HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2020.09.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, September 28, 2020
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Online
a.North Rollins Road Specific Plan Study Session
Staff Report
Existing Conditions Report
Attachments:
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Online
The Regular Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item 8a (100 Costa Rica Avenue) was continued at the applicant's request, and it will be on the next
Planning Commission meeting agenda on October 13th.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1249 Laguna 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)). (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Andrew and Andrea
Hutchison, property owners) (131 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020
September 28, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1249 Laguna Ave - Staff Report
1249 Laguna Ave - Attachments
1249 Laguna Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto was recused because she owns a property within 500 feet of the subject
property.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
b.1321 De Soto Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
building height 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)). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates,
Inc., applicant and designer; David Welch, property owner) (110 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erika Lewit
1321 De Soto Ave - Staff Report
1321 De Soto Ave - Attachments
1321 De Soto Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the Consent Item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
c.120 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a major
renovation to an existing single family dwelling with a first floor addition at the rear, a new
second story addition, and a new detached two -car garage. The project is Categorically
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Form One Design, applicant and
designer; RG Developments, property owner) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine
Keylon
120 Occidental Ave - Staff Report
120 Occidental Ave - Attachments
120 Occidental Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
120 Occidental Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the Consent Item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.100 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020
September 28, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits
for a new accessory structure. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines. (Gleason & Gleason Design Partners, applicant and designer;
Kristine Furrer, property owner) (114 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
100 Costa Rica Ave - Staff Report
100 Costa Rica Ave - Attachments
100 Costa Rica Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
100 Costa Rica Ave - Plans
Attachments:
This item was continued at the applicant's request.
b.601 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) -
Application for Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height,
Condominium Permit, and Tentative Condominium Map for construction of a new
five-story, 25-unit live/work development. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332
of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Ian Birchall. Ian Birchall and Associates,
applicant and architect; Edward Duffy, property owner) (216 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika
Lewit
601 California Dr - Staff Report
601 California Dr - Attachments
601 California Dr - CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption
Appendix A - Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix B - Traffic Noise Data Tables
Appendix C - Air Quality Construction Analysis
Appendix D - Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E - Baseline Environmental Assessment Report
Appendix F - DPR Forms
601 California Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones reported that he had met with the
architect and with the property owner a while back to get a preview of the application.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Was there a material sample board somewhere? Don't remember seeing that there was one to look
at. (Gardiner: Don’t believe we have a samples board. We can get clarification from the applicant. Can't
remember if we had one at the study meeting, but perhaps when the applicant makes their presentation
they can clarify that.) It seems that a project of this scale, size and importance we ought to be looking at
materials and not just pictures.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020
September 28, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Ian Birchall, Birchall and Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>(Birchall: A samples board was provided at the initial Design Review meeting, and we left it at the
back of the hall. We noticed nobody picked it up, so we took it back to our office. I'm more than happy to
have that delivered back to city hall at any time that you wish, but we did have a full sample board, and we
went through the materials that are being proposed for the project.)
>The reason for asking about the material sample palette is because the glass, which appeared to be
smoke gray charcoal glass, is rendered differently here and don't see it called out anywhere. It's called a
glass panel. What's the nature of the glass, is it clear the way it's rendered here? (Birchall: Yes, we took
those concerns to heart. We're making sure we're using a fully transparent glass. Obviously it is double
glazed. There's no tint to the glass. I will be happy to submit a sample for the record to make sure you
have that.)
>Is it correct to assume when you say rooftop access you're talking about the terraces that are at the
fifth floor only? In other words, is there no residential or user access to the uppermost roof where you have
your solar panels? (Birchall: Correct, there's no access to that level except for maintenance of course.)
>Like how you've changed the streetscape, the access and the ground floor there.
>How does the entry into the exercise room work? (Birchall: We’re making the entrance to the exercise
room come from the street side so it's accessible from our other building at the end of the block here. It
is possible for us to find another entrance within the building, but quite frankly, we're trying to activate
access outside the building back into the building. In keeping with the spirit of what we're trying to do on
the ground floor.) The building at the corner of California Drive and Oak Grove will also have access to this
exercise area? (Birchall: That is the intention. I can't say definitively yes because this goes down to condo
rules and CC&Rs, but that's the idea. That is why the door is on the outside, so that people don't have to
come into the building and break a plane of security in order to use the exercise room. The owner
supports this, and they own both buildings.)
>How do you see the conference room being used? (Birchall: It could be used for meetings because of
the live/work nature of the units and the fact that people are definitely working where they live these days,
and will continue to for a while. There will continue to be a need for occasional meetings post pandemic .
We see it as being an amenity. We can see it being used as a small party room. It could be used as a
private viewing room. There's all sorts of ways and we have done a bunch of these at our other buildings
and it has turned out to be successful. The word “conference” is a little misleading, it's not as complete in
its description of the functions we expect.) To hear you have had success with it in other buildings is really
helpful.
>There's a small area for mail, but as we're becoming work /live and getting more packages and things,
is there room or a back storage area we ’re not seeing in the plan that's going to enable residents to
receive packages? (Birchall: Yes. The mail area is quite large for 25 units. But we're looking to put parcel
lockers above and below the mail in that area, so there will be places to drop off. For larger packages, the
conference room has a lockable closet so there are ways that can be incorporated into a drop-off.)
There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>This is really quite a handsome building now and really appreciate the applicant and the design team
responding so well to our comments from the last meetings. Was looking back over the previous
submittal and we were clear it didn't work then. It works now.
>Really impressed with the attention to activating the streetfront with activities inside the rooms and
really appreciate that the glass promotes interaction between street inside and outside. It's a very nice
project.
>Really appreciate the sensitivity to the transition along Floribunda Avenue to the neighborhood .
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020
September 28, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There's a wedge of buffer that ranges from 27 feet to 18 feet to that neighborhood that is going to be very
helpful with that transition. This is a very nice solution. Can support the findings in the staff report. Can
make the findings for the Conditional Use Permit and it's a nice urban solution for this place. It's the right
place for this increased density.
>Being new to the commission, this is the first time seeing this project. Didn't see it in the study
session, but it’s a nice job. Appreciate the materials. They look nice and the overall project will be a
successful one there. Looking forward to seeing it built.
>Like what you have done on the project. Love the transitions, that you've stepped it away from the
main street and the articulations on the different floors.
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 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.16 Arundel Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback
Variances for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Tim
Raduenz, applicant and designer; Ashley Kline, property owner) (132 noticed) Staff
Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
16 Arundel Rd - Staff Report
16 Arundel Rd - Attachments
16 Arundel Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had an opportunity to say hello to
the property owner and had a brief conversation about the landscaping in the front yard area when visiting
the project site.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant with property owner Ashley Kline.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>The 2D drawings we have in front of us show two brackets. (Raduenz: Correct.) They're both
appearing on the front plane that's furthest forward on either side of that window on the first floor .
Whereas in the Sketch -Up model, you have that one bracket where it would occur. (Raduenz: We would
like to have it overhanging like we have on the 2D drawings. That was a review that we had with the project
planner about the variances. It would look better if the second story just came out like a foot or eight
inches, or whatever the commission feel is adequate.)
>Are we reviewing what's before us tonight? (Raduenz: You would be reviewing the 2D drawings.) But
the 2D is not up-to-date because those knee braces or brackets occurring anywhere on the right side
elevation are not shown. That's what we're being asked to approve. (Raduenz: Understood.) Recognizing
that we're not approving tonight, we need to get this resolved when this comes back before us for action .
(Raduenz: Correct.)
>If you're asking for that to be pushed forward, that's going to affect your variance application .
(Raduenz: We're asking for that in the variance application, so I will correct the elevations.)
>Is it correct that the variance application is for encroachment into the front setback on the second
floor, which is required to be 20 feet, and they're asking for approximately a little over 17 feet? Is that
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020
September 28, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
measured to what's shown on these 2D drawings with a flat plane or is that with the elevation pushed
forward? (Raduenz: It was the floor plan which was correctly drawn.) (Gardiner: I’ll clarify from staff when
this returns for action. Typically if there are discrepancies between renderings and plans, the plans
dictate. If there are discrepancies between plans and elevations, that needs to be reconciled.) (Raduenz:
We'll make that a correction and note that in our response letter.)
>Looking at that lower left -hand corner drawing of the front elevation, is there any reason why the
windows on the second floor couldn't line up with the windows on the first floor? (Raduenz: We can line
them up.) Because they're both new windows and one is going into an existing location on the first floor,
right? (Raduenz: It is, but we could move it.)
>There's a profile line that's around the windows on your Sketch -Up drawing. It looked like there was a
shadow box effect around the windows. Is there something happening on the windows that's causing a
shadow box or is that just a heavy line around the casing trim? (Raduenz: More than likely, it's just the
rendering and I can make that less pronounced so it doesn't look like that.
> Going back to the variance, is it correct that the porch is not coming forward and it's in its existing
location? (Raduenz: Correct.) So the porch is existing. (Raduenz: Yes, all we are doing is covering the
approach. And we are raising the entryway up so it creates a porch, which creates a nice detail for the
entry. It's covered.) To cut to the chase, can find support for it. Just wanted to clarify that, what's tripping
the need for a variance on the first floor setback is the porch coming forward. You're in -creasing the
amount of cover over it. (Raduenz: Correct.) (Kline: I exchanged e-mails with the project planner today,
and she was asking why the setback went from ten feet which is existing to nine feet in the sheet. It
seems to be a question about how it was drafted. There's no intent to encroach any further than what ’s
already there.) Please clarify that in the drawing and in the application when it comes back before action.
>Did you look at any options for the second floor that didn't require a setback variance at the front?
(Raduenz: We started off with that. There's a few items that we needed to work with on the second floor,
like having the three bedrooms on the top floor. We didn't want to extend the rear as much because we
have a very large house on the left side of the property. As you can see, the renderings are pretty close to
showing massing to a few neighbors. We didn't want to infill the whole backyard. As a context, a lot of the
houses are very forward on the lot as you can see by our survey. There is definitely an option to do it that
way, to lose three or four feet on the upstairs. But we would be asking for a variance just because it's 20
feet, a lot more than what's there. We are building on the existing footprint. This was the style we were
looking for with the arched roof that is laying over the porch roof a little bit.)
>You have a dormer and it looks like an attic window centered under the dormer, and the one
underneath is centered off on the right side elevation and the barge at the left side is longer than the right
side one. Can you explain that? You have a couple of similar details on the rear elevation and the left
elevation. Confused as to what's drawing you that way. On the upper floor windows to the left elevation, the
furthest to the rear, why are the barge rafters different lengths? Typically, you would see that window
centered in the dormer. (Raduenz: It's a design effect. We are trying to mimic the style of the front where
we have a flying left side. You also won't really see that straight on. And that will create a nice look when
you're looking at it askew from a front view. If that's a deal -breaker, I can make it symmetrical.) They look
out of balance. Understand it on the front because the left -hand rafter has a place to land and the left side
looks normal because the window is centered in there, that tends to make sense. The others look odd .
(Raduenz: We will take that under consideration. We can review that and come back to you.)
> You've got a big flat area on the roof, because of the roof pitch it tends to make the house look a
little more massive. Given that there are second two -story houses in that block and there's smaller single
story homes, this project is starting to look bigger and bulkier than a lot of those other homes. Did you
look at having a regular peak on the roof? Usually you might see this when there us an upslope lot, but
you're on a flat lot. Not sure why you ended up with a flat, chopped off roof. (Raduenz: It was more
transitional. A lot of those houses do have a more aggressive pitch. It's a good spot to hide the
mechanicals and not have any plumbing on the actual roofing. It's a great place to put the solar panels .
We'll look into decreasing it by making the pitch a little bit less aggressive, but it takes away from what
we're trying to achieve.)
>(Kline: My house is also pretty high off the ground. So that created some challenges for us as we were
trying to make enough clearance on the second floor.)
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020
September 28, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>It's a nice design. Can generally find support for the variance application. Can find support in the first
level, it’s great to create more presence for that front porch. If it's not coming forward more than the
existing, if you can clarify that on the site plans and make sure the project planner understands that then
can find support for it. It's an existing condition. You're making it a better porch.
>On the second floor setback, you're creating a gable roof. It's an asymmetrical gable and it's
springing from a first floor plate height with that swooping barge on that side, could also find support for
that. But would have an issue if that second floor came forward even more like you were suggesting, it's
pressing the issue.
>In terms of the design review, it would help support that gable if it were a symmetrical gable, but it had
the windows that were aligned down the center of that gable. If you look at that asymmetrical gable on the
second floor at the right elevation, this works because the window is centered on the gable in English
style, but you left the left -hand side kink over longer, and you get some playfulness with those gables .
Those things can work if you just revisit them and resolve them.
>On the front elevation, resolve what's happening in the materials of the knee braces. If it's the one
shown in your 3D drawing, that works really well. Can support that version of an application for the front
variances as an exceptional condition because of where the house is built relative to the rest of the
neighborhood.
>Like the asymmetrical design. The roof works for it. Also agree that the window alignments will make
it stronger and hope that it works on the interior as well knowing that's a challenge laying those out and
making them work. Would support that as well.
>The 3D images are a huge help. This is a complicated house with a lot of things going on and you did
a good job of bringing those 3D drawings. We need to get them in alignment with what we're approving so
we can say we like it and we can approve it.
>Like the project as well. Would agree that the variance for the first floor setback is supportable
assuming that clarification with staff confirms it's not increasing the encroachment. The second floor
variance could use some more study by the applicant. Not convinced that it is supportable, and there's a
lot of flexibility with this lot. It's a very deep lot and there's still a lot of space to work with here.
>In walking the neighborhood, it's a pretty big mix of two -story houses, many of which look like they
were not subject to design review and they have second stories that are very forward that don't really add a
lot to the neighborhood. Also has a lot of single story bungalows, and to add a second story here is
certainly supportable. But if we're going to do it in a way that doesn't conform with the second floor
setback, it emphasizes that the two story nature of the house doesn't add to the neighborhood in a way
that this design could.
>The part of the front elevation that is the weakest is the right side of the front elevation. If you study
that second floor a little bit more and try to avoid that front setback variance, improve that front elevation
and maybe it would give you the ability to work with the windows not aligned on the top and bottom. Could
explore that a little bit further.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, 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.1418 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4 - Application for Environmental Scoping, Design
Review, Condominium Permit, Density Bonus with Concession and
Waivers/Modifications, Lot Split and Tentative Condominium Map for a new 6-story,
15-unit multifamily residential condominium. (Matt Hollis, MH Architects, applicant and
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020
September 28, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
architect; Craig Rogers, property owner) (557 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1418 Bellevue Ave - Staff Report
1418 Bellevue Ave - Attachments
1418 Bellevue Ave - Arborist and Parks Division Attachments
1418 Bellevue Ave - Geotechnical Attachment
1418 Bellevue Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Gaul was recused from this item because he owns property within 500 feet.
All Commissioners have visited the project site.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff.
>Is there some requirement that we have for emerging lots of a minimum 10,000 square foot for any
new lots, or lot splits or does that not apply here? (Gardiner: This is different from an emerging lot. If it
was a double lot that has been merged and it's re -merging, that happens when there was a building on top
of the property line. In this case, it's a lot split it's like a subdivision. It's going the opposite way where
they're taking one lot and making it into two.)
(Gardiner: I got a prompt from the project planner, the lot size is 7,000 square feet minimum, so it does
meet that.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Philip Lesser, Matt Hollis, and David Blackwell represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is your mechanical equipment somewhere else other than the rooftop? (Hollis: On the floor plan of the
ground level and the mechanical is the triangular pie shaped on the bottom level.) Where is that going to
penetrate? (Hollis: At all vertical elements, the stairs and around the elevators, there's a poche which is
basically intended as a vertical chase.)
>Are you intending to have any solar opportunities on the roof? (Hollis: We want to be able to
accommodate it, but we are not planning on doing it initially.) Is that something that could be integrated
into the trellis system? (Hollis: Certainly.) Don't know how you're not going to have to do it, it's something
better designed in than glued on top. (Hollis: Definitely. Our approach was going to be that we were going
to design to accommodate it. We weren't necessarily going to install it immediately.)
> Noticing lots of glass in all the units and then thinking about where the solar gain is coming from. Is
there an intent on how to treat windows or is it going to be left up to the individual owners? (Hollis: It would
all be double pane, Low-E glass and clear. We were planning to do shading treatments with concealed
roller shades inside. It would be like a Mecho Shade or a Lutron system that has a three percent diffuse
quality about it so that the views will be mostly visible and the solar gain would be cut down significantly.)
>Regarding parking, aware that we have a requirement to provide a space for deliveries. Assuming that
for the most part, FedEx and Amazon are going to park on the street because they're not going to pull into
the parking garage and they won't back out on to the street. On the first floor, you've got an area for
surface parking for one service vehicle and one standard parking space. Can we assume that the service
vehicle space is intended for service for one of the units and that the space will be open for that use? Is
that the intent of that service parking spot? (Hollis: Yes. We're trying to reduce the amount of street
disruption as much as we can. And within this very compact, somewhat challenged site, be able to absorb
that intensity of use.)
>Is it safe to assume that the driveway into this from the street won't have a secured gate so it's easy
access for a service vehicle getting in there as necessary? (Hollis: Yes.) (Lesser: Actually, it would be
great to have all of that. What we accomplished here is we're talking about 3,000 square feet of prime
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020
September 28, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
downtown real-estate that's being used as a driveway. What we're basically doing is we're using that same
3,000 square feet for two buildings instead of one all these years, it has been used for one. We're not
asking for any waivers on the parking. We've met all of the parking requirements on the new building. You
see surface parking in the back and we have the parking lift which is the same system you approved over
on Lorton Avenue. So it's the same three levels. If there's a resident who needs ADA, obviously they're
going to get precedence to utilize that space. If not, we have that available.)
>Have you decided which two affordable units at this point? (Lesser: I believe the City gets to select a
one bedroom and a two bedroom anywhere on the second, third and fourth floors.) (Blackwell: That's what
we'll put in the affordable housing agreement. We'll identify the location and so on. There's not a state
restriction on that.) Hoping to ensure that there is at least one of those being a one or two bedroom unit .
That's great.
>Have you given thought to a detailed layout of the rooftop terrace to see how that works? On sheet L -4
of your landscape design, it's not a real detailed layout. It's a large furniture grouping shown there, but
assuming you want to make it available for more than one group. So when this comes back for action, if
you can give a little attention to that roof terrace so we can see how it might lay out and how it will work .
(Lesser: That's helpful, we'll do that.)
> Did you do a shadow study? (Lesser: No, we haven't done a shadow study. I'm not familiar with
Burlingame. San Francisco’s shadow study usually relates to being next to a public space. We're next to
City Hall, is that the concern that we're next to city hall?) That and possibly the buildings behind this
address as well. The shorter buildings behind, the narrow component of the narrow side of the property,
but it was a general question. (Lesser: We have not.)
Public comments.
>Comment sent via e-mail by Thomas Tealdi, 500 Almer Road: Dear Planning Commission, please
record my comment at your September 29, 2020 meeting. I strongly oppose the project at 1418 Bellevue
Avenue zoned R-4. This 6-story building is too tall for our neighborhood. It would detract from the appeal
and value of neighboring properties.
>Comment sent via e-mail by Donna Gaul, 514 Almer Road: Dear Burlingame Planning Commission, I
am writing to express my concerns about the proposed project at 1418 Bellevue Avenue. I am a property
owner at 514 Almer Road and have lived at this address in the past and intend to do so again in the future .
I have multiple family members living at this address and I am writing on their behalf as well. The parking
requirement is met for the new building, but at a cost of 7 spaces being removed from the existing
building. Parking in this area is already taxed with more cars than off street residential parking. The
close proximity to downtown businesses, City Hall, multiple new higher density condominium projects,
apartment buildings and live /work lofts already approved will further impact the on street parking problem .
Currently, during the day, and again at night, all street parking is occupied. The impacts to the existing
building on Parcel 1 do not seem to be addressed. The Density Bonus for Parcel 2 seems as if it is
being used for modifications /waivers for the existing building on Parcel 1. Parcel 1 will now have a greater
than allowed lot coverage and a loss of 7 required parking spaces. Shouldn't these be variance
applications? If these lots are to be split, shouldn't they be treated as separate? Are some of the units in
the existing building becoming BMR units as well? If these new units are to be condos, what will be the
pricing for the BMR units? The income threshold for the new owners is $114,000 annually. The math
doesn't seem to work here. Remember that this is a residential neighborhood, and as such is required to
meet the design guidelines in section 5.3.1 of the Downtown Specific Plan which states "Design buildings
to maintain the general compatibility with the neighborhood" and "Respect for the mass and scale of the
adjacent buildings" This building does neither. The buildings in the neighborhood are at a much smaller
scale than the proposed project. The buildings to either side, as well as across the street, are all wider
than they are tall. The proposed building on Parcel 2 is more than 3 times taller than it is wide (20'-7" wide
x 75' tall) It is also more than 2 times taller than the building on Parcel 1 ( 75' vs 35') The proposed
building is out of scale with the neighborhood. The Environmental Information Form states that the
foundation will utilize pile driving. Remember that this is a residential neighborhood with many retired
people in the area. Not only will this be tremendously disruptive to people in the surrounding residences
but to City Hall as well. Along with the noise, there will be vibrations. There must be a better way to
install a foundation, or perhaps it should be above grade. The letter from the applicant ’s attorney has a
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020
September 28, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
good point in the Density Bonus Law Summary. It states "the purpose of the Density Bonus Law is to
encourage cities to offer bonuses" These bonuses are encouraged but not required. In short I feel this
project is asking for too many concessions. It will have far reaching negative impacts on the
neighborhood during construction, and in the years to come. I am not opposed to a new building and /or
additional housing but this project needs to be scaled back and fit in with the surrounding buildings and
neighbors. Thank you for your consideration.
(Assistant City Attorney Spansail: Ms. Gaul is speaking as a private citizen and neighbor. You can't give
that more or less weight than you would any other neighbor or public regardless of any personal
relationship you have with her or Commissioner Gaul. So just a reminder to apply the same weight you
would in any other public comment.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Fully support residential infill projects such as this. We need them and it's a clever solution for a very
awkward site that's been created. However personally struck by the words that the architect used about
attempting to diminish the impact of a six -story building on the neighborhood and creating an
approachable project and accessible project with a warm aesthetic. Frankly don't find any of these things
to be true. The building feels like an office building. It is reminiscent of C ésar Pelli's building in San
Francisco, but the infant version with its external apparent black steal frame but it's called out as gray .
Don't understand the frame and the aesthetic. It does nothing to fit into the neighborhood. Wouldn’t be
necessarily a bad thing, except it's an aggressive building personally. Don't understand the frame and
infill. Understand the inspiration for mid -century modern. It feels like an office building. It doesn't feel like
a residential building in a residential neighborhood and finding that disturbing. Want to support the
building because I support this kind of infill residential project. But this didn't feel like it fits, it doesn't feel
compatible with the neighborhood. It feels aggressively incompatible. The words and the object itself don't
match. Understand the notion that the architect wants to make the pedestrian experience a good one. Can
support that as a goal, but this box feels like a heavy busy box hanging over your head at a pedestrian
level. Having a problem with this building with regards to its compatibility to the neighborhood and it feels
like an office building when it wants to be a residential project.
>Walked around and looked at a lot of the beautiful buildings in the area, like the Arlington around the
corner, and the Chateau. We have some amazing old, charming properties. You can do a creative modern
building and compliment what we have. This building isn't quite doing that. It feels like it's overbearing and
would like to see something a little softer. Not opposed to building on this site, and not opposed to the
idea of having a taller building, but maybe not as intrusive as this one is. Something that's softer and
complimentary.
>Was struck by the architect's idea of trying to squeeze a project into this site. Supportive of additional
residential in the downtown area. We have to consider the density bonus as presented. Grateful for the
addition of affordable units, and do want to find support for the project. But having difficulty from the
design review standpoint. Can make the findings for the density bonus and for the concession that we're
required to consider. But we're also required to consider the design review. Having specific problems with
Section 5.3.3, development massing for the project: residential areas within downtown Burlingame have a
range of building heights and so particular attention must be paid to the massing of new buildings to
ensure an appropriate transition in the surrounding development, as well as Section 5.3.1. architectural
diversity. There are four bullet points that are hard to check off. Design buildings to maintain general
compatibility with the neighborhood, respect of mass and find scale of adjacent buildings even when using
differing architecture styles. With that said, understand there are transitional projects and that
neighborhoods are evolving. Would not say that this building has to match a height of any maximum
buildings in the area. But when you have a project like this that's trying to wedge itself on to this portion of
this property, there needs to be a little bit more sensitivity to the character of the rest of the neighborhood.
>It does look commercial in character. It is handsome, but can't say it behaves and acts like a
residential project at this point. Aware that there are tall buildings in this neighborhood. Have to make the
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020
September 28, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
findings for the design review as presented in our design review guidelines, so would like to see an
additional pass at the architecture, at the character of the project if we're going to try to wedge something
on to a site like this. If you zoom out, squint and look at the downtown area or this neighborhood, can see
that there's a missing tooth in this area. So something can happen there, and if it gets us additional
housing units and affordable units, we should consider it. But there needs to be more sensitivity to the
compatibility aspect to the design.
>Struggling with the massing part as well and how narrow of a lot it is to put this size. Really wish we
were looking at something that was combining the two buildings or creating a bigger mass because it's
standing alone, standing tall and a lot taller than all the surrounding neighbors.
>Challenged by the parking waiver. Taking out seven spots out of the lot which would otherwise be
serving Parcel 1. The residents there are going to have fewer parking spots and we're creating more
density in the area, so street parking is going to be harder. Finding that difficult to swallow. Like the
design aesthetic, but agree with the other commissioners. It has a lot more commercial character than
residential. Personally think those windows, being as open as they're going to be, they're going to be very
hot with high solar gain and challenging to live in especially in this type of residential neighborhood.
>Definitely supportive of the additional housing that we so desperately need in our city and in our state .
Like the design aesthetic of the building but not necessarily in this location. Concerned about the extent
of glazing, making one feel like they're living in a fish bowl around shorter, smaller buildings in the
neighborhood feeling very much on display. Was also a little struck by the words chosen by the architect
in his presentation because the very dark outlining of this charcoal gray or black material isn't looking
inviting or it doesn't look like it's trying to fit in the neighborhood. Would also like to quote some elements
of our design guidelines. Specifically Section 5.4.1. The land use transitions from low to medium to high
density massing structures. With City Hall immediately to the right, a couple of two or three story building,
very low profile on an expansive lot. With the shorter property immediately behind this one and to the left,
the adjoining property, we have some issues here to contend with in terms of land use transition. As well
as Section 5.4.2, the shadow impacts that was mentioned earlier, have concerns about this narrow sliver
of a tall building and its impact on the neighborhood. Want to support the project and appreciate the
aggressive nature in trying to accommodate and fit in a number of units on this property. But you'll need to
explore this further in taking our comments into account.
>Supportive of the concept of the project. This is a great place to add housing and the density bonus
concessions are compelling. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned is the setback to the rear. There's
an apartment building back there that appears non -conforming because it looks like it's within the ten feet
of the rear property line. That needs to be considered more. Was intrigued by my fellow commissioner's
comment about looking at ways to add on to the existing building on this parcel rather than creating a
separate property. That might help the compatibility issue, so that might be worth exploring.
>Would ask that when this comes back for action, if we could get some interpretation from either
Planning staff or the City Attorney or both in regards to the impacts on Parcel 1. Understand that we have
to consider the density bonus, the concessions and waivers for Parcel 2 because they are affordable units
that are being provided,. But would like to have a clearer understanding of impacts on Parcel 1, assuming
there are no affordable units that are on Parcel 1, and what we are required or not required to consider in
terms of those resulting impacts.
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
Director Gardiner reported that at the September 21, 2020 City Council meeting, the Council approved a
resolution that would provide a one -year "tolling" of planning and building permit timelines. The intent is to
allow projects more time to be completed given the challenges and disruptions of the pandemic. The
tolling will run from September 21, 2020 until September 21, 2021, during which the clock will be stopped
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020
September 28, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
on permit timelines.
a.1453 Bernal Avenue - FYI for a proposed change in exterior material to a previously
approved Design Review project.
1453 Bernal Ave - Memorandum and Attachments
1453 Bernal Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on September 28, 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 October 8, 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 10/27/2020