in
the late 1960’s early 1970’s there was a significant increase in the number of banks on Burlingame Avenue,
to the point that it was felt that they endanger the retail character of the area, so Council adopted an
ordinance prohibiting banks in Subarea A; since this site was used as a bank at that time and has been used
as a bank continuously since, it can continue to be used by a banking use; but when the banking use has
ceased for 6 consecutive months or the building is removed, the site looses its nonconforming status and can
no longer be used for a banking use.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Tim Kobe, architect, 8 Inc., represented the project. He
reviewed the project and the public improvements to the sidewalk which would be included with the
construction; he presented a rendering showing the proposed exterior concrete block material and a picture
board of the material as used on several buildings in Japan; he noted that the exterior material is a block
material with a brushed finish and tight joints without caulking, the material is attractive as well because it
speeds up construction, would like to be well along in construction before the holidays; in response to
previous concerns the design was changed and extended glass along Park Road increasing the active area on
Park to 33 feet and added a clear story window on the Park Road side to provide natural light in to the
storage area and further break up that wall; at rear have recessed access door and roll up door with awning;
the proposed height of the building is consistent with the existing height.
Discussion with commissioners: building no longer has mezzanine, previously looked at retaining the
building, architect noted that they looked at four different options for cladding the building but decided
before that they could not keep the existing building from a cost stand point; are the signs typical, yes no
longer use the colored apple, these signs are lit from behind in a deep light box which will be routed into the
concrete and the can will only project about one inch from the finished surface of the wall; are the new
Apple stores always this concrete block material?, no have evolved to this masonry unit, one like this is
proposed in Dallas and here, there are only about 4 street location Apple stores; concerned that a building
that looks like this may not be suitable for some other retail use years from now, would like to see an
example; troubled by the length of the wall on Park, this does not look like other Apple architecture in
Cupertino for example, Steve Jobs wants the street stores to go with this high tech looking material; are
there any exceptions? Michigan Avenue in Chicago, located in the Northwater Tower and Palo Alto. Can
you address how this material is consistent with the character of Burlingame Avenue; architect notes that the
unit is masonry which has permanence like the other buildings on the Avenue, it is not passive like stucco, it
is similar to brick which is a frequently used building material on the Avenue but brick is not suitable for a
high tech company, this building may not be seen as expected but it will have an elegance with the way it is
built, it does not reflect an existing style but translates the qualities of the Avenue, is a good fit. Can you
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
14
explain the awning at the rear, one of the doors has no cover to protect from the elements and wanted to add
form at the rear of the building; why no awning at the front, found in Palo Alto by recessing the front doors
2 feet had effect of widening the sidewalk and announcing the store, large span of glass at front is pedestrian
friendly as well. Awning extends three feet with 8 foot clearance, is that sufficient in a fire lane; will do
what the Fire and Public Works Departments require. Has the streetscape sidewalk color been established,
staff noted yes it has been installed at several locations on Burlingame Avenue and on the cross streets.
When discussed before limestone was a possible exterior material, would prefer, the Park Road side is a
very long wall on a corner with high visibility to a lot of pedestrian traffic, stone would be a softer exterior.
Architect felt that some other materials discussed such as aluminum would not be suitable in Burlingame.
Could you lower the building by 5 to 6 runs of brick which would make it possible for the street trees to
screen it from view. Rear of this building looks industrial, architect noted that there was some relief because
one door was inset. Cannot see this design on Burlingame Avenue, cannot find any consistency on the
Avenue or Park Road, doesn’t seem to be consistent with any commercial area in Burlingame; architect
noted difficult to say it is consistent in a literal sense, does have a sense of permanence, will age well, it will
reflect its time and become a classic in the future, material will be consistent with brick when done, concrete
is an honest material. The building material is seismically qualified.
Russ Cohn, 605 Lexington Way and Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue spoke: As President of the
Burlingame Historical Society and Apple user would like to address CEQA issue and request a CEQA
required documentation of the historic value of this structure, Historical Society documents indicate that
this building was built in 1916 as a Wisdoms/Bonner hardware store; from 1927 to 1932 it was used as a
Bank of Italy which became Bank of America under Giannini who lived in Hillsborough. In 1977 the bank
was occupied by Western Federal Bank; hope that Apple will take a second look at retaining the historical
value of this building and think about a different project. Feel that there should be a full historical analysis
of this building, worked in it once and know that there is an old bank vault in the basement; as Jane Jacolos
says corners are the most important part of cities, they are where a lot of interaction occurs; the Fox Theater
was removed and replaced with a mall, has never been successful, would like Apple to consider that
Burlingame’s downtown is over 100 years old, with nearly every building still standing, we do not want to
be a prototype, Burlingame is firmly rooted in its past and in its trees; feel that there is evidence that if you
pull the current skin off the building you will find the original 1916 Corinthi an columns. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public comment for environmental scoping and design review were
closed.
Commissioners comments: it is necessary to have an historical analysis to determine the significance of this
building as a part of the CEQA evaluation; design review discussion covered a lot of ground including:
• Can the height of the building be reduced;
• Step back the long wall on Park Road and/or add articulation;
• Add view to activity on the inside, from Park Road to enhance pedestrian interest;
• Add lentils over the window openings on the Park Road side;
• Select a softer exterior material and/or design especially along the Park Road side;
• Reduce the parapet height and relocate mechanical equipment even screen it on the roof, to reduce
the mass of the building especially along Park Road frontage;
• Lowering the building by 5 or 6 runs of brick would make it possible for bigger street trees to screen
the mass of the structure on Park Road;
• Rear of the building looks industrial, needs to look more like retail, add more articulation, highly
visible from Lot J and Park Road.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2002
15
This item should be continued to a future meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to decide what
changes they would like to make, this site is an important part of Burlingame Avenue; understand modernist
approach however more can be done to make this building user friendly and to treat the corner in a
pedestrian friendly manner; am not convinced about the exterior material proposed, hard pressed to say
Burlingame is ready for a concrete block building in the downtown area, installing a mock up wall would be
a good idea, understand better what the finish would look like, stone cladding would be better on
Burlingame Avenue, it is more “noble” and would appease the residents; history is relevant, people in
Burlingame take pride in historical features and this is a prominent location.
Chair Keighran moved to continue this item to give the applicant an opportunity to come up with
alternatives based on the input from this meeting; the CEQA document should include an historical analysis
and evaluation of the impacts of demolition and replacement of the building. The motion was seconded by
C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: The CEQA review should also include analysis of the impacts of the demolition
and replacement of the building; feel should reconsider location of repair services with view into it from
Park Road, security can be addressed, this is a good site for Apple, they are a Pioneer and can do classical
on the outside and Apple magic on the inside, the contrast can be very effective.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion on the CEQA direction and continuation of the
design review study to a time when the applicant wishes to return with alternatives. The motion passed
on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Bojués absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- Review of City Council regular meeting of August 5, 2002
CP Monroe reviewed the City Council meeting of August 5, 2002. The commission noted that there
were still issues to be resolved regarding definition of different views. Also that a broad
representation of interests on the Bayfront SAP Advisory Committee would be important. It was
noted from the minutes of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meeting that the address of
the house with the vents was 1108 Vancouver and that another way to address FAR might be to
change the parking requirements to two covered spaces for four bedrooms.
- FYI- window change on DSR approved at 1480 Benito Avenue
Planning Commission acknowledged the proposed changes.
- FYI- window change on DSR approval at 111 Pepper Avenue
Planning Commission acknowledged the proposed changes.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Osterling, Secretary
APPROVEDMINUTES08.12