HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2020.08.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, August 24, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Chair Tse, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting
minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
a.Draft August 10, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft August 10, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no Public Comments, Non-Agenda.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Loftis noted that the two items on the Consent Calendar were on the August 10th meeting.
He was absent from that meeting, but visited both of the sites and watched the videos.
A motion was made by Chair Tse, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Consent
Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
a.137 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a remodel and
two-story addition to the rear of an existing two -story single family dwelling with a
detached garage (to remain). This project is Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a)).
(Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Tehan and Subodh Gupta,
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020
August 24, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
property owners) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
137 Costa Rica Ave - Staff Report
137 Costa Rica Ave - Attachments
137 Costa Rica Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
137 Costa Rica Ave - Plans
Attachments:
b.912 Morrell Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, designer; Hao Tien and Tzu
Chun Wu, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
912 Morrell Ave - Staff Report
912 Morrell Ave - Attachments
912 Morrell Ave - Plans
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.772 Walnut Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit, and
Side Setback Variance for a new attached garage to an existing single family dwelling .
This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Jessica Sin, applicant and
designer; Vivek and Pooja Shah, property owners) (256 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle
Markiewicz
772 Walnut Ave - Staff Report
772 Walnut Ave - Attachments
772 Walnut Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Gaul is recused because of a business relationship with the property owner.
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse spoke to the homeowner this
afternoon regarding the project. Commissioner Terrones also had a conversation with the homeowner
during a visit to the property to get a closer look and tour the project area.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>The existing setback is 11 inches, but the left side of the garage seems to have been built at an
angle. Is the 11 inches the dimension closest to the fence and then there are portions of the garage that
are further away from the fence? (Gardiner: Typically we express the setback as the closest point, so
you'll see the 11 inches is that point closest to the front of the property line. That setback increases as
the building goes further back. So 11 inches is the shortest part of the setback or the closest it gets to
the property line.)
>In reading the proposed clarification that we received in terms of the dimensions, that 11 inch
dimension is not correct. Believe it's 1’-6” at the front of the garage and then it widens out as it moves
towards the rear.
>Remember seeing that it seemed like the rear part of the garage is closer to the property line than the
front of the garage. (Gardiner: We can ask a clarification when it's time for the architect to speak .
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020
August 24, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Apologize not getting those changes reflected in my presentation.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Jessica Sin, represented the applicant with property owners Vivek and Pooja Shah.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>The left corner of the garage is widening, getting closer to the property line, is that correct? Is the front
left corner of the garage not staying in its existing location, but actually moving closer to the fence? (Sin:
That’s correct.) And the resulting dimension from the fence is going to be 1’-6” from the fence? (Sin: From
the property line to the corner of the garage.) That will be the final location, so currently saw a dimension
somewhere that said 2’-8". (Sin: Yes, that was the dimension that was not correct. It's actually 3’-1”.) So
the current location is 3’-1” from the property line, and you're going to move it closer so it becomes 1’-6”?
(Sin: Correct.)
>Did you look at any options that didn't require a variance? It looks like there's a lot of space on that
side yard there. (Sin: It was our understanding that we needed to do the variance because the existing
garage already sat inside the setback line, and anything we needed to do to reconstruct the garage would
require a variance.)
>Could move the garage into a different location, for example further forward. From the street view, it
looks like you could put an even wider garage there and meet the setback requirements or move it further
back for example. (Sin: The idea was to keep the pattern of the garage towards the rear of the property,
like it is for the rest of the street. As you can see in the drawing, there's a parking space that is uncovered
in front of it. Would you be proposing it in that location and pushing this proposed parking space further
forward?) Just asking if you looked at any other option that went beyond putting it back in the same place,
but larger. (Shah: We did. So the one thought was that many Burlingame homes have the garage in the
rear of the lot. It didn't really suit given our structure, the existing layout of the house, the way the yard and
everything is all completed, that didn't seem functional and it would be really inefficient use of space. We
thought about moving it forward, but we figured it would be more efficient and simple to come in with just
redoing the existing structure without a major shift in the position. Also the way the house is setup, there's
an AC condenser unit and wiring that's by the front, so that may interfere. Then there's a mud room that
attaches to the garage, so we explored both of those options at a very high level, but we thought and hope
that this was the easiest and simplest way to do it. It works functionally with hopefully not much trouble.)
Public Comments:
>Sent via e-mail by Christopher David Zwingle and Dina Anne Zwingle, 744 Walnut Avenue: We are
Christopher and Dina, trustees of the Zwingle Living Trust and owner of record of 744 Walnut Avenue, the
property north of and adjacent to the applicant property. We have resided at this address continuously
since May 1996. In the matter of the current application for design review, special permit and side setback
variance, we oppose any reduction of the regulatory setback requirement. Reduction of setback defeats
the intent of the regulation and permanently encroaches upon the enjoyment of our property. It must be
noted at the time of the applicant ’s purchase of the property an attached garage existed at sufficient
dimension to accommodate an automobile. The applicants consciously elected to build features that
reduce the area available for a garage. We request that the commission deny the application.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>In looking at the plans and looking at the various different options, had a similar thought about
pushing the garage forward. But the problem with that solution is there's a bump out on the playroom on
that side of the driveway that would probably cause the garage to have to shift in order to maneuver into it .
Secondly, the garage structure in that location would effectively cut off windows to the adjacent bathroom
and kitchen areas on that side of the house. So in looking at what's being requested, can understand the
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020
August 24, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
special permit requests for the attached garage. It fits with the pattern along that side of the street with the
abundance of attached garages.
>From a design standpoint the architecture is similar to what's existing, the cladding and the finishes
would be similar to what's existing there. So it comes down to the variance. In terms of the possible
locations for garage and in the spirit of trying to create a garage that gets cars off of the street particularly
in that neighborhood, we've had various applications that have come before us over the years and various
neighbors that reminded us that it's a narrow street, difficult to park, and encouraged us to do anything we
could to support getting cars off the street. So along those lines, can find support for the variance based
on the conditions, the angle of the house as it sits on the property as being fairly unique, and
reconstruction in the location of the existing that unbalance ends up creating less width towards that front
corner, but greater width for maintaining that side of the garage in the future which is looked at when
garages are close to a property line, so can support the application the way it's presented.
>Can't support the application because the applicant is asking us to approve a worsening of an existing
condition. This condition is one that I live with and it's a never -ending source of trouble for me. I have a
neighbor's garage, six inches from the property line right in the middle of my property line along our joint
property line. It was an accommodation back in the 70s to some special condition, and it should have
never happened. Don't think it's fair when you have a backyard the size of this backyard to ask the
commission to make special accommodations and the neighbors to live with the situation that we create
by giving special accommodation into the future, so can't support the project.
>Appreciate their effort to get cars off the street, and that's generally something that we should work to
support and see no problem with the special permit for the attached garage. We approved one in the
house next to this not that long ago, so there's definitely precedent for that in this neighborhood. On a
practical level, having difficulty approving the plans because the plans themselves need to be clear, but
that's more of an administrative issue. Also have trouble making findings for the variance, particularly
about the uniqueness of the lot because this lot is a large lot. There needs to be more study of what other
options there are, either moving the garage forward or moving it back. The bar for finding something
unique about the lot that would support the variance request is really high, don't think it has been met yet,
so can't support the way the application is written now.
>Can’t support the variance at this time and place. What we need is to do more study and see if the
garage could move forward or backwards as other commissioners have discussed. It is a tight street and
can totally appreciate the neighbors wanting to get the cars off the street, but we need to have a little bit
more study on this item before moving forward.
>Appreciate the effort to use the garage. Also live on a busy street and struggle with the cars. Would
probably be more supportive if the neighbor wasn't speaking up and being opposed as well. Would like to
see a little more study on how you might modify the mud room to get some width and or push the garage a
little further back so you're not encroaching on that setback because you're also adding in the ADU as
well. More study would be good.
>Can support the special permit for the attached garage that currently exists but can't see supporting
the side setback variance. One of the reasons is that garage is serving a number of functions, there's
storage and waste receptacles in there, and concerned that once you park in that garage it will be more
difficult to get some of the other functions that are happening in the garage out to the locations that it
need to be, whether it's pulling out the garbage cans or getting access to items stored in the garage.
>When meeting with the homeowner, he gave an approximate dimension of the current garage door
opening and don't see it on the plans. Seeing a 9’-10” dimension somewhere in the garage, but the garage
opening right now appears to be over nine feet wide. That seems to be ample for a car to be able to park
inside, maybe you can't open your side doors to 90 degrees, but you can park in there if you wanted to
and still be able to get in and out of the garage. My own garage is narrower than that, and am able to park
my car inside and open doors with an SUV and any car that we have had. So for those reasons, can't
support it. But do appreciate the approach to try to use off street parking. The driveway is long. You can
certainly park on the driveway. It may not be perfect, but it works for their needs of having covered parking
and access to the house.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the
item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020
August 24, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Nay:Terrones1 -
Recused:Gaul1 -
b.1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Amendment to Condominium Permit to
add common open space on the roof of the building (condominium project is currently
under construction). (Pat Fellowes, applicant; 1509 El Camino LLC, property owner )
(113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1509 El Camino Real - Staff Report
1509 El Camino Real - Attachments
1509 El Camino Real - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
City Attorney Kane: Noted for the record, Commissioner Schmid lives relatively nearby or owns a property
nearby this subject project, however, that property is well outside of the 500 foot radius. Given the nature
of this application, the approval or not of rooftop space would not have any foreseeable economic effect
on a property owned by Commissioner Schmid, so therefore he's allowed to continue in this. We wanted to
make a record on that.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Pat Fellowes, 1509 LLC, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is it correct to presume that the previously planned barbecue with the covered trellis and the raised
garden planters along the right side of the building will still happen on the ground level? (Fellowes: The
ground level will be built per plan, but probably not with that. Probably just put that area into landscaping .
One change that came regards the vegetable garden there. The state agency made me put bioswales in
that area and across the back of the building and up the other side of the building. So if vegetables grow
in the bioswales, we'll plant them. The bioswales takes precedent now.)
>So neither the raised planter nor the trellis area will be built? (Fellowes: The trellis area with the
barbecue would be overkill. Don't see anybody using that if they can go to the roof. Would envision putting
flowers and plants in that area.)
>Was the rooftop deck considered in the earlier versions of the plan? It seemed like we talked about it
before the project was finally approved. (Fellowes: It was stamped on the plan, on the roof that we were
coming back for a future roof garden. That verbiage was on the plan at the time.) Remember we
discussed it. (Fellowes: At that point, the reason we took it off is we went around for ten years on this
building. And every time we came up, it was the same old thing over and over and over again. I think
everyone got tired of it, so we took the roof deck off to deal with it later.)
>On the 1226 El Camino Real building, looking at some of your rooftop images for that project, it looks
like the roof garden is designed where there are various alcoves or sections of that roof area so people
can gather in small groups and have individual gatherings and a little bit of an intimate nature. In your
current plans, there are seating areas and an outdoor kitchen. Is there thought or plans around sectioning
off portions of the roof deck to prevent and incentivize people to have a giant July 4th party on the entire
roof where the whole building is invited? (Fellowes: The other building was more configured where the
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020
August 24, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
elevator and roof deck came up and it cut the building up naturally. I could make some kind of screening
around those, maybe with flower pots. This is a different deck. On the other building, we have had some
of the residents, one or two of them got married up there and the police department said there was no
issue with that. It doesn't have to be a crowding of people on the roof. There are cameras in front and the
back of the roof as well so we can see what's going on up there. But I've never seen the roof overcrowded .
Most I've seen on the other place was probably 18 to 20 people max.)
>This is a very large roof deck, 4,000 square feet, and this is bound to be an assembly space. Do you
have some sense of what the occupant load factor is for this? Is it 15 square feet per person? (Fellowes: I
don't remember what it was, but that was calculated in the beginning because I figured out with some of
the factors we had around our building for that ten years, that was the issue they would come up with,
stairs aren't big enough. The building has all been counted for that. The roof deck is also being specified
from a structural standpoint.) If it's 15 square feet per person, it's 266 people. It used to be the old
building code, the stairs wouldn't have been wide enough and that changed a few years ago. Wanted to
make sure your architect felt confident that these numbers work for the project that were shown?
(Fellowes: If everything goes well, we'll be going to the building department, and I can assure you they'll be
checking that out.) Would like to make sure once it gets passed us, it doesn't have to come back to us
changed. (Fellowes: I take your point. I've been doing this for 50 years now. We already counted the fire
considerations and they are where they should be.)
Public Comments:
>Comment sent via e-mail by Nina Weil: It was quite a surprise to receive the notice of an applicant for
an amendment to the condominium permit for 1509 El Camino Real to add common open space on the
roof of the building. Prior to approval for this project, the developer met with neighbors to discuss our
concerns with the plans for 1509 El Camino Real. A number of alterations were made to accommodate
our concerns so Mr. Fellowes could move the project forward without further opposition from the neighbors .
One of the alterations to the plans that Mr. Fellowes agreed to was to eliminate the use of common open
space on the roof. The objections by the neighbors included noise, nighttime lights and impact on the
nocturnal animals in the area, and surrounding trees. We negotiated with Mr. Fellowes in good faith. I
therefore respectfully request this application for amendment be denied.
>Comment sent via e-mail by Don Mitchell and Yen Ma: We live at 1512 Balboa Avenue behind the
property at an angle. The homes behind the property are quiet in the evening and night. This design which
includes a firepit and seating for 20 people may encourage parties, noise and music late into the evening .
The owner mentioned adding wifi to encourage this use. They mentioned not having a place to go
outdoors, and the building is within walking distance to Ray Park and Village Park. I would like restrictions
on the amount of people, the times of use and the use of music, tv, et cetera. I believe a roof garden was
discussed before at the Planning Commission and please go back and review those discussions and the
guidance given. Thank you.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Somewhat concerned about the size of this and the number of people who can be up here. Thinking
about what we've been doing with open spaces up in the air in residential neighborhoods, we've been
limiting them to one hundred square feet and as you understand it, this is 11 units. If you said, you're
trying to limit the use of for any unit to some small group of people, then one might naturally try to say to
equate it to 11 times and this is four times that size.
>It seems there's the potential for something going on here with regard to noise and privacy, despite the
fact there were no complaints in other locations. Drove by and looked up at the building from Balboa
Avenue the other day, it seems pretty close. Understood it is 45 feet from that property line to the nearest
occupiable space on the upper level, but 45 feet is not very far if things are noisy. So very uneasy about
the size of this, and the potential for things not to go well in that neighborhood.
>We've made a precedence of not having these big balconies off single -family homes and this
particular roof deck is too large for the area. Worried about the light and the noise for the neighbors. Can
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020
August 24, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
see possibly doing something much smaller, and moving it forward and away from the back of the property
a little bit. It seems there's a bathroom up there. Maybe not having a restroom up there where people can
instead go to their own properties and go to the restroom might be an option. Not sure but that's
something to take note of.
>A question of staff: There was an environmental impact report on this project. Was the rooftop deck
studied? If not, is it possible to still study it? (Gardiner: There was an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and can't recall if it included the roof deck or not. We can look into whether it's a significant
enough change to the project to warrant amending that report. But don't recall offhand whether the deck
itself was or possibility if the deck was considered.)
>Looked at the 1226 El Camino Real video and this would be a beautiful amenity for this project. It
would be an incredible benefit for the owners of the condominiums. Concerned that the benefit and
amenity not be at the expense of the neighbors, and so we've had a lot of discomfort as a commission
about these kind of spaces. It would be nice if we could have some kind of objective study of it .
Subjectively, it makes me very uncomfortable.
>Agree with other commissioners, having sat through all of the various hearings for this project before .
The context is different though not physically far from 1226 El Camino Real. That project is in the midst of
a different type of neighborhood. This project had a sensitive context, particularly with the single -family
residences that were very concerned about this project. Can't comfortably just say okay, now we've gotten
past all those things and now this is okay. There might be some re -crafting of the design to make it less
of a possible intrusion. But can't comfortably say that 4,000 square feet of assembly space on that roof
would not have an impact on the adjacent neighbors at this point.
>Would encourage the applicant to not eliminate the ground level outdoor space because people would
use it, and it would split this up a little bit. So the demand wouldn't be wholly on the roof. Like the idea,
but the roof deck is a little bit too large.
>Agree that the deck might be a little large, but maybe that gives opportunity for designing in a little bit
more up there with barriers or maybe landscaping that would push noise forward towards El Camino Real
rather than backwards toward Balboa Avenue. We have a basic furniture layout there, but not a lot more
detail that is saying if you put in some landscaping it would help mitigate that noise going backwards. The
barbecue area on the ground floor has just as much opportunity for abuse of noise as you would have on
the roof. So, there's maybe some ways to design that in, and be able to make that a little bit more
palatable for the neighbors. Wasn't a part of the previous discussions so can't say they're wrong, and
would hate to change that dialogue.
Kane: Through the chair, before you go to a vote on that, let's check with the applicant and make sure
they are open to a continuance in the potential redesign or that they don't rather have a decision tonight.
Chair Tse: Can the applicant please chime in here.
(Fellowes: A couple of things before we get to that. We have a homeowners association and it has rules
and regulations that so many people can be on the roof. In regards to putting in a barbecue down on the
ground, it's going to be noisier than if it's on the roof.)
Kane: There’s a motion on the table right now to continue this to allow you to have a further dialogue with
the commission about what design might work here. The reason I ask the chair to allow this is to see if
you're open to doing that or do you want finality tonight to allow you to have something to appeal to the City
Council. If you wanted to do that, then you could ask for a final decision, yea or nay, or continue the
conversation. Are you open to the continuance? (Fellowes: We'll do the continuance.)
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
c.1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU:
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020
August 24, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
a. Application for Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, and
Conditional Use Permit for mechanical parking stackers for a new seven -story,
mixed-use building with retail, office and 60 residential units with below grade parking
(Certosa Inc. applicant and property owner; William J. Higgins, FAIA, Smith Group,
architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
b. Application for Zoning Code Amendment to Amend Office Parking Regulations in the
NBMU Zone. Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1766 El Camino Real - Staff Report - Item 8c (a)
1766 El Camino Real - Attachments - Item 8c (a)
1766 El Camino Real - Plans
1766 El Camino Real - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix A - Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix B - Supporting AQ and GHG Emissions I
Appendix C - Trees To Be Removed
Appendix D - DPR Forms
Appendix E - Native American Outreach
1766 El Camino Real - CEQA comments - Response to Comments
Memorandum
1766 El Camino Real - Staff Report - Item 8c (b)
1766 El Camino Real - Attachments - Item 8c (b)
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Bill Higgins, Smith Group, represented the applicant with property owner Mario Muzzi.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>What material are you planning to use for the horizontal and vertical fin construction? (Higgins: The
horizontal slab edges turning the corner would be the continuation of a post -tension slab or it could be
pre-cast. But that probably lends itself more efficiently to a concrete slab edge. We have not had a
structural engineer do the structural calculation on the grand canopy yet. I would prefer it to be an
aluminum metal clad system to tie it into the rest of the curtain wall system.)
>What is the eave material of that pedestrian corner? (Higgins: The underside of a concrete slab edge
ground smooth and painted we would be looking at introducing light fixtures, down lights into that slab.)
Public Comments:
>Mark Cate: I'm a resident of Burlingame. First of all, I know Smith Group very well and I applaud them .
It's a great building and great architecture. It's a beautiful building. However, it's in the wrong place at the
wrong time. Challenging both the Negative Declaration and the planning application. Addressing those
issues, the density of this project, if not doubles, quadruples what's going on this corner now. It's a
two-story or maybe a one-story building that has offices and now we're going to add many, many features
to it. The massing of the building on this corner is too much. The comments by the architect on this
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020
August 24, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
place, you referenced the health care center across the street, but looking across the street, it's a bus
stop in front of a parking garage in front of a hospital which is further down the street. This thing would
stick out extremely, obnoxiously on this corner. The third item I ’d like to raise is the fact that we're adding
60 units of residential and the density of that residential on this acreage, it ’s troubling, if not objectionable .
If you have not been down this road, it's a one -way street that goes from south to north, and it's very
cumbersome and complicated. I run and walk and drive this area everyday of the week, and it's very
challenging for the people that live there. To add this amount of density, this amount of traffic, would be
very challenging. I have not studied the traffic report, but I would challenge that as how that's going to be
handled. The fact that you're adding additional retail to a spot that probably cannot support retail is very
troubling to me. I don't think 60 units, if it does get approved, can support that. I don't see it as a
destination spot since you have retail across the street struggling right now. The last item I want to add
and it's problematic is the parking. You have two skilled nursing facilities, one on the north side of
Trousdale Drive and one on California Drive next to the town home project, both of those facilities park on
the lots that are going to be used by this facility. And you're now eliminating that parking, so those people
that go to work there have to park somewhere, and that's going to further congest this neighborhood and
make it less desirable and less inhabitable for the people that are already there. That includes the
residents to the south, the occupants of the townhomes and the people that work at those skilled nursing
centers. And those are my brief, but concise comments.
>Jadene Wong, 1755 California Drive: I am one of the owners of the townhomes which is adjacent to
that panhandle. I wasn't at the prior two meetings, but when I learned about this project and reviewed
some of the plans, my concerns are that, as the prior person said, this is quite a large building, and really
changes the whole atmosphere. I know we're the only townhomes, we're the only residences here, but this
is my home and these are our homes and I feel such a large building will impact the environment. It will
impact the view and it will impact the light and the sun goes down in that direction, and it will be
significantly darker in that area to have a 7-story building so close to our homes. And also to speak to the
density, the people, and the parking. We've already had to limit our parking because of the bicycles on
the street here. We have very limited parking. So often our guests have to go down the street, around the
corner. So this will further impact the parking and I feel like this is a building that's probably better suited
to a more downtown area where there are more people walking around. It feels like a city -type of a
building, and not in this area which is kind of a combination of residential. There are medical buildings,
but it seems more like an urban building and doesn't seem to belong in this neighborhood.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>To address the comments made by a couple of public speakers, this is an area that we identified as
a high density area when the General Plan was revised in the last two years. A little bit surprised that folks
see this as a spot where this shouldn't be happening because several of us who were involved in that
thought in fact this is exactly the kind of thing that ought to be happening in this spot. So we have a
difference of opinion here. Will it change the neighborhood? Yes, that's the point.
>The design team has done a good job of taking care of basic fundamental urban design issues. This
frontage road is a bizarre thing to have in that location anyway. But there's nothing we can do about it. So
it's something that probably shouldn't be there that can't be undone. And it has to do with El Camino Real
being a state road. We're putting a building on a small road that perhaps this building really belongs
sitting directly on El Camino Real, but that's not a possibility. The building does a good job of anchoring
the corner as it should, anchoring the corner on the small road and a slightly larger road. It has good basic
urban design structure, it's well articulated. It's much more compelling than the slightly arched front first
version of it was because that seemed sort of frivolous and meaningless in that situation before. So it's a
good solid building.
>Still don't buy the so-called grand canopy. As architecture trying to speak to the building on the other
side of the street, it's talking to the most frivolous part of that medical center building. Don't think you gain
anything from that, but it's not a deal killer. The fins are not doing anything. They seem frivolous like the
flying pieces across the street. Someone asked a question about the slab edges, the horizontal fins,
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020
August 24, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
would urge you not to consider making that an extension of the concrete slab. You'll get no thermal break
there. You'll have all sorts of waterproofing issues if you do that. That's probably going to be metal as well
or something like that. It's a very nice building. It's a good solid urban design with a few frivolous pieces.
>Having gone through the several year -long process of the update to the General Plan and looking at
various locations where we need to encourage and allow for increased densities, can find support for this
application. Can accept the findings, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the other entitlements and we
previously vetted the amendments to the office parking regulations, looked at different numbers that might
work, and we crafted that to the point where it's ready to move forward to the City Council as well.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to recommend to the
City Council approval of the applications. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1249 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant
and designer; Andrew and Andrea Hutchison, property owners) (131) noticed) Staff
Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1249 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1249 Laguna Avenue - Attachments
1249 Laguna Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto was recused since she owns a property within 500 feet of this property.
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones made a clarification that his
business is in the vicinity but they do not own the property.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, represented the applicant with the property owners Andrew and Andrea
Hutchison.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Have you or the property owners had a chance to talk to the adjacent neighbor at 1243 Laguna
Avenue about the removal of the existing garage and the construction of a new garage? It looks like there
are existing overgrown landscape. (Deal: I personally have not. If the owner is there, he could address
that.) (Hutchison: Yes, they’re in favor of it. The vines on the side of the garage are overgrown onto theirs .
We had to trim down a tree that was behind our garage, that crept over and bothered the house on the
Paloma Avenue side and the vines go to the neighbor at 1245 Laguna Avenue.) You'll have to work
through the logistics of taking down the garage and what fencing gets temporarily put, but it seems like
you're in communication with them.
>Is the cedar mill HardiePlank siding you're proposing the one with the raised grain on it? (Deal: Yes.)
To be frank, been vocal about fiber cement sidings in that they can look fake. Is there a reason for that
one or not? (Deal: The raised part gives a little bit of a shadow line. Not a lot, but it gives character to the
board as opposed to a flat board.)
There were no public comments.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020
August 24, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>This is a nice project. It fits in well with the neighborhood. Can make the findings for the design review
and this would be a good candidate for the consent calendar.
>It is a good looking project and appreciate that the drawings really did a great job of answering all
questions, it was clear and easy to read.
>Agree in terms of the massing, the character and the detailing. Had the same question regarding the
HardiePlank siding. Had an opportunity to look at that material closely recently, and that cedar mill
material looks fake. Would encourage you to talk closely with the homeowners and make sure they fully
understand what they're getting. Can't hard and fast refuse or deny the project because of that, but would
just want to make sure the homeowners understand what they're getting in terms of that look.
>From the get go has been opposed to this type of fiber cement siding. We approved a number of
projects with Hardie siding, but would encourage you to find a home that has been built with that so the
property owner sees what they're getting. See if you can find some houses where this stuff has been put
on. The misnomer about it is it's maintenance -free, but it really is not. There's a project on Cappuccino
Avenue that has Hardie siding that we approved four or five years ago, and now the seams are coming
open and you can see all the patch marks, the putty marks and where it has been touched up or was
touched up because it was a pre -painted project. Not impressed with the product, but will not stop the
project at this point.
(Deal: Just wanted to reiterate that we ’re willing to look at a different siding. Hopefully I don't have to go
back with an FYI.)
>Regarding the motion, the applicant asked about changing the siding without having to bring it back
as an FYI. It could come back for consideration on the Consent Calendar with a different siding if they
choose to go that route.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Gardiner reported that the City Council adopted the Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) code amendments at its August 17th meeting, so the new regulations will go into effect.
The City Council also adopted the building electrification "Reach Codes" that will require reductions in the
use of natural gas in new buildings going forward. The Reach Codes will only apply to new projects that
have not yet submitted applications for planning or building permits. The codes still need to be reviewed
by State agencies before they become effective.
The City Council also had a discussion of the weekend street closure programs on Burlingame Avenue
and Broadway, and trying to accommodate personal services such as hair salons, barbers and nail
salons. The outcome is that Burlingame Avenue will switch to parklets rather than a full street closure,
and personal services will be allowed to request parklets. The Broadway street closure will continue as is.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020
August 24, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on August 24, 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 September 3, 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 $1,075.00, which includes noticing costs.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 9/16/2020