HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2020.06.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, June 8, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the above date online at 7:01
p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben
Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent6 -
SargentAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
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
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
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
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020
June 8, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2625 Martinez Dr - Staff Report
2625 Martinez Dr - Attachments
2625 Martinez Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site.
Commissioner Terrones noted he visited with neighbors at 2609 Trousdale, 2621 Trousdale and 2613
Trousdale to view the story poles from their properties.
Commissioner Gaul also visited 2609 Trousdale and had previously met with the property owner at 2613
Trousdale to go in the backyard.
Commissioner Loftis had a zoom meeting with the applicant and his architect but did not discuss the
merits of the project.
Commissioner Comaroto had a discussion with the applicant and went to the backyard of 2613 Trousdale
in the prior meeting and had an e -mail exchange with the owner of the property which provided the affidavit,
but did not gain access.
Commissioner Schmid had a zoom call with the applicant and the architect to discuss the comments from
the last meeting.
Commissioner Tse visited 2613 Trousdale to view the effects on their view from inside the house. She
also visited 2609 Trousdale, met with the owner and was able to look at the view aspects from their
backyard. She was invited by the property owner of 7 Castro Court to step inside and take a look at
implications for their property from inside the house.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Leonard Ng, LNAI Architecture, represented the applicant with the property owner Galen Ma.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>The height reductions are substantive. Regarding the Hillside Area Permit, we received other letters
from neighbors with view concerns, particularly 2609, 2613 and 2621 Trousdale. Have you had a chance to
visit those properties, in particular 2609 Trousdale? (Ng: I had not had a chance to visit 2609 Trousdale.)
>Have the story poles been adjusted to reflect the currently proposed drawings? (Ng: Yes, they should
be.)
Public Comments:
>Jason Sawyer, 2609 Trousdale: I just wanted to know if there was any attempt by the architect or the
owner to contact us to access the viewing of the backyard to see the angle? There are attempts to talk to
other neighbors with oblique views, but was there an attempt to contact us? I don't have any
correspondence asking access to see our viewpoint. (Ng: Yes, sorry, we weren't aware that we had the
opportunity to even ask to go look at the neighbor ’s views. Personally, we thought that was only allowed for
the commissioners.)
> Sherry Lynes: I wanted to beg to differ about the story poles being changed. I was wondering when
they were changed because they don't seem any different to us? (Ng: We submitted the story pole plan to
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020
June 8, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the story pole crew. It has been certified by the engineer and also a copy of the story pole plan has been
submitted to the project planner at the Planning Division. The owners have been coordinating that effort
directly, but I believe the story poles have been revised and it happened at least a few weeks ago.) It
doesn't look any different to us, so that's what I was wondering about that. (Ng: We discussed with the
Planning Division whether to keep a reference point of the previous story poles, but everyone seem to say
that might cause more confusion. So they lowered it two to three feet or more, but there's no mark of the
previous height which makes it hard to compare.) I don't think the highest height has been changed. We
looked at it and figured the changes that had been made would reduce the height that we're looking at
right now, which was very satisfactorily, but it doesn't look like they changed the story poles, so it's
confusing to us. (Gardiner: For the record, we have here the certification for the story poles dated May
26th.)
>Comment submitted via e -mail by Robert Elliston, 2606 Martinez Drive: In the photos presented by
Leonard, a lower branch of the tree in the photo obscures views of the bay. That is easily removed and the
view of the bay is substantial even though it may be oblique. If the branch is removed, it shows the story
poles obscure more of the bay view. (Ng: The view at 2617 Martinez Drive has to be looked at in overall
context like the location of window, the obliqueness and even without the tree. If you study the photo a lot
of the netting is actually covering a tree as opposed to the bay. If you even zoom in the view, we're
clipping the bottom most portion, but there's still a fairly substantive portion of bay all around and the
views to the east bay and mountains beyond are still preserved.)
>Ma: Just in response with regard to commissioner's comment about the other homes and to echo
Leonard’s statement, we weren't aware we can contact the neighbors to access their home. We were told
by our project planner that they sent specific follow up correspondents to request an affidavit from all
neighbors who submitted written letters of concerns, and from our understanding, only one affidavit was
returned signed with photos of view blockage.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The changes are quite substantive relative to overall height. Reducing the massing of the height by 2’-
3”, particularly with a flat roof, is somewhat striking.
>Looking at it in that context and from the angles of the renderings and exterior elevations, the design
has been improved but the issue remains with the Hillside Area Permit. Was able to visit three of the four
houses that we've received letters from. We received these letters and we are struggling to visit homes to
try to gain access and see these views. Did everything within reason to access these properties. Was able
to visit 2613 Trousdale, 2609 Trousdale and 2621 Trousdale but was not able to visit 2617 Trousdale.
Was able to observe from both 2613 Trousdale and 2621 Trousdale and did not see any view blockage
issues. There are view blockages that can be seen only if you stand far out at the back fence of the rear
yard of 2613 Trousdale, for example. The views from 2621 Trousdale are not blocked by the story poles
but there are issues of tree blockages and vegetation that are obscuring views.
>During the visit at 2609 Trousdale, was able to gain access to the Living Room and see from that
primary view window. The existing view is what you would expect to see in terms of normal hillside views
over the tops of rooftops of adjacent and nearby houses looking out across to the bay, and then you see
the story poles of this house that block the distant view.
>Still stand by the concept that there is no restriction to two -story houses in neighborhoods just
because that may or may not be the pattern. This is a well -crafted modern design house, but the issue of
the two-stories comes down to the issue of view blockage under the Hillside Area Ordinance. Defaulting to
that, have a hard time moving forward in approving this without some revisions and coordination with the
neighbor or figuring out how something can be done to get us past the Hillside Area Ordinance issue.
>Was able to gain access at 2909 Trousdale today and the story poles are prominent in that view. This
being a modern home is higher and stands out against all those sloped roofs as well. The view blockage
is considered significant because we have denied other projects with less view blockage from a less
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020
June 8, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
prominent window of a living space.
>Have previously seen 2613 Trousdale in the backyard and didn't see view blockages there.
>2617 Trousdale was not available today, but by standing at the corner of Sharon Court across the
street and just up the hill you can see that those story poles potentially would be in the line of sight of
something from 2617 Trousdale. Will defer to the affidavit that was signed that there's a view blockage
there.
>The applicant has done a tremendous amount of work to comply with everything we have asked for,
and the house has come a long way. It's a very nice looking modern home. Don't have any objection to
the design, but the view blockage is the biggest issue and don't know if we can get past that on this
particular application.
Kane: On the issue of the affidavit, the purpose of that was to deal with our current shelter -in-place
environment, particularly how to get evidence of blockage if we're not able to or should not enter
someone's living space. If there's some confusion about communication issues where the applicant may
not have had that same information and the chance to make the same observations that the
commissioners may have had, we need to allow them to access the same information and to respond to it
before a final decision is made to deny on the basis of the view issue. If the commission were to take a
different action, that's fine. But if at some point during your deliberation you're looking toward denial, the
process requires that the applicant be able to access the same information you did.
>Have no problem with the modern design. The applicant has done a great job in reducing the height .
Walked up and down Martinez Drive and Trousdale Drive and found that the proposed house fits in the
neighborhood. There are plenty of modern homes in the Mills Estates area and there are new
constructions or remodels that look like modern style, so have no problem with that. Also have no
problem with the garage.
>Was able to access 2613 Trousdale and saw that there is no view obstruction from that property. Did
not get into 2609 Trousdale or into their backyard so would have to defer to my fellow commissioners on
what they saw. However, was able to take pictures at 2613 Trousdale during the last go around and
submitted that to the Planning Division.
>Love the project, it's a good looking house. If it is obstructing views, we have to take that into
consideration. In the past we've had to deny other projects because of the view obstruction.
>Did not see any view blockage during the visit to 2613 Trousdale. The neighbor ’s vegetation is
currently blocking that view. It was almost difficult to see the story poles beyond the vegetation. What was
surprising was when visiting 2609 Trousdale, which is located next to 2613 Trousdale, was a drastic
change in terms of view blockage at that property. The view in particular is framed between two trees as
you look outside the main living space window and from the glass door of the main access point to the
backyard adjacent to the living room. It basically blocked the entire distant view of the bay from their
backyard and from the Living Room. Agree that the house is beautifully designed and this applicant has
worked very hard. They should take a look at the implications of their proposed project at 2609 Trousdale
to see the direct results of what they are currently proposing.
>The architect has done a great job of reducing scale. The elevations work really well in showing the
relationship to the adjoining neighbors. The addition of the landscape and everything we asked them to do
relative to softening and trying to make the second story look better, they've done a great job with that .
Unfortunately was not able to get into 2609 Trousdale to be able to see the view blockage. But as we look
at the other photos and rotate around, can see where that would be a challenge.
>Taking some lead or direction from the City Attorney, we need to give the applicant the opportunity to
see what views we are talking about, in particular from 2609 Trousdale. Give them a chance to coordinate,
cooperate and view from that neighboring property.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to continue the item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020
June 8, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
b.612 Burlingame 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
15303 (a). (Jeremy Slater, applicant and property owner; Residential Design Solutions -
Christian Ruffat, designer) (124 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
612 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
612 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
612 Burlingame Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he was not present at the
design review study meeting, but read the minutes and watched the video of the hearing.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Christian Ruffat, Residential Design Solutions, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>On the window detail, we discussed it last time that it ’s going to be recessed. The dimension of the
wall says "see plans" and don't see it on there, but is it correct to assume it is 6’-2” exterior walls? (Ruffat:
That is correct.)
>Note K for the light over the entry states “City of Burlingame compliant exterior lighting which means it
will have the proper cutoff." Can we assume that note will apply to every one of the fixtures all the way
around the house? (Ruffat: Yes.)
Public Comments:
>KoAnn and Steve Skrzyniarz, 608 Burlingame Avenue: We've been out of town for the past couple of
months due to Covid-19 and our son is living in the house. We're unaware that the remodel project was
happening. We were told before we left that the house was going to be rented for the next year and there
might be a construction project after that, but we didn't realize anything was under construction. This is
the first time we're hearing about this. In looking at the plan, our primary concern is that the house is
longer and pulls closer towards the street. It might block one of our living room windows and block part of
our view. I wonder if there's a possibility of arranging to have the architect or builder take a look and see
how our views might be affected and the light coming from the proposed house into our house since it's a
two-story home replacing a one -story home? (Ruffat: What type of views are you referring to? The existing
house actually protrudes beyond where we are planning our one -story portion. So I don't know what the
reference is with regards to blocking of a view.) We currently can see up Burlingame Avenue towards
downtown from our living room out the side window and it looks like the floor plan of the house now
extends past our living room. So we wouldn't be able to see down the street any longer. (Ruffat: The house
on the left, 300 Bloomfield Road, actually protrudes at least three feet beyond our house line from the
front porch. So I’m just wondering about where that view down Burlingame Avenue is really referenced. Our
front porch, which is a one -story element, actually is only impacting that front corner by about three or four
feet. So in reality that house on the left of 612 Burlingame Avenue is really projecting a good eight or nine
feet from the L-shape of your living room. So there's only an impact of about three feet from the front
porch element at 612 Burlingame Avenue.)
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020
June 8, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Reynold and Michelle Harbin, 615 Concord Way: We are the neighbors immediately behind the
property and we brought up a couple of issues in the last meeting about the balcony. I want to let you
know, the new owner Jeremy immediately reached out to us, addressed the issues we raised and was very
responsive.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Really like this project. It's very traditional but it's very fresh and new, and it just feels very well -thought
out.
>The one challenge is the views, they are not protected outside the Burlingame Hills area. So that's
something that the applicant and the neighbors could get together and talk about.
>The team did a great job of hearing the commission's comments at the last meeting and made
adjustments. Like this project quite a bit, and it's going to fit nicely into the neighborhood.
>Looking through the site plans, the new house is going on the same footprint of the existing house, so
it's not moving forward any considerable amount. Not sure if that's necessarily going to change anything .
It's a good project.
>It's unfortunate that this is the first time that the neighbor is seeing it, but also feel that the applicant
followed the process and that it should probably move forward.
>Really like the project, they did some really nice changes. They've listened to what the commission's
requests were.
>It's a well-crafted design. The only thing we're being asked to consider is design review and from that
standpoint can make the findings for approval. As my fellow commissioner indicated, there is no view
protection ordinance in the flat areas. Agree with the designer ’s assessment that the neighbor's existing
house footprint is out slightly further than what's being proposed. So in regards to adjacencies and
impacts on neighbors, we have setback issues and declining height envelope issues, both front and side
setbacks in particular, and that addresses the issues of proximity with other properties in these areas.
>Views are not protected in this part of the city. The survey shows that the proposed house is set back
further than the existing home on the property.
>It's a beautifully designed home. The applicant has listened to our comments and done a nice job
addressing all of the feedback including other neighbors in the neighborhood.
>Wouldn't expect any conversation with the neighbors to lead to major changes to the project, so
wondering if we approve it with the condition that when it's possible, the applicant and the neighbors meet
and talk, so that any minor changes might come back to us as an FYI after such a conversation?
Kane: Yes, you can provide that direction. I would avoid making it a formal condition of your motion,
however, because when we condition approval on something, it's important to be able to say whether its
happened or not happened and given the subjective nature of the conversation that you're suggesting
between the parties, it would be hard for staff to assess that. Yes, any new changes warranted needs to
come back as an FYI for the design review assuming this project gets approved and you can certainly
give that encouragement to the applicant, but couldn't make it a formal condition.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
There were no Design Review Study Items.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020
June 8, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Terrones reported that there had been a meeting of the Neighborhood Consistency
Subcommittee. The subcommittee discussed a number of items to be followed up by staff, which will
then be brought back to the full commission.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Gardiner noted that at the June 1, 2020 City Council meeting, the
council took up the item regarding extension of expiring permits that the Planning Commission had looked
at last month. There was a change in the proposal, as feedback was received from applicants to extend
the range of permits covered a little bit more in recognizing the hardship on projects right now, and the
uncertainty of when things will get closer to normal. The resolution passed by the City Council extends all
permits that have expired from the beginning of the shelter -in-place order up through September 30th,
which includes some that will be expiring in the next couple of months. All of those will be extended to
December 31st. Should we find that there needs to be another resolution in the future, we can look at that
again as well.
Gardiner also noted that the City Council will be having a special meeting tomorrow night beginning at 6:30
to discuss closing Burlingame Avenue to allow expanded outdoor dining.
City Attorney Kane noted that the City will be hosting a wireless communications workshop webinar
Thursday May 14th at 1:00 p.m. The link and log-in instructions will be on the City's website.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative
format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the
meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, June 8, 2020 at
rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and
your ability to comment.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda
or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information
via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256.
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on June 8, 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 June 18, 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 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2020