HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2015.03.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 23, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.February 23, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Terrones abstained from voting on the February 23, 2015 meeting minutes since he was
absent.
There were no amendments to the minutes.
Chair Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the meeting
minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Abstain:Terrones1 -
b.March 9, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Yie abstained from voting on the March 9, 2015 meeting minutes since she was absent.
Amendments to the March 9, 2015 meeting minutes:
>Page 7, Item 9b, first bullet should read "necessity which provides the ABC..."
>Page 9, Item 10a, the second reference to opening the public hearing should be deleted.
>Page 15, Item 10e, under Mr. Thomas's comments should read "potential loss of the heritage tree."
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Abstain:Yie1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
No changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
None.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1901 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
height for a major renovation and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling, with detached garage (Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and
architect; Edward Ted McMahon and Grace Han, property owners) (47 noticed) Staff
Contact: Catherine Barber
Commissioner DeMartini pulled this item for discussion.
Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject
property.
Senior Planner Catherine Barber presented a brief summary of the staff report.
Jeanne Davis, project architect represented the applicant and was available to answer questions.
Commission questions:
>None.
Commission discussion:
>A formal landscape plan is proposed but has not been included, but conditions as presented do not
allow revised plans to come back for review. Would like to include a condition of approval that requires
that the landscape plan return to the Planning Commission as an FYI.
Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the item
with amended conditions. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.960 David Road, zoned RR – Application for Conditional Use Permit for automobile
storage within the drainage right -of-way (Matt Mefford, Tesla Motors, applicant and
designer; Frank Edwards Company, Inc ., property owner) (20 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
Commissioner DeMartini was recused from this item because he owns stock in the company submitting
the application.
Commissioner Terrones noted that he was absent from the February 23, 2015 meeting but has watched
the video.
Matt Mefford, Tesla Motors, represented the applicant.
Commission questions:
>None.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission comments:
>For the benefit of the audience, this is a re -vote of an item that was heard previously, hence the lack
of discussion.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the item. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Recused:DeMartini1 -
b.225 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Design Review for a first and second story addition to
an existing single family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc .,
applicant and designer; Sinhad and Medina Begic, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff
Contact: Catherine Barber
Commissioner Terrones was recused for non-statutory reasons.
Commissioner Sargent noted that he was absent from the last meeting but watched the video in full.
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Barber provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Jesse Geurse represented the applicant.
Commission questions:
>Is it correct that the proposal is to use vinyl -clad wood windows? (Geurse: Correct. The existing
windows are vinyl currently so wanted to match. They will use simulated true divided lites.) Commission
has approved before but with scrutiny. Only type that has been approved has been Anderson 400. If
different would need to see a sample first.
>Roof deck is quite large and not in character with the neighborhood. In most single family
neighborhoods the second story decks are minimal, just large enough to have a chair or open a french
door. (Geurse: Neighbors on left and right sides are amendable to the roof deck. There have not been
complaints from neighbors on Dwight Road. Neighbors with concerns are to the rear on Clarendon
Road, which is a far distance away.)
>Did chimney get wider in the resubmittal? (Geurse: It was not shown correctly in the previous
Set of plans. Would also provide some barrier from adjacent neighbors.)
>Deck is an improvement, but concerned it will become a party deck in the future.
>Massing of the house is OK, but concerned with the change to the building typology. Typically
gathering is in the back, so pushing gathering to the side is a concern since houses are so close.
>Decks are usually off Master Bedrooms, not recreation rooms, so are typically less social spaces.
>What is the status of the recreation vehicle parked in driveway? (Geurse: Nobody is living in the
trailer. The letter with the complaint was not accurate.)
>Discussed with neighbors their concerns? (Geurse: Yes. Responded to initial comments and letters,
but now letters are focusing on size of the house. Property owners run business from this location and
have extended family living with them, need the proposed space.)
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public comments:
Margaret Farney, 220 Clarendon Road spoke on this item:
>Deck is still too large. Should just be a balcony.
>Most neighbors are not aware the lot includes the extra section of yard, and that a large home can
be built. Might have been more concerned if design review notice described 7 bedroom house and size
of house, but assume it would be a regular sized house.
>Did not talk to neighbors on Clarendon. Properties are not that far away, they are the next street
over. The deck will be obvious to those neighbors.
Mary Griffith, 232 Clarendon Road spoke on this item:
>Wrote the letter that mentioned the recreation vehicles. Mentioned it because it reflect the owners'
aesthetics and what neighbors think is appropriate for the neighborhood.
>Did not know this was a flag lot that would allow a larger house.
>Concerned with 7 bedrooms and 7 bathrooms – that is a very large house. Would expect it to have
at least 6 or 7 occupants. Lot of people, noise, parking issues.
>Parking is in back but if RV is still there won’t be able to move cars efficiently in and out.
>Concern with rear deck and noise.
>Concerned with the mass of the house.
>Remodel does not seem in keeping with the tradition of the Lyon-Hoag neighborhood.
Tony Serra spoke on this item:
>30 year resident of Dwight Road.
>Concerned with noise from the deck, and parking.
>RV will impact street parking. Is three doors down.
>Has never been talked to about the project. Not accurate that the neighbors have been talked to.
>Noise can be an issue with properties at rear; lots are 170 feet deep, but still can hear neighbors on
the Clarendon side having parties.
>Concerned that noise will travel down from the deck.
>Tree-lined, quiet neighborhood, concerned with such a large structure.
Rick Escobar, 229 Dwight Road, spoke on this item:
>Lives next door to the left, does not have concerns with deck. Has lived next to neighbors for 7 years
and they are quiet.
>Is a sound engineer. Sound transmission depends on a lot of factors, even temperature.
>Back yard is really nice and more likely to be drawn there than the deck.
Duffy Offield, 233 Dwight Road, spoke on this item:
>Lives two doors north.
>Has a deck off second story bedroom.
>Has no objections to the deck on the proposed house.
Bart Gaul, 232 Dwight Road, spoke on this item:
>Across the street and one house away.
>Proposal is an improvement on what is there now.
>House proposed is within the bounds of the zoning.
>Does not believe the deck will have as much impact as concerned.
>Kids will grow up and move away. Parking is a non-issue.
>House conforms, is nice looking, owner should be able to build the house he wants.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no more public comments.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>If concern was keeping activity to the back of the house and not have it spill over to the side, could
cut off deck at end of recreation room so it would not wrap around.
>House conforms with size, height, and has a lot of nice things about it. It is an improvement.
>Only problem with the house is the deck. Does not fit in with the type of houses in the neighborhood .
A fundamentally different living arrangement than the rest of the neighborhood.
>Massing is done nicely. So much is on first floor so won't have as much of an impact as might be
expected.
>While house is large, the lot is nearly twice the size of the others.
>Deck is still too large, seems fitting for the hills, but not this neighborhood.
>Interface with adjacent structures not compatible.
>The sole issue is the deck. Concerns are with sight lines, noise, and outdoor fireplace which
suggests active use of the deck.
>Problem is not with the deck specifically, does not need to go away completely, it is the size and use
of the deck by large number of people. Should be more contained and constrained, a more private
gathering area than public.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to deny the
application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
c.1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration, 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
Commissioner Sargent noted that he was absent from the last meeting on this item but watched the
video.
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant:
>Porch has been expanded.
>Massing on the driveway side has been broken up. Closet has been pulled in to have more roof on
the first floor.
>Dropped top plate to have roof come down and bifurcate the elevation.
>Had discussed flipping the house, but resistance in wanting to keep driveway pattern in the street
consistent. Would have two driveways side by side, and two detached garages within a couple of feet of
each other. Better to have the houses and garages staggered and separated.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission questions/comments:
>What changes have been made to the west elevation? (Robertson: Has added an indent between
the two windows. Roof has been dropped and eave extended down.) Change is very subtle, not sure it
would be perceived from the ground.
>Porch does not seem harmonious with the rest of the house. Odd to have a flat roof when the rest of
the house has peaked roofs. Other options that were studied were better, particularly Option #3.
(Robertson: Agrees, but owner is concerned that house across the street has the same porch. Would
look like a tract. This is owner’s choice.)
>Door still seems lost.
>Changes to side are minimal.
>Planning Commission should not be spending so much time refining the design of application. This
is the third time this project has returned. (Robertson: This house is the “sister clone” of the house the
owner built at 133 Costa Rica. That house turned out well. Realtors told the owner to duplicate the house
as often as possible.)
>Likes Option #3 porch – this was the consensus of the commission. Fits location close to downtown.
>May have liked house at 133 Costa Rica but would not want to replicate the same house all over
town. The charm of Burlingame is the diversity of housing stock and architectural styles.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Aveue, spoke on this item:
>Has not seen substantial changes to the front porch from the last meeting.
>Designer is talented, but client appears recalcitrant.
>Should deny without prejudice.
There were no more public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission questions/comments:
>If denied with prejudice, how long would it need to wait to come back? (Gardiner: 1 year, and would
need to be changed substantially.)
>Could benefit from design review consultant. It needs some tweaking – the front door and porch are
not resolved yet, but there are a lot of things to like about the house too.
>Agrees with rationale not to flip the driveway. Would be hard to justify switching driveway since it
would be a change to the pattern in the neighborhood.
>Special Permit for declining height envelope hard to justify for a brand new house where existing
house is being scraped. Creates a massiveness to the front that serves to squeeze front door and porch.
>Entry is still too weak. Would not be productive to send to a design review consultant since applicant
has resisted improving porch design.
>If application is denied with prejudice and appealed, could it be modified or does it need to be the
same plans? (Kane: The appeal would be of the action the Planning Commission takes. Cannot submit a
different project to the Council.)
>This project has been before the commission too many times already.
>Rest of house is acceptable, but porch does not work. Denial seems too heavy for just the
entry since the rest of the house has good qualities.
>Design review consultation may not be productive since applicant is not obligated to take
consultant’s recommendation.
>Issue is with the process. Has already tried to send a message to the applicant - has already
continued the application, has denied it without prejudice but without success.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to deny the
application with prejudice. Chair Bandrapalli called for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum4 -
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Nay:Bandrapalli, Yie, and Loftis3 -
d.1364 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new detached garage (Nenad
Vukic Tr, applicant and property owners; Behravesh & Associates Architecture,
architect) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber
Commissioners Sargent and Yie noted that they were absent from the Design Review meeting but had
watched the video.
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Barber provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Odile Estrella-Dilworth represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
>Loves the porte-cochere.
>On the aluminum-clad windows will they use simulated true divided lites? (Estrella-Dilworth: They
will be true divided lites.) Plans should note that.
>Front entry railing and columns feel clumsy, too small for scale of expanded house .
(Estrella-Dilworth: Trying to respect the existing character of the house, not alter the scale at the street
level. Porch is existing, is not changing except for railing to meet code. Existing wood railing is
temporary. Mass of addition is to the rear, not at the street side.)
>Rear elevation roofline that folds over bay window on second floor does not seem to line up right .
Should be parallel to the lower roof of the porte-cochere.
>Will trim on base of front bay window be replaced? Plans should specify construction of trim.
>Wrought iron is noted in letter but not shown on drawings.
>Simulted true divided lites are acceptable. Individually divided lites are not required, and may be
expensive. Staff can provide direction.
>Are the entry columns original to the house? (Estrella-Dilworth: Yes.)
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Addition is a relatively modest request.
>Design is keeping and respecting existing building.
>Gridded windows on the front bay window may be distracting from the front porch.
>Instead of railing on porch, could have concrete platforms on sides rise and create walls that can
step down. Can add iron rails if needed.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Should not bring up new items that were not mentioned in design review meeting. Not fair to bring up
porch at this time.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Landscape plan needs more detail.
>Not sure what type of door is proposed. Could have FYI on the door.
>Motion to approve with an added condition that the plans specifiy the windows shall be either
simulated divided lites or true divided lites, and to require that the project come back as an FYI with
landscaping and front door details.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve the
item with amended conditions. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Nay:Yie1 -
e.1428 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review Amendment for
as-built changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling with a
detached garage (James Chu, Chu Design, applicant and designer; Crocket Ln, LLC,
property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Sargent was recused because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Dan Nejasmich represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
>Handsome house. Concern is with the porch.
>Round windows are often changed out, so not unusual.
>Kitchen window is on side and not visible, so not concerned.
>Were drawings prepared for this porch? (Nejasmich: Sketches were drawn up during construction.)
>Change in porch makes gabled element to the left of porch a singular vertical element. Columns look
spindly, does not have same preference as the approved design. Would probably not have been
approved if originally submitted as built. (Nejasmich: Opening felt closed-off. Is in agreement can change
it back.)
Matt Nejasmich spoke as the co-applicant:
>Revised porch was sketched up and shared with architect prior to construction. Architect did not
support change.
>Pefers revised design - it is more open, introduces different materials.
>Flared entry is cliche, would like something unique.
Commission comments:
>Changes made are not an improvement.
>Does not want developers to just decide to make changes and expect the Planning Commission to
approve them.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item:
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Should have come to the Planning Commission first.
>Planning Commission made its determination on the design previously, should not be changed.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Easy to submit a FYI request to make changes - easier than asking for forgiveness later.
>Not a misreading of plans, it was an effort to make it better but misses the mark and was not
submitted for review.
>Can accept changes to windows as built, but not porch.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to deny the item
without prejudice. The motion accepts the changes to the windows as built but denies the
request to change the front porch. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
f.1549 Meadow Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second
story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates,
applicant and dsigner; James and Luciana Witherspoon, proeprty owners (56 noticed)
Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Bandrapalli was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject
property. Commissoner Yie was not at the Design Review Study meeting but watched the video.
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Barber provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Meeting minutes said the motion was to place the item on the Consent Calendar? (Barber: That was
a typo. There were comments that needed to be addressed so would be on the Regular Action
Calendar.)
Jerry Deal represented the applicant:
>Will not be having grids on windows - is submitted per the plan.
>Will add texture to gable end on right side gable on rear elevation to match other gable.
Public comments.
>None.
Commission comments:
>Would prefer grids on the windows.
>Concern was with consistency of windows. Style of house can accept windows with or without grids .
Is an improvment to be replacing existing vinyl windows.
>Motion to approve with amended condition to add horizontal siding on the rear gable to be same as
front.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
item with amended conditions. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 -
Recused:Bandrapalli1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1520 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review, Design
Review, Side Setback Variance and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a
first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional
Use Permits to add a cabana and toilet to an existing detached garage (Dreiling
Terrones Architecture, Inc ., applicant and architect; Jeffrey Hessekiel, property owner )
(72 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item.
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Barber provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>None.
Wayne Lin represented the applicant.
Jeff Hessekiel represented the property owner.
Commission questions/comments:
>Rear elevation works well.
>East elevation is a large two -story flat plane with no relief. Could inset to create a shadow line at the
gable where the gutter line is.
>Pediments on side elevation windows seem too top heavy.
>Could inset Family Room to create some relief.
>Stepping back first floor could be difficult because it would impact the floorplan, but setting back the
second floor from the gable back would provide a roofline that splits the facade. Could also add a
transom to the closet.
>Planting will help blank wall.
>High bar to make findings for variance. There is not a unique condition that warrants either variance .
Extension of the existing setback represents a significant addition, particularly the second story .
Stepping back the high wall would help.
>Would prefer that the east side setback follow the 4-foot first floor and 7-foot second floor
requirements. Would help break the massing up. Could redesign floorplan to have the expansion to the
rear.
>How tall would the hedge be on the side? (Lin: Tall, either bamboo or tall hedge.) Should clarify
height of what is being proposed.
>Why include a cabana? (Hessekiel: Related to existing use of pool. Currently kids need to go into
the house to use the bathroom. Existing garage is oversized "garage and a half" and doesn't allow as
productive a use as is proposed.)
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item:
>In past resistance to cabanas was related to cabanas with full bathrooms and potential to convert to
second unit. This is small enough, it is clear it will be used for intended purpose.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Would prefer the side wall not impinge as far into setback, particularly on the upper floor.
>Extruding of the form further back is not acceptable.
>Suggests relief on both levels. Will add more light and air space.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made to the plans as directed. The motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum6 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
b.1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-2 and R-3 - Application for Mitigated Negative
Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning of a portion of the site from R -2 to
R-3 and Condominium Permit for construction of a new three -story, 10-unit residential
condominium with at-grade parking (1509 El Camino LLC, applicant and property
owner; Rodrigo Santos, engineer) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner Gum spoke to one of the tenants in the existing apartment
building. Commissioner Bandrapalli spoke with a neighbor.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Who is responsible for shoring up the creek? (Gardiner: The property owner, since the creek runs
through their private property.)
>What is implied in a change from Medium Density to Medium -High Density? (Gardiner: Those are
two different General Plan land use designations. Medium Density generally aligns with R -2 and
Medium-High aligns with R-3 zoning. The land use change should be considered first, then the zoning
amended accordingly.)
>What is the difference between R -2 and R-3? (Gardiner: R-2 is a "duplex" or "two-family" zoning, R-
3 is the next higher classification but not the highest.)
>Will this come back as a Design Review item? (Gardiner: No, the application was submitted prior to
the City adopting design review requirements for multifamily projects. There could be some overlap in
the environmental review, particularly aesthetics.)
>Where in the plans does it show what part of the site is R -2 and R-3? (Gardiner: The aerial shows
the two parcels. The R-2 parcel is the parcel with the creek.)
Patrick Fellows represented the applicant:
>Wants to change land use and zoning of the creek lot to be the same as the adjacent lot. The lot
extends to the center of the creek.
>There are existing trees at the back of the lot screening the view from the rear neighbors, but there
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
is a break in the trees. Would like to coordinate with staff to arrange screening of the break, such as a
taller fence or trees.
>Most neighboring buildings on El Camino Real are 3 stories. Height of proposal has been reduced
so it is also 3 stories.
>Arborist will be retained through the project to ensure trees are maintained.
>HVAC has been moved from the back to the front of the building.
>Has increased the amount of parking, including 5 visitor parkings plus the delivery space.
Commission questions/comments:
>What percentage of the total is R-2? (Fellows: About 4,300 out of 19,800 sq ft.)
>How is guest parking accessed? (Fellows: Would probably have an intercom pedestal for visitors to
call up and be buzzed in.)
>Is there enough space for the delivery vehicle to be parked and still have vehicles pass? (Fellows:
Yes.)
>Why is the affordable unit the smallest? 60% of the units have 3 bedrooms. (Fellows: Originally
there were 15 units in the proposal. It has been scaled back. Trying to make the project work
economically.)
>Where will solar panels be installed? (Fellows: Back part of roof.)
>Are all trees being saved? L -1 says no trees being removed, but staff report mentions a tree being
removed. (Fellows: Not sure, will check.)
>Will people be allowed to make a left from driveway? It is a busy roadway. (Fellows: Will propose a
right-turn only sign.)
>Is there a reason for the height of the tower? (Fellows: In original design of the building the tower
was the "moniker" of the building. Would look plain without it. It is at the front of the building.)
>References to previous reports includes a repair plan by Cavenaugh Engineering. Is there intent to
have the creek repaired? (Fellows: Yes. Is mandatory to fix the creek as a condition of approval. Has
requested to Public Works that it be part of construction of this project, rather than a separate project.)
>Landscaping plan calls for a new 6-foot wood fence, but sounds like there is consideration of a taller
fence or wall. (Fellows: Wants to work with neighbors to determine what is desired and can be
approved.)
>Are the existing acacias referenced in the staff report on the property or the rear alley? (Fellows:
Believes they are in the rear alley.)
>Will there be additional screening in the back? (Fellows: Is open to what the neighbors would want to
see.)
>Where would the synthetic turf be located? (Fellows: The bocce ball court.) Oyster shells are
preferable for bocce ball.
>Foam trim is discouraged. Foam with an epoxy -based coating that is substantive and looks like
simulated stone is preferred.
>Notes on plans needing fixing: Note 13; existing wall at creek to remain note; scallop termination on
the walls unclear.
>Garage entry is a hole in the wall. Perhaps a timber header or keystone.
>Awnings should have a darker/contrasting color.
>Concern with impact of school traffic on neighboring streets. Students cross at Adeline to get to
Lincoln. (Fellows: Project will have one parking space for every bedroom.)
>Will there be bike parking? (Fellows: Yes, a hanger on the front of each stall.)
>Tower seems too tall, does not seem necessary to be so tall. (Fellows: If it is shorter it will change
the character.)
Public comments:
Anne Wallach spoke on this item:
>Concern with condition of creek, as mentioned by Commissioner Terrones
>2013 California Department of Fish & Wildlife letter citing high biological value and physical functions
provided by riparian areas such as Mills Creek. Letter cited concerns of constructing a recreation area
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
within the riparian habitat (i.e., the bocce court). Non-native vegetation would out -compete native
riparian growth.
>This stretch of the creek has been neglected for years.
>Cord rails were used to assess the soil structure of the building site. Deepest drill extended 14'-6"
but applicant says foundation piers will extend 24 feet and rest on bedrock. Unclear what soil or rock is
at 24-foot depth. Is depth of drill test sufficient for assessing ground stability?
>Creekside location, alluvial soils deserve special attention.
>Appreciates applicant engaging with neighbors.
Samantha McPhail, 1516 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Lives directly behind subject property.
>Concern with capacity of City sewer system to accommodate increased demand.
>Existing building has 44 sewer units (sink, toilet etc connections). Proposed building will probably
have 100 sewer units.
>Neighborhood sewer system had been broken down, with frequent inundations in basement and
yard. New pipes were installed and have had no problems since.
>1509 El Camino Real effluent would flow into lateral between the properties. Inquire whether City
can ensure the sewer system can accommodate increased demand.
>Concerned about riparian environment. Mills Creek needs repair, flows into the Bay and wildlife
conservation estuary.
Patricia Gray, 1616 Adeline Drive, spoke on this item:
>Sewer problem is extreme. Has sewage in the basement on a regular basis.
>Parking and traffic problems. Can't cross double -yellow line, so if the tenants want to go north they
will turn on Adeline and circle back on Balboa. There is a school and a park and a turn. Narrow street,
very dangerous.
>Not enough parking in the neighborhood. Does not believe compact spaces will fit the cars.
>People are doubling up, more cars.
>People park cars and take cab to airport.
>Girls' Softball League on Saturday afternoons takes up parking.
Mark Haberecht, 1505 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Meetings with applicant have been very productive. Good first step in making the project workable.
>Per letter, insufficient time for the public at large to view the plans. Legal interpretation of California
Health & Safety Code for making plans available online is erroneous. Will be contacting City Council on
this matter.
>Creek is important, shocked it has not been addressed years earlier. Believes it is a liability issue.
>Addition of parking spaces relative to requirements does not acknowledge the traffic and parking
issues at the park and school. Has shared concerns with Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission.
>Developer needs to be give back to community - speed limit sign, flashing reflectors, stop sign at
Balboa/Ray, sponsor parking permit program for the neighborhood.
>Rear of building needs attention - massing and articulation .Screening trees are proposed but needs
to do more, perhaps bring top corner back more.
>Bocce ball/putting green will be a problem for California Department of Fish & Wildlife.
Andrew Stenzel, 1518 Albermarle Way, spoke on this item:
>Lives on the north side of the project.
>Concerns with the size of the lot, height, closeness of windows and patios to their property.
>Granting of an upzone will result in more requests.
>Is working on repairs to retaining walls. A section is culverted, hopes the rest will not look like that,
wants trees and bushes to provide screening for benefit of both properties.
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Pat Giorni spoke on this item:
>Better iteration of project compared to version shown at neighborhood meeting in January.
>Has no way to substantiate submitted proposal is the same as that shown in January.
>Timely release of reports is inadequate. Inability to obtain architectural blueprints is inexcusable and
unacceptable. Project should have had a sign posted in front of property.
>Lot line merger should not be used to provide a larger footprint than was discussed in the January
neighborhood meeting.
>Remaining tree grove must be completely preserved and given protection during construction, with
possible exceptions of trees #120 and #125 in 2011 Osterling report.
>Lean on tree is no worse than 3 out 5 eucalyptus on El Camino Real. Requests mechanical
engineering study on lean of tree to determine its safety.
>Require applicant to post a $100,000 surety bond on tree preservation and survival for 5 years.
Precedent on 1500 block of Drake Avenue.
>Who will certify before the first framing construction? Does not see professional attribution on the
plans.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>Council has given direction to ensure there is not a reduction in the numbers of units. 11 existing
units will be replaced with 10 new units with this project. Should receive a response from staff when the
item returns.
>Should have a condition that the arborist be retained through construction of the project.
>Address rear wall and landscape screening.
>Needs a condition from Public Works regarding the creek repair.
>Environmental analysis should address sewer and utility impacts.
>Identify which trees are being removed.
>Identify how existing tenants enter and exit the site versus proposed.
>Address how this rezoning would or would not result in other future rezoning? Unique conditions
here, was addressed in previous application.
>Clarify height request - to which part of the building is going to 44'-6" versus the tower.
>Tree protection should include an inspection regime, so that trees are maintained through the life of
the project.
>How was the tree bond worked out on Drake? (Gardiner: Can research precedent.)
>Appears path going from trash bins to driveway is very narrow - make sure they will be able to fit .
Where will 10-12 trash bins go?
>Clarity on how to remedy building new condos by displacing affordable housing? Versus reduction in
numbers of housing units/reduction in housing stock.
>How can condition of existing creek be addressed? Can there be fines? (Kane: Will initiate a code
inquiry. Other overlapping regulatory agencies have superior fine mechanisms. Can be a challenge to
determine responsibility if there are numerous properties involved. Those with information to submit can
contact staff for follow-up.)
This item will return for environmental scoping at a subsequent meeting once the environmental
consultant has been retained.
c.1128-1132 Douglas Avenue, zoned R-4 - Application for Design Review, Conditional
Use Permit for building height, Front Setback Variance, Parking Variance for driveway
width, Condominium Permit and Lot Merger for construction of a new five -story,
29-unit apartment building with at -grade and below-grade parking (Dreiling Terrones
Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (101
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item and Item 9d.
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner Sargent met with the applicant but did not discuss the merits
of the projects. Commissioner Loftis met a neighbor.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report. He noted that the Homeowners
Association of 512 Primrose Road submitted a letter at the beginning of the meeting, and the letter will
be submitted to the record and included in the staff report for the environmental review scoping.
Questions of Staff:
>How does this application relate to the application for 524 Oak Grove? (Gardiner: The applications
are joined through the environmental review, and the moving of the house is a mitigation for the
proposed project. The house would not be allowed to be relocated without a new project being
approved. Neither project will happen without the other.)
>Color renderings are often more helpful than elevation drawings. Could this be a requirement?
(Gardiner: It is encouraged but not required. Having it as a requirement could be taken up at another
time.)
Jacob Furlong represented the applicant:
>Started off with the project knowing it would be a very public process. There have been two public
meetings, and meetings with adjacent neighbors. Wanted to engage in process and receive comments
>House at 1128 Douglas would be relocated because of its potential historic significance.
>Trees to be retained, but requires variance for driveway. Driveway has a reciprocal easement with
adjacent property that must be maintained.
>Contemporary in style but open to the street. The entrance is oriented to the street.
Commission questions:
>How do rear parking spaces work with the single driveway? (Furlong: It's one-way but not serving
enough vehicles to be a concern. Currently operates this way with an 8-foot driveway. Would need to
remove the trees if the driveway were widened.)
>Front setback variance seems related to the position of a concrete shear wall. Seems hard to
believe it could not be kept within the setback. (Furlong: Would result in size of units being compressed .
Setbacks are based on the average for the block; neighborhood is in transition but is based on setbacks
of existing structures.)
>Nice piece of modern architecture.
>Thickness of floor slabs in building seems unrealistic. Thin and elegant as shown, but if chunkier will
make a difference in how building looks.
>How is traffic being mitigated? (Furlong: The proximity to downtown is significant. Within walking
distance of Caltrain, grocery store, restaurants, Walgreens. These are all trip -generating items that will
be reduced or eliminated.)
>Indoor bike parking? (Furlong: Bike storage area in the garage.)
>Site plan does not have outdoor amenities for residents. All open space is filled with parking, seems
too dense for site.
>Four-story building would work better for neighborhood. Would allow less parking and more open
space.
>All two-bedroom units share a common wall. This does not seem common these days, might expect
two Master Bedrooms in some units.
>Likes footprint of the building, but it is a block -like structure. Some articulation on the east elevation
but very similar on all four sides. Would like more articulation in a "depth-ful" way - not just a balcony or
one-foot inset. Site plan shows "design shape," but massing does not.
>Will be the biggest structure within the block. Block is mostly three -story, with one four -story.
(Furlong: There is a 6-story structure two doors down from City Hall.)
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Have the shadow impacts been evaluated? (Furlong: Expects to be reviewed in the environmental
review.)
>Ceiling height of first floor seems high.
>Concerned with narrow width of driveway.
>The one place that density is encouraged is in the Downtown Specific Plan area.
Public comments:
Carolyn Root, 1133 Douglas Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Lives across from the proposed development.
>Height, density and mass not compatible with rest of block. Douglas Avenue has two -story buildings
with some three-story condos.
>Downtown Specific Plan has policies and guidelines for compatibility. Does not meet requirements
as well as it could.
>Building should make more of a statement. The project will set a tone for the entire street and
influence future buildings.
>No provision for visitor parking or drop-offs. Neighborhood has parking impacts.
>Douglass Avenue seems to be a preferred route to reach California Drive from Downtown and El
Camino Real for both cars and trucks.
>Suggest independent parking and traffic specialist to evaluate potential impact of project.
>A structure with less height and well managed parking and traffic mitigation will go a long way to
making the development a welcome addition to the neighborhood and Burlingame.
Linda Taylor spoke on this item:
>Lives across the street.
>Understands need for more units, but height must fit neighborhood.
>Proposed structure is inconsistent with neighboring buildings and neighborhood. Height and width
yields a mass far beyond anything nearby.
>Downtown Specific Plan policy 5.3.1 discusses Architectural Diversity.
>Attention to massing of building to ensure appropriate transitions to surrounding development.
>Residential scale of neighborhood needs to be respected, cannot support Conditional Use Permit.
John Taylor spoke on this item:
>Lives at 1133 Douglas Avenue.
>Nice elements of the building such as facade treatment, setbacks, mix of materials, glass -enclosed
stairwells attractive. However it would be a five-story building.
>(Showed exhibit depicting building heights on Douglas Avenue, scaled to height and width.)
Danelle Rinks spoke on this item:
>Lives at 1126 Douglas Avenue at the back. Has lived on street for 15 years.
>Reiterate residents' comments on traffic and parking. Traffic has doubled while she has lived there .
Douglas is used as a through-way.
>Believes 29 units equates at least 58 people.
>Five stories is too tall.
>Requestss historical review of 1124 Douglas if it hasn't already been done.
>Expects health risk to existing trees.
>Sewage, water and gas lines.
>1225 Floribunda Avenue has been under construction since April 2014.
>There are too many apartment buildings in Burlingame already.
>Building will displace 10 current working families and individuals.
Clark Silva, 1133 Douglas Avenue, spoke on this item:
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Height is not compatible with surrounding houses and buildings.
>Units are facing City Hall and railroad. Side of building faces Douglas. The tree will cover much of
the glasswork.
>From front will just see high wall with small square windows.
>34 parking for 29 units are not enough spaces. 20 cars will be left on street.
Julie Serranova, 1131 Douglas Avenue, spoke on this item:
>Not enough parking.
>Will impact view from building across the street.
>Does not seem typical for Burlingame.
>Five stories too tall.
Vince Campinelli spoke on this item:
>Neighborhood has parking issues.
>Water and sewage system is struggling. Street was dug up last year to replace water pipes.
>People park on Douglas Avenue to have lunch on Burlingame Avenue.
Alex Goldstein, 1121 Douglas Avenue, spoke on this item:
>California is in a drought. By building apartments and condos, not conserving water.
>Parking on Douglas Avenue is unconscionable - can't park own car in front of apartment.
>Can walk to Burlingame Avenue, but can't find a parking space in downtown.
>Assumes post office building will have same issues with more units.
Jacob Furlong spoke as the applicant:
>Parking and traffic consultant will be retained for analysis.
Question to applicant:
>Has stacked parking been considered? (Furlong: Has been discussed but not in this proposal .
Willing to discuss it in the future.)
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
>This is the beginning of the process.
>There will be an extensive environmental analysis.
>Beginning of design process - anticipate back and forth.
>Look at roof deck at rear, could impact privacy for neighbors behind. At very least move to interior of
roof structure.
>Downtown Plan shows 3 and 4 story buildings. A four story building would be a density that would fit
in.
>School district projects only 150 units in the future, not 500.
>Needs to know what happens to current residents. Not a lot of opportunities for affordable housing in
town. Not an obligation of the project.
This item will return for environmental scoping at a subsequent meeting once the environmental
consultant has been retained.
d.524 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback
Variance to demolish the existing house at 524 Oak Grove Avenue and replace it with
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
an existing house to be moved from 1128 Douglas Avenue; the project includes a first
and second story addition to the house moved from Douglas Avenue and construction
of a new detached garage (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc ., applicant and
architect; Jianguang Zhang, property owner) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Ex-Parte Communications: Commissioner Sargent met with applicant but did not discuss the merits of
the project.
Visits to Property: All had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>When a sidewalk is torn up as part of a project, who is responsible for replacing sidewalk?
(Gardiner: The applicant if it is part of the project.)
Jacob Furlong and Wayne Lin represented the applicant.
>House was originally moved from Burlingame Avenue to its current location.
>Will retain the original components but not later additions. Restore window boxes on second story.
Commission questions/comments:
>On the front (west) elevation, what is the main entry? (Furlong: Most people will probably enter from
the back porch mud room from the garage, though some will enter from Oak Grove side. Wants to
engage both street faces.) On left side /front could open it up more and add wider steps to be more
inviting, provide a place to perch.
>New addition on East Elevation looks like it is a lot of windows.
>Request to show siding pattern on elevation drawings so people will know what it will look like.
>Existing house does not look very well maintained. Remove ivy from street trees. (Furlong: The
owner acquired the property in its current condition but will address the maintenance.)
>Exciting to see a landmark house going on that corner.
>Would it be possible to push the West Elevation back to avoid needing a variance and be more
consistent with the other houses on Marin? The wall appears massive. (Lin: Can't modify the existing
house second floor. For the addition, brought down the roof slope in the back so the wall would not
appear as massive.
>Likes the glass on the addition on the back of the house. (Furlong: Intent is to capture the view of the
tree in the back yard.)
>Sheet 8.4 appears to have a labeling error - both elevations are labeled "North"
>Likes that the addition has some differentiation from the original structure.
Public comments:
Ashley Canty, resident of 1128 Douglas, spoke on this item:
>Hopes to be able to acquire the house when it gets relocated to new site. Has engaged with property
owner.
>Lived at 504 Marin previously.
There was no action, as environmental review is required. The application will return on the Regular
Action Calendar once the environmental review is completed. Action will be coordinated with the
1128-32 Douglas Avenue application.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015
March 23, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Loftis noted that there is an upcoming meeting for the Community Center. Although he
will not be able to attend due to work travel, he will receive a report and report back to the Planning
Commission.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.FYI: 1119 Eastmoor Road - review of as-built changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
Accepted.
b.FYI: 1433 Floribunda Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
Pulled. Request discussion on substituting trees in box containers for trees planted in ground.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:13 am.
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on March 23, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on April 2, 2015, 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 19City of Burlingame Printed on 7/20/2015