HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2014.11.24Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, November 24, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 27, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period .
The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission
from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak "
card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or
other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust
the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers.
6. STUDY ITEMS
3155 Frontera Way, zoned R -1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new
wireless facility (antennas and equipment) on an existing residential apartment building
(Ashley Woods, applicant; V-One Design Group Inc., designer; Skyline Terrace,
property owner) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
a.
3155 Frontera Way Staff Report
3155 Frontera Way Attachments
Attachments:
7. 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.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/24/2014
November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1327 Marsten Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Variance for automobile sales within an existing commercial building (Enrique Pelaez
Jr., applicant; Dale Meyer Associates, designer; John T. Michael, RWR Properties Inc .,
property owner) (21 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
a.
1327 Marsten Rd Staff Report
1327 Marsten Rd Attachments
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2748 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Front Setback Variance and
Hillside Area Construction Permit for first floor additions to an existing single -family
dwelling (Jesse Geurse, designer and applicant; Henry Hsia, property owner) (37
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
a.
2748 Burlingview Staff Report
2748 Burlingview Drive Attachments
Attachments:
1025 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a bathroom in a detached
accessory structure (James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering, designer and applicant;
1025 Cabrillo Burlingame LLC, property owner) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
b.
1025 Cabrillo Staff Report
1025 Cabrillo Avenue attachments
Attachments:
1435 Benito Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for
as-built changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling and
detached garage (Jack McCarthy Designer, Inc ., applicant and designer; Kieran
Woods, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
c.
1435 Benito Avenue Staff Report
1435 Benito Avenue Attachments
Attachments:
1547 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits
for a recreation room and toilet in an existing accessory structure (Julie Carlson,
JCarlson Design, applicant, designer and property owner) (53 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
d.
1547 Vancouver Ave Staff Report
1547 Vancouver Ave Attachments
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/24/2014
November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an attached
garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage (Farnaz
Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners) (42
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
e.
1548 Los Montes Dr Staff Report
1548 Los Montes Dr Attachments
1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 recd after
1548 Los Montes Dr - 10.14.14 recd after 1
1548 Los Montes Dr - 10.14.14 - recd after2
1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 - recd after 3.pdf
1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 - recd after 2.pdf
1548 Los Montes Dr - 11.24.14 - recd after 4.pdf
Attachments:
2838 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use and Special Permits
for a new detached patio shelter (Michael Gaul, applicant, designer and property
owner) (28 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
f.
2838 Adeline Dr Staff Report
2838 Adeline Drive Attachments
Attachments:
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review, Design
Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two -story single
family dwelling and detached garage (Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design,
applicant and designer; 1516 Howard LLC, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
a.
1516 Howard Avenue Staff Report
1516 Howard Ave Attachments
1516 Howard Ave Historic Resource Study
Attachments:
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Commission Communicationsa.
City Council Regular Meeting - November 17, 2014b.
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/24/2014
November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
FYI: 1428 Vancouver Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
c.
1428 Vancouver Avenue Memorandum
1428 Vancouver Ave Attachments
Attachments:
FYI: 1529 Howard Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Reveiw project.
d.
1529 Howard Ave MemorandumAttachments:
12. ADJOURNMENT
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on November 24, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not
been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 4, 2014, the action
becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be
accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 11/24/2014
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 27, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
This was
Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent6 -
LoftisAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.October 14, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
>Page 3, motion included removing the setback reduction.
>Page 3, should indicate the property owners presented the application.
>Page 3, Commissioner DeMartini met with owners and received a tour of the property.
>Page 4, Commissioner Terrones recused because of quasi -business relationship with property
owner
>Page 5, last bullet, should indicate porch on the right side.
>Page 5, window cladding is fiberglass.
>Page 5, approve with amended conditions.
>Page 6, Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote.
>Page 8, Commissioner DeMartini met with the owners of the property.
>Page 9, last bullet, extra “bathroom” is listed.
>Page 10, should read “infringement on the property right.”
>Page 11, character of the neighborhood breaks down into three groups… original homes with
garage in the rear, new homes that meet the design guidelines, and homes built before the design
guidelines.
>Page 12, Ellen M., should read challenging to understand what the aesthetics of change are.
>Page 14, need to listen to recording.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
meeting minutes with the revisions as stated. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Pat Giorni spoke on this item:
>Conditions of Approval are legal document registered with the registrar in the County.
>First condition is that “this project will be built to the plans date stamped...”
>If there are changes need to be submitted to Commission.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Suggest when approved by resolution add language that this it is a legal and binding document and
contract is the plans. Any violation is a violation of the contract.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.2748 Burlingview Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Front Setback Variance and
Hillside Area Construction Permit for first floor additions to an existing single -family
dwelling (Jesse Geurse, designer and applicant; Henry Hsia, property owner) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item because he has a business relationship with the
property owners (an prior applicants) at 2747 and 2753 Burlingview Drive.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>When plans come back would like them to show where average front setback line would be.
>Responses in Variance application Items A and B don ’t justify variance. Item A – Stated that
because it is a corner lot the front of the house is the side setback, but that is the case for every corner
lot so is not exceptional or extraordinary. Item B – Hardship just talks about making a bedroom larger,
and if it could not be extended the house value would decline, but does not adequately address the point
of the variance.
>Average setback is already 28.4 feet and existing property is already encroaching. Another 129
square feet will further encroach.
>Will create more of a blank wall to the entry of Hillview Court, and is set up above street level .
Anything to mitigate the blankness would be beneficial.
As a study item, there is no action on this item. The application will return on the Regular Action
Calendar when revised as directed.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1548 Meadow Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second
story additions to an existing single -family dwelling (J. Deal, J. Deal Associates,
designer and appilcant; Barrett and Aimee Foster, property owners) (63 noticed)
StaffContact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Bandrapalli was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject
property.
Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Bandrapalli1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1521 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review Amendment for a
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
new single family dwelling with an attached garage (James Chu, Chu Design
Associates, Inc., designer; Eric Mainini, applicant and property owner) (49 noticed)
Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
All commissioners visited the site. Commissioner Sargent met with the neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue,
met with the applicant, and exchanged email with the neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue. Commissioner
Terrones had a conversation with residents at 1523 Cabrillo Avenue. Commissioner Yie met with the
property owner, and with the neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue. Commissioner DeMartini met with the
neighbor at 1532 Drake Avenue.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Questions from staff:
>If privacy film is used to obscure the glass, are they required to maintain that? If later on, if the film
were removed, would the neighbor be able to file a code enforcement complaint? (Kane: If it is part of
the entitlements of the project that there be obscuration of the glass, if they decide to do that through film
rather than integral in the glass, they are responsible for maintaining that condition. If they fail to do so, it
would be subject to a code compliance complaint.)
>Do we typically allow the film rather than the glazing itself to be obscured? (Gardiner: This has not
come up as an issue before. The plans indicate obscured /stained glass but the exact means as such
was not included specifically.)
>Over the past eight years, cannot recall ever specifying what the specific obscuring methodology
would be.
Eric Mainini represented the property owner:
>Complaint on privacy on four of the windows on the west-facing side.
>On framing detail in the plans, called out for a three-panel window, but elevation did not reflect that.
>With house built, can now stand in the rooms and see the privacy or lack of privacy in a real world
situation. Major tree between this house and adjacent neighbor which blocks out the view of the entire
back yard.
>Three-panel window follows with the design of the downstairs window too. Does not deviate too
much from the look.
>All of the light for this house comes from the west. It is important, makes it a better house.
>The two windows to be obscured are the Master Bedroom closet window (fine whether or not it is
obscured) and the bathroom window.
>Film is a 3M material that makes it so one cannot see through at all. Zero visibility but allows some
light in.
>Suggesting to eliminate obscuring on the bedroom window and stairwell window. Stairwell is a
transitional space.
>Large Oak tree in front, another in back, and another on the side. There is a lot of natural shading,
so looking for natural light.
>Also proposing changing front window from circular to square – more light, not a privacy issue .
Though the elevation looks like it is on level ground, there is a creek to the right and the house is down a
100-foot driveway so cannot be seen from street. Square window will allow more light, is about 1/3 the
price of the round window, and did not think it martially affected the look and feel of the house.
>Closest measurement to 1532 Drake Avenue is 52 feet. It is a large area. Does not border house, is
separated by an easement.
James Chu represented the designer:
>When project originally came in for review and there was concern with privacy, now that the house is
built there is not a privacy issue, even without the landscaping being installed yet.
>Requesting amendment to change the two-panel window to three-panel, without obscuring.
Commission questions:
>How does film do in wet environment, since one of these windows will be a bathroom window?
(Mainini: Vendor says it is used in this capacity all the time and will not be an issue.)
>In the review and approval meetings, there was discussion of the three -panel windows and they
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
became two-panel and obscured. (Mainini: Has included planting that will block the view, but has not
been installed yet. Obscuring of the glass was agreed at the very beginning because of the privacy
issue, but now this is a real house and when one walks through it and sees it can see there is not a
privacy issue. House was built off framing plans, and elevation and framing plans had a discrepancy .)
(Chu: When the window was changed from three panels to two, it was changed on the elevation but not
on the plan.)(Gardiner: Elevation and plan approved by the Planning Commission both showed a
two-panel window.)
>When did privacy issue go away? (Chu: There is an existing tree in neighbor ’s yard, not including
our own trees.) Accepted privacy issue when approved, but once the house was built the privacy issue
went away. (Chu: Can go back to two panels, but are requesting not to have the film. Feels there is not a
privacy issue.)
>Have you been in the back yard of the resident who has an issue with this? (Chu: Yes. Has also
been all through the new house, and cannot see the neighbor’s yard from the new house.)
>Is there a sample of the film? (Mainini: Asked vendor today but sample was not available. It looks
like a frosting of the glass, totally obscured. Zero visibility, only light comes through.)
>Talked to neighbor who has privacy issues? (Mainini: Yes. Also asked if neighbor wanted extra tall
plants.)
Bill Meyers, 1519 Cabrillo Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Two windows or three does not seem like a big deal as long as it is frosted.
>Wants to make sure there won’t be changes that will affect his property.
>Is located between the easement and Cortez, directly adjacent to the structure.
Frank Ryan, 1532 Drake Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Submitted letters from neighbors
>When project was initially presented raised concerns about permanent privacy glass in four windows
facing yard.
>Request was considered reasonable enough that it was written into the plans, pleased with
outcome.
>Property owner blatantly disregarded plans, now gets an opportunity to rewrite the plans. Would be
rewarded for violating plans.
>What asking for and was approved was reasonable and fair.
David Green, 2020 Adeline Drive, spoke on this item:
>FYIs allow applicants to request material changes when something comes up, but this doesn ’t
satisfy that condition.
>Privacy issue has not gone away because trees are still needed. If the privacy issue had gone away
they would not need the trees.
>Saving cost should not be a qualification for a change.
>Project was negotiated, compromises were made, plans were filed and approved, but house was
built the way the owner wanted it the first time.
>House should be built as it was approved.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Certification before the framing inspection was invalid. Architect’s assistant did not look at the size of
window.
>This project is illegal because of a perjurious certification. Should go back to original plans.
>Is there mathematical proof that the square window in the front would provide more light than the
round window?
>More natural light brings more heat.
>Approval was August 2013, applicant came back in May 2014 for amendment for tree issue. Has
been 5 months since framing was illegally certified.
Anahita, 1240 Cabrillo Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Important to make contractors and their architect accountable. Once plans approved need to stick to
what the city required.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Planning Commission plays an important role in keeping contractors and architects accountable.
Diedre Shaw, 2536 Valdivia Way, spoke on this item:
>Planning Commissioners are the stewards of the town – it is their job.
>Appears to be easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
>Does not know the details of this project, but is speaking to say that the City needs to uphold its
laws.
Linda Ryan, 1532 Drake Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Over past 10 years has seen six new homes, four major remodels and two landscape renovations
all on the dead-end of the street. Have never complained about previous construction.
>Project has not installed the correct type and style of windows that had been agreed on and
approved.
>Neighbors had previously met with Mr. Mainini, talked about obscured stained windows, and a
specific landscape plan.
>During summer Mr. Mainini suggested installing a fence on his property that would exceed
regulations. Was in agreement would be OK.
>Mr. Mainini also suggested building a planter and privacy hedge in the easement.
>Had agreed to stained or obscured windows. Talked to Marvin salesperson who said Mr. Mainini had
considered but did not like the look of the frosted glass. Said he would install film instead.
>Concern film would not provide privacy, could be removed with solvent right after sign -off. Previous
discussions specified permanent stained or obscured glass.
>If a film is used, request that it be in writing that it is two -way privacy and permanent, never to be
removed by the occupant.
>Work crew is disregarding construction hours.
Commission discussion/comments:
>What did Conditions of Approval say regarding the obscured windows? (Gardiner: There was not
anything specific in the Conditions of Approval, just notes on the plans stating “shaded/obscured glazing
shown typ.” and four windows are shown on the elevation shaded to indicate those would be obscured
or stained glazing.)
>Looking at drawings, does not see any reason to remove the shading. Does not see any reason to
go from three window panes to two.
>There has already been a visit from the City Arborist during construction for cutting into the roots of
a 36-inch oak tree. Should have a tree protection plan for the 48-inch oak tree in the front. Does not
seem to care about the rules.
>Unilaterally deciding there is no privacy issue and acting on that is presumptuous.
>On the elevation the two -panel window looks better than the three -panel. Consider obscuring at the
bottom of window but leaving top clear to allow view of sky and tree into room. Same with stairwell
window.
>There is distance between the houses, but the screening tree is a deciduous so when leaves fall
there will be privacy impacts.
>Change to front window is minimal given the oak, how the house steps back, and that it can ’t be
seen from the street.
>Agrees contractors should be required to build what is on the plans, and if not should expect
consequences. However can also be hard to imagine what happens in the field versus the drawings .
There is a process for that.
>Windows are quite some distance from the rear property line. However lots are small, so
disadvantage is having less privacy than if lots were larger. But window treatment applicant agreed to
was reasonable.
>Presumption on part of public is that by reviewing application and giving the application its due,
presumption is that the Commission is already in support of application. However just by listening to the
application neither indicates support or lack of support for an application.
>There is no ordinance to protect privacy, but it is addressed individually with each application.
Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion to deny the request. There was no second.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission discussion:
>Did not appear to be objections to the change in the front window from round to square.
>Would window film be an FYI to review later? (Gardiner: Could be a condition for the Commission to
impose.)
>Had assumed glass would be glue chip or frosted. Has not seen film, does not know if it would be
acceptable.
>Cannot add requirements after the fact. The approval did not specify how the glass would be
obscured, and film a common practice – can’t tell the difference. Film was not mentioned in the approval,
but also was not disallowed.
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
Commission question to applicant:
>Willing to install obscured window instead of filmed windows? (Mainini: The intended purpose of the
film was to obscure the glass. It produces the same end effect, can’t tell the difference.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Item
with the following amended conditions:
1.Accept change in Front Elevation window from round to square.
2.Require the original approved windows on Left Elevation to be installed as approved shown
on the plans approved by the Planning Commission date stamped August 14, 2013.
3.If film is used to obscure the windows it shall be brought back as an FYI, it shall provide
two-way privacy, be permanent and maintained into perpetuity, and the condition remains
irrespective to ownership.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
b.2308 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Harumitsu Inouye,
applicant and property owner Michael Ma, March Design, architect;) (65 noticed) Staff
Contact: Kevin Gardiner
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Bandrapalli reported she spoke with the
neighbors. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>None
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mike Ma (designer) and Hari Inouye (property owner) spoke as applicant:
>Plans revised to respond to Commission’s comments in last meeting.
>Is further proposing to add a side window in Bedroom #4. It would be a high window, spanning from 5
feet up to 7 feet, above eye level.
>If there was a detached garage instead of the attached garage, would result in driving in and out
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
past neighbor’s bedroom windows. Neighbors prefer garage as proposed.
>Counted 19 two-door attached garages on Hillside Drive, from El Camino Real to the Fire Station at
the top/City Limit line, excluding corner parcels. >Perhaps 7 additional if counting the corner houses.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
>None
Public comments:
> None
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion/questions:
> Window addition seems like a modest change but it has not been noticed. Could it be submitted as an
FYI? (Gardiner: FYIs are not noticed. The only way to properly notice the neighbor would be to continue
the item or have it come back as a Design Review Amendment.)
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
>Neighbors have seen the plans and are in support of the project, but they have not seen the
proposed additional window. (Inouye: Would prefer to drop the proposed window than have the
application delayed further.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
>Neighborhood does not have any mid -block attached two-car garages. It would dramatically change
the look of the neighborhood and does not improve it.
>Design guidelines have a definition of what a neighborhood is for determining what type of garage
the project could have. In this neighborhood within a 1 or 2 block radius there are no front -facing two-car
garages mid-block. Can’t make finding that it would fit in the neighborhood; is not in keeping with the
other houses in the neighborhood.
>Hillside is not so much a neighborhood as it is a boulevard. It can handle more variety than some of
the interior blocks.
>Benefit of attached garage is convenience, and a lot of people with detached garages do not park
their cars in the garage. The garages as designed are split and nicely designed.
>Difficult to back out of a long driveway given traffic on Hillside Drive. Makes it difficult for residents.
>Neighborhood and street are varied in style, character and massing. May not have a number of
attached two-car garages, but the details of this design such as separated doors make it a good
application. Massing works nicely.
Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Yie, made a motion to approve as submitted, not
including the window proposed at the meeting.
Aye: 3 - Bandrapalli, Yie, and Terrones
Nay: 3 - DeMartini, Sargent, and Gum
Absent: 1 - Loftis
Motion fails (a motion that fails to carry a majority fails)
Further commission discussion:
> Discussion previously focused on the roof pitch, columns, and details. If the dealbreaker was going
to be the attached garage, in fairness to the applicant the Planning Commission should have made it
more clear from the very beginning.
> Attached garage was an issue in previous discussions.
> When the project was approved previously with the attached two -car garage, had referred to a map
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
prepared by the applicant, but the data was incorrect.
> Not clear to all commissioners that the attached garage was not supportable.
Commissioner Yie, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, made a motion to continue. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
c.1908 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a new, two -story dwelling and Special
Permits for an attached garage, height, basement ceiling height, and exiting (Jesse
Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, designer and applicant; Scott and Brooke Hill,
proerty owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report.
Commission comments/questions:
>What is the rule for ceiling height in counting floor area? (Hurin: 12 feet or higher is counted twice.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Commission questions/comments:
Jesse Geurse and Scott & Brooke Hill represented the applicants:
>Reduced height by 1 foot, so majority of ridge is at or just above the 30 foot height limit.
>Sloping lot and top of curb are the issue.
>Did research and found ten examples of similar homes that received approval for heights over 30
feet – five within the last two years.
Commission questions/comments:
>Changes help it fit neighborhood better.
>What will be in top of family room? (Geurse: Ceiling height will be 11’-11 1/2” or less. There will be
storage accessed from Bedroom 4 above.)
>Changes are subtle but noticeable. Proportions of windows and other elements are better.
>Encroachment is modest, only the middle part of the roof.
>Basement height and entrance will not adversely impact the neighborhood, neither will direct exit
from basement.
>Sloping lot presents circumstances for height.
There are several other existing houses in the area with attached garages, also there is a long
driveway so it is far back from the street, the slope minimizes the impact of garage, and the covered
landing and porch mitigate the effect.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
d.1426 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC – Application for Variance for Required
Business Access for a new retail space in an existing commercial building (Dale
Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and designer; Green Banker LLC, property
owner) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the
applicant originally. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant:
>Easement has been arranged to provide for use of exit.
>In subdividing space did preliminary concepts with hallway down the middle (like Fox Mall) but no
takers. Has not been able to find tenant until now.
Commission questions/comments:
>Why is easement not executed? (Meyer: The Wurlitzer property (the easement grantor) is run by a
trust, with several signers. If approved tonight should be signed tomorrow.)
Ron Karp spoke on this item:
>In favor of applicant.
>In opinion applicant does not need a variance.
Commission comments/discussion:
>Is variance required? (Gardiner: Easement is required for fire access regardless. Spaces at rear of
the building have effectively been severed from the front and do not connect out to the street.)
>Size of the building is an exceptional situation since it would be more difficult for each business to
have access to the public street.
>Some of the hardship was created by the property owner, however the building itself has challenges.
>The space is in an area where there are a number of other business entrances operating in a similar
fashion.
>The variance is conditional on the easement being operational.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1813 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Minerva Abad, MDA Design,
applicant and designer; Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners) (53 noticed)
Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
The applicant was not in attendance. The item was continued to the November 10, 2014 Planning
Commission meeting.
b.1547 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits
for a recreation room and toilet and shower in an existing accessory structure (Julie
Carlson, JCarlson Architectural Design, applicant, designer and property owner) (56
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Yie was recused for non-statutory reasons.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent reported he spoke with the
neighbors at 1543 and 1540 Vancouver Avenue. There were no other ex -parte communications to
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
report.
Questions of staff:
>Does the garage compliance include setback from the fence line? (Hurin: If located in the rear 40%
of the lot detached structures are exempt from side setback requirements. A new detached structure
would require a Special Permit, but because this is existing and not changing the building envelope a
Special Permit is not required.)
Julie Carlson represented the applicant.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Concerned with roof form. Acts as second -floor mansard roof. Did you consider extending front roof
form up vertically? Could then have second floor rooms come off as dormers and other pieces. (Carlson:
Likes houses that are lower, but could consider. Roof has different pitches. If pitched from the side
extension could get a peak.) Not as bad on front elevation, but on other sides looks like a truncated roof.
>Extending roof may require Special Permit, but may be supported because working with existing
conditions, Tudor style often has steeply -pitched roofs, often are very tall. Truncated mansard is not
typical of the neighborhood.
>Garage is an improvement – taking an existing non -permitted in-law unit and creating a functional
garage.
Carlson: Would it be OK to change front bedroom window from three casements to two?
(Commissioners: Should be OK. This kind of change is not unusual.)
>What will accessory structure be used for? (Carlson: Will be used as a bonus room. Bought house
with full bath, but discovered it was not permitted.)
>Seems like some of the character is being taken away in front.
>Concerned about having recreation room and shower on the property line. Is neighbor at 1543
Vancouver Avenue familiar with proposal? (Carlson: Does not know, can talk to her.)
>Special Permit for toilet and sink are acceptable, but shower would seem to encourage a use that
goes beyond being a recreation room. Would be hard to justify.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Yie1 -
c.1025 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a bathroom in a detached
accessory structure (James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering, designer and
applicant; 1025 Cabrillo Burlingame LLC, property owner) (52 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erika Lewit
Commissioner Yie was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the
owner of 1015 Cabrillo Avenue. There were no other ex-parte communications to report.
Questions of staff: None.
James Chu (designer) and Michael Callan (landscape architect) represented the applicant:
>Client has talked to neighbors. Majority seem to like project, except for neighbor to left.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Mitigate privacy concerns with tree planting.
Commission questions/comments:
>Has a consistent ring of second -floor plate all around. Massing looks like a two -story ring around the
top, with just a few gestures and elements that are one -story. On sides it stretches out and looks very
long.
>Front elevation could have roof brought down, let dormer to right pop out. Would bring down overall
height and help with massing.
>Tudor revival style with brick is handsome, nicely detailed.
>It’s a large lot, should look at if there is a way to shift the house over to allow more planting area
along the driveway. Focus is towards the lush side of the creek but the left side is barren. (Chu:
Driveway is 12 feet wide but code only requires 9’-6”, so there is plenty of room to add planting .)(Callan:
Has talked to neighbors on both left and rear to have evergreen screening with Grecian laurels. 10 feet
wide by 20-25 feet hight.)(Chu: There is only one bedroom window facing neighbor to left.)
>How is the bathroom in the garage intended to be used? (Chu: Had thought about creating a
swimming pool site in the back, so would be for the future owner to use if they had a pool.)
>Concern garage could be converted into an illegal use in the future. Other uses would require a
Conditional Use Permit or Special Permit with Planning Commission action. (Chu: Won’t happen since
the house is required to have a 2-car garage. Not the intention to have unauthorized uses.)
>House looks like a house from Hillsborough dropped into a small street in Burlingame. It is very
massive, there are not a lot of houses that massive on Cabrillo, doesn’t fit in. \
>Design guidelines talk about not stacking floors and providing relief. Left elevation looks like it is
doing what the design guidelines ask not to do. (Chu: There is a 60” redwood tree that helps with
screening. Could also plant some trees along driveway.)
>Oak trees have been pruned wrong. At this point OK to take out, but should have been pruned
properly previously.
>Which laurel trees harbor sudden oak disease? Is Grecian laurel OK? (Callan: Laurels can harbor
sudden oak, but there are not oak trees on the property anymore. Could work with the arborist if there is
another tree that would be preferable.)
>Although the house is not currently occupied, needs to be maintained. Redwood is overgrown.
>A large lot can support a large house if massed properly. The house across the street is a good
example where massing is handled really well – does not look like a really large house.
>Concerned about the height and the size of the windows and doors on the side. Consider obscured
windows on the south side.
Sally Downing, 1801 Carmelita Avenue spoke on this item:
>Concern with massing. House is a north /south orientation. Once foliage comes out there will be
privacy issues. Will just have one maple on the north side and a lot of north-facing windows.
>Special corner of Burlingame, does not make sense to put that large of a house there. The lot is
bigger, but has encroachment of creek.
>Dormer windows on the side would help.
>Bathroom in garage is a concern. Would not welcome conversion in the future.
>Shed in back and debris is falling into the creek.
>Wants landscaping that will limit water use and provide some privacy.
Dan Griffin, 1015 Cabrillo Avenue spoke on this item:
>Had submitted email with concerns.
>Concern with noise and privacy, with cars driving up the driveway.
>Very large and intrusive house.
Chu: There is a lot of vegetation along the creek, can work with neighbor to minimize privacy intrusion .
Neighbor also has a swimming pool on her lot. This house will not be seen from Carmelita since there is
a house in between.
Commission discussion/comments:
>Is the 400 sq ft exemption for the detached garage factored in the total floor area? (Hurin: There can
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
be a credit of 400 square feet for the garage.)
>Massing needs to be addressed. House could fit into the neighborhood with changes.
>Concerns with toilet in the accessory structure.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to bring the item back
on the Regular Action Calendar when revised as directed. The motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Yie1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.Commission Communications
b.City Council Regular Meeting - October 20, 2014
>1600 Trousdale Drive was reviewed and the zoning amendment introduced. The application and
zoning amendment will return on November 3rd with additional design refinements.
>The Broadway Community Meeting on October 18th had more than 80 people in attendance. The
survey will be open for one more week. Over 1100 survey responses have been received to date. A
report to be made to the City Council in an upcoming meeting.
c.FYI: 1529 Bernal Avenue – review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on October 27, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not
been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2014, the action
becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be
accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit
Address: 3155 Frontera Way Meeting Date: November 24, 2014
Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new wireless facility (antennas and equipment) on an
existing residential apartment building.
Applicant: Ashley Woods, Agent for Verizon Wireless APN: 025-320-210 and -220
Property Owner: EQR Skyline Terrace LP Lot Area: 29,316 SF (APN: 025-320-210)
Architect: V-One Design Group, Inc. 147,122 SF (APN: 025-320-220)
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Background: The Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on February 6, 2012
(Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities is attached for review). The purpose of this ordinance is to
maintain and more importantly, to facilitate modernization of Burlingame’s communications infrastructure in a
manner that improves the quality of the City’s environment, the pleasant aesthetics of the City’s neighborhoods,
the City’s architectural traditions dating to the early 20th century and the visual quality in the non-residential
areas of the City. More specifically, the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal
law and regulations, the location of communications facilities in the City of Burlingame in a manner that
recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the
communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the City’s aesthetic traditions.
Site Description: The site is located along the city limits between Burlingame and Millbrae. It is surrounded by
multifamily and single family residential uses and is bounded by Trousdale Drive, Frontera Way and Highway
280. The subject property contains two, three-story multifamily residential apartment buildings (3133 and 3155
Frontera Way). The development is considered to be nonconforming because it is a multifamily residential use in
an R-1 zone (single family dwelling). In 1964, the City Council granted a variance to construct the apartment
buildings in a single family dwelling zone (R-1).
Project Description: The applicant, Ashley Woods, agent for Verizon Wireless, is requesting approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless communications facility (wireless facility) on an existing
residential apartment building at 3155 Frontera Way. An application for a Conditional Use Permit is required for
any new wireless communication facility where co-location is not proposed). The proposed wireless facility
consists of the following components:
Five (5) panel antennas on existing stairwell walls (three antennas on the south wall and two antennas
on the west wall).
Six (6) radio remote units (RRU’s) (equipment associated with the panel antennas) on the inside face of
a stairwell wall (see Antenna Plan on sheet A-2).
A pre-fabricated equipment enclosure (12’ x 18’) located on the ground behind the parking area. The
enclosed equipment shelter would house equipment cabinets for the wireless facility, an emergency
generator and other associated equipment necessary for the wireless facility (see Lease Area
Enlargement and Elevation on sheets A-2 and A-6).
Power and fiber lines between antennas and equipment, located underground and in a cable tray.
EQR Skyline Terrace LP owns the subject property containing the apartment buildings (APN: 025-320-220), as
well as a smaller vacant parcel south of the site along Trousdale Drive and Highway 280 (APN: 025-320-210).
The proposed antennas would be located on the main parcel and the equipment enclosure would be located on
the vacant parcel.
Item No. 6a
Study Item
Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way
2
The applicant notes that “the development of this facility will further enhance Verizon’s Northern California
wireless network by allowing its customers seamless access to Verizon’s nationwide network of services”. For
more detailed information about the proposed project and why this location was chosen, please refer to the
attached Project Description submitted by the applicant, date stamped October 8, 2014.
Panel Antennas and Radio Remote Units: A total of five (5) panel antennas are proposed to be mounted on
the exterior walls of an existing stairwell, located on the west side of the building; three antennas on the south
wall and two antennas on the west wall. The proposed antennas would be concealed in stealth structures,
comprised of screening panels designed and painted to match the concrete building wall. The stealth panel
along the west wall measures 6’-9” tall x 8’-8” wide and measures 43’-0” above grade to its highest point; the
stealth panel along the south wall measures 8’-9” tall x 18’-4” wide and measures 45’-0” above grade to its
highest point. To show how the proposed stealth panels would screen the panel antennas, the applicant
provided existing and proposed photo simulations from three viewpoints (see attached).
A total of six (6) radio remote units (RRU’s) (equipment necessary for the panel antennas) are proposed to be
installed on the inside face of the stairwell wall and therefore would not be visible to the public (see Antenna Plan
on sheet A-2).
Equipment Shelter and Power/Fiber Lines: The project also includes installing a pre-fabricated equipment
enclosure (12’ x 18’) located at-grade behind the parking area. Currently, this is a flat area consisting of soil and
is not being used by the apartment development. The proposed 8’-0” tall enclosure would consist of slatted
chain link fencing and would house equipment cabinets, an emergency generator and other associated
equipment necessary for the wireless facility (see Lease Area Enlargement and Elevation on sheets A-2 and A-
6). There are no existing trees to removed or new trees proposed to be planted in the area of the proposed
enclosure. In addition, no existing parking spaces would be eliminated as part of this application.
All associated power and fiber lines for the wireless facility will be run underground and then up the building wall
by way of a cable tray along the south side of the stairwell, painted to match the building.
Public Outreach: Pursuant to the City’s ordinance, the applicant is encouraged to perform an early stage
outreach with residents and property owners near the proposed wireless facility in order to address and, if
possible, resolve any impacts of the proposed facilities on the surrounding neighborhood.
The applicant notes that an open house informational meeting was held on September 11, 2014 at the site in the
Social Room of the apartment building (see attachments provided by the applicant). Emails were sent to
residents of the apartment building two weeks in advance of the meeting and fliers were posted on doors and
elevators the week of the meeting. The applicant reports that the property owner and one resident attended the
meeting.
Radio Frequency Study: An evaluation of the proposed wireless facility was prepared by Hammett & Edison,
Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated June 26, 2014, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human
exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields (see attached full report). The report concluded that
operation of the proposed base station “can comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to
radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment”.
Intentionally left blank.
Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way
3
Location Preference Order: The City’s ordinance requires that in determining the location of proposed wireless
communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order listed
below. Wireless communication facilities must be located where feasible in the locations listed below by
descending priority. If applicable, the applicant shall include an explanation of the reason that the proposed
facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location (please refer to the attached Project Description
submitted by the applicant for reasons this location was chosen).
1) Locations within Non-Residential Zoning Districts, which are more than five hundred (500) feet from
Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts and which are not within the
Burlingame Downtown Districts.
2) Non-Residential Zoning Districts within five hundred (500) feet of Residential Zoning Districts or the
Burlingame Downtown Districts, and the Burlingame Downtown Districts.
3) Residential Zoning Districts. If located within a residential zoning district, the following guidelines apply:
Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) or designed to blend in with
open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from view by means of stealth design,
stealth structures, architectural integration or screening.
Co-located in existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provisions
of this chapter.
In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antennae,
and to the extent feasible, control equipment.
In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground,
if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure.
Design Criteria: The goal of the City’s regulations is to reduce to the greatest extent possible all visual impacts
resulting from the installation of wireless communications facilities. Stealth design and stealth structures for
these facilities shall be considered the normal standard for all wireless communications facilities. Non-stealth
designs and structures shall not be approved without evidence, independently verified, that it is not possible
(using best efforts by applicant) to stealth such facilities. Applications shall be reviewed to determine compliance
with the following criteria. If the applicant’s proposed facility cannot comply with the following criteria, the
application shall include a detailed explanation of why it is not reasonably feasible to comply with the criteria
(please refer to the attached Project Description submitted by the applicant for an explanation of why some
criteria are not met).
(a) Wireless communication facilities should be co-located where feasible and where the co-location does
not create an adverse aesthetic impact due to such factors as increasing the bulk, the height or the
amount of noise created by the proposed co-located facilities.
(b) Wireless communication facilities should to the greatest extent feasible, not be located in Residential
Zoning Districts.
(c) Wireless communication facilities should be designed, located and constructed in a manner that
minimizes visual and auditory impacts of the facilities. The wireless communication facilities shall blend
into the surrounding environment and/or shall be architecturally integrated into a structure, considering
the color, design and character of the surrounding context (e.g., public art, clock towers, flagpoles,
trees/vegetation, rocks, water tank, existing office/industrial buildings, and church steeples).
Specifically, the proposed facilities shall comply, to the greatest extent feasible, with the following:
(1) The facilities should be concealed, screened or camouflaged by the surrounding topography,
vegetation, buildings, or other setting.
Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way
4
(2) The facilities should be proportional in size relative to surrounding and supporting structures and
ability for co-location by other providers.
(3) Roof-mounted facilities should be, out of view and screened; these facilities shall be set back at
least one foot from the edge of the roof for every one foot of antenna height and shall not exceed
ten (10) feet in height above the roof surface.
(4) Wall-mounted facilities should be compatible in scale and design with the building, shall be flush
mounted, i.e., not extending from the face of the building more than twenty-four (24) inches and
shall be painted and/or textured to match the wall of the building. All cables and brackets, wires,
shall also be hidden.
(5) All facilities should be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials.
(6) All concealing, screening, painting, camouflaging and/or use of stealth designs and stealth
structures should be consistent with Section 25.77.010 (Purpose) including, but not limited to,
promoting wholesome, attractive, harmonious and economic use of property, building
construction, civic service, activities and operations in conformity with and preserving the overall
aesthetics of City neighborhoods including its character and its century old architectural
traditions.
(d) Where applicable, appropriate landscaping should be installed in and around the proposed wireless
communication facilities.
(e) Any exterior lighting on the facilities should have a manual on/off switch and be contained on-site.
(f) Ground equipment of the facilities should be concealed, screened, camouflaged or hidden using
stealth design, stealth structures, underground installation or landscaping and fencing.
(g) Signage in, on or near any facilities should be prohibited with the exception of warning and
informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact.
(h) Wireless communication facilities should be discouraged in areas subject to the City’s hillside
construction permit as designated in Section 25.61.010; if facilities cannot be avoided in the hillside
areas, then visual impacts should be eliminated through stealth design, stealth structures and
landscaping.
(i) Support wires for structures should be discouraged.
(j) The wireless communication facilities should be designed to discourage unauthorized access.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan
and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary
to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Parks and Stormwater Divisions. The Building, Fire and
Engineering Divisions had no comment on the proposed application.
Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way
5
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Ashley Woods, applicant
Attachments:
Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities
Application to the Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Application
Project Description, date stamped October 8, 2014
Photo Simulations
Proof of Outreach
Evaluation of Base Station, prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated June 26, 2014
Coverage Maps
Existing and Proposed Facility Maps
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed November 14, 2014
Aerial Photo
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance
Address: 1327 Marsten Road Meeting Date: November 24, 2014
Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for automobile sales within an existing
commercial building.
Applicant: Enrique Pelaez Jr. APN: 026-133-020
Property Owner: John T. Michael, RWR Properties Inc. Lot Area: 4,862 SF
Designer: Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates Zoning: RR
General Plan: Industrial Uses: Industrial & Office Use
Previous Use: Automobile repair facility.
Proposed Use: Indoor automobile sales facility enclosed within a warehouse structure with no outdoor
vehicle display areas.
Allowable Use: Conditional Use Permit required for automobile sale within a warehouse structure.
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, which states that existing facilities, consisting of the
operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination are exempt from environmental review.
Project Description: The applicant, Infinite Auto Group, currently operates an automobile repair business in a
1,950 SF space located at 1327 Marsten Road, zoned RR. With this application, the applicant would like to
change the use within the space to automobile sales. Code section 25.44.030 (d) requires a conditional use
permit for automobile sales businesses that are wholly enclosed within a warehouse structure with no outdoor
automobile display area.
In his letter date stamped September 5, 2014, the applicant notes that Infinite Auto Group “will be running an
owner operated small, low volume low inventory automobile dealership”. The dealership specializes in modern
day classics to traditional classic cars. The dealership focuses on a specific market which allows them to be
largely an internet based business with most viewing occurring by appointment only. For additional information
about the business, please refer to the attached letter of explanation provided by the applicant.
Within the tenant space, the existing office area (157 SF) would continue to be used as office and the remaining
warehouse space (1,793 SF) would be used as an automobile showroom. The proposed floor plan indicates
that up to five vehicles will be displayed inside the warehouse; a sixth parking space will be dedicated for
employee parking. Any service required to the vehicle will be outsourced, so there will be no auto repair or
detailing done on these premises. There are no changes proposed to the interior or exterior of the building.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Conditional Use Permit for indoor automobile sales within a warehouse structure with no outdoor vehicle
display areas (Code Section 25.44.030 (d)); and
Parking Variance to allow a vehicle to back onto Marsten Road to exit the property (Code Section
25.70.025 (b) (3)).
Currently, the site is nonconforming in parking. The use within the tenant space is being intensified from
automobile repair to an automobile showroom. Additional parking is required on-site for the intensification of
use. Based on the existing uses (157 SF of office and 1,793 SF of automobile repair), a total of three parking
spaces are currently required on site. Based on the proposed uses (157 SF of office and 1,793 SF of showroom
Item No. 7a
Consent Calendar
Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance 1327 Marsten Road
2
area), a total of four parking spaces would be required. Therefore, one additional parking space is required for
the intensification of use. The applicant is proposing to provide the one additional parking space within the
warehouse space; this space could be used for either employee or customer parking. However, a Parking
Variance would need to be granted to allow a vehicle to back onto Marsten Road to exit the property (Code
Section 25.70.025 (b) (3)).
Planning staff would note that in 2004 the Planning Commission granted a Variance for vehicles backing onto
Marsten Road for an automobile repair business at 1315-1317 Marsten Road. At that time, the issue of backing
onto Marsten Road was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer who noted that he did not have a concern with it
as this is a common occurrence in the area and there hasn’t been any resulting safety or congestion issues
reported. Since the 2004 approval, the City’s Traffic Engineer notes that there were two accidents in the area,
but neither was caused by vehicles backing onto Marsten Road.
The hours of operations will be Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on weekends by
appointment only. The business will have one to two employees and one to four customers visiting the site per
day. The maximum number of persons expected on site at any one time is six.
1327 Marsten Road
Lot Area: 4,862 SF Plans date stamped: October 29, 2014
Existing
Proposed
Required
Use: office/warehouse
(previously automobile
repair)
(1,950 SF)
indoor automobile
sales within a
warehouse structure
with no outdoor vehicle
display areas ¹
(1,950 SF)
conditional use permit
required for indoor
automobile sales within a
warehouse structure with no
outdoor vehicle display
areas
Off-Street Parking: 0 spaces
1 space 1 additional parking space
required for intensification of
use from auto repair to auto
sales
Vehicle Egress: n/a Vehicle in new on-site
parking space will back
onto Marsten Road ²
Egress onto Marsten Road
shall be in the forward
direction
¹ Conditional Use Permit for indoor automobile sales within a warehouse structure with no outdoor vehicle
display areas.
² Parking Variance to allow a vehicle to back onto Marsten Road to exit the property (Code Section 25.70.025
(b) (3)).
Staff Comments: Planning staff determined that since the envelope of the existing building is not being
changed and no additional square footage is proposed within the warehouse space, this application is not
subject to the current on-site landscaping requirements. See attached memos from the Chief Building Official,
Fire Marshal and City Engineer.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on November 10,
2014, the Commission discussed the proposed application with the applicant and voted to place this item on the
consent calendar (please refer to the attached November 10, 2014 Planning Commission minutes). There was
no additional information requested of the applicant.
Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance 1327 Marsten Road
3
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan
and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary
to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: Based on the fact that the proposed automobile sales facility will
operate indoors within an existing commercial building with no outdoor display area and no changes to the
building envelope, that the vehicle showroom area will be limited to five vehicles and that the proposed business
anticipates having no more than one to two employees and one to four customers visiting the site per day, the
proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Therefore, the proposed use is found to
be compatible with the required findings for a conditional use permit.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Findings: Based on the fact that the subject property as it currently exists is nonconforming in off-street parking
and there is no expansion proposed to the envelope of the building, that granting the parking variance for backing
onto a public right-of-way (Marsten Road) is necessary for the use of a proposed off-street parking space and
prevents demolition of a portion of the existing building in order to provide an on-site back-up area for the newly
added parking space, that granting of the parking variance for vehicles backing onto Marsten Road will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare or convenience because it is a common occurrence in the area and there hasn’t been any
resulting safety or congestion issues reported, the application is found to be compatible with the variance criteria
listed above.
Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance 1327 Marsten Road
4
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and
the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning
Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any
action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped
October 29, 2014, sheets P1 through P3;
2. that vehicles for sale may not be displayed outdoors or in any required on-site parking spaces,
driveways, drive aisles or fire lanes; and
3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Enrique Pelaez Jr., applicant
Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, designer
Attachments:
November 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Explanation Letter, date stamped September 5, 2014
Conditional Use Permit Application
Variance Application
Commercial Application
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed November 14, 2014
Aerial Photo
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 10, 2014
a.1327 Marsten Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Variance for automobile sales within an existing commercial building (Enrique Pelaez
Jr., applicant; Dale Meyer Associates, designer; John T. Michael, RWR Properties
Inc., property owner) (21 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All commissioners visited the site. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he met with the applicant and
toured the property. There were no other ex parte communications.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant, and Enrique Pelaez Jr represented the owner:
>No work planned to the building itself. Removing auto repair portion of the business, and keeping the
building as it is.
Questions:
>Will the parking space be used? (Meyer: 1 or 2 will be there to operate business. They will likely
arrive together and will park in the space. Most people coming to look at the cars will have an
appointment, so either the owner or the visitor will park outside.)
>Where will they park on street if all the other businesses are using the street spaces? (Meyer: Will
need to park down the street. There are five spaces on site, but not all may be filled with inventory.)
>How does the buyer take delivery? (Pelaez: Will take delivery on site, at the location. As they make
the appointment, will bring the car out front so don’t need to shuffle cars around.)
Public comments: None
Commissioner comments:
>Straightforward application.
>Will not be any detriment to neighborhood.
>Site is built out so there is nowhere to put more on -site parking, so any application requiring
discretionary review would require a parking variance.
>No safety issues.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to place the application
on the Consent Calendar when ready. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/20/2014
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND PARKING VARIANCE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for a
Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for automobile sales within an existing commercial
building at 1327 Marsten Road, Zoned RR, John T. Michael, P.O. Box 538, Cupertino, CA, 95015,
property owner, APN: 026-330-020;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
November 24, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA Section 15301, which states that existing facilities, consisting of the
operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing
public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving
negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's
determination are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved.
2. Said Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance are approved subject to the conditions set
forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Variance are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 24th day of November, 2014, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Variance.
1327 Marsten Road
Effective December 4, 2014
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
and date stamped October 29, 2014, sheets P1 through P3;
2. that vehicles for sale may not be displayed outdoors or in any required on-site parking
spaces, driveways, drive aisles or fire lanes; and
3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
Address: 1025 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: November 24, 2014
Request: Design review for a new, two-story house and a Conditional Use Permit for a new, detached garage
with a half bathroom.
Ap plicant and Designer): James Chu, Chu Design and Engineering APN: 026-184-020
Property Owner: 1025 Cabrillo Burlingame LLC Lot Area: 11,239
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a
second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this
exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of
a project.
Project Description: The subject site is an irregularly-shaped lot with 70 feet of frontage on Cabrillo Avenue.
The width of the lot increases to 100 feet at the rear of the parcel. Sanchez Creek runs along the right side of
the property.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and accessory structures on site. A
new, two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage is proposed on the site. The proposed floor area of
the dwelling and the detached garage is 5,086 SF (0.45 FAR) where a maximum of 5,096 (0.45) FAR is allowed.
The proposed project is within 1% if of the maximum allowable floor area.
The applicant submitted an arborist report date stamped September 9, 2014, from Kielty Arborist Services.
There are five protected-size trees on the site (numbered 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 on Sheet A.2). The applicant is
proposing to remove the two Oak trees that are on site (numbers 4 and 7). The Parks Division received a
Protected Size Tree Removal Permit for these trees (see attached permit application, date stamped October 7,
2014). In the October 10, 2014 Project Comments, the Parks Division notes that the Tree Removal Permit will
be approved and the trees can be removed only after the plans for the project are approved by the Planning
Commission and the ten day appeal period has ended.
Three existing protected-size trees will remain on site, two Redwood trees and a Black Acacia tree, and the
arborist report details protection measures for these trees during demolition and construction.
The applicant is proposing a two-story house with 6 bedrooms. Two covered parking spaces and one uncovered
parking space are required for a 6-bedroom house. A detached garage is proposed at the rear, left side of the
property and provides two covered parking spaces (20' x 20'). There is a single uncovered parking space in the
driveway leading to the garage (9' x 20').
A conditional use permit is requested for a toilet in an accessory structure. There is a 76 SF space (12'-0" x 6'-
4") proposed at the right side of the detached garage, adjacent to the backyard. This space will contain a 36 SF
half bathroom with a toilet and a sink and a 40 SF storage space. The applicant is not proposing a shower in the
detached accessory structure; any changes to the structure in the future to accommodate a shower or uses
other than parking and a half bathroom would require permits and be subject to all current Planning and Building
Code requirements, and any unauthorized changes would be subject to code enforcement action.
All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review for construction of a new, single-family residence (C.S.25.57.010(a)(1)); and
Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure that will contain a toilet (C.S.25.60.010(j)).
Item No. 8b
Regular Action
Design Review and Conditional Use Permit 1025 Cabrillo Avenue
-2-
1025 Cabrillo Avenue
Lot Area: 11,239 SF Plans date stamped: November 6, 2014
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
25'-0"
25'-0"
24'-4" (is the block average)
24'-4"
Side (left):
(right):
12'-0"
26'-6"
7'-0"
7'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
31'-6"
34'-6"
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 3,145 SF
28%
4,496 SF
40%
FAR: 5,086 SF
0.45 FAR
5,096 SF 1
0.45 FAR
# of bedrooms: 6 ---
Parking: 2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 30'-0" 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075
Conditional Use
Permit for Accessory
Structure:
Toilet and sink proposed in the
detached garage
CS 25.60.010(j) 2
¹ (0.32 x 11,239 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 5,096 SF (0.46 FAR). 2 Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in an accessory structure (CS 25.60.010(j)).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division,
Parks Division, and Stormwater Division.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on October 27,
2014 the Commission had comments and suggestions regarding the design of the house and the proposed half
bathroom in the garage (refer to the October 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes for a complete list of
comments) and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted
and reviewed by the Planning Division.
The applicant submitted a response letter dated November 10, 2014, and revised plans date stamped November
4, 2014, to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and the neighbors to the right and left of the
subject property. The applicant also submitted two emails sent to the neighbor at 1015 Cabrillo Avenue, to the
left of the subject property (see attachments).
Staff would note that while the design details and the landscaping for the proposed project have been revised by
Design Review and Conditional Use Permit 1025 Cabrillo Avenue
-3-
the applicant, these revisions did not result in any substantial changes to the setbacks and other measurable
standards shown in the table above; therefore, the table does not include the customary “Previously Proposed"
column of data from the plans reviewed at the Design Review Study hearing.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan
and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary
to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and
the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning
Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any
action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be
considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
November 6, 2014, sheets A.1 – A.7, N.2, L1.0 and L2.0 and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that if the detached garage with a half bathroom accessory structure is demolished or the envelope or the
approved uses are changed at a later date, the Conditional Use Permit granted must be amended as
required by the current Municipal Code requirements;
Design Review and Conditional Use Permit 1025 Cabrillo Avenue
-4-
5. that the conditions of the Engineering Divisions September 9, 2014 memo, the Building Division's August
29 and October 7, 2014 memos, the Fire Division's August 28, 2014 memo, the Parks Division's
September 2 and October 10, 2014 memos, and the Stormwater Divisions September 4 and October 9,
2014 memos shall be met;
6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon
the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall
be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission,
or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the
construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval
shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on
appeal;
9. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and tree protection measures are installed on site for any
protected-size tree shown in the plans to remain on site, and these measures are inspected and approved
by the Parks Supervisor; any protected-size tree that is proposed to be removed, or that is damaged and
must be removed as a result of demolition or construction, will require a Protected Tree Permit and may
require further Planning Division or Planning Commission review;
10. that in the event any protected-size tree shown to remain on site in the approved plans will have roots cut
during the demolition, excavation, or construction process, a Certified Arborist is required to be on site to
monitor and approve any roots over 4 inches that are proposed to be cut;
11. that prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition or construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet and a landscape plan that list the Kielty
Arborist report, date stamped September 9, 2014, and recommendations;
12. that the Protected-size trees shown to be removed on the approved plans can be removed only after the
plans for the project are approved by the Planning Commission, the ten day appeal period has ended, and
the Protected Tree Removal Permit has been issued;
13. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
14. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
15. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the
applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water
Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff;
16. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
Design Review and Conditional Use Permit 1025 Cabrillo Avenue
-5-
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
17. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates
that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
18. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set
the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the
top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
19. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural
details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and
bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance
with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be
scheduled;
20. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge
and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
21. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved
Planning and Building plans.
Erika Lewit
Senior Planner
c. James Chu, applicant
Attachments:
Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, dated November 10, 2014
Minutes from Design Review Study Meeting of October 27, 2014
Email from neighbor at 1015 Cabrillo Avenue, date stamped October 27, 2014 (3 pages)
Email from applicant/ architect to neighbor at 1015 Cabrillo Avenue, dated November 4, 2014 (1 page)
Email from landscape architect to neighbor at 1015 Cabrillo Avenue, dated November 10, 2014 (1 page)
Application to the Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit
Kielty Arborist Report, date stamped September 9, 2014
Protected Tree Removal Permit for 2 Oak trees on site, date stamped October 7, 2014
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed November 14, 2014
Aerial Photo
City of Burlingame
Amendment to Design Review
Address: 1435 Benito Avenue Meeting Date: November 24, 2014
Request: Application for Amendment to Design Review for as-built changes to a previously approved new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Jack McCarthy Designer, Inc. APN: 027-182-130
Property Owner: Kieran Woods Lot Area: 5796 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence,
or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas,
this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences
as part of a project.
History and Proposed Amendment to Design Review: A One Year Extension of an approved Design
Review application and Special Permits for building height and basement ceiling height for a new, two-story
single family dwelling and detached garage at 1435 Benito Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the
Planning Commission on June 10, 2013 (see attached June 10, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes). Planning staff would note that the property owner decided not to build the basement prior to
submitting for a building permit. A building permit was issued in January 2014 and construction is complete.
An application for FYI for changes to the material and configuration of the originally approved landscaping
and drystack stone retaining wall at the rear of the property was approved by the Planning Commission in
August 2014.
The applicant is now requesting an Amendment to Design Review for the as-built changes listed below.
Please refer to the attached letter submitted by the project designer, dated November 4, 2014, for a
complete detailed explanation of the as-built changes. Staff would note that these changes were called up
for review by the Planning Commission after being presented as an FYI application on November 10, 2014.
In summary, the changes include the following:
Window Sills:
1. Shape and material of windows sills does not match approval.
Front Elevation:
1. Door and sidelight design does not match approval.
2. Opening at front entry does not match approval (stucco wall/beam across top of opening extends
down further than what was approved).
3. Simulated stone band is missing on second floor cantilever along right side of house.
Right Side Elevation:
1. Simulated stone band is missing on second floor cantilever along right side of house.
2. Column at family room porch is missing (instead of installing a porch, space between family room
and column was filled in by extending the stucco wall along right side of house).
Item No. 8c
Action Item
Amendment to Design Review 1435 Benito Avenue
2
Rear Elevation:
1. Simulated stone band is missing on second floor cantilever along rear of house.
Landscaping:
1. Walkway and landing at front entry is concrete instead of approved stone walkway.
2. Area along left side of house is concrete instead of granite fines path with vines.
Project Description (based on original approval): The application included demolishing an existing one-
story house with an attached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached one-car
garage. The new house and detached garage has a total floor area of 3,145 SF (0.54 FAR) where 3,221
SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, were required
for the four-bedroom house (study room on first floor and retreat on second floor do not qualify as
bedrooms). The detached garage provides one covered parking space and there is one uncovered parking
space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. The following applications were approved by the Planning
Commission on June 10, 2013:
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (CS 25.57.010);
Special Permit for building height (30'-10" proposed where 30’-0” is allowed) (CS 25.28.060, a, 1);
and
Special Permit for a basement with an interior ceiling height of 6’-6” or greater (8’-1” and 9'-3”
proposed) (CS 25.28.035, f). The basement was not built as part of the project.
1435 Benito Avenue
Lot Area: 5796 SF
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
21’-6”
23’-6”
21’-4” (block average)
21'-4" (block average)
Side (left):
(right):
4’-4”
13’-2”
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
46’-0”
47’-4”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1867 SF
32.2%
2318 SF
40%
FAR: 3145 SF
0.54 FAR
3221 SF ¹
0.55 FAR
¹ (0.32 x 5796 SF) + 1100 SF + 266 SF (detached garage) = 3221 SF (0.55 FAR)
Amendment to Design Review 1435 Benito Avenue
3
1435 Benito Avenue
Lot Area: 5796 SF
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
# of bedrooms: 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
1 covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Building Height: 30'-10" ² 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies CS 25.28.075
² Special Permit for building height (30'-10" proposed where 30’-0” is allowed).
Staff Comments: See attached original project memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and
Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by
the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public
testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings
supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
November 4, 2014, sheets A, 3-7 and L1.0;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
Amendment to Design Review 1435 Benito Avenue
4
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 22, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal’s June 29,
2009 memo, the City Engineer's July 1, 2009 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s April 15, 2010 memo,
and the NPDES Coordinator's June 23, 2009 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on
the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by
the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
Amendment to Design Review 1435 Benito Avenue
5
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Jack McCarthy, Jack McCarthy Designer Inc., applicant and designer
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by project designer, dated November 4, 2014
June 10, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes
Architectural Certification Letter submitted by project designer, dated May 8, 2014
Staff Comments from Previously Approved Application
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed November 14, 2014
Aerial Photo
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
AND AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for
Amendment to Design Review for as-built changes to a previously approved new, two-story single
family dwelling and detached garage at 1435 Benito Avenue, Zoned R-1, Kieran J. Woods Tr, 1485
Bayshore Boulevard #149, San Francisco, CA, 94124, APN: 027-182-130;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
November 24, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction
of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence,
or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In
urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three
(3) single-family residences as part of a project, is hereby approved.
2. Said Amendment to Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A”
attached hereto. Findings for such Amendment to Design Review are set forth in the staff
report, minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 24th day of November, 2014, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Design Review.
1435 Benito Avenue
Effective December 4, 2014
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped November 4, 2014, sheets A, 3-7 and L1.0;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or
garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an
amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 22, 2009 memo, the Fire
Marshal’s June 29, 2009 memo, the City Engineer's July 1, 2009 memo, the Parks
Supervisor’s April 15, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 23, 2009 memo
shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Design Review.
1435 Benito Avenue
Effective December 4, 2014
Page 2
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the
new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans;
this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential
designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an
architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design
which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as
shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing
compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the
final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
PROJECT LOCATION
1547 Vancouver Avenue
Item No. 8d
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Conditional Use Permits
Address: 1547 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: November 24, 2014
Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling and Conditional Use Permits for a recreation room and toilet in an existing accessory
structure.
Applicant and Designer: Julie Carlson, JCarlson Design APN: 027-141-030
Property Owner: same as applicant Lot Area: 6100 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures
are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000
SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not
environmentally sensitive.
Project Description: The site currently contains an existing one-story house (1455 SF), an attached one-car
carport (180 SF) and a structure located behind the carport which contains a nonconforming one-car garage and
secondary dwelling unit (469 SF). There is also a detached patio cover (180 SF) and storage shed (99 SF) at
the rear of the lot. The existing floor area ratio (FAR) on the lot totals 2,285 SF (0.37 FAR) (sheds less than 100
SF are not included in FAR).
The applicant is proposing a first floor addition at the rear of the house and second floor addition at the center
and rear of the house. The proposal also includes removing the existing attached carport and detached patio
cover. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 3,280 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,452 SF (0.56
FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 172 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and within
4.9% of the maximum allowed FAR.
As previously noted, the existing structure at the left, rear corner of the lot contains a one-car garage and an
existing second unit (no records found for this unit). The applicant is proposing modifications to the interior of
this structure which includes increasing the depth of the covered parking space (from 15’-0” to 20’-0”) to meet
current code standards and converting the existing second unit to a recreation room with a sink and toilet
(previously proposed shower has been eliminated from this application). The applicant is requesting approval of
Conditional Use Permits for a recreation room and toilet in an existing accessory structure. There are no
changes proposed to the envelope of this structure. The required applications are listed below.
W ith this project, the number of potential bedrooms is increasing from three to four. Two parking spaces, one of
which must be covered, are required on site. The existing garage will be modified to comply with current code
standards for a covered parking space (10’-4” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions provided where 10’ x 20’ is the
minimum required). One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code
requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2));
Conditional Use Permit for a recreation room in an existing accessory structure (CS 25.60.010 (m)); and
Conditional Use Permit for a toilet in an existing accessory structure (CS 25.60.010 (j)).
Item No. 8d
Action Item
Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 1547 Vancouver Avenue
2
1547 Vancouver Avenue
Lot Size: 6,100 SF Plans date stamped: November 12, 2014
EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 23’-7” no change 15'-0" or block average
(2nd flr): n/a 39’-3” 20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
9'-6"
3’-6”
9’-6” (7’-6” at 2nd floor)
6’-6”
4'-0"
4'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
49’-6”
n/a
47’-6”
47’-6”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2285 SF
37.4%
2208 SF
36.1%
2440 SF
40%
FAR: 2285 SF
0.37 FAR
3280 SF
0.53 FAR
3452 SF 1
0.56 FAR
# of bedrooms: 3 4 ---
Off-Street
Parking:
1 covered
(10’-4” x 15’-0”) ²
1 uncovered
(9’ x 20’)
1 covered
(10’-4” x 20’-0”)
1 uncovered
(9’ x 20’)
1 covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 21’-9” 28’-1” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075
Use in Accessory
Structure:
one-car garage
and second unit
one-car garage with a
recreation room and
toilet ³
Conditional Use Permit
required for a toilet and
shower in an accessory
structure
¹ (0.32 x 6100 SF) + 1,100 SF = 400 SF = 3452 SF (0.56 FAR)
² Existing nonconforming covered parking space length.
³ Conditional Use Permits required for a recreation room and toilet in an existing accessory structure.
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on October 27,
2014, the Commission requested that the designer revisit the proposed roof configuration and voted to place this
item on the regular action calendar (please refer to the attached October 27, 2014 Planning Commission
minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped November 12, 2014, to
address the Planning Commission’s comments regarding the roof design. The applicant’s letter also addresses
concerns expressed by the neighbor at 1543 Vancouver Avenue.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 1547 Vancouver Avenue
3
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan
and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary
to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the
aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
November 12, 2014, sheets A1 through A9;
2. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use
Permits, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 3, 2014 and August 27, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division’s October 20, 2014, October 3, 2014 and August 28, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s
September 9, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s August 28, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s
September 4, 2014 memo shall be met;
6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 1547 Vancouver Avenue
4
8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Julie Carlson, JCarlson Design, applicant and property owner
Intentionally left blank.
Design Review and Conditional Use Permits 1547 Vancouver Avenue
5
Attachments:
Response Letter submitted by the applicant, date stamped November 12, 2014
Letter submitted by Robert and Deborah Hirth, dated October 31, 2014
October 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Application
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed November 14, 2014
Aerial Photo
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, October 27, 2014
b.1547 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits
for a recreation room and toilet and shower in an existing accessory structure (Julie
Carlson, JCarlson Architectural Design, applicant, designer and property owner) (56
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Yie was recused for non-statutory reasons.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent reported he spoke with the
neighbors at 1543 and 1540 Vancouver Avenue. There were no other ex -parte communications to
report.
Questions of staff:
>Does the garage compliance include setback from the fence line? (Hurin: If located in the rear 40%
of the lot detached structures are exempt from side setback requirements. A new detached structure
would require a Special Permit, but because this is existing and not changing the building envelope a
Special Permit is not required.)
Julie Carlson represented the applicant.
Commissioner questions/comments:
>Concerned with roof form. Acts as second -floor mansard roof. Was there consideration extending
front roof form up vertically? Could then have second floor rooms come off as dormers and other pieces .
(Carlson: Likes houses that are lower, but could consider. Roof has different pitches. If pitched from the
side extension could get a peak.) Not as bad on front elevation, but on other sides looks like a truncated
roof.
>Extending roof may require Special Permit, but may be supported because working with existing
conditions, Tudor style often has steeply -pitched roofs, often are very tall. Truncated mansard is not
typical of the neighborhood.
>Garage is an improvement – taking an existing non -permitted in-law unit and creating a functional
garage.
Carlson: Would it be OK to change front bedroom window from three casements to two?
(Commissioners: Should be OK. This kind of change is not unusual.)
>What will accessory structure be used for? (Carlson: Will be used as a bonus room. Bought house
with full bath, but discovered it was not permitted.)
>Seems like some of the character is being taken away in front.
>Concerned about having recreation room and shower on the property line. Is neighbor at 1543
Vancouver Avenue familiar with proposal? (Carlson: Does not know, can talk to her.)
>Special Permit for toilet and sink are acceptable, but shower would seem to encourage a use that
goes beyond being a recreation room. Would be hard to justify.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/20/2014
October 27, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Yie1 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/20/2014
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design
Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use
Permits for a recreation room and toilet in an existing accessory structure at 1547 Vancouver Avenue,
Zoned R-1, Julie Carlson, 2105 Roosevelt Avenue, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owner, APN: 027-
141-030;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
November 24, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures
are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of
more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area
in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review and Conditional Use Permits are approved subject to the conditions set
forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Conditional Use
Permits are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 24th day of November, 2014, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
1547 Vancouver Avenue
Effective December 4, 2014
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped November 12, 2014, sheets A1 through A9;
2. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the
Conditional Use Permits, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will
become void;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 3, 2014 and August 27, 2014
memos, the Parks Division’s October 20, 2014, October 3, 2014 and August 28, 2014
memos, the Engineering Division’s September 9, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s August
28, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s September 4, 2014 memo shall be met;
6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Conditional Use Permits.
1547 Vancouver Avenue
Effective December 4, 2014
Page 2
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification
by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved
floor area ratio for the property;
13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural
certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be
evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the
approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with
approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing
inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
PROJECT LOCATION
1548 Los Montes Drive
Item No. 8e
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits
Address: 1548 Los Montes Drive Meeting Date: November 24, 2014
Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining
height envelope and an attached garage for a new, two-story single-family dwelling and attached
garage.
Applicant and Designer: Farnaz Khadiv, Khadiv Design Studio APN: 027-015-180
Property Owner: Jiries Hanhan Lot Area: 9,494 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a
second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this
exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of
a project.
Project Description: The proposal includes demolishing an existing two-story house and attached garage to
build a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage. The proposed house and detached
garage will have a total floor area of 4,138 SF (0.44 FAR) where 4,138 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed
(including covered porch exemption). The proposed project is at the maximum allowed FAR.
The lot slopes downward approximately 31’-0” from the front of the lot to the rear. The point of departure for the
declining height envelope is based on the average of the front and rear property corner spot elevations at each
side. Due to the downward slope of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope at each side
of the house is several feet below the lower level of the house. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a Special
Permit for declining height envelope along the left side of the house. The left side of the house would extend
1,007 SF beyond the declining height envelope (560 SF on the upper floor, 328 SF on the lower floor, 51 SF
covered balcony and 68 SF of the rear deck).
Planning staff would note that the right side of the house qualifies for an exemption from declining height
envelope because it is located adjacent to a two story wall and the project falls within the criteria listed below
(based on Code Section 25.26.075 (b) (3)):
(A) The second story is not closer to the property line than the required first floor setback; and
(B) If the second story wall is outside of the declining height envelope and adjacent to an existing two (2)
story wall, the second story plate line is no higher and no longer than the second story plate line on
the adjacent property; and
(C) If there is a two (2) story residential structure on each side of a lot, only one side wall may be exempt
from the declining height envelope; and
(D) If any portion of the second story of an existing two (2) story house adjacent to either side of the lot
complies with the declining height requirements, the adjacent wall of the new construction shall not
be exempt.
The proposed four-bedroom house requires a total of two parking spaces, one of which must be covered. The
proposed attached garage provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces (20’ x 20’ clear interior
dimensions). There is also one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. Therefore, the
proposed project complies with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been
met.
Item No. 8e
Action Item
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
-2-
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1));
Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.61.020);
Special Permit for declining height envelope along the left side of house (left side of the house extends
1,007 SF beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.26.075 (a)); and
Special Permit for an attached two-car garage (CS 25.26.035 (a)).
1548 Los Montes Drive
Lot Size: 9,494 SF Plans date stamped: November 17, 2014
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(attached garage):
20'-0" to porch
25'-0"
25’-0”
19'-11" (block average)
20'-0"
25’-0” for two single-wide doors
Side (left):
(right):
7'-4"
7'-4 1/4"
7'-0"
7'-0"
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
62'-9" to deck
74'-0" to deck
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2886 SF
30.3%
3798 SF
40%
FAR: 4138 SF
0.44 FAR
4138 SF 1
0.44 FAR
# of bedrooms: 4 ---
Off-Street Parking: 2 covered, attached ²
(20' x 20' clear interior dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
1 covered
(10' x 20' clear interior dimensions)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Building Height: 14’-5” (17’-5" previously proposed) 30'-0"
DH Envelope: right side of the house exempt from
declining height envelope based on
C.S. 25.26.075 (b) (3); left side of
the house extends 1,007 SF beyond
the declining height envelope ³
C.S. 25.26.075
¹ (0.32 x 9,494 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4138 SF (0.44 FAR) 2 Special Permit requested for an attached garage. 3 Special Permit requested for declining height envelope along left side of house (the left side of the house
extends 1,007 SF beyond the declining height envelope).
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
-3-
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Engineering, Parks and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on October 14,
2014, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and referred the application to a
design review consultant (October 14, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes attached). A discussion of the
analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next
section.
The applicant submitted a response letter, date stamped November 20, 2014 and revised plans date stamped
November 17, 2014 to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the
attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
Planning staff would note that the story poles for the proposed house have been installed and may be viewed by
visiting the site. A story pole plan was prepared by the designer (see attached story pole plan, date stamped
November 20, 2014). The story pole installation was certified by SMP Engineers (see attached certification
dated November 18, 2014).
Planning staff would note that the overall building height, as measured from average top of curb to the highest
roof ridge, was reduced by 3’-0”, from 17’-5” to 14’-5”. There were no changes made to the floor plans or layout
of the building on the lot.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the designer
and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised
plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated November 17, 2014,
for a detailed review of the project.
In his analysis, the design review consultant concludes that “the revised design is a significant improvement over
the initial proposal” and that “the architectural style is much clearer and the massing is better”. Based on the
revisions made to the design, the design review consultant supports the proposed project. The design reviewer
notes that improving the front entry element in some way and providing a garage door with a horizontal element
could enhance the front façade further, but notes that these are only suggestions.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by
the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby
properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling
unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060).
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
-4-
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
November 17, 2014, sheets A-0.0 through A-4.3 and L-1.0;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s September 15, 2014 and July 18, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division’s October 1, 2014 and July 21, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s August 25, 2014 memo,
the Fire Division’s July 21, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s October 9, 2014, September 26,
2014 and July 22, 2014 memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 1548 Los Montes Drive
-5-
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,
set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation
at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Farnaz Khadiv, Khadiv Design Studio, designer
Attachments:
Applicant’s Response Letter, date stamped November 20, 2014
Design Review Analysis, dated November 17, 2014
Story Pole Certification and Plan, dated November 20, 2014
October 14, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Letter Submitted by Craig and Shan Hou, dated October 10, 2014
Graphics/Photographs Submitted by Neighbor at 1544 Los Montes Drive, date stamped October 10, 2014
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Applications
Information Sheet for Membrane Roof, date stamped October 2, 2014
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed November 14, 2014
Aerial Photo
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, October 14, 2014
d.1548 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and an
attached garage for construction of a new single -family dwelling and attached garage
(Farnaz Khadiv, applicant and designer; Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, property owners )
(42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director presented the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Would the retaining wall between the properties need to be addressed? (Meeker - would be
addressed as part of the plan check prior to issuance of a building permit.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Farnaz Khadiv, and Jiries and Suhair Hanhan represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Feels that the fascia caps are very heavy looking. They seem to make the building seem disjointed
and broken into many pieces. Detracts from the design.
>Would help to see the new design overlain on the existing design to get a sense for the relationship
between the massing.
>Feels the curved roof is very strange; doesn't go well with the design.
>Feels that some relief is warranted from the declining height envelope on side -sloping lots. That in
conjunction with the Hillside Area Permit and the need for story poles will determine what is acceptable.
>Seems that the siding materials are disjointed. How will the Cedar siding be finished? (Khadiv - will
likely be stained.)
>Perhaps the vertical siding is not the best choice for the lower level.
>The fascias seem out of scale with the modern style that is being sought.
>Feels that some of the finishing details detract from the modern character; perhaps clean up the
design to eliminate some of the disjointed character.
>Look at corner window designs that help the modern details come to the forefront.
>The curved roof element doesn't appear to be necessary. Could be an issue relative to the story
poles.
>Not too much of an issue with the massing because it doesn't deviate too far from the current
massing.
>Feels the stucco band could be eliminated.
>Clean up the disparate elements to clean up the facade.
>On the front elevation, show how the existing house complies with the declining height envelope .
(Khadiv - the area for compliance with the declining height envelope is completely outside even the
current building design.)
>Did the designer try to get closer to compliance with the declining height envelope? (Khadiv - Yes.
Brought walls in on both the first and second floors. Included a balcony to move further in.)
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/17/2014
October 14, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Did he visit the neighbor's house across the street to determine what the view impact may be?
(Khadiv - doesn't appear to be significantly impacting the view of the neighbors.)
>Would appreciate seeing a color rendering of the project.
>Work with staff to clarify the requests for the declining height envelope.
Public comments:
Greg Goldman, 1523 Alturas Drive:
>Has no problem with the look of the house.
>Was hoping that the roofline of the house would not increase; appears to be increasing by seven
feet.
>The view will be directly at the house from the rear of his property.
>Also concerned about drainage.
>Not opposed to the square footage.
Winnie Tan, speaking for the right side neighbor at 1344 Los Montes:
>Provided sets of drawings for each of the Commissioners to show the impact upon the property
adjacent.
>Concern of windows being blocked by addition.
>Requested story poles to see if any views would be blocked. (Commissioner - requested contact
information for the neighbor.)
Craig Hou, 1551 Los Montes:
>Biggest concern is the potential for a blocked view. Can see the lights of the bayfront area from their
home; can also see the planes taking off.
Greg Lim:
>Welcomed them to the neighborhood.
>Only concerned about the retaining wall and the drainage.
>Looks forward to seeing the new home.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the project
to a design reviewer and to require the installation of story poles for the project. Chair
Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/17/2014
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design
Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and
attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 1548 Los Montes
Drive, Zoned R-1, Jiries and Suhair Hanhan, 1548 Los Montes Drive, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property
owners, APN: 027-015-180;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
November 24, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction
of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence,
or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In
urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three
(3) single-family residences as part of a project, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits are approved
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design
Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits are set forth in the staff report,
minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 24th day of November, 2014, by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit and Special Permits.
1548 Los Montes Drive
Effective December 4, 2014
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped November 17, 2014, sheets A-0.0 through A-4.3 and L-1.0;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s September 15, 2014 and July 18, 2014
memos, the Parks Division’s October 1, 2014 and July 21, 2014 memos, the
Engineering Division’s August 25, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s July 21, 2014 memo
and the Stormwater Division’s October 9, 2014, September 26, 2014 and July 22, 2014
memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit and Special Permits.
1548 Los Montes Drive
Effective December 4, 2014
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification
by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved
floor area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans;
this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential
designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an
architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design
which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as
shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing
compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the
final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
From: greg.lim@comcast.net [mailto:greg.lim@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:56 PM
To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Cc: greg.lim@comcast.net
Subject: 1548 Los Montes Dr.
Dear Ruben,
I live at 1552 Los Montes, on the downside of 1548 Los Montes.
I have two concerns:
1. Their existing retaining wall is already leaning quite a bit. If the retaining is not
replaced or reinforced during the building of their new home, I am concerned
that the retaining wall will fall down and their house will slide into ours.
2. Water runoff: When it rains, our house gets quite a bit of runoff from their property
as we are situated lower than they are.
I wish them the best in their new construction and look forward to seeing their new
home.
Thank you,
Greg Lim
(1552 Los Montes Dr.)
10.14.14 PC Meeting
Item #9d
1548 Los Montes Drive
Page 1 of 2
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
RECEIVED
OCT 14 2014
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD – PLANNING DIV.
From: Kwun Lip [mailto:brandonlip@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:43 PM
To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Cc: Peter Lip; King Lip; winnietam9@aol.com
Subject: Owners of 1544 Los Montes Dr are 100% against the building plan of 1548 Los Montes as
submitted
Dear Ruben, senior planner in City of Burlingame Planning Dept:
My name is Brandon Lip. My parents, Peter & Robin Lip, are owners of 1544 Los
Montes Drive, the house right next door to the site with the proposed building plan of
1548 Los Montes. My parents are out of the country due to a family emergency. My
brother King Lip, Winnie Tam (architect), and I are representing my parents during their
time away. After discussion with the architect, we were notified of the deceptive
tactics used by the current owners of 1548 Los Montes. We are 100% against their
current building plan as it stands. They have NOT made the appropriate adjustments to
the height and layout of the proposed residence. My father spent thousands of dollars
with the previous owner of the property to clear out trees in the backyard (we have all
the evidence to document this) so that we can have a clear, unobstructed view through
the side and back of the house towards the Bay. Now the new owners are threatening
this with an absolutely unacceptable residential building plan. After the last public
hearing, NOTHING significant has been done to the building plan and our view of the
Bay will still be obscured by their proposed residence. We will do whatever it takes to
block the construction of such a proposed residence at 1548 Los Montes.
I am emailing each of the planning commissioner to let them know of our firm stance
regarding this matter.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration,
Brandon Lip, M.D.
11.24.14 PC Meeting
Item #8e
1548 Los Montes Drive
Page 1 of 1
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
RECEIVED
NOV 24 2014
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD – PLANNING DIV.
PROJECT LOCATION
1516 Howard Avenue
(existing house proposed to be demolished)
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
City of Burlingame
Environmental Scoping, Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 1516 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: November 24, 2014
Request: Application for Environmental Scoping, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height
envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Mark Robertson, Mark Roberston Design APN: 028-291-040
Property Owner: 1516 Howard LLC Lot Area: 7,057 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon
documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was
indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be
potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any
property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any
significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 5, 2014.
The results of the evaluation concluded that 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for
listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Planning Staff will prepare environmental review
documentation to support the findings of the Historic Resource Evaluation prior to the Planning Commission
Action Hearing for this project.
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing two-story single family dwelling and
attached single-car garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The
proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,613 SF (0.57 FAR) where 3,758 SF (0.53
FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 145
SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 3.8% of the maximum allowed FAR.
A total of three off-street parking spaces are required for the proposed five-bedroom house, one of which must
be covered. The new detached garage will provide two code-compliant covered parking spaces; one uncovered
parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The
applicant is requesting the following applications:
Environmental Scoping for Negative Declaration, a determination that there are no significant
environmental effects as a result of this project;
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1));
and
Special Permit for declining height envelope (79 SF along the right side of the house extends beyond the
declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075).
As noted above, the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for declining height envelope along the
right side of the house. The point of departure for the declining height envelope is based on the average of the
front and rear property corner spot elevations at each side (cannot be based on the 15-foot front and rear
setback lines because the difference between these two points is not more than 2’-0”) (Code Section 25.26.075
(b) (4)). Due to the abrupt downward slope caused by an existing creek running along the rear of the lot, the
point of departure for the declining height envelope at each side of the house is approximately four feet below
the finished floor of the house. As a result, the right side of the house extends 79 SF beyond the declining
height envelope.
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
Environmental Scoping, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
2
1516 Howard Avenue
Lot Area: 7,075 SF Plans date stamped: November 4, 2014
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
19'-3”
27'-8”
19'-3” (block average)
20'-0”
Side (left):
(right):
12'-0"
4’-0”
4'-0"
4’-0”
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
54’-9” to porch
54’-9” to balcony
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2411 SF
34.1%
2823 SF
40%
FAR: 3613 SF
0.57 FAR
3758 SF 1
0.53 FAR
# of bedrooms: 5 ---
Off-Street Parking: 2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Height: 26’-6” 30'-0"
DH Envelope: Request for Special Permit ²
(79 SF extends beyond the declining
height envelope)
CS 25.26.075
1 (0.32 x 7,075 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,758 SF (0.53 FAR)
² Request for Special Permit for declining height envelope (79 SF along the right side of the house extends
beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that Burlingame Creek runs along the rear of the property. There
are no improvements proposed beyond the top of bank. As part of the building permit application, the applicant
will be required to provide engineering calculations to demonstrate that the will be no impacts to the bank or
creek. See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Environmental Scoping, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
3
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed November 14, 2014
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 5, 2014
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________
NRHP Status Code_____________________________________
Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________
Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________
Page _1_ of _13 Resource name(s) or number 1516 Howard Avenue
P1. Other Identifier: 1516 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo
*b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date: 1999
*c. Address 1516 Howard Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010
*e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 028-291-040
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
1516 Howard Avenue is a split level two-story 1,362 sq. ft. residential building located on an approximately 7 ,340 sq. ft. lot on the
west side of Howard Avenue, between El Camino Real and Crescent Avenue. The building has a rectangular plan and was built in
1933 in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The house is a wood frame building over a concrete foundation and clad in painted
stucco. All windows in the building have metal sashes and are surrounded by exter ior wood casings. The majority of the building is
capped by a flat roof which is visible only on the north and rear (west) façades (Figure 1 & Figure 8). The top edge of the flat-
roofed portion features a trim of red terracotta tile. At the front, the main entrance, and at the rear, the building features gabled and
shed roofs, all of which are covered in rounded terracotta tiles.
The primary (east) façade faces toward Howard Avenue and is comprised of three volumes with varied setbacks and heights. The
south volume is the narrowest and most recessed of the three and is obscured behind the wing wall of the central volume (Figure
2). The narrow south volume is one story, slightly elevated above grade, and contains the main entrance. The main entrance is
comprised of a wood slab v-joint door with brass hardware (Figure 3).The entrance is set within a south-facing wall and is
accessed via a small porch. Roughly hewn multi-colored stone steps lead to the porch, and the porch floor is covered in the same
material. The steps have a wrought iron banister. The south wall of the porch contains a wrought iron railing and a corner column
that supports the roof (Figure 2 & Figure 4). The west wall of the porch contains a single-hung window. The porch is capped with
a shed roof. (see continuation sheet)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) R-1: Single Family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other
P5b. Photo: (view and date)
View of east façade, facing west,
August 5, 2014
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources:
1933 (Appraisal Report, Assessor’s
Office, San Mateo County, dated
January 5, 1934)
*P7. Owner and Address:
1516 Howard Llc
1499 Bayshore Hwy #229
Burlingame, CA, 94010
*P8. Recorded by:
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94111
*P9. Date Recorded:
August 5, 2014
*P10. Survey Type:
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation:
none
*Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (list)
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 2 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*P3a. Description (continued):
The central volume is the widest of the three volumes and closest to the sidewalk. It is one story and comprised of a wing wall with
an archway that opens to the south volume. The central volume also features a glazed arched picture window, inset slightly. Below
the window, are two decorative vents ornamented with miniature spiraled columns. The central volume is capped with an
asymmetrical gable roof. Rising above the single-story central volume, and set far back from the sidewalk, a second story is visible.
One second story window is visible and the second story volume is capped with a shed roof. Brackets support the overhanging
eave of the shed roof.
The north volume is further set back than the central volume and is two stories tall. On the first story, it features a roll-up wood-
panel garage door with glazing. The second story features a balcony that is accessed by a set of double doors , each containing
four windows. The balcony features turned wooden balusters and square corner columns featuring carved diagonal braces that
support the roof. The balcony is capped with a shed roof with exposed rafter tails visible underneath the eave. The soffit of the
balcony is beamed and the ends of the beams are molded (Figure 6).
The south façade has two setbacks. The east end of the façade, which is further set back, contains a tapered chimney that projects
from the façade and is clad in stucco (Figure 5). The east ends of the façade also features two single-hung windows. The west half
of the façade projects to the south and contains three sliding windows. Two of the windows are paired with a shared wood sill.
Above, brackets support the overhanging eave.
The rear (west) façade is divided into three volumes with varied setbacks, shapes, and heights (Figure 7). The south volume is a
single story, rectangular in shape, and contains a slider window. Below the window is a decorative vent with miniature spiraled
columns, identical to the decorative vents on the façade. The central volume has two stories, with the first story elevated
approximately four feet above grade. A porch projects from the central volume and is accessed by non-original steps of a
composite material. The stairway features wrought iron hand rails. The porch features wood board flooring, thick wood corner
columns, and a wood balustrade. The balcony is capped with a shed roof, with exposed wood rafters underneath. The back porch
is accessed from the interior by a set of three doors, each comprised of a large rectangular window framed in wood; and an
additional wood panel door leads into the south volume. The second story of the central bay contains two single-hung windows.
The roofline is capped with a strip of terracotta tile. The north volume contains a wood panel door with a window, as well as a
single-hung window. An angled bay protrudes on the second floor. Each face of the bay contains a single-hung window.
The north façade is two stories tall (Figure 1 & Figure 8). The first story features two single-hung windows. The second story
projects slightly over the first, forming a jetty that features a string of small brackets with an angled profile. The second story
contains five windows. Three of the windows are the same size and are double hung and the remaining two windows are smaller
and appear to be single hung.
The house sits in the front half of the lot and is preceded by an ample front yard (Figure 1). The front yard is surrounded by a 2’
high, non-original stucco wall capped with square tiles. The wall contains an opening to accommodate a concrete path, stamped to
give the impression of laid stone. The path leads to the residence’s main entrance and runs along the south façade to the back
yard (Figure 4). The wall also contains an opening for the driveway which is also capped in stamped concrete. The front yard
contains a Giant Dracaena tree, and the open space between the front porch and the wing wall contains a small foliated tree.
At the back of the building, a paved patio abuts the buildings (Figure 7). The backyard also contains a partially enclosed wood
shed, capped in corrugated metal (Figure 9). A barbecue with a brick chimney is built into the shed. In addition, the back yard also
contains numerous trees, including two citrus trees, a pear tree, an apple tree, and a persimmon tree.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 1. Primary (east) and north facades, viewed facing
southwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 2. Main entrance projecting from the south facade,
viewed facing northwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 3. Main entrance door.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 4. Partial view of the south facade, viewed facing
west. Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 4 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 5. South façade, viewed facing northeast.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 6. Balcony on the primary (east) façade.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 7. Rear (west) façade, viewed facing east.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
Figure 8. North façade, viewed facing southeast.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________
Page 5 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 9. Outbuilding in the backyard, viewed facing north.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 5 of 13 *NRHP Status Code__6Z________________________
*Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
B1. Historic name: none
B2. Common name: none
B3. Original Use: Single Family Residence B4. Present use: Single Family Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival Style
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
The building was constructed in 1933 by Charlie Hammer of Hammer & Tosch Co., a builder and contractor firm (permit #278;
Appraisal Report, Assessor’s Office, San Mateo County January 5, 1934). There are no early photos of the house, but there are
photos of the neighboring house at 1520 Howard Avenue. 1520 Howard Avenue is a mirror image of 1516 Howard Avenue and is
recorded in the 1954 Real Estate File at the Burlingame Historical Society to have been built by Charlie Hammer (Figure 10-12).
In 1985, the roof of 1516 Howard Street was insulated with polyurethane spray foam (permit #11145), and a letter dating to June
16, 1986 indicates that the insulation may have been redone. In 1987 the 2’ high wall surrounding the front lawn was constructed
(permit #3621). Although no permit has been found regarding the windows, a visual inspection suggests that many, if not all, of the
window sashes have been replaced since the original construction with metal replacement sashes. The stairs at the back porch do
not appear original either, but cannot be dated because associated permits have not been found .
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________
*B8. Related Features: none
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Charlie Hammer
*B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture____________ Area Burlingame Park___________________
Period of Significance ___n/a____ Property Type Single family residence____ Applicable Criteria___N/A______
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity)
Historic Context:
City of Burlingame
The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican -era land grant given by
Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several
prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over
1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the U.S. Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted to
Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period,
with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations.
In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an
exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small -
scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between
large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve
the needs of the wealthy estate owners. (see continuation sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
(see continuation sheet)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: August 5, 2014
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2014.
N
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 7 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*B10. Significance (continued):
Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and S an Francisco in 1903.
However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their
homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses.
Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910
annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was als o annexed to the
City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107.
Burlingame Park Neighborhood
The house at 1516 Howard was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame
Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. The Rancho was inherited by
Joseph Henry Poett and later sold to Anson Burlingame in 1866 and to William C. Ralston in 1872. Ralston began to develop pla ns
for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive
residential development to be called Burlingame Park.
Hall’s early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in th e 1890s under Francis Newlands.
Newlands commissioned Hall’s cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan
“centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree -lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents” (Brechin
1999, 94). The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The
neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club, and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City
of Burlingame in 1911.
Burlingame Park is bounded by El Camino Real to the northeast; Howard, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the southeast;
Pepper Avenue to the southwest; and Bellevue Avenue to the northwest. Burlingame Par k, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingam e
Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that B urlingame Park developed over
a period of about fifty years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s , and the majority
of the residences in the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Many of these we re designed in high architectural
styles and were much grander in scale than the earlier residences. By 1949, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in Burli ngame
Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was
first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day.
1516 Howard Avenue
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue was constructed in 1933, 28 years after the Burlingame Park neighborhood was first platted in
1905. The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps indicate that the house was built in the later period of the area’s development. In 1921,
about half of the lots within the subdivision had been developed, but by 1949, almost all lots were built out (Figure 13-14).
1516 Howard Avenue was built by Charlie Hammer. A number of residences throughout Burlingame and Hillsborough have been
attributed to Hammer. Most appear to be split-level Spanish Colonial Revival style homes from the 1930s. Hammer also built at
least one Ranch-style home in Hillsborough.
Hammer is listed in the 1925 city directory as a building contractor by profession. He and his wife Frida, lived at 1524 Floribunda
Avenue in Burlingame. By the mid-1930s, he had a development business together with real estate broker, Maurice Tosch of San
Mateo. The business was located across from the train station on Burlingame Square (1090 Burlingame Square) where
Burlingame Realty was located for many years.
Original permit records from 1933 show that the owner of 1516 Howard Avenue was Mrs. A. Sanguinette. An alternative spelling is
listed on the property card, listing the owner as Annunziata Sanguinetti, married to Attilio Sanguinetti, noting that they resided in
San Francisco. Ms. Sanguinette/Sanguinetti owned the property until 1935, and during her ownership, the building was vacant. In
1935, Jerome and Sarah Gordon occupied the building.
City directories show them to have lived in the residence
until 1949, and the Property Index Card indicates that
Jerome Gordon owned the home until that year. Jerome
Gordon was a salesman in the wholesale butcher
industry, and, according to the U.S. Census, he was born
in the United States in 1930 or 1931 to Swedish parents.
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 8 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
The city directory indicates that beginning in 1950 or 1951, R.D. Blake Jr. occupied the house until 1953. No information is
available about this person. From 1953 until 1990 or later, the home was occupied by Joe and Kathleen Cammarata. The city
directory indicates that Joe Cammarata was a clerk in a change station. Building permits and property deeds show that the
Cammarata family owned the building from at least 1961, through 2004. In 2004, the home was sold to KCC Management; in 2013,
the home passed to the Shans Lucille L. Trust, Jettas Lorrie Trust, and Rasmussen Terrie Trust; and in 2014 the home passed to
1516 Howard LLC.
Evaluation:
Significance
The residence at 1516 Howard Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic prope rties,
and therefore the property is not listed locally.
Constructed in 1933, 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California
Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the b road
patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house is associated with the.
1920s to 1930s construction boom in Burlingame Park, but it does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such
development. The property therefore does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register
inclusion under Criterion A/1.
1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion B/2
(Persons). None of the residents and none of the owners appear to have contributed to local or state history and thus do not meet
the threshold for significance for historic register inclusion.
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under
Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, per iod, or method of construction.
1516 Howard Avenue is a good example of a single-family Spanish Colonial Revival-style house. In addition, it was built by Charlie
Hammer, who built in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The building, however, it is not a distinctive or prominent example of the
Spanish Colonial Revival style that stands out among other neighborhood examples. It therefore appears ineligible for listing in the
California Register under Criterion C/3.
This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and
California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The
analysis of the house at 1516 Howard Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Pot ential) is beyond
the scope of this report.
Integrity
The house at 1516 Howard Avenue retains integrity of location and setting. It is situated on its original lot, and the surrounding
neighborhood remains a residential area characterized by single-family houses. The wall that surrounds the building was
constructed in 1987, but it does not significantly impact the setting. Records show only one exterior alteration to the finish of the flat
roof, but the aluminum and other metal sashes of many of the windows indicate replacements. The exterior wood casings of the
windows are still present, however, and thus mollify the visual impact of the metal sashes. B ecause the majority of the building’s
form, cladding, and materials appear to be original and building permits do not indicate otherwise, integrity of design, materials,
and workmanship are largely intact. The house remains in use as a residence associated with the early to mid- twentieth-century
residential development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, an d therefore retains integrity of feeling and association. Overall the
property retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic context.
Conclusion
1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California or National Register under any Criteria. The
California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “found
ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation.”
This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district, although a
cursory visual inspection of surrounding areas suggests that 1516 Howard Avenue could possibly be a contributor to two potential
districts. The first would consist of single-family residences associated with the early development of the Burlingame Park
subdivision; the second would consist of Spanish Colonial Revival -style homes, of which there is a concentration in the 200 blocks
of Bloomfield and Clarenden roads, and which are also associated with Charlie Hammer. It is beyond the scope of this report to
assess potential districts. Additional research of these areas is necessary to verify their eligibility as historic districts, and it is
recommended that 1516 Howard Avenue be reassessed should any districts be proposed.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 9 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
*B12. References:
- Building Permit Records, 1516 Howard Avenue, Burlingame, CA
- Burlingame City Directories.
- Burlingame Historical Society
- City of Oakland Planning Department. “Rehab Right How to Rehabilitate Your Oakland House Without Sacrificing Architectural
Assets.” Oakland, CA: city of Oakland. 1980.
- Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society,
ca. 2004.
- McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.
- United States Federal Census records: 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940.
- San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 18
- San Mateo County Assessor Records.
- Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 10 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Images of 1520 Howard Street
Figure 10. 1520 Howard Street (on left), directly south of 1516 Howard Avenue.
Source: Google Maps, August 2014. Edited by author.
Figure 11. 1520 Howard Street (on left), directly south of 1516 Howard Avenue. Viewed facing northwest.
Source: Page & Turnbull, August 2014.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 11 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Figure 12. Real Estate Files of 1520 Howard Street in 1954 (bottom) and 1962 (top).
Source: Burlingame Historical Society.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 12 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Historic Maps
Figure 13. 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1516 Howard Avenue lot
highlighted in red.
Edited by author.
Figure 14. 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of the subject block with 1516 Howard Avenue highlighted in red.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________
Page 13 of 13 Resource Name or # 1516 Howard Avenue
*Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date September 8, 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L
Edited by author.
Historic Drawings
Figure 15. 1934 drawing of 1516 Howard Street,
Source: Appraisal Report – Assessor’s Office – San Mateo County, California.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 17, 2014 Director's Report
TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 24, 2014
FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1428 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and
detached garage at 1428 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning
Commission on January 27, 2014 Consent Calendar (see attached January 27, 2014 Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in June, 2014 and construction is
underway.
The applicant is requesting approval of an FYI to change the originally approved office/guest
room to a living room with a fireplace. The proposed revision includes replacing a window along
the left side of the house with a chimney and a smaller window (see attached explanation letter
and revised building elevations, date stamped November 6, 2014).
The architect submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed building elevations,
date stamped November 6, 2014, to show the changes to the previously approved design
review project.
Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other
changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more
study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing
with direction to the applicant.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, date stamped November 6, 2014
January 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped November 6, 2014