HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2020.04.27BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, April 27, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin,
Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action on the February 24, 2020 and March 9, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes has been
continued to a future meeting since not all Commissioners were able to review the suggested edits
submitted.
a.Draft February 24, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Revised Draft February 24, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
Draft February 24, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Attachments:
b.Draft March 9, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Revised Draft March 9, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft March 9, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Attachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no Public Comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.250 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously
approved application for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for a
new, four-story mixed use office building (retail and office). The project is Categorically
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. (20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner;
MBH Architects, architect) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
250 California Dr - Staff Report
250 California Dr - Attachments
250 California Dr - Plans
Attachments:
A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve
the Consent Calendar.
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.2625 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two -story single
family dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a)). (Leonard Ng, LNAI Architecture, applicant and architect; Galen Ma and Tina
Shi, property owners) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
2625 Martinez Dr - Staff Report
2625 Martinez Dr - Attachments
2625 Martinez Dr - Received After 1
2625 Martinez Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she spoke with the
applicant and the neighbor at 2613 Trousdale Drive. Commissioner Gaul noted that he spoke with the
neighbor at 2613 Trousdale Drive. Commissioner Terrones noted that he spoke with the property owner
and the applicant and had a brief conversation with the neighbor at 2613 Trousdale Drive.
Planning Manager Hurin, provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Leonard Ng, LNA, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Sheet DS has a detail for the aluminum trim frame surround. You have it projecting out 12" and 3/8"
thick. Will that be enough so that it won't show some waving and will it stay looking straight over longer
spans? (Ng: When we've done this in the past we talked to fabricators, and the fact that it is aluminum
helps a lot. If it was steel, the waviness will be an issue. At 3/8" thick the aluminum should be pretty
straight. Due to the scale, because this is a conceptual detail, it is not clear that there are welded flanges
perpendicular to the projections which mount to the home every three feet on center. Once they are all
welded together it acts as a rigid frame.)
>So there's a detail that's not shown on the plan? (Ng: It's shown, but it's embedded. It's routed in the
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
plywood for attachment, so it's not an expressed element, but it's a part of the construction.) Not worried
about that part staying straight, it's out on the leading edge, are you sure you want to go 12" out? (Ng: 12"
is an approximate guess, was trying to address the comments from the last meeting, is an element that
creates shadow and relief on the facade. It doesn't have to be 12" as it is not a magic number, but it can
be 9" or 10", just enough where it casts the shadow as seen on the rendering. It has some relief and tries
to breakdown that mass.)
>Thank you for changing and reducing the size of the roof deck, but did you consider putting some of
that planting on the neighbor's side of the deck? The issue is to try and screen that deck from the
neighbors as much as reducing it. (Ng: We're completely open to planting a very mature, lush hedge along
the property line. In terms of the architecture, we extended a blade wall out to screen most of the view to
the neighbor directly. So that's the hard element of the architecture that does a lot of screening and then
once you get past that wall, the idea was to provide a really tall, dense hedge or foliage to screen that
edge.)
>Would like to be persuaded that this design fits into the neighborhood. Could you talk me through how
you think this design fits into a homogenous neighborhood of a single -family ranch homes? (Ng: We tried
to touch on that in the study session, but our approach was to take a step back. The owners are
Burlingame area natives and they were looking for a modern home with an open floor plan and lots of glass
for indoor/outdoor feel. So we were trying to integrate that with the existing neighborhood fabric and
integrate the second story with deep setbacks making the second story as small as possible in terms of
floor area. One of the first things we did was to take careful queues and consideration from the
surrounding neighborhood context, without necessarily being contextual. One of the things we noticed is a
lot of the surrounding homes have a certain floor plan configuration best described as a lower case letter
“h” where they have a recess entry in the middle, there's a forward attached garage on one side, and
usually a longer living wing on the other side. In plan and in mass, to a certain extent, we tried to keep that
configuration. We flipped it and mirrored the “h” on site to allow more breathing room for our neighbors and
to respond better to solar orientation. Since predominantly ranch homes are single story, they present a
horizontal roof line at the very forward edge, so we tried to take that horizontal rhythm and really try to
integrate that into our design as well. Granted that we have a second story, but still trying to create a
horizontal deck along the front of the house, the second story setback, 37' and 53' respectively from the
front, so we tried to setback the second story as far as we possibly could and then create these horizontal
datum to echo the edge condition of the hipped roofs. We also took queues from some of the windows in
the ranch homes. They're expressed in a more horizontal format divided into two or three panels and we
tried to do the same, tried to group some windows together to play off that horizontal reading as opposed
to a vertical expression like some other styles. We see the project as an extension of the neighborhood
and hopefully one that allows for a nice neighborhood and a precedent for conscientious neighbor -friendly
design within the context of two stories and of zoning parameters for the neighborhood.
>Did you consider lower plate heights? (Ng: Yes, we looked at that in depth. The owners would like to
have a certain ceiling height. Also for the flat roofs we have to allow more room for roof slopes embedded
into the sandwich. Since we have no attic and no crawl space, we're allowing for all the HVAC to happen in
the sandwich, probably through the structure itself. So we tried to keep the floor plates as low as we
could within the context of what we thought was achievable in terms of construction and logistics.)
>Looking at the rear elevation, it looks like the glass railing doesn't appear to have been revised. Is it
right to presume that the glass railing doesn't need to extend into the planted areas to the side of that roof
deck? (Ng: You're absolutely right. In fact, I noticed that after we sent it to plot that the glass railing does
extend one bay too far. That will be the planter. Essentially it would be two bays, not three, to correspond
with the deck.)
>Understanding the need to move the mechanical system through the structure, is this going to be a
raised foundation? (Ng: We're working with the engineers and what we're proposing is a crawl space to
hopefully allow us to run some ducts, but that it's submerged. As you can tell, we're not coming up two,
three or four steps up into the house, we're keeping it to one step. It will most likely be a submerged crawl
space. In looking at this with the project team, if it helps with the review and the Planning Commission, we
could lower the plate heights by 6 to 12" and to try to facilitate and streamline the massing a little bit
more.)
>May not have noticed the plate heights in the first plan, but seeing the story poles out at the site really
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
highlighted the contrast, particularly to the house to the right where you can see the right front corner of
your project and just how much higher it is, it just made it stand out even more.
>Was able to see the story poles and was concerned about scale relative to the neighbors. Have you
considered taking the eyebrow, which comes across the garage and the front, down? You could still have
the garage itself flow up higher, but bringing that eyebrow down from the ten -foot plate height would start
to give more human scale to that. Also, the second story going horizontally from side to side really
accentuates the scale and the size of the project versus if that mass was going front to back. You could
have the garage protrude up at the same level, but if you brought the eyebrow down, that would start to
bring that entry level to a smaller scale and it's going to look a little funny when you have an 8' tall garage
door and 2' of material above, you could help bring down that scale. (Ng: If we were to lower the plate
heights, we would aim to lower it at both floors maybe six inches or so. We would do it proportionately so
the massing is balanced. That would be our goal. I agree that the eyebrow could come down a little more
and to lower the entire massing of that whole area by 6" to get a little better scale.)
>Did you look at any opportunities of doing more of a low slope roof on the master bedroom suite up
above, whereas most of these other homes have very low sloped roofs? You can integrate a modern view
of a low sloped roof that will help soften the style more in line with the neighborhood. (Ng: Yes, we looked
at a lot of different options and we thought that with the flat roof it's interesting because it's like an
average right-at-the-eave, the perimeter might be higher but at the ridge it is significantly lower. That's
where we also thought to benefit the project and to benefit the neighborhood. We could just lower the
overall plate heights, but try to keep the language and the purity consistent throughout the project. We did
look at a sloped roof, but it started to look like we added a volume of its own character on top of a volume
of another character which we were trying to avoid.)
Public Comments:
>Question submitted through Zoom chat: At the beginning of the discussion, you kept referring to
visiting addresses on Trousdale Drive. Did you mean to say occupants on Martinez Drive? (Commissioner
Comaroto confirmed that she had visited 2613 Trousdale Drive.)
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Would like to ask the Commissioners who visited the home at 2613 Trousdale Drive, were you able to
see any view issues? (Visited the site, took images and sent those images to Planning Manager and
Community Development Director this afternoon. Because of the shelter -in-place order, did not go into the
home and only went outside of the house in the backyard and stood by the windows. That was the only
house I visited and did not see any obstruction of view from the backyard from the bedroom window, living
room window and a window in the middle of the house. Can send an e -mail of those images to the
Commissioners if needed.) Don't necessarily want to see the images, just wanted to know what the
general impression was of view issues from that property on Trousdale Drive because it was brought up as
a written issue.
>Have to reiterate comments from the last meeting, really like the building, like it more now than
before. It has become a lot more refined. But it's a real challenge to fit it into this neighborhood, and as
mentioned before, one of the challenges is the lack of variety in this neighborhood. It's a set of very
closely spaced, similar houses on a curvy street. It's not like the hills, where we have a lot of modern
architecture because the sites are larger and there's a great variety in elevation and orientation as you're
moving up the hills. I like the building, but didn ’t find that it fits in. When going around town over the last
few weeks looking at some of the things we have approved, realized that some of them didn't really work
as far as fitting within the neighborhood. Have the sense in a strong way that if we approve this, a year
from now or 18 months from now, we're going to go up there to look at it and recognize that the house
really doesn't fit.
>Raised the same issue to staff this afternoon, and it follows on what my fellow Commissioner ’s
question about anybody visiting neighboring properties. Just speaking about the process of where we are
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
with shelter-in-place, a little uncomfortable with our assessment of the hillside area construction permit at
this meeting. Normally the process is if somebody raises a concern about view blockage, which we have
to assess for the hillside area construction permit, Commissioners would go out to that property and
speak to that neighbor, and usually gain access to the house where they're able to assess whether there
are view blockages that meet the criteria that we've used in the past, which are primarily distant views from
public realms. Given the current limitations of shelter -in-place, it's really kind of unadvisable to even meet
with people at properties, much less go in their house. Looking from the outside, what the Chair did was
very good, but still not comfortable with it to be able to make the findings for the hillside area construction
permit. Noticed we got one received after with a photo of a blocked view, but not entirely clear where that
was taken from. It says from the back, don't know if that's from the back deck, the backyard or the back
of the house. There are other neighbors who didn't submit photos, so not entirely comfortable moving
forward just as a matter of process.
>As far as the design review of the project, the initial look was this is a neighborhood that could
support this kind of architecture, but after hearing more from my fellow Commissioners, not as convinced
of that. Particularly, in what other Commissioners have said about the uniform nature of the existing
architecture in the neighborhood. Also, the massing is really problematic. Appreciate what the applicant
said about lowering the plate height, but if you look at the sections of the building, it has very high plates,
almost 10' and 9'-6". In addition, on each floor it looks like the framing is going to be roughly two feet. So,
it's going to feel even taller than 10' and 9'-6". We don't normally have the benefit of story poles to allow us
to see in real-time what a project looks like, but going to this site today was pretty stark which leads me
to agree with my fellow Commissioner on this.
>Out of respect for both our process and the applicant, would like to make it clear that I am not
opposed and don't think we have any grounds for opposition to a second story and to a contemporary or
modern style of architecture in this neighborhood. Have issues with the design review criteria for criteria
one and three: compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the
neighborhood and the architectural style in mass and bulk of the structure. It needs to be clear to both
the applicant and to the public that the story poles were very revealing. The second floor feels very
massive now that we have the story poles helping us understand the massing of the application. Agree
with my fellow Commissioners in terms of identifying ways to make this architecture fit better with the
neighborhood, and give it better scale of pedestrian character and human scale for the architecture itself.
>No issues in terms of the special permit for attached garage.
>With regards to the hillside area construction permit, can only rely on some of what the Chairman saw
from the neighboring house. However, we have a hard time viewing that because we can't really visit the
places that we normally would.
>Kane: On the hillside area construction permit, there's a lot that's different now than there would be
under normal circumstances. That actually cuts both ways, in the sense that on one hand the
Commission does need to be able to look at and assess the view issues. On the other hand, we can't
continue projects that may present view issues until after the shelter -in-place order is lifted, we've just
been told that's another month. Projects have a due process to proceed forward as well. So it sounds like,
based on the discussion so far, there may be a continuance of this item for other reasons that don't have
to do with the view, and that gives the Planning staff and myself a chance to coordinate on this question of
what constitutes sufficient evidence of a view blockage. Among other things, we would want to have a
picture taken from inside the affected homes along with an affidavit under penalty of perjury about the
location from which the picture was taken. It would put the person submitting that evidence on notice they
have to take it seriously and make sure it's taken from the right location, and that may be sufficient to
proceed under these limited circumstances. Hopefully we'll be back to the point where people can do their
own investigation in the normal manner shortly thereafter.
>Have issues with the design review criteria one and three in terms of how this project meets the
criteria. Love the design of the house and have said that before. Did suggest to the applicant, prior to the
first presentation, to put story poles up sooner than later for us to consider, but it may have been too late
before that first design review meeting, appreciate having the story poles to look at now. Interestingly,
while driving down Trousdale Drive a couple of weeks ago, suddenly saw this bright orange color to the
right and knew immediately it had to be the story poles for this project, and was surprised to see how
much it stood out in terms of the height of the structure. So I drove to the front of the house to see that
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
indeed the massing is quite tall. Can support a second story addition to the project, was hoping it would
look more like the rendering, a lower profile, however it looks quite tall and I am concerned about a view
blockages. Wasn't able to meet with Angela Chung and can't tell from the photo that she sent where that
photo was taken from, so appreciate some of the other options we can entertain going forward in terms of
studying this further. Would like to note again that in that area, there are fairly large Eichler developments
and a lot of Eichler homes with sloping roof lines, and they're considered modern, mid -century modern
homes. Want to encourage the applicant to seriously consider a different roof profile on that second story .
Acknowledge the design style that they're trying to take, but in this case, because of the massing and the
height and the potential view blockage of neighbors, it would be worth taking a look at that more seriously.
> Was able to meet with Angela Chung today, went into the backyard and saw the story poles from her
backyard. If you stand in front of her windows, which would be sufficient as good as standing inside the
house, there are trees that block the view of this house. So the new house on Martinez Drive does not, in
my opinion, block her view from inside her building. Also took pictures on my phone as well from her
backyard, but you do need to move closer to the fence, probably 10 or 15 feet away from the home, to
see any view blockage. There is a view blockage, but again, it's not from any of the habitable spaces
within the house. With that being said, the thing that does strike you, when you're looking out from Angela
Chung's backyard, is the story poles and the size of this project. You see the rooftops and the ridges of
the single-family homes around it, but this house sticks out. There was an e -mail from someone coming
down Martinez Drive and when you drive down Martinez Drive, it appears the same way. This jumps up high
above the other homes and that's the problem with it. Like the design and it's well done. This area can
support modern homes. Especially on the hill, there are houses being redone and they're getting a modern
flare to it. It's the second story, the mass and bulk that are troubling. The design could work, but at this
point in that neighborhood, we're still looking at some single story homes. Have trouble with the massing
of the second floor.
>Also like the look of the project, like that style of architecture as well. But the story poles really were
the telling sign today on scale. The rendering stands all by itself and because it doesn't have either one of
the homes on either side, you can't really see how big of a change it is in scale. There are other types of
modern architecture in these neighborhoods that could potentially be a little bit softer on the scale. It
doesn't really fit into the neighborhood that well yet. Wondering if this is an opportunity where the design
review consultant would be a good person to engage and maybe help with other solutions and
opportunities.
>Like modern design and could see a modern house being done in this area especially when you work
your way up the hill a little on Atwater, there are a lot of the Eichler homes up there. Do feel that the
second floor and the massing are very large on this property. Also like the City Attorney's idea of having
the neighbors do an affidavit and taking pictures, because I was only able to go to one of the homes, and
I didn't go to the other homes to make any type of determination of what we could see there. While going
down Trousdale Drive, you could definitely see those story poles and some of the other homes on
Trousdale Drive up the hill a little bit. Really love modern homes, we've had a lot of other modern homes
go on in other areas of Burlingame and over time they do fit the neighborhood because people do change
their rancher style homes and do soft modern homes, not opposed to that in this area. If we're going to
really do modern homes, we've always said that the hills are where the modern homes should go, but it's a
little bit too big for this neighborhood.
>Think that sending this to a design review consulting might be beneficial. Aware that we've already
passed the study meeting and we typically would do that after, but this wouldn't be the first time we send
something through a design review consultant when considering it for action.
>The architect is very capable. He's done a good job on the design and our comments have been
pretty clear, so would leave that up to the applicant whether or not they'd like to go to a design review
consultant. It appears to me he knows what he's doing. If he takes it to heart, he can rework this project
and get it to a point where it is approvable.
> This is a very capable designer, what needs to happen is the project needs to fit into the
neighborhood and not in an intellectual way. The architect put a lot of the arguments forward and
understand where they're coming from, but it just doesn't work. It needs to go farther toward fitting in, and
the architect is capable of making it happen. Don't see this as an opportunity to move forward to a design
review consultant.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Agree, the architect seems to be very capable and talented and with these additional comments
based on the story poles available on display and available to the neighborhood, this architect could
probably take a run at it on his own.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Terrones, to continue when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
b.2 Kenmar Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2)). (Tim Raduenz, Form
One, applicant and designer; Eric and Serena Fong, property owners) (71 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
2 Kenmar Way - Staff Report
2 Kenmar Way - Attachments
2 Kenmar Way - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones met with the applicant to access
the rear yard and view the story poles.
Planning Manager Hurin, provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>None.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Really appreciate the changes in visiting with the applicant to view the story poles. It is very clear they
have gone through a fairly detailed iterative and cooperative process with the neighbors and it has led to a
solution that seems to fit nicely into the rear yard area. The project at this point is approvable and should
move forward.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Tse, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
c.1336 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
15303 (a)). (Tim Raduenz, Form + One, applicant and designer; 1336 Drake Ave LLC ,
property owner) (118 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1336 Drake Ave - Staff Report
1336 Drake Ave - Attachments
1336 Drake Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for
non-statutory reasons.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi, provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of
staff.
Acting Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Appreciate the changes in the design. Looking at the larger expanses of the roof, wondering if some
of it might be softened with knee braces? You have some at the front or either side of the window, but it
tapers off after that. You might want to look at adding a little bit of a gingerbread on some of the eave
details. (Raduenz: Yes, we're doing an exposed eave detail. We can add that before submitting for a
building permit.)
>On the front porch, the column on the left side is a half column and looks out of balance. (Raduenz:
We can provide a full column there.)
>What material will you be using for the curved elements you have in the design? (Raduenz: They will
be shingles.) Kind of like a Berkeley style? (Raduenz: Yes. It's a small detail that will set it apart from not
looking like a brand new house.)
>Did you get a chance to address the trees and the fence with the neighbors, as well as the window
alignment with the neighbor to the right? (Raduenz: The contractor and I have been in e -mail
conversations with the neighbor about the trees, and we also e -mailed him the updated 3D drawings and
the plans. I don't believe he's had any objections as of yet.) Would you mind following up on those few
items with the neighbors just to ensure you have their support? (Raduenz: Sure, I can do that.)
Public Comments:
>Ray Kruck, 1328 Drake Avenue: I’m the neighbor to the right that you just referred to. I haven't
received the updated plans, these plans are new, and I joined today to see them. I look forward to getting
them to see how the window alignment works along the property line. But in general they've been good to
work with. (Raduenz: I will resend the 3D drawings and plans to the neighbor.)
Acting Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Really appreciate the changes. Actually like the design better than the previously proposed gambrel
roof. The comments from my fellow commissioners are good ones in terms of adding knee brace detailing
at the eve corners; believe that would add a little bit to the scale. Other than that the project is approvable
and should move forward.
>The project to me seems very tall, but it's in context with the neighborhood. The houses on either side
appear they are also at the maximum height. Usually don ’t like it when you get to the maximum height
because you have lower roofs in the same area, but this works in that location. With those additional trim
items, this project should move forward.
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>The change to the new design looks great and is a big improvement.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
d.Application for Conditional Use Permits to install new small cell wireless facilities
(antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility poles located within the right -of-way
at the locations listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an
existing utility pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole .
These projects are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303. (Talin Aghazarian, Modus LLC,
applicant; Joint Pole Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group, architect) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
1.In right-of-way adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1(119 noticed)
2.In right-of-way adjacent to 1480 Broadway, zoned C-1 (165 noticed)
3.In right-of-way adjacent to 977 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 (158 noticed)
Review of Proposed Applications - CTC Technology & Energy
1505 Bernal Ave - Staff Report
1505 Bernal Ave - Attachments
1505 Bernal Ave - Updated Alternative Sites Analysis
1505 Bernal Ave - Plans
1480 Broadway - Staff Report
1480 Broadway - Attachments
1480 Broadway - Updated Alternative Sites Analysis
1480 Broadway - Plans
977 El Camino Real - Staff Report
977 El Camino Real - Attachments
977 El Camino Real - Updated Alternative Sites Analysis
977 El Camino Real - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he had met with the
neighbor at 1512 Bernal Avenue and spoke about the application for the pole across the street.
Planning Manager Hurin, provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
City Attorney Kane: There are a couple of issues surrounding these items that the public may not be
completely aware of if they're new to these items. One is to reiterate that under federal law, the
commission is prohibited from considering radio frequencies, provided that the submissions meet FCC
requirements. In these cases the City has retained an outside consultant to verify those representations
and that was done successfully. So the issue of radio emissions, while it may be one of general interest,
is not one the commission can consider tonight for these applications. Similarly as a general matter, cities
are prohibited from regulating installation of wireless infrastructure in a way that would effectively ban it
from the City, and we cannot apply aesthetic standards that we don't apply to other things that are being
put in the public right -of-way, including various power structures and so on. Finally, there's a question
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
about whether the City is working on a master plan for wireless infrastructure. It is part of the City's work
plan to look at preferences for both aesthetic and locations for the build out for infrastructure as it occurs .
Wireless companies do have the right under state and federal law to place antennas in the public
right-of-way on utility poles. The City's ability to regulate that is relatively constrained, but we do have an
interest in aesthetics and making sure that any particular locations that would cause significant problems
are ones that are addressed. That's something the City is continuing to work on. We're anticipating a
revised wireless ordinance this year. The timing of the public health emergency has altered that
somewhat, but it will be coming forward. Finally, there are occasionally questions about placing
underground the existing power infrastructure. Obviously, if the poles on which these antennas are located
become were located underground, alternatives would have to be identified including single -use poles or
possibly integrating wireless infrastructure into City light poles,sometimes called smart poles, where you
can have various kinds of electronic infrastructure located within the diameter of a larger diameter of a
single pole that can accommodate things like the street light as well as wireless infrastructure, possibly
Wi-Fi. Different cities have taken different approaches to that. As we look at building facilities
underground, eventually that's the preference the City will be working on as part of its long -term master
planning.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Talin Aghazarian, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>You presented three design alternatives, are we considering those design alternatives or what's
submitted before us? (Aghazarian: We presented those design alternatives because we were asked to
present alternatives. However, we don't feel any other design is the least intrusive design. We feel the
design submitted to you with the long shroud is the least intrusive, but we did want to show you other
design alternatives.)
>Confirming that the long, single shroud that you said is under construction and not operational is the
one on Hillside Drive? (Aghazarian: That is correct.)
>So the design you're proposing for these have already been approved by the City Council for the
Hillside Drive site and on Winchester Avenue as well, correct? (Aghazarian: That is correct.)
Public Comments:
>E-mail from Frank and Birgit Dommen read into the record: My family and I are strongly opposed to
the wireless facility pole being proposed at 1505 Bernal. We are long-term residents of Burlingame, born
and raised here. Please note, we are strongly opposed to the plan of individual cellular companies, Crown
Castle and others competing for both new and proposed sites. The technology is new and a first
generation growth model. It is clear that each company would like to build out and build up as quickly as
possible to be the first to have 5G service available on a wide scale at any cost, including aesthetic and
without concern for safety. Without a grand scheme and plan on how this would look, we should not allow
piece meal planning for such a large and growing project. Burlingame does not need to be the first city to
see how ugly, how dense, and how toxic and cancerous these cell antennae will be. From a business and
profiteering standpoint, It makes sense for the cellular carriers to start with 1 or 3 requests for installation .
Then, as Burlingame accommodates these ugly antennae and poles, to add a few more, until the City is
littered with these poles. It is no secret that EACH company will be petitioning for 1,000 of towers. This is
unsightly and very shortsighted. Let's have the companies come to the table with a smarter picture and
plan. The first cell phones were carried in backpacks they were so large and heavy. These cell towers are
the model T, the 8-track, and VHS cassettes of yesteryear. Please request that a better version is
configured. We know that safety is completely disregarded, but health studies done by scientists not
funded by the wireless carriers are also necessary. Most work is published from base of pole, not where
antennae is located, second story bedroom window level heights. Europe is way ahead of us in this
respect.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Richard Chen and Amy Gao, 1506 Vancouver Avenue: Thank you for hearing our concerns about the
proposed new cell tower. I agree a lot with the prior comments. We live in close proximity to the proposed
new cell tower. I agree that the concerns are many. Aesthetics is one of them, but we want to reiterate
that we are concerned about the radio frequency radiation. I know this is something you're not allowed to
consider, but for the record, we would like to submit our opposition to this. Our concern is that this will
result in constant long-term exposure of adults and children living nearby to higher than normal RFR
levels. Neither of us are experts in this area, but we've been doing some reading on the risks. We're
particularly concerned as parents of two kids. What concerns us most is how much is not known about
the exposure risk and the exposure guidelines have been set very loosely without significant evidence as
far as we can tell. What's really disturbing is that there doesn ’t seem to be an overall consensus reached
about the overall risk for RFR exposure over the long term. The key here is because this is being put in a
residential area, very close to people living nearby and kids, the long -term exposure is what we're
concerned about. On the one hand, the NCI says there are no consistent evidence that this increases
cancer risk, but on the other hand, the WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has
classified RFR fields as possibly carcinogenic and the National Toxicology Program has concluded that
there's clear evidence that there are animals exposed to high levels of RFR, like those used in cell
phones, that have developed cancerous lesions, and there are studies that suggest that RFR exposure
may increase psychiatric problems as well. I think what is particularly concerning to us is the people living
on the second floor, the nearby houses where the exposure is going to be higher and that is a finding that
is consistent with the Hammett and Edison consultant hired by AT&T. They state, “on the ground the
maximum exposure is one percent of the public exposure limit .” But they also say that “the maximum
calculated value at the second floor of any nearby building is 2.4% of the public exposure limit .” To us,
it's 2.4 times more, that's where we are living and sleeping on the second floor of our houses more than 8
to 12 hours every day of every year. Over ten years, that's 35,000 hours of exposure. So that's 2.4% too
high given how little we really understand about the health effects from long -term exposure, and none of us
wants to be guinea pigs for this and for what, slightly better cell phone service? We actually had AT&T
service, and had reception in our house which is going to be 30 meters away from the cell phone tower, so
given that there's adequate service in this area, we feel like it's not worth the possible risk to us, our kids,
and our neighbors. We would like to state this for the record. I know we can't oppose this completely, just
based on RFR, but what I ask, is the design of what's being proposed minimize part of our exposure as
much as possible. For example, this may not be aesthetically pleasing, but can it be put higher because
our understanding is that the closer you are to the level of the actual radio frequency tower itself, meaning
elevation wise, the more exposure you get. That's what they found in this study as well. The two questions
I have are, can the design be optimized to reduce the exposure further than it has by putting it higher up?
Or can it be put in a different location away from houses?
>E-mail from Holli and John Rafferty read into the record: We live at 1408 Bernal Avenue and are
opposed to the cell tower at 1505 Bernal Avenue. We are concerned about the aesthetic, safety, and
health problems associated with these towers.
>Annette Doherty: I am very concerned that this is truly first generation 5G. And I know we're not
supposed to talk about the health complaints so I won't, but I do believe that it's very significant and
serious. However, can you please comment on the fact that the cell companies are going to be
competing? I saw your macro map. At the last meeting in December, they were talking about each cell
company putting up to 1,000 or more antennas because the area they covered was 700 to 1,000 feet
depending on trees and buildings and other structures. Can you explain how that would look in Burlingame
if we have 1,000 or so antennas per cell phone company? That seems littered with a lot of stuff in the air
that we don't know the health risk for, but it's going to be pretty darn ugly.
>Andrea Hutchison: I'm speaking in opposition to the locations. I'm particularly interested in 1480
Broadway only because for 1505 Bernal Avenue you have heard residents speak on that already. With
regard to 1480 Broadway, that's right near a high density of people. So we share all the concerns that our
friends and neighbors have expressed and I want to reiterate that as well since we're not represented here .
I did send an e-mail earlier on behalf of six other people who were a part of the Lincoln School District and
we live near Broadway. We're concerned with all the sites and we have kids that go to school near 1505
Bernal Avenue. I would like not to repeat what has been said, but build upon that. What I find concerning
here is there seems to be a lack of knowledge, understanding, confusion, and a failure of process where
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
lots of people want more information. We're not talking health. But the fact that there's a debate at all
means we should be advocating for more transparency and not less. I appreciate that this has been a
collaboration between AT&T and the commission for years. If it has been for years, why not wait just a
little longer so that more people can be informed. I haven't seen any notices in the mail when I'm next door
to the project site, or any forms of social media. I appreciate there's a process that I'm learning about
today where agenda items are posted. There's a circularity problem where you have to know of a problem
to go looking for it. There are many people who would be interested in learning more, but have no
knowledge of this. I love our Planning Commission process right now of sending a blue post card when my
neighbors want to build a second story. If we had this system in place, we could at least use something
like that to let our neighbors and small business owners know of what's happening. There is transparency
where if there is no concern for health or aesthetics, we would not be harmed in facilitating the sharing of
information, and the full voicing of people who would be impacted in actuality or either in perception by the
construction of the three additional sites. 1480 Broadway have the additional concerns that we suffer no
coverage concerns at all. I've lived here for 8 years. I wrote on behalf of people who have been here for
over a decade. We have no failure of cell phone reception. We still oppose any construction of new
technology. Technology can always improve. To stand on the shoulders saying we have something in
place, let's implement something else because it's there, that leads to a snow ball effect, where we're
suffering from misinformation, misunderstanding or a rushed process that could have been aired more in
the past. I think we can pause. This is a time where we should be hunkering down, and focusing on health
and our families and keeping our jobs, educating our kids and making sure our kids don't die because
they're launching themselves off of things because nobody is watching them. They're not in school. To
have something as impactful or controversial to slide through without the full airing is problematic because
this is a time where people have so little effort and energy and resources to educate themselves and I feel
like if it has been a long process, why not wait longer and let people speak and let people educate
themselves. I have more that's in my e-mail.
>Donielle Reynolds, 1413 Bernal Avenue: I'm speaking mostly about the 1505 Bernal Avenue site. I
was at the December Planning Commission meeting, and at that meeting we discussed the lack of
information in terms of data. I have AT&T and I don't have a lack of coverage and I'm very close to this
site. So I think at the end of the meeting, AT&T said they would provide more information. From what I'm
looking at, I have the one exhibit they provided. It has a green area for excellent data service, a yellow
area for acceptable and pink for poor data service. It also marks high wireless traffic areas with blue dots .
When I look at that, a large portion is pink. When you look at the three proposed sites and you look at
how much pink is out there, if they have this information, why are they not telling us the other locations
they intend to put these small cell sites? Why is there an absence of that? It doesn't make sense if
they're telling us they have these data points and this is the reason we need these, why only give us three?
From reading the report, it was saying the need for these is in part due to high wireless traffic areas which
are the blue dots. Specifically speaking to the 1505 Bernal Avenue site, if you look, it's really lacking in a
bunch of blue dots. I see blue dots in other areas, not around the 1505 Bernal Avenue. Why is it that this
1505 Bernal Avenue site is right next to the school, both schools as we have already discussed. So in
closing, I don't understand why they can't provide us with a more comprehensive plan in terms of where
these other sites are coming. Why can't they work with the other wireless companies and give Burlingame
a chance to understand what is really coming our way. Obviously we know why they're doing it. Why can't
we as residents and you as our Planning Commission have a stronger, firmer position on asking them to
come together to provide us with what it's ultimately going to look like.
>Hurin: From a staff's perspective, we want to provide a clarification on the noticing. We do notice all
tenants and property owners within 300 feet of each of these sites. We had notices sent out for this
meeting.
>JGraz. I've been a resident of Burlingame for 39 years and I have two small kids. I want to say how
opposed I am to all sites specifically 1505 Bernal Avenue. I don't see the need of this and I think the risk
involved far outweigh getting a slightly faster cell service. I very strongly oppose.
>Danielle Weil, 1463 Vancouver Avenue: I sent an e -mail and I just wanted to add my voice to the
meeting and what I actually am noticing. I hope the City Council and Planning Commission takes notice
of how many more people are at this meeting and voicing their concerns in regards to aesthetics and
health concerns. I know we can't address the health concerns. There's substantial increase in the number
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
of participants in this meeting in my perception from our December meeting. I think this is in part due
because we had two notices go out, so we had additional time for people to pay attention to these factors
and I suspect that should you do a community wide notice of what's going on in regards to how many sites
are planned, and if the cell companies gave us their plan, I think you would find more voices raising
concerns and opposition. I truly believe that so few people have been noticed about this because it
comes through mail that most of us don't pay much attention to it. I’m not seeing proponents of this. I
think the City Council and the Planning Commission would do a disservice to our community to ignore
these voices in this moment. I agree with all the conversations that have been had in saying that the cell
companies know where they want these. We're not getting the information about the need. I agree. I live
near the 1505 Bernal Avenue site. I do not need a better service. I'm comfortable and I'm talking to you on
Zoom. I do not have problems and they have not demonstrated the additional need in any way, shape or
form. Especially in this pandemic, I'm working from home and my husband and I are on Zoom and we're
in an area that supposedly needs better service. I think a lot of people at this meeting are saying the
same thing. We do not have a demonstrated need. We have cell companies telling us that there is an
increased need, but the community is not agreeing with it. We as a City and a community should come
together and ask for a citywide plan from the cell and telecom company. The City should wait, be prudent
and be appropriately engaged in a rollout that would be aesthetically pleasing to our community and will
offer greater understanding of what we're looking at.
>Aghazarian: I tried to take as many notes as I could, so I apologize if I didn't capture everything. I did
want to address Richard Chen ’s question on whether or not we could be located further away, and if we
could go taller. Regarding going further away, we did do a thorough site analysis where we did evaluate
other candidates in the area, and we found that the subject pole that we're going on is the most viable
location and the least intrusive. Going higher would not be optimal for being able to service the area .
Going too high then doesn't allow for the signal to get down onto the street level because these are low
powered facilities. The next question was talking about just the number of antennas that are going to be
coming into Burlingame. I certainly cannot speak on the volume of other carriers but I will tell you that for
our applications, we go through this process and we have been going through this process. We've had two
approved, we have these three, and then we have a total of 13 additional sites, nine of which are proposed
to be on City assets which we currently do not have an agreement with. The additional four are other utility
poles we just have not vetted or submitted applications for yet. So that is the foreseeable future. I cannot
respond to anything beyond that since that is the amount of sites that we have for now. I would also
address some of the questions in terms of the necessity, and the capacity. Going to the map that Donielle
Reynolds brought up, right now we are looking at these three locations and that is to help off load this one
particular sector of this macro facility where I showed that service area. These three small cells are
actually very well positioned because the site on Bernal Avenue currently has a low signal quality, so it
helps that. And then the two other locations are in high traffic areas which will help with the capacity off
load. And then we'll continue to provide additional service down to the pink areas. So it's both alleviating
the capacity that it's not so much you have service. There's traffic and congestion on this sector, and so
having these small cells help off load that congestion and capacity. And so that's really what these small
cells are helping with. Those are the main concerns. I don't know if Bill Hammett is available and wants to
address some of the health questions that were brought up. I know it's made clear for the FCC that certain
requirements and we have submitted the reports that show all three sites are well below the levels. Bill
may want to address anything that I may have missed as well.
>Bill Hammett: I was born and raised in Burlingame. I'm a registered professional engineer in the State
of California and manage a firm of 20 people. We're located in Sonoma County. Regular part of our
practice is the calculation and measurement of radio frequency exposure conditions. I've been an expert in
this field for 35 years and McGraw Hills published my book and we have evaluated over 20,000 sites. As
engineers, our job is really straight forward, what are the exposure levels, how do they compare to the
standards and we're hired by carriers, cities and landlords, just dealing with what are the numbers and how
do they compare to the standard. Our reports are an amount of record, one for each site. Your staff
mentioned them, CTC and its evaluation also concurred with our findings that indeed these sites will
comply with the federal standard as the City Attorney Kathleen Kane mentioned, that's the threshold
condition. If it meets those federal standards, then you're preempted by federal law from considering
health impacts as long as they do comply and of course they do comply. So that's why that issue is an
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
important one just to meet that threshold condition. A word about 5G since a number of residents
commented about 5G. What they're talking about is the millimeter wave, new frequency bands that the
government has opened up for high capacity, straight line data use. None of these three facilities is a
millimeter wave site. 5G is not coming in that fashion through these antennas. These antennas are using
4G frequency that are in active use today and can't accommodate due to the frequency difference. As
staff noted in the staff report, they would have to come back to the City at some time if they wanted to
add or change to the millimeter wave frequency. That's not on the table in any of these applications and
it's a misstatement to think that this is what it's about. I will note that the conditions of approval require
measurement of the exposure levels within 45 days of commencement and five years thereafter. You're
going to have a good record of the state of compliance of these facilities with the standards. Somebody
commented that this is first generation or the standards are not based on much information. In fact, the
standards have been around for decades and thousands of studies go into the standard setting bodies
when they look at what the science shows and adopts a standard. We're fortunate that last year, the IEEE
adopted a new standard and the FCC has updated its standard and the International Commission on
Radiation Protection also have updated their standard. So we have really current, good standards to work
from. The FCC has not tightened the standards because the science continues to show that the
standards are fully protective of human health. I'm happy to address any specific questions you might
have about this, but it's pretty settled science that these low level, low power facilities are just not an
issue.
>Annette Doherty: I'm wondering if the FCC has certain rules, and what I read was the RFR radiation
wasn't changed since 1996, because we test for different radiation here in the U .S. versus what's tested in
Europe. They don't look at temperature but they look at other things, I believe. I just wanted to point out
we do study different things, like if you look at a bee sting, you can look at the swelling, but you can look
at the toxins released in your system. In the United States we look at certain things when we look at radio
frequency because it's more profitable to ignore it. If the FCC has certain guidelines and people do start
seeing clusters of cancer, are we going to be able to sue AT&T for the medical treatment and for loss of
life? Is that going to be an option? (Hurin: Perhaps the City Attorney or Bill Hammett can respond to that .)
(Hammett: I'm happy to respond to the issue of Europe verses the U .S. In fact, the standards are virtually
identical in Europe and in the U .S. The scientists are looking at a worldwide set of data from thousands of
studies done over decades and they're drawing the same conclusions from them, that is why the standards
in the U.S. are the same as in Europe.)
>Andrea Hutchinson: I would like to add that I don't think we're going to get on the same page about
health here clearly, but this goes to the point that we shouldn't be rushing anything when we are sheltering
in place. This is my first meeting. I know the Planning Commission has provided notice 300 feet away
from each proposed site. I think the 1480 Broadway site probably doesn't get many residents at all. It
probably gets businesses that are closed because of shelter -in-place. Eighteen more sites are being
proposed and it seems like this is something people are going to be interested in, and they'll be many
people voicing similar concerns and we want to speak together. So maybe we should consider the sites at
once together.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Fully appreciate all of the public comments, appreciate the folks coming to the meeting. Just have to
repeat what I'm hearing for the record, that the state and federal laws states the wireless carriers are
allowed by right to build in the public right -of-way. I’m sorry to repeat all of this but wanted to convey that
our review and/or our purview is fairly limited to time, place and manner as we have discussed. We've been
reminded by the City Attorney that we cannot apply a different aesthetic requirement for these installations
that are before us this evening that was not applied to previous and similar applications that were allowed .
We've been reviewing these applications for apparently two plus years now. At the last meeting, we asked
our independent consultant to look into a few things for us and that included the review of these particular
installations. What we've seen in the staff report is that their assessment shows these are the least
intrusive installations that they consider possible. Our independent consultant has reviewed and verified
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the gap and service issue that we asked them to review at the last meeting. Therefore, don ’t see any
grounds for denial other than a nod for the sentiment that we don't want this. That sentiment may be fairly
strong in a number of our citizens, but that flies in the face of what is allowed by right for this or any other
applicant for that matter. Not sure if any particular mechanism under the tenets of our federal, state and
local government structures to compel or demand or require that the cell companies cooperate and
therefore inform us as to some master plan for all of these installations unless there's a specific statute in
that regard that we can reference and therefore require them to do so. Appreciate the forthcoming nature
of the applicant tonight in explaining what they have planned for the future. But we are not engineers, we've
said it before. We as a body, as commissioners, we don't have the expertise in these particular
installations. It's a little bit out of our wheelhouse in terms of what we typically review, but with that said,
we've asked for consulting and that independent consultant has told us that these are likely the best
installations possible to meet the needs of the applicant for what they put forward for something that we
are required to process. So therefore, can't see grounds for denial of these applications.
>After speaking to some people yesterday and today about this application in the neighborhood, they
said they got these notices a couple of years ago. They thought it was going to be done because they are
AT&T customers don't have good service. One resident who lives directly across the street he couldn't
wait for this to be done. When an application comes in and people see it, it will automatically go through,
and unfortunately what we see at these meetings are the people who are opposed to things, and it's not
just with the phones. It's with houses and designs of buildings as well. The City Attorney made clear to us
what our limitations are and what we can and can't do, so our hands are tied. There is a demand that
people have, and that's for cell service. AT&T is meeting that demand, and the designs they put up are
much more streamlined and much better looking than what we have seen in the past. They've come a long
way, and we need to reach toward them too to make this all work. Some things that came up in the
presentation by the AT&T representative, can be attested to the fact when designers ask clients where
they want their phone jacks to be located, the clients have no clue. It is because people don't have
landlines anymore. This is where people are going, there's a demand and AT&T is meeting it and so are
the other cell phone companies. In support of this application because this is a reasonable application,
we've seen enough evidence that leaves us to believe that they are safe and aesthetically we have done as
best we can and so has AT&T.
>Was hoping he would say that we can only act on the project that's in front of us. We can't act on a
project that hasn't been put forward like thousands of cell towers that people have mentioned. That is pure
speculation. What we have in front of us are three cell towers and that is all we can act on.
>Agree with what's been said so far. This is an incredibly frustrating process for us because we have a
significant section of our community that's very upset about this application and opposed to it, but to say
our hands are tied would be understating where we are on this. My fellow commissioner has laid out pretty
well what the applicant needs to do to gain support on this project, and really our only area of discretion on
this is aesthetic. This design has been approved by the City Council already. It seems like no grounds on
which we could oppose this application, and don't see how we could do it. So we don ’t have any choice but
to support it.
>In terms of commenting on the aesthetics and looking at the three alternatives that were presented
this evening, none of those alternatives are better than what we're seeing. In other words, alternative
number one where the shroud is split into two smaller pieces, adds more clutter to the pole. Taking these
things off and putting them on an independent pole with a large pedestal on the bottom is not a better
solution either.
>Our hands are tied, we don't have a choice. We all understand the sentiment of our neighbors and
what their concerns are. We really don't have any other options. So we have to move this forward.
>Visited the site on Hillside Drive today. In looking at how the color blended in with the pole, it looks far
better than the three poles on either side of it with all of the other things that are being attached. It seems
that they are doing the best they can to hide the equipment. And it's better than a lot of the other
equipment that's already on those poles now. Don't think we have a lot that we can do to regulate the
aesthetics of those poles.
>Can we make one motion to approve all three of these applications at once? How do you want to do
that? (Hurin: Yes. If the same motion applies to all three sites, then one motion can be made.)
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lofits, to approve Regular
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Action Items 8d1, 8d2 and 8d3. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.818 Acacia Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for an
attached garage and direct exit from a basement for a new, two -story single family
dwelling and attached garage. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect;
Karen and Eric Jue, property owners) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
818 Acacia Dr - Staff Report
818 Acacia Dr - Attachments
818 Acacia Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi, provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>You had commented that you're envisioning the carport as an extension of the open porch in trying to
make the findings for the attached garage. Did you consider literately making that carport an extension of
the porch architecturally? The porch is rather tall, it appears to be at a 9’- 6” plate height, correct? (Bittle:
That's correct.)
>If the porch is at a 9’-6” plate height, that's a really tall porch particularly for a lot of the traditional
neighborhoods in Burlingame which are usually have low slung porches. If that porch plate height was
brought down, it may be possible to integrate the carport as an extension of that porch if the architecture
were reworked. Did you consider that as a possibility? (Bittle: Yes. On two fronts, we wanted to make the
porch prominent relative to the garage or attached parking. The 9’-6” plate height seems like a generous
plate height, we pushed the finished floor of that main floor down significantly relative to the adjacent
houses. In terms of height, I can't give you the exact porch height relative to the ones on either side, but
our ridge height and our second floor plate heights are pretty much right on the same level as the adjacent
homes. The existing house has seven steps to the entry door. With our grading to the back and trying to
get rid of that slope a little bit, we were able to pull that down, so the scale is in line with the adjacent
homes.)
>There are things happening on the other properties that aren't happening here in terms of the
topography. Some of the adjacent properties that have attached garages where the house sort of climbs
up and over, perhaps, even in split level fashion, they have the grade that's working for them, and that's
another reason they have to step up so high to the first floor. Trying to make the findings for the attached
garage and so trying to find some architecture that can make that work.
>On your detail on A5, that's the only indication where the siding is shown and says "shingle siding see
elevations". Is that going to be wood shingles or a hardy product? (Bittle: It's going to be wood shingle,
stained with a 5-inch exposure to keep a traditional proportion. That's the reason why we provided the
rendering to show a semi-transparent stain.) It looks to be wood. but wanted to verify because I didn't see
it noted.
>For the next meeting, please clarify some of the sizes of the trims around the windows. They look like
they're proportional, but I want to make sure it's clearly noted. (Brittle: Excluding the corner window, we're
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
working with a 3 1/2” to 4-1/2” actual width trim with a sill and apron of 1-1/2" on the side.) The thickness
would be deeper than the shingles when they're applied? (Bittle: Definitely. One of the things that's not
captured on the window penetrations on the rendering is there will be more recess and depth, probably at
least 1-1/2" - 2" on the exterior windows and doors.)
>It's a traditional craftsman looking neighborhood on both sides of the street. Really love this block
and a lot of those homes have a lot of the eave details that you have incorporated here too. On this
rendering, you only have the one beam at the peak of the gable. Would you consider putting more around
the house to tie it in with the other houses in the neighborhood? (Bittle: That's a good point. We're trying to
give a hint of leaning towards the style of the adjacent homes, but the clients are leaning more towards a
contemporary design. So we're trying to keep the design fairly clean with square rafter tails.)
>What is the width of the second floor fireplace chimney on the front elevation? (Bittle: The flue exterior
is approximately 3' x 3'.)
>Can you explain the reason behind the carport versus an actual garage? (Bittle: The reason for the
carport is to try to reduce the massing. We're trying to make this more visually interesting than seeing
garage doors. That's one of the reasons for the increased setback, which is a typical zoning parameter
across multiple jurisdictions. It's just trying to make it feel secondary without having the feel of another set
of doors right up against them. It lends itself more to how the house and adjacent houses currently
operate in terms of their parking, we're not trying to hide that it's a garage that's used as storage. It's
literately parking.)
>Driving along that street and even on to the next block, there appears to be a number of properties
that have a gate in the area approximately where the front of the carport is, which seems to suggest some
transition of private space to public space. Was there any thought about adding a gate at the front of the
carport? (Bittle: We haven't discussed this in depth besides the idea of it being open. I've walked up and
down the streets here and have taken a look at the aerials to look at the houses that do have the gates
that you're talking about in the driveways. On the 800 block, there's one house that has a useable and
actual garage beyond that driveway. The rest are landscaping or there's no longer an accessory structure
beyond that. It's something we could probably look at. We are trying to break down this idea of private
space and public space, especially on this street with how engaged the neighborhood is, how engaged the
homeowners are with their neighbors. They don't see the need of putting up that barrier especially with the
kids and being open to the public realm.)
>On the left elevation, where there's a side entrance to a mud room, did you think of putting some type
of roof overhang or weather protection outside that door? (Bittle: We view that side as a secondary use
and to be honest, it's likely more of a future dog run access point than the primary one which is on the
opposite side, the most southern exposure side of the house with the light well.)
>Had this same reaction to the front porch, particularly after seeing the rendering, even more so in that
elevation. Is that front door an 8' door? (Bittle: I believe it's a 9' door.) Understand that you're looking at the
higher plate heights and heard what you said about lowering the floor height, but still have a concern about
that higher plate and how that's going to fit into the neighborhood. Hearing that it's a 9' door, that actually
gives me a lot of concern of how that's going to fit, particularly with the older homes there. An 8' door is
pretty tall relative to what you see traditionally in these older neighborhoods. Most of the newer homes
aren't going to have more than an 8' door. If you were to look at an 8' door, you would be able to lower the
beam height on that porch, and maybe not tie it into the carport as my fellow commissioner was
suggesting, but definitely lower the scale more and have it feel less tall. If you could look at that, that
would be great.
Public Comments:
> Comment submitted via e -mail by Robert and Sandra Brisby, 824 Acacia Drive: My wife and I
have owned our home at 824 Acacia Drive for 47 years and are neighbors of Eric and Karen June. Eric
and I met recently to review their plans for a new home. Their new home is well designed and will be a
complement to the existing traditional single family homes in the neighborhood. My wife and I
wholeheartedly endorse this project.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The application includes a request for a special permit for the direct exit from a basement. Recall
reviewing a change to this requirement related to changes in the ADU ordinance, but can't remember what
the outcome of that was. (Hurin: Updates to the ADU regulation included eliminating the special permit
requirement for direct exits from basements. However, changes to the ADU ordinance have not yet been
adopted, so a special permit is still required in this case.
>Overall really like the design. It has a richness of detail and a massing and articulation that is going to
look good in this neighborhood. Not sure about the special permit for the attached garage, so would like
to hear what the other commissioners think. Regarding the front of the house, really wanted to reiterate the
comments about the front door and those sliders on the porch. Believe that 9' is out of scale of the
neighborhood, and if it's built like that, we'll really notice it and it won't be in the scale of the other houses
there. Also the second floor windows above it have the same kind of scale that should be looked at as
well.
>The renderings are helpful in being able to better visualize the design of the house, it has helped me
to appreciate the design of the project more. I do feel that the front porch and front door, as has been
discussed, is too tall. To improve the approach to the house and provide a more welcoming mass to the
front of the house, it could be shortened to better accommodate that intent. The chimney also seems
really deep and massive. The renderings don't look at that perspective from the left side, guessing that the
intent is to look like a real chimney that's existed for many decades, but wondering if you want to take a
look at that. Again, it looks fairly heavy and massive on the left side.
>Regarding the special permit for the attached garage, since the location is set back from the front of
the house, can see more of an actual garage going there instead of a carport, and maybe some
enhancements to the roof profile, the face of the garage wall or the carport wall. There could be some
improvements there to tie it in a little bit better with the front of the house. Give it a little bit of
accentuation.
>As it was pointed out earlier, that secondary dog run exit along the left side of the house could benefit
from having weather protection over that door which is also quite tall.
>The roof over the stairwell needs something or it's looking for some kind of accent, needs some
interest over it. It's not a deal -breaker, but it looks like it could be a little bit more pronounced or have a
little bit more richness in detail, especially with the double set of nice windows there at the stairwell.
>When you look at the project it's well designed, but I am having difficulties in context of the
neighborhood. Regarding the attached garage, we're required by the design review guidelines to consider
the garage pattern of the neighborhood. Often times in these situations, one of the metrics we use are
literately the number of attached garages versus detached garages on a particular block. Walking the
neighborhood revealed there's approximately 16 to 18 detached garages of the 28 that are on the two sides
of this block. Now, there may not be a garage down a driveway that there once was on some of those
houses, but we have the pattern that the design guidelines encourage being housed with a long driveway
along one side with the parking to the rear. Our design guidelines favored detached garage which is why
we have a special permit for attached garages. In looking at this one, fully understand the argument we're
being asked to consider, but can't personally get there in terms of the design of the other houses in the
neighborhood. Several of the up-sloping lots have attached garages that fit nicely under the living area
that climbs up and around them. The applicant has made the argument that they've put a second floor up
over the garage similarly, but it's not quite the same because you don't have that sort of split level feel,
and what we really have is a two -story house with portions of living area that are above a carport or
something that might be an attached garage. Having difficulty in making the findings for the attached
garage for those reasons.
>In terms of design review, agree with the statement that this is the nicer blocks in all of Burlingame in
terms of the collection of nicely crafted older bungalow or craftsman -style homes. The project, although it
may be well-crafted and proportioned in the context of the neighborhood, and may look like a craftsman or
a bungalow, it's going to look like it's on steroids because it's overly tall with a porch with tall window and
doors. I'm concerned with the general pattern and massing of the project as a whole. The attached garage
needs to be revisited. In order to make the findings, the massing, the size scale of the front porch and the
Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
overall details in general need to be revisited from a design review standpoint.
>Like the carport and wonder why there aren't more carports as a sort of "non-garage" garage. It's a
bigger philosophical discussion, but the detached garage requirement in the city is really nice to provide
some breathing room between homes. But what it does is it provides a driveway. Almost no one uses their
garages. They park on the street and park in their driveways and the garages are full of junk and wouldn't
expect this carport to fill up with junk. Certainly like the carport, but going to have to rethink the whole
notion of the attached garage. Do agree with the issues of scale that the porch feels like the pants on the
building are pulled up too high. It throws the proportion off and the windows get bigger. So all of that needs
to be revisited. Having said all that, like the building in a lot of ways. There's a lot recommended and
would like to see it massaged so that it works more in keeping with the guidelines.
>In walking the block, I was surprised to see carports. They were on the other side of the street, but
they sort of fit that craftsmanship -style. Was intrigued to see a carport here. However, it's integrated with
the front of the building well, so the comments about the front porch coming down, are well substantiated .
If the roof of the porch can be brought around and tie it with the garage by lowering the porch it would fit in
very nicely. I agree with the comments about the heights of the doors and the windows. A 5'-3" tall window
on the second floor with an 8" plate height only leaves 2'-9", the windows seem a little bit tall there.
>Regards the special permit for the stairs coming from the basement, I am typically against those, but
with the recent changes in our code and where we're going with the ADUs, I felt compelled to accept this
one. Typically see these stairs come straight out along the side of the house, this comes up to a landing
and turns and it goes back towards the center of the patio in the back, and that's going to be helpful with
the noise factor and the use of it. It's not going to be necessarily something that is going to be separate
from the backyard. It's incorporated into the backyard and that's a good design.
>Like the idea of the open carport. It's different and there are attached garages on this block more so
than on most blocks. The point is well taken that some are on the up -sloping lots, but if it's done well, the
carport could really look nice on this.
>Like the design of the home. The craftsman style fits well in that location. The first floor plate height
is too tall and would like to see that scaled down. Have no problems with the carport because there are
other homes that have carports in that area. Also, looked at the attached garages in that area, there's a
number of them so I am not concerned about that. Don't have a problem with the basement stairs, but the
first floor plate height needs to come down just a little bit. Those front doors are just a little too tall for this
house, but overall like the design of the house and it will fit well in the neighborhood.
>It may sound contrary to what was said before, but I was intrigued by the comments from the architect
that they were trying to make the carport an extension of the porch. The problem is that it doesn't do that,
and when pressed on that there seemed to be some reluctance to head in that direction. Again, if the
carport were an extension of the porch, almost as if it looked like a wrap around porch and it could be
integrated, whether it's a carport or a garage, it might be better architecture. Would be open to considering
that. But with the massing and the confluence of the other issues, it's not doing that at this point.
>Also think that the building is too tall. Also wanted to qualify again the findings for the attached
garage or carport. A number of properties in the neighborhood have gates that are at the very front of the
driveway or near the front of the homes and that in essence is adding to the mass of the house. Being
realistic in thinking about how one can use the space. Would appreciate someone parking in the area,
than to park on the street or to have to go to the very bottom of their property to park and then walk with
their groceries up to the front of the house. But in thinking about this carport or garage and how it may
develop, one thing to think about is just the fact that people often put storage items in a garage and in
carports. If you do tie in the carport or garage with the front porch, would ask that you consider another
area for storage of secondary items that don't have to be in a storage room and aren't exposed to the
street. It could be at the back behind the carport closer to the pantry.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
>Bittle: There was one comment for staff to clarify regarding the contextual setback of garages, want to
see if they can clarify. We look at our side of the street to determine the contextual setback. How is using
the opposite side of the street helpful? That comment was in the past, so it's probably not applicable .
(Hurin: If this is regarding the average front setback, we base it on the front setback of the existing
Page 19City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
homes on the subject property side of the street.)
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
>It sounded to me like the architect was asking because we previously made the point that we were
counting the carports on the block similar to what we've done in the past. This is not in the zoning code
and it's not a requirement, but we considered both sides of the street. If we want to make some
clarification as to what we would consider, that's more of us as a body as to what we would consider in
terms of the number of attached garages versus detached garages on the street or in this neighborhood .
(Hurin: That's correct. There's no code requirement or nothing else that staff bases it on. That's your
decision as you look at it as a body.)
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Tse, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
b.1536 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. (Jack Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc .,
applicant and designer; Michael Glynn, property owner) (112 noticed) Staff Contact:
Michelle Markiewicz
1536 Howard Ave - Staff Report
1536 Howard Ave - Attachments
1536 Howard Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Chair Comaroto noted that she had a conversation with
the property owner less than a year ago about the project. Commissioner Sargent noted that he spoke to
the neighbor to the left of the property. Commissioner Gaul also noted that he spoke with the neighbor
across the street at 1541 Howard Avenue about the project.
Planning Manager Hurin, provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>When this project comes back for action, can we request that half size drawings be provided as
opposed to these 11” x 17” size sheets? (Hurin: We can work with the designer to get the proper size
plans submitted.)
>Not that this project is considered a historic home, isn't this in a district where we are required to have
a historical report? (Hurin: Correct. The report was prepared, but may not have been included in your
packet. It will be provided to you for the next meeting. The report came back that this property is not
eligible for listing in the California or National Register.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Barry Brown and Jack Chu, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Can you tell us which takes precedence, the rendering or the drawings that we're looking at? There are
a number of details that are inconsistent between the two. (Brown: Well, as far as the conceptual design,
it's represented with the rendering. In working together with the architect, we're building the design
development package to be in sync with each other.)
Page 20City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Some of the comments will then be based on the rendering in comparison to the drawings. One of the
things that seem to be inconsistent is the window muntin patterns. There's a range of patterns and styles
shown on the front elevation and around the house. Please clarify your intent with those muntin patterns .
(Brown: We are looking at using a fiberglass window product that has a variety of different configurations
in a black color. As far as the consistency, the design team can work together to come up with a
consistent window theme that matches both the conceptual and the design development drawings.)
>Is there a landing outside the entry to the mud room? It seems like the mud room is at the same floor
level as the entry foyer, but the foyer is five steps above grade, not sure what's happening on the side
elevations. (Brown: The finished floor is roughly 18” or so above the grade in the front. There was a slight
difference between the front elevation and the rear elevation, but not very much. So you're probably
correct, there should be one or two steps off the mud room to meet the finish grade of the driveway there.)
>There are a number of drafting inconsistencies that need to be addressed.
>What roofing materials are you using, shingle or sheet metal standing seam like what was shown in
the renderings? (Brown: It's a conceptual rendering. The design is an asphalt shingle roof style.) Is it
throughout? (Brown: Yes.)
>Is the horizontal siding going to be a Hardie board or wood? Are you going to do corner board trims
as shown in the elevations? (Chu: It will be Hardie board siding with corner boards; the corner boards will
be lighter color than the Hardie board siding.)
>Are you proposing cable wire railings at the front and on the rear deck? (Brown: Those are actually a
horizontal steel balcony railing, not cable steel. So it will be a metal product throughout.)
>It looks like the front room roof goes up then goes back down and drains into the second floor just
past the first chimney. Are you concerned about water or leaves getting trapped there? The applicant
should consider that and when the project returns they can come up with an answer. (Brown: Is the
concern water dropping from the second story roof onto the first level roof above the living room area? We
expect that the final design will include rain gutters at least at the lower level, if not both upper and lower
level.) If the ridge is at the middle of the chimney, there's probably three or four feet of sloped roof going
back into the building. Usually you're sloping away rather than sloping into. (Hurin: The applicant can take
that into consideration as part of your comments.) (Brown: To clarify the comment, you're concerned with
the water flowing to the back of the chimney?) Where the circular window is located, there's going to be a
V-groove where leaves and water are going to get trapped. (Brown: The design team and the owner can
think about reconfiguring that to avoid that type of water entrapment against the building. )
>What is the plate height on the front porch? (Chu: The plate height of the front porch is 9'-5 ".)
>How is the second floor siding configured? Is it 1" x 2" battens over Hardie sheets? It looked just like
horizontal lap siding turned vertical. (Brown: It's a traditional board and batten siding where the vertical
board is 8“, 10", 12" wide and the battens are the 3 1/2" wide vertical pieces that cover the seam between
the boards.) Please clarify the size of the battens and how far apart they are when it comes back for
review.
>There are inconsistencies between the renderings and the elevations, specifically the exterior sidings .
What's the reasoning behind changing the direction of the siding to the board and batten on the upper
floor? (Brown: It adds a more contemporary line to what is generally somewhat of a traditional and maybe
less interesting building style. You'll see this in many California contemporary styles. It's a mixture of
horizontal and vertical to accentuate certain aspects of the massing of the house and to add a bit of
variety.) Please clarify and tighten up the differences on the rendering versus the elevations.
>Is there a way that you can bring the chimney up at the family room and make it look like a traditional
chimney? (Brown: I believe that ’s a direct vent.) In my opinion, it looks like it has just been cut off and
there's no reason you couldn’t bring that chimney up through the eve and direct vent it straight up.
>There's a detail for boxed eave, are the eaves going to be boxed in? (Brown: Yes, it is going to be a
boxed eave.) Your elevations are showing rafter tails all around, so that's going to change the look of the
house. If you can clean that up, that would be helpful.
>What material would you be using for the driveway? (Brown: We're thinking of a concrete paver that's
set in a sand base to allow for some pervious drainage, and to have concrete poured to create a feel of a
broken up plaza on the side of the house.) It would be helpful if you specify that in your drawings.
>Would like to clarify something with staff because we're talking about the rendering not matching the
plans. Is it correct to assume that unless they're included in the plans with a page number it's not a part of
Page 21City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the plans, therefore it's not going to be included in the building permit set and as part of the approved
plans? When you're coming back out to verify at the end of the project, that what's been built matches
what we approved, you're going to be looking at the plans and not the rendering, right? So what they want
to do needs to be on the plan. (Hurin: Yes, that's correct. We need to ensure that the building elevations
are correct. The renderings are helpful to visually show what the house will look like in terms of mass and
bulk. However, what ultimately gets approved are the building elevations. The renderings should be
consistent or should match the building elevations.)
>What is the size of the balcony at the rear of the house? (Chu: That balcony is 4' x 28'.)
>The stone veneer at the left side elevation looks out of place, so maybe you can look at that. (Brown:
Are you talking about the stone itself or the pattern?) It is in the middle of the wall and I don't see the
purpose of it being there. It looks a little odd.
>You should take a look at your left elevation window sill heights. Your floor plan shows the washer and
dryer up against the window. That laundry room window sill height seems very low and might need to be
addressed together with the family room next to it.
>Is there a flat area in front of the stairwell window with the roof wrapping around? (Brown: There should
be a flat area, with a minimum slope.)
>The second floor plan is missing part of the first floor roof lines.
Public Comments:
>Audrey Gustafson, 1540 Howard Avenue: I would like to request updated drawings and access to the
rendering, am specifically concerned with the window alignment.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>This feels like a half-thought building. There are too many things that don't make sense and don't
seem right. It starts with the rendering not matching the elevations, the muntins and the siding. Is it
vertical? Is it horizontal or does it have battens? Or is it turning on its side? What looked like cable railing
felt out of place. Have seen cable railing porches we have approved recently that don't fit, and the cable
rails don't fit this kind of architecture. What kind of architecture is this? It has a patina of traditional
architecture, but it's not traditional architecture. This is a candidate for a design review consultant for all
the many reasons that all of us have pointed out as we have discussed it and asked questions of the
applicant.
>Adding issues are the porch height, resolving the siding and the window issues. The box eave would
be a real mistake on a project like this. The exposed rafter tails help with the detailing and the scale on
the project. The roof issues need to be resolved. All in all, it's a good candidate for the design review
consultant process.
>Also want to add about the design that the back deck needs to be pulled in on both sides. It's not
useable space and it's creating a viewing platform into the neighboring properties which is pretty clear in
our design guidelines that it's not encouraged. The rail detail needs to be looked at as well.
>Regarding the rear balcony, at four feet deep, what is that really doing stretching across the entire
back of the house? There's really no place to put furniture on it. The applicant mentioned that it serves as
some form of shade for the lower floor, but it's not really tied in well with that multi -panel patio door below .
Either that can get its own roof line over it or get some other accentuated feature.
>Also need to look at the left side elevation. It just seems long, expansive and plain, it needs to be
broken up a little bit.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer this
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
c.30 Ingold Road, zoned RRMU - Application for Environmental Scoping, Design Review,
Page 22City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Density Bonus, Approval of Community Benefit Bonuses, and Vesting Tentative Parcel
Map for a new seven-story, 298-unit mixed-use development. (SummerHill Apartment
Communities, Elaine Breeze, applicant and property owner; Studio T Square, Inc ., Chris
Lee, architect) (89 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
30 Ingold Rd - Staff Report
30 Ingold Rd - Attachments
30 Ingold Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioners Loftis, Sargent, Comaroto and Terrones
noted that they each separately had a virtual meeting with the applicant. Commissioner Gaul noted that he
had met with the applicant on site.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi, provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Our packet shows the allowable use is for a mixed -use development. When we talk about live -work,
do we have any standard for how much space should be allotted for livable space and for work or
commercial or retail space? (Kolokihakaufisi : This development isn't live -work, it's a multi-family
residential.) Even more specifically, we're saying mixed -use, so how much of a mix do we need? (Hurin:
There is no minimum requirement. Stand alone multi -family residential is allowed and the reason we're
saying it is mixed -use is because there's a commercial component on the ground floor that is part of the
project which measures approximately 4,000 square feet.)
>On page 5 of the staff report, where it talks about the permitting of the total number of units for the
application of a density bonus, the number of calculations comes out to 223.72 units, does that roundup
to 224 units or you have to round down because it's less than a whole? (Kolokihakaufisi: It rounds down.)
>What schools would residents in this building is zoned for? (Hurin: We would have to check with the
school district to see where the district boundaries are. We don't have that information tonight.)
>With the increased number of potential pedestrians walking from the Millbrae BART station and
Caltrain station towards this property, is there any requirement on the City side or any agency to increase
the lighting and safety measures along Rollins Road? (Hurin: Yes, the Public Works Division has lighting
requirements. The applicant may already be working Public Works on that and perhaps they can provide
some additional information. There may be some lighting requirements and lighting may need to be
upgraded in this area for this project.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Chek Tang and Elaine Breeze represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>(Breeze: I want to address the question about the street lighting. At the request of Public Works, we
are doing a street light study right now from the project site to the Burlingame - Millbrae border, on the
western side of Rollins Road, to identify if there are low levels. We'll be working with Public Works to see
if there are any upgrades that need to be done.)
>Appreciate the architecture, as mentioned before during the preview, it has a certain dignity, calmness
to it and is well organized. You might want to take a look at the entry to the garage along Ingold Road, to
visually narrow that 35 foot wide gap down on the pedestrian area. It would be helpful to maybe reduce the
scale of the garage. Similarly, on the Rollins Road side garage, there is a 28 foot opening toward the
garage portion with an 8 foot portion for the pedestrian to come out of that garage. If you can revisit that to
see how the garage opening can be visually minimized with some architectural detail and on a pedestrian
scale, even if it's a visual.
Page 23City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>When this project comes back for review, would like to request if we can discuss the redwood plaza
further and make sure we make that a good amenity along Ingold Road for the neighbors, as well as the
residents to enjoy because that is one of the community benefits.
>There is seating being planned around the grove of trees at the redwood plaza area. Is that seating
intended to face the street or face the building? (Tang: It will be facing the street. Some of the seating is
up against the building but facing the street.) (Breeze: You probably noticed this at the site, but the
redwood trees are elevated in their existing conditions, so we're going to put in a new sidewalk so they'll be
a low retaining wall that will act as a seatwall that will provide a planter for the redwood trees, it goes
around both stands of trees. It’s a retaining wall doubling as a seatwall as well. So there's going to be a
seatwall around each cluster of trees and in addition, there will be both tables and chairs. We'll bring this
back with some more exhibits, but also modular seating, like hangout seating; this is consistent with the
code. There will be bike racks, trash receptacles and proper lighting, so there will be an indoor /outdoor
relationship between the community spaces and the redwood trees, which I think will be a unique setting .
And there's resident access at that point. We'll do an elevation and provide more detail. That's the vision
right now.)
>Next to the Wi-Fi lounge is bike storage, is that correct? One of the two bike storage areas? (Breeze:
Correct.) Is that bike storage accessed from the redwood plaza or from inside the building? (Tang: It's
secure inside the building. It's easily accessible from the outside to the lobby.) Then the secondary one is
nearby as well, close to the park? (Tang: Correct.) Again, access to that is on the corner in that orange
corridor? (Tang: Yes.) Was there any thought or study about locating at least one of the bike storage
areas closer to the northeast portion of the site so that you can get closer to the multi -modal station or
closer to Rollins Road? (Breeze: There was definitely thought of it. We are constrained, working the trash
logistics did dominate how that far northeast corner navigated.) (Tang: It's a balance of different things
and we tried to group a lot of the service stuff right there in that corner, that way it keeps the rest of the
urban edges clean.) (Breeze: That is because they didn't want trash pickup on Ingold Road.) What are
those gray spaces just north of the commercial space? (Tang: They are electrical /utility rooms. There are
two transformers in front of it, so we had a pretty sizable electrical room there.) (Breeze: We could
probably look at a smaller component. We might be able to fit a few bikes over there. I'm happy to look
at a small component.) (Tang: Looking at the plans right now, at the second floor of the garage there's a
storage area right by the elevator. We can look for an opportunity to get some bike racks up above.)
>Looking at the fitness area, which has that great corner view, I'm worried about safety with expensive
fitness equipment being exposed behind big, tall glass walls like that of a store advertising, waiting for
someone to break in and steal. Maybe that should be on another level too, not just on the ground floor
level for better safety and protection. (Tang: Actually there's a second level. There's a little level above the
ground floor. You can see a set of stairs that goes up the mezzanine level that's accessible on the
second floor. But I think we actually do quite a bit of these workout rooms to activate the street because
people do workout all hours of the day and night. It's a good way to activate the ground floor.) In terms of
seeing activity inside the building? (Tang: Correct.) Can't help but think about the safety issues. This is a
different site than Adrian Court site. On Adrian Court, the other side has sidewalks; it's mostly one story
office spaces, whereas this street has no sidewalks on the other side with lots of warehouse, very
industrial type spaces. Again, it feels dangerous at night, like lots of quiet, dark spaces that people could
hide in and such, not sure if you can do anything about that. I'm sure you'll have lighting at least on your
side of the street. Just worried about the park at night when it is dark and there are places for people to
hide. (Breeze: Good question. So that area of the street we have studied and we are adding street lights
and it will light the entire street, it's not just our side of the street. So the lighting levels along Ingold Road
will be increased and the City has criteria for park lighting that we would implement as well. Those have
been taken into account in the project design. The sidewalk on the other side is somebody else's
property, but we're going to improve the crosswalk if you're going from the project, south towards
Broadway. We're going to be reconstructing the ADA ramps and putting in a piano key crosswalk which
would tie in to the site across the street. Where we can, we're identifying and trying to help those aspects.)
>Are you making the sidewalk wider along Rollins Road? (Breeze: Yes, in both cases. So the existing
sidewalk on both streets is five feet wide. There's going to be a five -foot planter on Rollins Road and a 10
-foot sidewalk after that. That public ramp is 15 feet. On Ingold Road, we have a four -foot planter strip and
a six-foot sidewalk. The street trees get planted in between the sidewalk and the curb.)
Page 24City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>You have 30 or 40 EV (electrical vehicle) parking spaces in the garage. (Tang: Yes, at 10% we have
35 stalls. So it's split between the first level and the second level.) Is there a way to expand on that as
more and more cars go electric? (Breeze: The 10% is where Cal Green is right now. We can look at it .
We're always balancing electric loads and demand. It's something we can look at and come back on with
additional thoughts.) Is the intention right now is that you would park there temporarily until you're charged
and you go into your assigned space so those approximately 30 spaces are open? They're not like
overnight parking where someone would be stuck without a charge? (Breeze: No. They would be assigned
to a resident. We'll have a managed parking program so everyone is assigned one spot at a minimum .
The property management team would identify who has electric cars and those would be the people
assigned those spots. We really haven't seen demand for close to 10% yet. But we would be able to
accommodate 10% of the spaces with EV charging.) It would be a good idea to have that ability for
someone who just happens to have rented an electric car or borrowing a friend's car that's electric and
needing to charge and there's space not being assigned to them. (Tang: We do have three slots in the
commercial spaces open to the public. It's probably short -term even though a lot of people take up those
spaces.) Thinking more for the residents that they might need to charge and then move into their parking
space. So is that accessible to the residents? (Breeze: That's something we can look at.)
>Sharing your belief that the success of architecture like this depends on the urban design situation
that you either find yourself or create yourself. One thing you have done really well is you have created this
fantastic urban design using the architecture that makes the architecture work. So what's really interesting
is to make this architecture work in an urban situation in a place like this, you have to create your own
urban design, your own location for this stuff to make this happen, which you've done a really good job at.
>The other thing to note in this area is that green space is in short supply. The landscaping you've
brought to the situation is really nice. Is there a way to bring the presence of the green space, the redwood
plaza and then the City park in the back, all the way up to the front at Rollins Road by enhancing the
green at the corner right at the leasing plaza? Is it possible to bulb out that corner and create some
additional green space that will give Ingold Road a thicker and more robust green edge all the way to the
park in the back? Like the fact that you have gone out of your way to plant trees in the front, you planted
the edge and you created a big sidewalk, and all of that is just fantastic as a self -created situation for this
building to sit. But the weak spot to me is that corner at the leasing plaza. (Tang: I think that's where the
derivation of that mid -block plaza because it's a very busy corner. Without some protection or some
setback, you feel like its not very comfortable sitting on that corner. So from an urban design point of
view, it comes back to us to have a building occupy that corner and having a mid -block plaza where the
activities can filter into a more protected plaza area.) I can see that argument. It feels more like taking
advantage of an existing situation. You had redwood trees and you're not going to chop them down despite
the fact that redwood trees have no reason being in this part of the country, they belong in coastal
highlands where it's foggy. You leave the redwood trees and create a plaza. It feels weak at the corner .
(Breeze: We can look at that on the bulb -out, the truck maneuvering going in and out of there with the
existing uses on the south side of Ingold Road would be problematic. They barely make that curve as it is
right now, but we can work with the landscape architect and check, and at least look at what's happening
on the ground. We'll provide a detail of that area so we have a better idea.) The bulb out was reaching for
more green space. It doesn't look like you can shove the building back there and make it work. Love the
fact that you've got the industrial corner there, and it would be really fantastic if somehow that corner can
be greened, and if not habitable, at least representative of the stuff that's happening in the back because
that's a public park, right? (Tang: Right. It's a public park, absolutely. We'll take a look at that.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>It is a nicely thought out, well organized project that creates its own place in a very, very sophisticated
Page 25City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
way that's not trying too hard. You set yourself up with the urban design. The permeability of the building
and the green space flows very nicely together. It feels like the kind of a project that could have a huge
impact on the area and on the future development of the area. It's big enough. Would be disappointed and
frankly shocked if in a few years there wasn't something else out there that tied into this, and it's set up
nicely for that to happen. Big thumbs up.
>Another aspect of the project sort of creating its own place is it's going to create a certain energy in
that location that is going to add the eyes on the street. It's going to have the life that's going to happen .
Really like the idea of that fitness center base. There are countless numbers of fitness centers in
developments like this that are in the peninsula where you see that life happening after hours. You see
the residents occupying that space in a fitness center taking advantage of that amenity, which then
creates its own energy and life that suddenly enlivens this portion of Rollins Road as well as Ingold Road
that's not there now. Similarly, could see residents taking advantage of the Wi -Fi lounge on occasion and
the amenity space that is to be determined, but occupying those spaces at various different hours
including nighttime and evenings to enliven that redwood plaza as a community benefit, and even take
advantage of the park on occasion. Like the project and it should move forward into the environmental
analysis. Other than the usual issues of traffic, access and the fact that you're going to have very
interested neighbors in terms of their truck access and maintaining the needs for what they need to get to,
sure that will be borne out in the traffic engineering.
>This design is really incredible and very thoughtful. Love all the positive /negative spaces and the
peeling back as the architect was explaining to us in the design. Like how you even pointed out during the
previous online meeting that the northeast corner is nicely developed as well. It would be nice to see a
rendering from that perspective maybe next time so we can see how that's looking. The richness of colors
in your palette and the materials add life to the complex as well. Had to keep double checking, is this a
condo complex or an apartment complex? It has so many nice amenities for one to enjoy. Like the fact
that so many of the units have a private terrace or balcony space to get some fresh air and view to the
other spaces. Love how you have thought through, just where the sun patterns are and where the
swimming pool is located, that it's actually going to get good sun exposure even despite the tower to the
south of it and where the green park is ideally located as well for maximum sunshine in the afternoon. It's
going to really be interesting to see what develops along Rollins Road after this complex goes up as well
as the one over on Adrian Court. It's very exciting for this part of the City and you've done a wonderful job.
>It's a very attractive project. The documents are well thought out. Everything was really clear and easy
to go through. Appreciate that and it's going to be a great addition to our community.
>Applicant answered a lot of the questions and thought through the materials. Would love to see a
materials board at some point but like what you've done, so thank you for all your hard work.
There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental
review has been completed.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
There were no Director Reports.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:39 p.m
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on April 27, 2020. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or
called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 2020, 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
$1,045.00, which includes noticing costs.
Page 26City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020
April 27, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 27City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020