HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2020.11.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 9, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Online
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the above date online at 7:02
p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, and Interim City Attorney Scott Spansail.
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
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.Establishment of the City of Burlingame Historic Register
Staff Report
Attachments
Attachments:
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>The last paragraph of the staff report says, "While eligibility to be included in the Burlingame Historic
Register is currently limited to properties within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan, City
Council has expressed interest in expanding eligibility to include other neighborhoods in the future." Does
this mean until and unless other neighborhoods are defined and open to this process that properties
outside the Downtown Specific Plan area cannot apply for this? (Gardiner: That’s correct.) So it's just in
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
that area? (Gardiner: Yes. What we'll probably see in the future, is that it may not be that we'll add
neighborhood by neighborhood, but more likely we'll allow it to be for any property within the entire city .
Again, it's a voluntary listing and a property would need to demonstrate its eligibility. The City Council felt if
somebody was interested and they wanted to use the incentive and qualify for a Mills Act Contract or
something like that, it should be available. We need to amend the ordinance in order to do that, so it
takes more time. That's the long range plan.)
>Under the criteria for significance on the Historic Register application form, there are several check
boxes. Under buildings of historical significance, they have some bullets listed as: where important events
occurred; associated with famous people, original settlers, renowned organizations and businesses; and
which were originally present when the city was founded. It appears that the last phrase should be part of
the preceding phrase, correct? (Gardiner: That's a mistake in the bulleted list, we'll correct it.)
>This document states it is the property owners who can request to be added to this registry. Can
members of the public bring resources or elements for consideration for this registry? (Gardiner: It’s really
not designed that way. It's meant to be property owner driven. If somebody thought there was some
element of a property that was of interest, but the property owner wasn't planning to do anything to it, we
could certainly pass that along to the property owner, but it really is if the property owner wants to have
them listed.)
>Once this is active, would the Planning Commission be meeting to establish a subcommittee to
create any kind of procedure or standards to operate? (Gardiner: At this time, we don't see that. Over time
if we see that the role of the Historic Preservation Commission is more involved, then that might make
sense. As it is now, the scope of what the Historic Preservation Commission would be overseeing is fairly
limited. It's accepting and making determinations on a request to be added to the register. And then it's
also to look at, for example, a project that was utilizing a historic resource to determine if the project was
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior ’s Standards for historic preservation. So it's not unlike what
the Planning Commission has already been doing. But over time, if a more robust historic preservation
program were to be developed, then we can cross that bridge at that time.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>There was no further discussion on this item and no action was required by the Planning Commission.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1120 Cambridge Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301 (e)(1). (Gary Ahern, Focal Point Design, architect and applicant; Christine and
Jeremy Wilkinson, property owners) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1120 Cambridge Rd - Staff Report
1120 Cambridge Rd - Attachments
1120 Cambridge Rd - Plans
Attachments:
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Gary Ahern, Focal Point Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>On the right side elevation, the drawing is a little deceiving because of the way it has been rendered .
Shingles are only shown on the addition portion and when you picture the rest of that elevation with
shingles, it becomes a broad elevation. Looking at this from a design study review standpoint, we would
probably have some issues or concerns with that.
>Is there any possibility of having a bay at the top second story window that's set in a pattern of three?
The wall may be broad enough to accommodate a bed and be popped out along the roof eave line. The
resulting elevation looks fairly awkward and it has a lot of exposure because it's along a driveway. Did you
take a look at that or have any thoughts on what you could do there? (Ahern: A concern was that privacy
was a big issue at that location. With the proximity of the neighbor next door, there is about four feet
between the fence and the neighbor's house, that's why we decided to go with the high transom windows
over the bed to provide as much privacy as possible. We did look at putting narrow double -hung windows
over each of the bedside tables, but we were concerned about neighbors feeling there were privacy issues
with doing that. As far as cantilevering out to create a bay window, that would make me a little nervous
because that might become a hindrance with the driveway. I did look at potentially taking the rake of the
roof and trying to bring it down. When you're on site, you realize there's not much of an overhang on that,
but if it's something that staff or Commission feels strongly about, we might be able to bring that rake
fascia down, but I don't know if that's going to do much.) Having difficulty with the resulting elevation, it's
something we typically would focus in on even though it's on a side because of that driveway exposure.
>The 3D sketch you provided was great, that was very helpful. At the rear elevation, there is a
recessed patio with a vertical element where a window is centered on the second floor. Is there a reason
why the window at the nook area couldn't be centered underneath that set of windows ? The windows at the
nook don't necessarily have a specific relationship with the built -in bench at the nook, but looking at this
elevation and the 3D sketch, that window centered on the window above and the gable peak above
creates a nice vertical element. (Ahern: As architects, symmetry is very important. That window is
designed to be a corner window that's going to be over the breakfast nook. If you look over the kitchen,
I’ve got a corner bank and the dual double wide window and a single wide window that's on the side
property line. Typically, I would have liked to drag those windows a little closer to make it a true corner
window, but at this point, we're trying to resolve the structural design and I didn't want to pin myself into a
situation where I had the windows shown completely smashed against the corner, and then have to come
back and say I need a little bit more space there. But the window in the rear is designed to be more
viewed from the inside of the house and it is centered on the banquet.). It's not centered on the banquet
and it doesn't have the same corner relationship as the one on the driveway side. (Ahern: The intent is to
have the same relationship on the side and that might have been something we made a change at the last
minute. I might not have completely coordinated that through. But the intent for that window is to give a
feeling that the window is designed to be on the center itself, because when you put a table there and
hang a light over it, it doesn't smash all the way to the edge because you have the seating area that's
there. So the center of the window is more or less center line of where the table and light would be; it
should be 16 inches from the outside corner to each edge window.) It's shown that way on the plan, but
not on the elevation.
>Agree with my fellow commissioner that the window would look better if it was aligned. Should
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
consider pulling the window over more to the middle to create a corner experience with a door going to the
patio; you might be able to achieve the centering of the window underneath the window above and you'll
have a good corner experience.
>Concerned about the driveway elevation, it's a big elevation and a lot of siding once you get done.
>I like the belly band that you're using on the rear elevation and wonder how you stop it. Coming around
the corner, don’t know how you get to the old eave line and come up with a way to stop. There may be a
way to break it up materially without actually changing the whole structure of that side. (Ahern: I did take a
look at that and you brought up a good point. Wrapping the belly band around is difficult because there's
no real overhang on the main roof, it would be awkward. It would accentuate the fact that it was an add on
a little bit more. It’s not absolutely ideal, but trying to add a little character in there and windows, it helped
break that up a little bit.) So that side at the top doesn't really project that much from the house, does it?
(Ahern: No.) You have to continue that trim down and end it at a belly band.
>(Ahern: One more point on that rear window, if you did take that window and try to center it below the
window in the master bedroom, the side wall between the master bedroom and the bathroom is not lined
up over the side wall, so the center line of that gable is not the center line of the kitchen. So we go into
that sort of either put something dead on or make it far enough off it doesn't look like you missed it .)
Agreed.
>Agree with my fellow commissioners on the same two points. By playing around with that rear
elevation, it will create some flexibility to get the windows aligned. It would be nice if you can see what can
be done to address the interior design perspective as well. (Ahern: If this is a sticking point , I'm sure we
can work with centering that window.) Great.
>I noticed you're proposing vinyl windows for the rear of the house. What are the existing windows?
(Ahern: Vinyl.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Appreciate the high windows in the bedroom along the right side elevation. That elevation is tough to
deal with your neighbors and everybody looking at windows. Had them and liked them a lot, it's a nice
addition.
>Would like to reiterate the concern about the big blank wall along the right side elevation. The
elevation is deceptive because the new addition area only is rendered as shingle, so it's a very deceiving
elevation. Something needs to happen there, won't suggest what, but you should look at that.
>Agree with my fellow commissioners. We like to see that window changed at the bottom, but other
than that, it's a nice design.
>It's a nice project. They're not asking for anything other than design review considerations. Having a
difficulty making the third finding for architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure in terms of the
design review criteria because of that right side elevation. Not prepared to take action on this. With the
rest of what has been presented to us and the floor plan organized as nicely as it is, the architect can
figure out solutions for that right side and it wouldn't hang this project up on the rear elevation in terms of
that nook window, but being that there are some issues with that right side elevation, this is not ready for
action yet.
Vice-Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
b.1523 Chapin Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached
garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Megan Leung, property
owner) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1523 Chapin Ave - Staff Report
1523 Chapin Ave - Attachments
1523 Chapin Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for
non-statutory reasons. Commissioner Terrones was not present for the Design Review study meeting, but
did review the staff report, meeting minutes and video of the hearing for this item. Chair Tse was not
present at the previous meeting, but did read the meeting minutes and visited the site and is familiar with
the project discussion.
Panning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
James Chu, Chu Design Associates represented the applicant with property owners Johnson Kwan and
Megan Leung.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There were no questions or comments.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Agree with the statements that were made at the Design Review study meeting that it's a very
well-designed piece of architecture. Somewhat pure in its iconic form, therefore that offers sound support
for the Special Permit for declining height envelope. Being that we would otherwise have to take a bite out
of that side of the elevation, and which is one of the reasons why we have allowances for that type of
Special Permit.
>Listened carefully to the discussion on the trees. Would like to share, both with the applicant and with
the public, that we look carefully at the issue of protected size trees. We don't have a specific heritage
designation for something this large. The public would generally be surprised that we haven't had too many
trees of this size requested for removal. There's a good healthy respect for trees of this size and we look
carefully at those. I am certainly not implying disrespect on the applicant's part for those trees because
they seem sincere about what they were saying about the trees. When we do have applications for these
kinds of trees to be removed, we have to look carefully at them especially when we have an arborist report
like we have before us. When an arborist puts their license on the line and make statements about the
possible failure of these trees, one can't go counter to that and insist that trees be kept, we have to take
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
that into close consideration. With that said, it's a good application. It was nearly placed on the Consent
Calendar from the last meeting. The project should move forward. Appreciate my fellow commissioners
putting this on Regular Action so we could comment on it. Like the changes that have been made to
bolster the landscaping and decrease the hardscape in the rear yard. It's a nice project.
>Would reiterate what was said at the last meeting. This is a really nice project ...it's very well done .
Appreciate the changes that were made to refine it even more.
>There's an exterior lighting regulation in the Municipal Code that requires that the cone of light for
exterior lighting be kept entirely on the property. It's not well adhered to and this could be because the
projects are not signed off at nighttime, they ’re signed off during the daytime. But walking around
neighborhoods, this is bothersome. The reason in bringing this up is because these light fixtures are the
types that one is going to see a bulb shining and even putting that behind a piece of a translucent glass
won't comply with the regulations. We really need to get a handle on light pollution in our town. So make
sure that when you choose the light fixtures that they comply with code regulations. Other than that, it's
fantastic.
>Overall, this is a very nice project. The house looks good. It’s within the design guidelines and it
meets all of the setback and height requirements. There's an opportunity lost with removing that tree .
Sometimes it's worth it to make a concession in the design or with the amount of square footage you're
looking for to save a tree or to do something that doesn't necessarily follow the path that we usually see in
these designs. Not going to vote against the project, but wanted to say that it's not always about making
the most out of the square footage or filling up the lot as much as you can. Sometimes there are items or
elements of a site that need to be preserved. In this case, the oak tree at least should have been worked
around and the ADU redesigned in the garage to work around it. There's plenty of space on the lot, but will
not stand in the way of the project.
>Thank you for the added trees in the rear and middle to try and break up the hardscape that we talked
about the last time. Appreciate that you listened to that and found a way to add trees, you're going to
enjoy your backyard a little bit more.
>Really like the project.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
c.708 Newhall Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single
family dwelling and Special Permit for an attached garage. This project is Categorically
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc .,
applicant and designer; Nejasmich Developments LLC, property owner) (91 noticed)
Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
708 Newhall Rd - Staff Report
708 Newhall Rd - Attachments
708 Newhall Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant with property owner Matt Nejasmich.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There were no questions or comments.
Public Comments:
>Alice Devine: Is the square footage, 3900 square feet, within the FAR for the lot? (Hurin: Yes, it is.
The FAR does include the attached garage as well. It is within the maximum allowed for this lot.) What is
the maximum allowed square footage for this lot? (Hurin: The maximum floor area allowed for this lot
including the attached garage is 3,935 square feet and they are proposing 3,933 square feet.) (Chu: We
would be allowed an additional 400 square feet if the house had a detached garage, but the applicant
chose to have an attached garage so we're well under the maximum allowed.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Like the project and can see approving this.
>I liked the project originally. The changes to the front porch are going to be a nice addition. Brought
up the planter idea, the elevations are going to work out fine. Can see this project moving forward as well.
>Agree, it’s a very well-designed house. Appreciate the correction on the drafting error and the
revisions that were made, they're nice improvements.
>Wanted to ask staff if there is any way to address the letter that was received from Dr. Scott regarding
mitigating impacts of construction noise during the day while people are working and attending school from
home during the pandemic. Are there adjusted hours of construction at all during this time? (Hurin: We
can discuss this with the chief building official in terms of construction hours. However, the hours of
concern that were expressed by the neighbor were 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, don't know how much can be done
to address those concerns since they are within the construction hours allowed. The contractor or the
applicant can work with the next door neighbor to mitigate the noise. But as far as the code goes, we don't
have anything in the code that would address construction if someone adjacent to the construction site is
working/remote schooling from home.)
>With respect to the letter about the noise, it's a really slippery slope even if it were possible to do
something. Thursdays at my neighborhood is landscape maintenance day and I ’m sitting here during
meetings all day and certainly can ’t do anything about that. We simply can't shut down the world because
we're all in this situation. It's very inconvenient, but it's a fact of life right now.
>Would like to reiterate my request that the exterior light fixtures meet the requirements of the
Municipal Code.
>It's a great project and they have done a really nice job with it. Agree with the comments about the
noise, it's a tough situation. Not sure what we can do to balance the desire for quiet time with the rights of
the homeowner to develop their property, particularly during the hours of normal construction.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, 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.1549 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
addition and substantial construction to an existing single family dwelling. (Angelina
Chuong, applicant and designer; Thomas Lo, property owner) (106 noticed) Staff
Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1549 Los Montes Dr - Staff Report
1549 Los Montes Dr - Attachments
1549 Los Montes Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Angelina Chuong, represented the applicant with property owners Thomas and Candace Lo.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is the declining height envelope issue the reason why the second floor steps in 1’-2” along the
right-hand side at the front elevation? (Chuong: Yes.) How is that area above the first floor going to be
roofed? The house steps in on the second floor. (Chuong: It will be recessed 1’-2” from the first floor wall .)
What would the roofing be over that? (Chuong: It's a flat area, but with a slope to drain water. We're using
standing seam metal.) I can't see that working.
>On the landscape plan, in the rear where the existing garage is being removed, there's a note that
says “regrade existing concrete driveway /garage for smooth transition from the street at 15% grade or less
on work.” What is that area in the rear yard intended for? (Chuong: Owner have three young kids and they
want to have some yard space, so we want to keep it as an existing concrete slab at the back for a
playground for the kids.) Is the driveway going to remain along that side and the garage out front?
(Chuong: No. The driveway is going to be more lined up with the proposed garage.) The existing driveway
is noted on the new landscape plan and erosion control plan as concrete. Is that going to remain as a
concrete area? (Chuong: Yes.) What's the purpose for that area? (Chuong: To cut down the construction
cost. If we have to remove all of the existing concrete, it probably will add much more cost to the project.)
>Had the same concern about the concrete. On the new site plan, it looks like your landscaping back
there is at the 15 foot setback line. Then on your new landscaping and erosion control plan, you shown
existing lawn and the hedge is closer to the fence. Which one is correct? (Chuong: It's more detailed on
the landscaping plan.) So sheet A -1.2 would be the correct one? (Chuong: Yes. It's more detailed, that is
the correct sheet.) Your hedge is shown at the edge of your concrete slab on sheet A -1.1. On your new
erosion control plan, sheet A -1.2, it looks like the hedge is five feet off the back fence. It's an existing
lawn and after visiting the site, saw that it's not much of a lawn. (Chuong: We are going with sheet A -1.2.)
The plans should be corrected that so that they are consistent.
>Will the new CMU block wall and column on the new front elevation have the same graphic below the
horizontal tiles? (Chuong: Yes, we're going to provide a new horizontal tile. Below that is the CMU to match
with the existing.) Do you have a horizontal tile picked out? (Chuong: No, not yet.)
>Have you identified the material for your window? In the staff report, it says "unknown." (Chuong: We
are considering using a dark color anodized aluminum windows.) So it will be an aluminum window?
(Chuong: Yes.)
>What will be your roofing material? (Chuong: For the roofing material, we're using standing seam
metal.) What about on the flat roof of the second floor? (Chuong: It would be the same roofing material .)
Not familiar with using that material on a flat roof, will that work? (Chuong: For the flat roof, no one is using
tile and gravel anymore. The neighborhood predominantly has pitched roofs. We tried to cut down the
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
height of the proposed house so we designed it as a flat roof.) The concern is it will be visible from the
neighborhood up above. (Chuong: Yes. We already picked standing seam metal, but can consider your
suggestions about the flat roof material.) Don't believe standing seam metal is going to work. (Chuong:
The roof will have a slight slope on it, it's not completely flat.)
>Understand that a lot of houses overlook each other in the hillside area. In looking at a couple of your
windows at the right side elevation, they're in the bathroom and most of those windows on the second floor
are not really view windows. Wondering if you have considered using smaller windows that are higher up so
that you still get the light, but don't necessarily have the view looking down into the neighbor's yard. That
may be a way to consider compromising with them on the view issue. (Chuong: Definitely. We also
received the email from the planner regarding concerns expressed from the adjacent property. We can
make that window smaller and place it higher which won ’t look down into the neighbor.) Sometimes you
want the light to come in, not necessarily try to look out, and the five -foot high windows on the side
elevations are a nice way to accomplish that and minimize the issues with neighbors. (Chuong: I’ll take
that advice.)
>It's not clear from your landscape plan if the existing trees that the neighbor to the right was
concerned about are to be retained? (Chuong: Most of the trees will be retained. We're removing one tree
for our proposed project. I believe the neighbor may have misunderstood that we will be removing all of the
trees.) Would suggest updating the landscape plan to reflect the existing trees to remain. It would be clear
for everyone reading the plans. (Chuong: Okay.)
>Did you do a sun pattern study in terms of the shadows cast from the building? (Chuong: Yes, we did.
We went there at different times. The adjacent property has solar panels facing the rear of the house to
take advantage of the sun exposure. Even with our second story, we don't see that we'll have any shadow
cast onto their existing solar panels. We have pictures taken and I can email them to the Planning
Commission.) We can start with that to get a better understanding on how the sun pattern is cast against
the neighbor's property.
>In addition to the comments that were brought up about the windows, there seems to be a scattered
pattern of windows on the left elevation. The windows don't seem to be aligned with each other or have any
particular pattern. There's also a number of different sizes of windows. Can you take a look at that?
(Chuong: Will definitely work a little bit more on it to see if we can come up with a more lined up window
pattern.) Maybe a more regular pattern or size of windows would be helpful as well. (Chuong: Okay.)
>On the front elevation, the second story has a nine -foot plate height and the area above the garage is
the master bedroom, correct? (Chuong: Yes.) With the nine-foot plate height, the roof is built another two
feet above. Is the ceiling height in that bedroom 11 feet? (Chuong: No. We're trying to design some
different elevation heights on the front facade. The ceiling height is the same because we don't want to
have a flat roof from the street. We're also putting a square box with no architectural detail to show the
different elements there.)
>On the front elevation it notes a glass guardrail. I read it as there will be horizontal elements, but it's a
glass guardrail and you don't know what the tile will be yet? (Chuong: We don't know yet, I haven't picked
one.)
>On the right side elevation, understand that the upper floor is set back from the lower floor by 1’-2”.
The upper floor is called out as smooth stucco. What's the finish for the lower floor? (Chuong: It's also an
existing stucco.) So you are proposing to leave the existing stucco? (Chuong: For the lower floor, yes .)
Would have expected to see some sort of resolution of the small roof that you described as a standing
seam roof over that 1’-2” setback, but seeing no resolution of that roof edge, you need to look at that
more closely. Don't know if you've given it any thought. (Chuong: We'll provide more details on the right
side elevation.)
>What has happened to the floor of the deck that's overhanging toward the front edge? Is it a drafting
error? There's no thickness to it. On the front elevation, it shows as a fascia but it doesn't turn the corner
and there's no structure holding that deck up. It would be acceptable to use a thick sheet metal, but
you're not going to do that and that's not indicated on the front. There's a lack of resolution from the front
facade to that right-hand facade that needs to be addressed. (Chuong: We're proposing a cantilever at the
front of the second floor. It's my mistake showing the thickness of the cantilever that extends out.)
>On the front elevation, the upper floor shows a smooth stucco, but on the other elevation it looks like
horizontal siding. Is it flush with the smooth stucco or is there a separation between the two? (Chuong:
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There is a separation.) What is the separation? (Chuong: The corner finish metal material.) It looks like
continuous horizontal panel siding abutting the smooth stucco below. (Chuong: I will need to show more
detail.) The left side elevation calls out “new hard trowel stucco”, so you're putting new stucco over there
because you're adding to the second floor. Is that the reason you have new stucco on that side, but
existing stucco on the other side? (Chuong: Yes.)
>Can you confirm that the deck you have off the back is 310 square feet? (Chuong: It’s not really a
deck, it's a second floor cantilever cover. It's about 6’ x 11’.)
>In looking at the floor plan, it seems like there's plenty of space to align the upper floor with the lower
floor in order to comply with the setback and the declining height envelope requirements. It looks like the
interior space is generous and you would save yourself a lot of trouble. (Chuong: Are you saying we can
align them up with the existing first level? That's what we originally proposed, to line up with the existing
first floor. It was suggested by the planner that we're not meeting the required side setback. We have it
flush with the bottom level.) I meant it the other way around, but realized that you are trying to save cost
and not rebuild the right wall. The idea was to demolish the existing right wall so you can align the upper
floor with the lower floor on the same plain and meet the declining height envelope.
Public Comments:
>Jill Shen: I'm the neighbor on Los Altos Drive and my backyard abuts the property. This is the first
time we learned about this project. We’re interested in knowing what the proposed building height is. We
heard something about solar panels, will they be added on top of the roof? I wonder if there can be a
marker or something put up so we have an idea of how high the elevation is. I am concerned about my
backyard privacy and also if it will impact our view to the bay.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>It seems pretty typical that when we have a number of questions and concerns about a design, that
this project might be a good candidate for review by a design review consultant. But based on comments
of the neighbors, both in the hearing here and through email, I am concerned about whether we're going to
be able to make the findings for the Hillside Area Construction Permit with potential view blockage of
houses behind on Los Altos Drive. Not sure which direction to take because we recommend that they go
to a design review consultant, they make changes to the design of the second story house, and then story
poles are put up. It is clear that's going to be needed here. If we can't make the findings for a second
story then all the work with the design review consultant makes no sense. Am interested to hear what
other comments my fellow commissioners have. This is a good candidate for design review consultant in
any case.
>In agreement with my fellow commissioner. It seems like it ’s a waste of time and money, potentially,
to put up story poles for something that needs as much design work as this project needs. The drawings
don't inspire confidence. There’s a certain lack of order to the facades and there's a lack of legibility to the
modernist architecture. You've got to understand how the parts and pieces relate to each other and right
now this feels like a couple of boxes slamming together. Then you've got the potential view blockage
problem. Not sure where to start on how to unravel this either.
>Agree with my fellow commissioners. This project should go to a design review consultant. Maybe the
consultant can look at what type of home will not impact the neighbor's view because that's going to be an
important factor, rather than putting up story poles that are costly. The consultant should understand that
there is a concern about the neighbor's view.
>Agree that the story poles need to be installed first. In looking at what they're trying to accomplish with
the square footage that they're trying to add, not sure the volume is going to change substantially. Agree
there are some benefits from the design review consultant in helping with materials, transitions and really
trying to help the modern architecture work. In looking at the elevations, there are materials that don't turn
the corners and it feels like we're not trying to design the 3D box, but really just a modernist facade with a
stucco box. It's a good idea to send this to the design review consultant, but would hate to waste that if
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the story poles don't even allow for a second story solution like we saw on one of our previous projects .
So, would suggest that the story poles be installed and at least give the neighbors the opportunity to see
what an additional nine feet on top of the existing structure looks like. The photo from one house didn't
necessarily suggest that it was going to block a view. Didn't see any information from the house directly
behind, so we don't have a lot to go on.
>Agree with what's been said by my fellow commissioners. However, the obligation and associated cost
fall ultimately to the applicant and the property owner. It's up to them to decide how they want to move
forward. If they want to continue to pursue a second floor addition as they've proposed, they just have to
accept the consequences that if they work their way through the design review consulting and still decide
that's the direction they want to pursue, the story poles are going to have to get erected and it can torpedo
the application in terms of our ability to approve that type of an addition. Don't want to suggest a particular
sequence other than, agreeing that the project should go through the design review consulting process .
We have the five criteria for the design guidelines to consider.
>In terms of the style, a modern home can fit in this area. There's several that are like this on that
particular block. Don't see an issue there and with the parking pattern. If they want to have an attached
garage, there's that pattern in the neighborhood. The problem that it is creating for them is they're putting
the garage on the uphill side of the house. Many of the houses in that neighborhood have the garage
tucked under, maybe half a level, on the downhill side of that front facade. Don't see that there's an issue
with an attached garage meeting the parking pattern of the neighborhood.
>Having difficulties with the style, mass and bulk criteria because as we've been saying, things are
poorly resolved and poorly detailed. It doesn't seem to be a consistent or well thought out modern piece of
architecture as we see elsewhere in the neighborhood. In terms of criteria four, interface with structures on
adjacent properties, this is out of character with the pattern of the rest of the neighborhood. There appear
to be two-story houses, but they're not. They are split level houses with a garage tucked on a lower floor
with what essentially is a one -story house above. This one is an aberration relative to that pattern, which
brings us to the Hillside Area Construction Permit which will make it difficult to approve. But we won't see
that until the story poles are erected. If the applicant wants to avail themselves of that opportunity, they
have to erect the story poles. In terms of criteria five, the landscaping, I can ’t tell if it's appropriate for the
scale because the plans are inconsistent and poorly drawn. Agree with the idea of sending this to design
review consulting and the fact that we're going to need to have story poles erected before this comes back
for action.
>Would ask the applicant look carefully at the submittal requirements, we need to have half size plans,
these are 11’ by 17”. Hate to pick at that, but it's what made it difficult to try to discern first floor and
second floor alignments when we're looking at plans that aren't to scale.
>Quite obviously, story poles are going to be required. It's in the hillside area, it's a second story and
there will be an impact on some views somewhere. Don't see why we shouldn't request the story poles.
>On a practical note, in walking around the property I saw that it's in poor shape as reinforced by the
owner. The first thing they should do is have an engineer come out and look at the structure to tell them if
there's anything useful there. To my fellow commissioner ’s point, the garage would serve them better on
the other side of the property and you can design around that. Would scrape this house and start all over,
you're going to come up with a better design. You can accommodate the neighbors, work with the sight
lines, and make something you'll be happier with. Your cost will be the same because the house that
you've got right there is going to be destroyed by the time you try to re -engineer it and build a second
story.
>Agree with my fellow commissioners that we absolutely want to see story poles be erected, it will
benefit the neighbors to see those put up. Also recommend that this project be referred to a design review
consultant. Agree with what my fellow commissioner stated that on paper it can look like you're saving
costs because you're aligning walls, keeping windows and maintaining finishes on a home. But in reality
under construction, all of that will be torn apart. Then you'll be addressing other issues especially for an
older home that hasn't been well maintained. It could cost you more than just starting from scratch,
building more efficiently, coming up with a new plan that works well from a massing and layout perspective
and in terms of spatial use.
>Had the same exact comment about the scope of the project and whether it made more sense to start
over or save the existing building.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the
application to a design review consultant and directed that story poles be installed.
>If in the revised design, let's say they avail themselves of the existing driveway and the
house pushes over to one side or the other and beyond the volume of the existing house, but the
ridge height still doesn't align, then the neighbors still are asking why aren't story poles being
erected. Would we be prepared to act on that at that point?
>Take to heart in terms of not necessarily requiring that story poles be erected per se. As a
comment on the motion and maybe this is to the applicant as a caution when this comes back
for action, if story poles aren't erected because you think you're not exceeding the existing
height, the project might be continued because we might require story poles at that point. Don't
think we should necessarily restrict ourselves to not requiring story poles in the future.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
b.108 Channing Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. (Kevin Peng, property owner and applicant;
Joe Ouyang, Yo Consulting Inc ., designer) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle
Markiewicz
108 Channing Rd- Staff Report
108 Channing Rd - Attachments
108 Channing Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Kevin Peng, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Want to know more about the tile you are choosing and what you intend to do with the siding. (Peng:
The tiles are mainly to cover the steps at the front and the back. We don ’t want to have exposed concrete
as the finished product, so it's going to be some stone veneer.) Are you doing the wood siding with
mitered corners? (Peng: Yes, that's correct.)
>Is there a reason that you're not making the chimney on the right hand side of the building look like a
traditional chimney? (Peng: We thought about having the chimney go all the way to the roof and extend
above it. The second floor is set back from the first floor and we didn't want to have this gigantic feature
on the side of the building.) You don't think you could make it more slender? If it's a zero clearance
fireplace, it's not going to take up much room. As it's shown now, It looks like a water heater shed as
opposed to a chimney. A chimney is a nice architecture feature. Being it is a direct vent fireplace, it
doesn't have to come up to the second floor roof, it can pierce that first floor roof. If you would take a look
at that, it would add architecturally to the design. (Peng: The other reason was the window at the second
floor. The flue going past the first floor will be too close to that window.) You can vent it out the side or you
can take it all the way to the roof. If you look at the manufacturer ’s specifications there are required
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
clearances to operable windows. Being so close to the front of the house, you might want to take a look
at that, it will improve the design. (Peng: Okay.)
>The existing site plan shows a 22-inch redwood tree to remain in the neighbor's yard. Have you spoken
to the neighbor? That tree hangs over the property line quite a bit and if I'm not mistaken, it would be up
against your house so you would have to do some pruning there. Wondering what kind of damage a new
foundation is going to do to that tree because you're going to be five feet off the property line. It's a really
big tree. Don't think redwood trees belong in residential neighborhoods, but it's not your tree, so would
encourage you to work with the neighbor on what you're doing with that tree because it may impact them .
(Peng: Sure, yes.)
>You've shown removing a couple of large trees in the back of the property. Have you applied for a tree
removal permit for that? (Peng: We worked with the arborist and he told us that those two trees are palm
trees and that they are not protected trees. We did not need permits to remove them.) They're just marked
as a 38” tree and a 36” tree. Are they both palm trees? (Peng: Correct, yes.)
>Are the front porch columns going to be wood columns? (Peng: Those will be fiberglass.)
>If you revisit the chimney concept, you can do an asymmetrical chimney with a shoulder on the right
hand side and it might allow you to center that chimney as it comes up between the two windows above. It
wouldn't necessarily have to go all the way above the higher roof.
>Your elevations indicate “simulated divided light, typical for all windows .” Have you looked at window
manufacturers at this point and do you know who you're going with? (Peng: We haven't decided which
manufacturer yet.) Are you familiar with the simulated true divided light window detail that we typically
encourage? (Peng: Yes.) Interior and exterior grids, as well as a dividing bar between the double glazing?
(Peng: We have seen the samples, yes.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The tile selection is going to be really important to the success of that front elevation. We've seen a
few in recent hearings that didn't work very well. Would encourage you to make that choice before coming
back, so we can get guidance on that.
>Concerned with the plate height on the front elevation, having it at nine feet and having the seven foot
tall door is creating a high forehead there that would be better served if that scale came down. That would
even it out a little bit. Right now that whole door composition looks out of scale, like the door is too small
for such a large area.
>The redwood tree is something that has to be resolved because that tree comes well over the existing
house now. It is where the second floor pop out is located on the right side, so those tree limbs are going
to be in your windows and it is a little concerning.
>Agree with my fellow commissioner regarding the front porch. The columns are overly tall. It looks like
it's wanting to be on a plantation that ’s set on a lot of acreage. It's creating a high forehead above those
windows and doors along the porch that looks fairly unnatural and out of scale. Can't tell how tall the front
doors are because these are not half size drawings, they are 11” x 17”. Please submit half size drawings
when you come back for action.
>Would agree with my fellow commissioners and would like to see that chimney addressed a little bit
more architecturally to make it a more cohesive design.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 -
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
c.619-625 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) -
Application for Environmental Review and Amendment to Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height and Condominium Permit for construction of a
new five-story, 44-Unit live/work development. (Ian Birchall, Ian Birchall and Associates,
applicant and architect; Ed 1005 BM LLC, property owner) (229 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
619-625 California Dr - Staff Report
619-625 California Dr - Attachments
619-625 California Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Can you walk us through the consequences of calling this live /work? How is that different than calling
it condominiums or apartments? (Hurin: Similar to the previously approved project at this site, as well as
the recently approved project at the other end of this block, you can definitely see characteristics of a
residential condominium. They do have an area designated within each of the units for work area. The city
doesn't have specific requirements for live /work spaces. Given the circumstances with COVID -19 and
persons working from home, they've designed a project here that lends itself more to residents that would
be working from home or running a business from their own home as opposed to a more traditional
live/work project. This is more geared to high-tech or professionals which will be living in these units.)
>Can you remind me about 601 California Drive? Does that project extend across all of the remaining
properties in that block besides this one or will there be one building to remain in between? (Hurin: There
will be one building remaining in between. You have the former gas station site and the existing building,
which is not part of these two projects.)
>The changes to the already approved project, were they driven by changes in desires of the applicant
or was there a change in the zoning code that allows them to do something now that they weren't able to
do when they first applied? (Hurin: These changes would be based only upon the applicant's desire to
make these changes. There were no changes to the zoning code in the meantime.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Ian Birchall, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>You're changing from 26 units to 44 units. Can you tell me what the unit mix was before versus what it
is now? (Birchall: I can't tell you exactly, I'll be direct about that. So I'm going to answer the implied
question. We have reduced all units to one -bedroom units and increased the number of units to a more
efficient planning and still provided generous living, dining and work areas.) So all 44 units are
one-bedroom units? (Birchall: There are two on the top floor that have a den associated with the live /work
area, so that can become a private office, it's not a bedroom. We haven't put a closet in it. It's a den, so
there are larger units on the top floor.) So within a very similar volume, the changes mainly are because
the number of bedrooms have been reduced, but you are increasing number of units.
>In looking at the building section and the building height, did you change the floor -to-floor heights to
make them rationale and reasonable and that's why you've been able to fit the additional floor in? The first
floor was over 16 feet and now you have it down 13 feet because it's more communal spaces as opposed
to hard retail, right? (Birchall: Yes. Also by reducing the size of the units, we feel it's possible to reduce
the ceiling height down to nine feet. So everything is in a better scale proportion.) Looking at the upper
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
floors, you had 11’-8” and 12' and now you have 9-foot ceilings. So it kept the volume at one foot taller
than it was before overall, but increased the number of units by 18. (Birchall: That's correct.)
>Since you're the same architect and it's the same owner, would it be possible when this comes back
to action for you to do a montage to show that block now so we can see the two projects together?
Understand there will be a gap in between, but could you do that for us so we can see that when it comes
back? (Birchall: Absolutely. That's a very good suggestion. We'll be happy to do that.)
>The first time around, we had a long discussion about the first floor and it seemed like everyone
agreed we should have some retail to tie the downtown with the smaller shops further up on California
Drive. Can you tell me why you're eliminating the retail? (Birchall: It's based on economics, we just don't
want to have empty uses on the first floor. They're likely to stay there forever. My client has done pretty
extensive research for his other project that we were the architect for and he hasn't received any interest at
all from any possible tenant. At one point, we had the ground floor, north of that corridor on the drawing, as
a potential retail space and we were just very unhappy with the idea that it's going to sit there empty. So we
decided to design something that could be adapted in the future to create a small pocket retail that might
be attractive to a tenant as the street begins to provide a need for that kind of retail. We're talking about
adding two buildings that will give us close to 70 units, it could be between 100 to 140 people living on this
block and they may generate some need for that kind of retail use.)
>Struggling with how we learn to apply these ideas of live /work to the sites being developed. Help me
understand how the work share and co -working space is going to work for 44 people? In looking at the
manager's office being half the size, how do you see that being used? (Birchall: Have you visited any
work/share spaces?) Not for this type of work. The only ones I have done are metal shops and that type of
thing. (Birchall: Fair enough. We don't expect everybody to be using this work share space. We think
maybe somebody who prefers to have a small work area in their live /work unit and wants to have an area
down here where they can bring people off the street and have a meeting, they would rent it out on a work
bench basis or per square feet basis. This is about supporting their work use in their unit and providing
space that they can't provide or don't want to provide within their work space, within their live /work unit.) So
you would have to call ahead to rent or reserve that work share area or is that open to use? (Birchall: I’m
not capable of answering these questions. This is more about how the project sponsor will work something
out here. That’s why we have a manager's office and how it gets rented. There will be examples on the
market by the time we build a project and they'll provide some examples and some opportunities.)
>One of the long involved discussions we had on this project some time back had to do with parking
and traffic at this really congested intersection. Has any additional work been done to understand what ten
additional parking spaces will do to this intersection? (Birchall: Not to my knowledge. That will be part of
the environmental review.) That begs the question, we're looking at an amendment to an already approved
project. But having ten parking places and ten cars at this intersection would seem that it requires some
additional environmental work, but wouldn't have expected that to happen in an amendment. So am a little
confused. (Hurin: So this is being brought forward to you as a design review study item. Before it comes
back, there will have to be an addendum prepared to the environmental document, with one of the items to
be looked at is the traffic impacts from the additional units being proposed here.)
>When they do that traffic study, are they going to base it on what's currently going on? We have
COVID-19, so you don't have school in session. There are other impacts now that are different than when
they do the traffic study in a normal kind of world that we used to live in. (Hurin: Don't know the exact
details, but the traffic engineers are now applying a certain factor to accommodate for that change in
traffic patterns. They are aware of that and it will be factored into the review.)
>At that fifth floor plan where there are two units with a den space, it looks like there are closets for
those two dens. Would that theoretically make these two -bedroom units? (Birchall: I see what you're
saying. First of all, I owe you an apology because I was not aware we had kept those closets in there. The
definition of a bedroom doesn't require there to be a closet, and if it is a problem for approval of the units
being one-bedroom units, then we'll remove the closet. But the definition of a bedroom does not require it
to have a closet. It can have a piece of furniture, like a wardrobe, but the definition I'm talking about is
under the California Building Code and Housing Code. If it's a problem here, we can delete that. Thank
you for catching that. I apologize for my error.) No problem.
>In comparison to your previously approved design at the corner of Oak Grove Avenue and California
Drive, there's an open space area with additional benches for people to rest or to enjoy the outdoor space
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
and it seems to have been reduced in size, but the lobby looks fairly large. Is there any reason or thinking
behind that rearrangement of space allocation? (Birchall: We felt the lobby needed to have more of a
sense of space appropriate for a live /work where you've got guests and potential clients visiting. There
might be a need to put a minor reception desk or something like that. As for the landscape area, we felt
that this design was much more open and welcoming off the sidewalk. The prior design had concrete
planters and it created a barrier on the corner, so we consciously opened this up to the corner.) Did like
seeing the additional seating at that corner. (Birchall: We have seating outside in this landscaped area
and it's on the rendering.) Seeing there was only one bench, noticed there were multiple benches in the
original design.
>Along the lines of amenities and useful space, was there any consideration for a barbecue at the
back or anywhere for outdoor use and enjoyment in that rear corner? (Birchall: Yes. There has been talk
about that. That's under development to be honest with you. We have not focused a lot of time on that .
We did have a barbecue in the prior design and there are issues with having barbecues in buildings. If
they're not managed with an on -site manager, the use of a barbecue can be really messy. So sometimes
on our rental properties where there's an on -site manager, it's a lot easier to put a barbecue into the
landscape or into a courtyard. This is under development so we'll give more thought to that.)
>There is a workout gym in the other building on the opposite corner, so will the residents of this
building be able to go next door? (Birchall: Yes, there will be some cross usage of the common spaces
by both buildings. So residents of this building will have access to the gym in the other building and they
will have access to the work space here if necessary.)
>The bike storage looks like it stores four bikes or that's what was noted on the plans. Do you feel
that's sufficient? (Birchall: Yes, that’s something we can work on if it's necessary. The city doesn't have
quite the same stringent standards that San Francisco does. We can provide more if it's mandated or
recommended.)
>On your materials board there was a small glass tile, wasn ’t sure where that's being applied. (Birchall:
That's being applied to the columns that are exposed outside the main entrance. So the white columns
that you saw on the renderings are the glass tile. We felt there's a need to get some light from the column
where you can see fractions of light reflecting and refracting from the glass, and it would give the column a
much lighter feel. That was the reasoning behind that choice.) Did notice the columns were reflective in
your renderings. (Birchall: Yes, that's the glass.)
>On the last building, we did talk at length about a delivery and drop -off area. With the increase in the
number of units and people living and working here, what would be the plan for dropping off? Seeing a bus
stop and a red zone, is there any thought to that? (Birchall: That will become part of the development of
the design and the transportation study as we go forward. We figured the side street to be the drop off
because we have a large curb cut for pick -up and drop-off. That's not something I've got any ready answer
for you right now.) Don't see anything on the Oak Grove Avenue side. (Birchall: No, we have not selected
an area or looked at that yet, it's something we need to get into.)
Public Comments:
>Comment via email from Jennifer Pfaff: I am wondering if the applicant can consider adding some
additional street trees. This project looks like runs about 120’ wide and nearly that deep, but there are only
two street trees on California Drive, and one, on Oak Grove. I’m referring to public street trees, if I ’m not
mistaken. California Drive is very wide, and on that west side, poorly landscaped. Can you possibly
address? Thanks for your consideration.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Had a similar comment as Jennifer Pfaff. There's an opportunity for an additional tree along California
Drive and a possible one along Oak Grove Avenue, if you can revisit that.
>I am excited about the revisions being presented. We kind of massaged and wrestled with the
previous design and it ended up getting watered down in terms of the final finished product. What’s
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
proposed now is going to harmonize nicely with what we approved down the block; would like to see that
as a montage of the projects together.
>On the ground floor, we have to consider the changing face of retail and agree with the applicant. If we
force the issue in terms of the possible retail space on that ground floor, particularly along California Drive
where it's quite a ways from the draw or the anchorage of Burlingame Avenue, we could end up with more
vacancies, and we're being struck with how much e -commerce we have. Unfortunately, there aren't a larger
number of people walking along the streets to get shoppers. Excited about the proposition with this
live/work concept, you have these additional spaces on the ground floor and the larger one that they're
calling the work share or co -working space that can be a pop -up for one of the businesses, or large group
event for one of the businesses, or an exhibit for something that they might want to show. The conference
space could be for client groups to meet with somebody who is running a business out of their live /work
unit above. That’s going to actually work to liven the street just as much as any retail would. You have the
additional advantage of ownership from the people that are using those spaces. So all in all, excited about
the idea of getting these additional living units with only an additional one foot of overall height, with
generally the same mass and bulk as the project we had before, and architecture that harmonizes better
with what we’ve approved down the block. Would like to see it move into the environmental study and see
how it unfolds as it comes back for action.
>Agree with my fellow commissioner, am also excited. The architecture is an improvement. A little bit
concerned to look at the environmental issues, particularly the traffic. Really looking forward to see a
composite drawing. Worried a little bit about too much of a good thing. Harmonizing is one thing and too
much of a good thing is another. This is an improvement on the previous project.
>Like the changes, but am concerned about the traffic impact. That's something we looked at quite
closely the first time we looked at this and got quite a bit of feedback from the neighborhood about it. A
revised traffic study would be helpful and it will be interesting to see a shadow study in the environmental
impact report, how that additional floor is going to impact that three -story apartment building or condo
building right behind the project on Oak Grove Avenue.
>Like this project too. Echoing my fellow commissioner ’s comment about the retail, we are seeing a
change in retail and having retail down there would be dead. Using it this way and encouraging this to be
more work/live because the one -bedrooms encourage that. It's not a family place. It's a work place and
having these amenities is a good thing. Like the direction of the project. Am concerned about the traffic
as well, would encourage you to look at Adeline Drive and El Camino Real because there's an apartment
building on the corner. It has an entrance and an exit on the corner and it's the main thoroughfare to a
number of schools, so equally a lot of traffic there but we can make it work. That doesn't have to be a
killer to this corner here.
>Struggling with this a little bit more than the rest of my fellow commissioners. We talked about this on
the other project down the block. What's the definition of a live /work space? These units look like they're
more about living than about working. The work space has been reduced and being done so by increasing
a common area where more people can work. But if you're talking about 44 businesses, is that enough
space down there with the conference room and the common work area? Maybe some research needs to
be done on that. It seems that we're jamming a lot more people into the same amount of space. Besides
the traffic impact, also concerned about the deliveries, the drop -offs and pick-ups, and where the clients
are going to park if they're going to these businesses. It seems like we're impacting this area and not sure
it's in a good way. We asked the applicant if they would be interested in making more of the common area
if that works, or if they can come up with an argument that this would be enough. Just don ’t know at this
point.
>Agree with my fellow commissioners that this is an improvement to the originally proposed project. It's
great to see additional units come on the market. The material palate looks nice and it's complimentary
with the one down the street. It's interesting to see the whole street as it's developed in an overall
rendering. Recalling a lot of discussion as well about traffic coming in and out of that parking garage and
that we also have rideshare needs. We will see in the next go around when we see the report on traffic and
its implications in the area. In your rendering, you have a lot of red zones drawn, don't see where one
would pickup an Uber or Lyft ride without having to go further down into the residential area.
>Do appreciate that the building is only about a foot taller and you were able to get so many more units
in within this general massing of a building, so congratulations on that. Would like to see this move
forward to the next stages.
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020
November 9, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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 Commissioners Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
On November 2, 2020, the City Council adopted the ordinance modifying construction hours. The
ordinance amends the hours of construction in the Bayfront Commercial, Innovation Industrial and Rollins
Road Mixed Use areas to allow construction to begin at 7:00 a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m. on weekdays.
However, use of tools such as chainsaws, jack hammers, pile drivers and impact wrenches would be
prohibited during that first hour unless approved by the chief building official. It also allows the building
official to grant extended hours for work such as large concrete pourers. The City Council also approved
the proposed project at 1766 El Camino Real, which includes the ordinance that amends the office and
health service parking ratio for that zoning district from 1:300 from 1:400. The Council also reviewed an
introduction of a short -term rental ordinance, which would require collection of a transient occupancy tax
and registration with the City. Lastly, Scott Spansail was appointed as Interim City Attorney.
a.624 Lexington Way, zoned R -1 - FYI for review of revisions requested by the Planning
Commission to a previously approved Design Review project.
624 Lexington Way - Memorandum
624 Lexington Way - Attachments
624 Lexington Way - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on November 9, 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 November 19, 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 18City of Burlingame Printed on 12/15/2020