HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2020.12.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, December 14, 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 7:00
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, and SchmidPresent6 -
LoftisAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft November 9, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft November 9, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Vice-Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
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.822 Walnut Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits and a Setback
Variance for a new, two-story accessory structure to be used as a detached garage and
accessory living quarters (Leslie Jones, Jones Street Design, applicant and architect;
Jordan and Chris Chavez, property owners) (228 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
822 Walnut Ave - Staff Report
822 Walnut Ave - Attachments
822 Walnut Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 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.
Leslie Jones, Jones Street Design, represented the applicant and property owners, Jordan and Chris
Chavez.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Not aware if you've had a chance to interface with your neighbor on the right -hand side facing Arc
Way. What is proposed between the steps and the walkway that's along the right side of the new structure
between those steps and the property line fence? Would that be landscaping, is it a new fence? What's
happening along that side? (Jones: Along that side, there will be a walk space with gradual steps that go
up to the grade of the pool deck. We wanted to make sure we had an accessible side for utilities and for
access to the pool area from Arc Way.)
>Is the fence along that side going to be rebuilt or is it going to stay as is? (Jones: Currently, the fence
is at that high point, it's up with the pool deck height. There needs to be a retaining wall that runs along a
portion of that as you get closer to Arc Way.) (Chavez: We've had a chance to talk to the next door
neighbor about that. There's a small space there now that is not landscaped and he would like to see it
landscaped, so I have talked with him about that. He's happy with the division and he's reviewed the plans
as well. And potentially if there's a small amount of space for landscaping, that would be agreeable to
him.)
>Understand that you meet the off -street parking requirement, but was wondering if you looked at any
ways to maintain at least some uncovered parking in front of the garage? (Jones: There are some
complications with that. If you look at the site plan, you can see the pool deck at the back of the
proposed structure is along a curbed retaining wall that basically divides the site. It goes from 56’-6” down
to 6 feet or so at that point and creates a pinch point. Then there is also a retaining wall at Arc Way and a
grassy area that's currently to the left of the house. It's not level with Arc Way. If we were to try to create
parking there, we would basically have to excavate, take out several trees and put in a driveway that was
level with Arc Way, which would be about six feet lower or even with the slope, it would be lower than the
pool deck. We were trying to avoid doing that, we didn't want to take out anymore trees. We didn't want to
change the look of Arc Way than we already have. We were also concerned about increasing the size of
the curb cut because we were increasing it pretty significantly for off-street parking.)
>Are all the retaining walls existing? (Jones: Currently, the retaining wall that's to the left of the
structure is set about four feet back from where we're proposing to put it. So we're going to push it out
further, but yes there is a retaining wall there that runs along the left side of the existing garage.) Is the
existing driveway on Walnut Avenue going to be maintained or are you going to remove that? (Chavez:
We’re going to keep that.)
>Understand that you're looking for two -car garage, but you're in fact building a three -car garage. Is the
third space intended for a car also or for a shop space? (Jones: It was for a car. We had it as two, shorter
8-foot wide garage doors, but there was a point where they thought we were going to require three off -street
parking spaces on that side, so we decided to make it a two -car garage combined with a one -car garage.
We intend to use it as a two -car and one-car garage. The shop area that we're referring to is at the back of
the garage, there’s a little bump-out on one side.)
>Did you look at any designs where the garages wouldn't be in the same plane, if the garage stepped
back and worked more towards the retaining wall? It seems like you're maximizing everything elsewhere .
You can get a two-car garage and not have a rear setback variance. It wouldn't give you that bonus area,
but have you looked at those designs? (Jones: We played with a lot of different designs. There's a pinch
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
point in the back. We we're trying to push it back as far as we can and get it as far away from the street
as possible. We were trying to maintain that same gambrel roof look and one of the issues with keeping
that consistent look with the front is trying to maintain that even front facade. If we were to try to offset the
garage doors, like you were saying, we would have to really look at changing the overall aesthetic of the
garage itself and maybe do a different style of roof or a different design.)
>When you're bringing kids home or dropping off groceries from the store, do you park on Walnut
Avenue or Arc Way? (Chavez: Currently, we park mostly on the driveway off Walnut Avenue. We do not
park on the street on Arc Way, sometimes we park on the street on Walnut Avenue. We also park one
car in the garage currently. But the current garage does not fit the mini van, so that always parks on the
driveway or the street on Walnut Avenue.)
>In looking at the details on the front of the main house, you have some window shutters and planter
boxes and such. I was wondering if you had considered adding some of those design elements to add
some character to both sides, the street facing side as well as the side of this unit facing the house?
(Jones: Absolutely. We have been putting them on and taking them off. We had shutters on before we did
the last garage iteration, but we're open to maintaining as much charm as possible in keeping with the
main house. Currently, there are window boxes and shutters on the front with beautifully maintained plants
and it looks wonderful. That's something that we would absolutely want to add to this house as far as
character.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Aware that we're not taking action tonight, but I like the project. They're asking for a lot in terms of
special considerations, but it's a pretty unique lot. The one area for concern was off -street surface parking
and it sounds like my fellow commissioner was going in the same direction on that one. What's unique
about this lot that mitigates the concern is the fact that there's another driveway on Walnut Avenue that's
available for parking during the day. When there's not a space in front of the garage, the concern is if you
don't want to pull in the garage you're then blocking the sidewalk.
>Having some concerns about the size of this project. The plate height would not be increased but the
lower plate height would be brought further down. It's going to be such a broad face on Arc Way, it ’s going
to look obtrusive there. About the parking, can't see there's a necessity for that much garage at the back
of the property. It seems practical to park on the street or in front of the house on a daily basis .
Personally, that's probably where my wife and I would park if we were to live there. I understand that
there's a desire for more space and you can go a little bit further with your lot coverage because you have
a 10,000 square foot lot. If you got creative with the garage, you could push it back so you don't have to
have the variance. Not seeing the hardship for a variance. Yes, there's a pool, but with different looks on
the design and bringing this down to a two -car garage, you can fit it in nicely and it could be a project that
is not so powerful on that street because you're bringing it to four feet off the property line. It's going to be
too much. (Jones: If I might ask, my understanding is this variance is requiring we have a 20 foot setback
from the back. So reducing the area back 16 feet would not allow us to build a structure in that area. Is
there a middle ground or an area of recessing it back that you guys would find more acceptable than four
feet, somewhere between four feet and twenty feet?)
>Agree with my fellow commissioner. This is a good project and while they're asking for a number of
considerations, it's similar to other projects we've had before where the different use permits and the
variance are tied together. Once you consider a structure in this location, it triggers a requirement for
these other special considerations. To the point of the architect in regards to the rear setback, don't see a
way of pushing the structure back to a point where some sort of variance wouldn't be required. There's
difficulty parking on a street in this location as seen from past experience on both of these streets. I like
the idea of getting some additional off -street parking quite frankly. The project has merit. Can see special
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
considerations or the unique conditions in terms of the existing site planning and the existing site
conditions. There's precedence for us considering those issues in the past; I can make the findings for
the variance and for the use permits.
>Agree with my fellow commissioners. Don’t think that pushing it back would eliminate the variance
request. I am familiar with this lot, I had seen the house when it was on the market and that pool is going
to get right in your way if you push the structure all the way back. So there's no way around it. The property
to the right also has a two -story home and can have the findings of how it would look similar. One of the
things that has come to fruition in these last couple of months is all these robberies occurring and finding
that people are going to start putting their cars in their garage or behind gates. I would hope you would use
your garage for your cars, but probably during the day with the kids you're going to be in front of the
house. I am in support of this project, but would ask that the shutters and some of the beautiful
architectural details from the front of the house be incorporated into the garage.
>Could support this project. This is a larger lot unlike some of the other ones where we're getting ADU ’s
and maxing out and going beyond FAR. It’s a unique location, there ’s an apartment building across the
street. It's not to say that apartment buildings aren't special too, but the scale is already larger across the
street and there are several other garages that are on Arc Way as well. It's different than being on one of
our other smaller streets with houses on both sides. I like the project, it ’s a good use of space and would
like to see it move forward.
>Agree with what my fellow commissioner pointed out. Looking out across that apartment structure, it's
a broad face elevation that this detached structure will be facing. Because it's a backside street, with
houses with front entrances on that street, it almost looks more like a house than a garage on that side .
So I can see supporting this; it is tricky working with space. Part of the argument in the supporting
documentation that you have provided is that you have the ability to build multiple structures on the
property, but to be cohesive and bring everything together in one structure was part of the strategy in the
planning for this lot in this area. I can see the findings to support this application and to add some of
those architectural enhancements that would add some character to the structure.
>Would like to add to my previous comment that they're asking for a variance on that rear setback and
yet there are houses on that street, but they are set back. What we have in front of us is a structure that's
28-feet deep, which is much deeper than a regular garage. So even if they didn't meet the 15-foot setback,
the garage face should be brought back considerably from where it is. There's room to do it should they
choose to make the structure smaller. As another note, the structure is 1,424 total square feet in size .
There are houses in Burlingame that total less than that. This is bigger than some houses we have or
probably any of those apartments across the street. That includes the garage which can be used for
anything.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, 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, and Schmid5 -
Nay:Gaul1 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
b.1868-1870 Ogden Drive, zoned NBMU - Public Comment on a Draft Environmental
Impact Report for an application for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for tandem
parking, and Condominium Permit for a new 120-unit, 6-story condominium building.
(Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; Green Banker LLC, property owner) (360
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1868-1870 Ogden Dr - Staff Report
1868-1870 Ogden Dr - Attachments
1868-1870 Ogden Dr - Plans
1868 Ogden Drive - Draft EIR
Appendix A_NOP and Comments
Appendix B_TIA and TDM
Appendix C_DPR Form
Appendix D_Supporting AQ and GHG
Appendix E_AB52 Consultation
Appendix F_Traffic Noise Data Tables
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:
>It might be a typographical error, but in the project summary on page 4 of the staff report, in the
middle of the second paragraph from the bottom it says: “three units (5%) will be below market rate .” It
would be more than three for 120 units, right? (Hurin: We'll make note of that and have the project planner
clarify that when the project comes back for review.)
>Will we be hearing from the applicant? (Hurin: No, this is just time to take public comments on the
Draft EIR, so there will not be a presentation from the applicant.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
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:
>We have to consider carefully the various criteria for any potential historic structure. For this one,
we're asked to consider Criterion A: historic events that took place with this building. Personally, don't
think it's the building itself, the bricks and mortar, that caused or contributed to the struggles of the UFA .
The struggles of the history would have occurred in whatever building the teamsters occupied. That's
where the protesters would have gone and the struggles would have occurred. The building being
demolished, yes, we have to consider it in terms of CEQA, but demolishing the building won't cause us to
forget or diminish the memory of Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta or any of the stories of the UFA. For
example, at the relocation camps in the San Joaquin Valley, they may not be architecturally significant as
structures and they may not be iconic, but it's the actual wood and timber that is significant to the
struggles of the relocated Japanese -Americans. That's contrary to this case, again, it's not the specifics
of this building that represent the struggles of the UFA and the difficulties between that organization,
protesters and the teamsters. So we won't lose the memory of that era.
>Regarding the utilities and service system, it says Burlingame water demand between 2011 and 2015
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
was about 76% of our allotted amount. If you go further into that on page 4.3-126 under the Urban Water
Management Planning Act, it says this plan is required to be updated every five years. The point is we've
been approving a lot more housing over the last couple of years and I haven't seen, or it doesn't appear in
this draft that there is a current Urban Water Management Plan and we're required to have one. It would be
imperative that we have that updated plan so we know where we are. We're obviously in a drought and
don't know where we're going right now, that's something to think about. The Draft EIRE also notes that
existing gas and telecommunication lines would serve the project, however, they may be upgraded if
necessary. We have a new ordinance that applies to this project that natural gas is not to be provided .
Does this mean this project or building is entirely electric and will the electric period be able to handle the
load of 120 units? Asking specifically about this project because we have it in front of us, but mainly
because we've been approving a lot more housing and there's a lot of development going on in
Burlingame. I want to make sure that our grid can handle it and that our water system and sewer system
can handle it, and that we're not overburdening the infrastructure we already have.
>Understanding that the UFA occupied this building and as my fellow commissioner mentioned, it's not
particularly the building, but the entity that was there and the work done in the building. Is there some sort
of remembrance, monument or something that could be included? Is this the appropriate time to request
that the applicant look at something like that to add to the memory of this location for the teamsters, for
the UFA? (Hurin: My understanding is that there is a proposed monument or dedication, however I don't
know what the specifics or the details of what's being proposed. I believe that's incorporated into the
project and you'll see those details when it comes back for action.)
>I wanted to address Transportation, noting that there are four schools in the immediate area including
Spring Valley Elementary, Mills High School, Franklin Elementary and Burlingame Intermediate School. I
have concerns with all the construction trucks and movement of large vehicles during the very heavy part
of the day, in the mornings and in the afternoons, when kids are going to school and then being released .
There is also heavy pedestrian flow around these four sites at that time. Will the traffic control plan
consider the aspects of the schools and all the number of people that would be on the roads in the
morning and afternoon around the building and the end of the school day?
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
>(Levy: Yes, I did want to reinforce what the Planning Manager said, that we had worked with the
planner and we proposed a marker. We're redesigning our plaza so the UFA, the teamsters and the event
will be more greatly highlighted than it is presently since you would never know it happened there. So from
the start was our intention with our public plaza that we're creating.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental
review has been completed.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2021 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
2021 Planning Commission Calendar - Memorandum
2021 Planning Commission Calendar
2021 Draft City Council Calendar
Attachments:
Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, to approve the Consent Item. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
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) of the CEQA Guidelines. (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:
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.
Jeremy and Christine Wilkinson, represented the applicant.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
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:
>Appreciate the changes they made, it helps along that driveway side. The added bump -out at the
master bedroom is going to articulate that a little bit.
>Extending the band around the side helps with the rear elevation.
>Not going to press on the issue of the window in the kitchen, am seeing the logic. Appreciate the
interior views they provided, that helps with a clearer understanding of what they're doing. Can support the
project as revised.
>Agree with my fellow commissioner. Appreciate the extra effort for the window study inside and it
works. Would like to see the project move forward.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
b.108 Channing Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review 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. (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.
Kevin Peng represented the applicant.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Can you describe the porcelain tile facing on the front and rear of the house? We're used to seeing a
stone or a brick and not a porcelain tile. That brings up an image of a bathroom tile or something shiny .
(Peng: We weren't sure last time and we proposed a stone. We spoke to our designer and we like the
porcelain tile look. Our designer told us it's a good idea in terms of the waterproofing because porcelain is
actually more moisture resistant, hard and well suited for exterior use. We looked at porcelain tile in the
shop and thought those looked nice.) What would the porcelain tile look like with its color, sheen and that
type of thing? (Peng: The color would be light, kind of like white, manila type. We looked at a few samples
and they looked nice.)
>Also concerned about the porcelain tile and how that goes in with the other colors and finishes you're
proposing. We should be seeing a sample and a color board with the colors of the tile because it can go
very right or go very wrong.
>Is the front door height 6’-8”? (Peng: That's correct, yes.) You're going to have nine -foot ceilings on the
interior, right? (Peng: Correct, yes.) Typically, when you have a nine -foot ceiling, you'll see an eight -foot
front door and eight-foot interior door; wanted to make sure that's what you wanted.
>You've specified simulated divided lights for the windows, have you picked a window material? (Peng:
Yes, we've gone to the shop and looked at two, one is Milgard and one is Marvin. We're leaning toward
Milgard.)
>You've specified 3-inch window trim on the side, is that really correct? Is it going to be 2-1/2” wide?
(Peng: It's actually three inches.) The standard building convention is, if you say 3”, it's actually going to
be 2-1/2”.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Have a concern about this porcelain tile at the front and rear of the house. Can see this moving
forward if it was brought back as an FYI prior to its application as indicated on the plans. They can move
forward with that in mind.
>The other concern from the applicant's response was the windows. Would caution with the Milgard
window that you don't pick a vinyl window which we do not approve. The Marvin is in line with what the
commission as a whole is looking for and that's something that the applicant should be made aware of.
>Just to follow on what my fellow commissioner said, would recommend the applicant speak to staff
about the windows and get more direction from them in terms of what we're looking for. I am concerned
about some of the smaller details of the exterior. Overall the massing and articulation is good. We'll see
what's proposed because it sounds like at a minimum, we're going to be asking for an FYI for some kind
of material sample. The door size doesn't feel like a typical detail, so what's going to actually happen may
be different than what's on this plan. If the window trim is really a 1” x 3” on the leg, it isn't going to support
the typical richness and detailing we see on a project like this. Understand that the columns have been
made bigger, but they still don't feel quite in portion. Would be interested to hear what others think. They
definitely did what we asked in terms of the chimney, but like the original one better. Not feeling
comfortable of how the details are laid out on this.
>Agree with my fellow commissioner. Some of the details that are being called out are going to change
or should change for constructability and the way things typically get done. Would also agree with the size
of the door. The elevation has improved since the last time we saw it because the last time the door was
shorter and out of scale. Do agree that with the windows being so high, the door does look small and they
might reconsider some of these finer detail points to bring in a bit more scale. Definitely feel strongly
about the porcelain tile and seeing a finish board come back to us at some point with this.
>Maybe this should have happened in the last go around, I think this needs to go to a design review
consultant. That's not typical after the second meeting, but it will move quicker for the applicant and we'll
end up with a more approvable product and likely to be built as approved if we go that route.
>Just for clarity for the applicant and maybe for myself. We're talking about three things, that's the
height of the front of the door, the window trim and the porcelain tiles. Are there any other areas of
concern? If that's all it is, I don't believe it's worth going to the design consultant.
>I would like the chimney looked at again. The columns could also use a second look, they still feel
out of proportion. All the exterior trims need to be called out for dimensions so that we can make sure that
the builder knows what has been approved and he can actually build it. It would not be a long design
review consultant process, but these details need to be hammered out.
>Can support the motion especially with that last comment, knowing with a little more clarity what is
going to be actually built for the builder and planning staff will help. Can see that they call out 3-inch
painted exterior trim, but if they use a 1” x 3” or something else and staff has to decide does the 2-1/2”
trim meet the criteria, because that could look substantially different. We're talking about a half an inch,
but that could look different than what you presume to be included especially with the large head trim they
have.
>I don't see the traditional sections through the windows and the details for that trim on the plans. So
again, agree that it could be very misleading downstream as to what's approved and what needs to be
built. More detail needs to go into the plans for us to approve.
>Agree with what my fellow commissioner said that it doesn't need to be a big design review meeting. It
could be all be addressed in one brief meeting, but probably advisable to have another look.
Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a
design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
c.772 Walnut Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit, and
Side Setback Variance to replace an existing attached with a new attached garage. This
project is Categorically Exempt from from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Jessica Sin,
applicant and designer; Vivek and Pooja Shah, property owners) (256 noticed) Staff
Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
772 Walnut Ave - Staff Report
772 Walnut Ave - Attachments
772 Walnut Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul was recused from this item for
non-statutory reasons.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Was the pantry and the mud room already part of the garage space during the original application or
was that a change made during the remodel? (Hurin: The applicant or the architect can answer that
question.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Jessica Sin, represented the applicant with property owners Vivek and Pooja Shah.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>(Sin: To answer the Commissioner's earlier question, the mud room and pantry were in the original
proposal. They were part of the application for the first and second story addition. They were new spaces
in the garage and they were approved.)
>Met with the property owner prior to the last meeting and we looked at the garage. The front face of the
garage looked to be closer. It may not be to the property line, but to a fence that's currently there
between your property and your neighbor to the left. Is your property line beyond that fence line? (Sin: It
looks like the fence does not follow the property line perfectly. It does meander on the neighbor's side, but
back on to 772 Walnut Avenue as well.) That’s what makes it a little confusing, because in your plans it
looks like the front face of the garage is four feet away from the property line. In person, it looked like it
was closer to that. You said the fence is meandering around the property line, so it ’s not clear where the
fence is now. Are you going to be further away or closer to that? (Sin: The current survey shows it at three
feet and this is where we're proposing that corner.) (Shah: We're literately trying to change nothing from the
existing structure. All we're trying to do is just rebuild the existing structure the way it is.) You will keep it
at the same location as it is now, it won't shift or anything? (Shah: Correct. I'm worried that it's not a safe
structure and I don't want someone to get hurt. We were hoping to optimize it in the last meeting, but that
was rejected. We respected those comments so we're now proposing to rebuild it exactly the way it is so
it's safe. Frankly, it looks terrible for the street and I know my neighbors hate it as do we. So we're willing
to just rebuilt it so it's safe and visually looks pleasant to everyone in the community.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Can appreciate what the applicant is trying to do and appreciate the desire to make it safer. The
challenge while reading through the staff report is that this was originally a garage built without a permit
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
and in the wrong place, and space was extended into it making it even tighter when we could have made a
decent garage without the mud room and pantry in it and respected the four foot setback line. Struggling
to putting forth something else that's going to last another 50 years in non-conformance when we have an
opportunity to do something that's conforming. As noted, it's an objection by the neighbor and we have an
obligation to respect that as well. I appreciate what we're trying to do here, but would like to see a better
solution that respects the neighbor's setback and deals with it. I understand the desire to maximize space
and take advantage of that side yard, but there is a significant amount of rear yard and the majority of us
have garages in the rear of the lot. Would like to see us find at a better solution.
>Agree with that assessment. The default for things like this is how can we help the homeowner
maximize their property and make it safe. I have given this one a lot of thought and am struggling with the
finding we need to make for the variance. Particularly as my fellow commissioner pointed out, one of the
toughest questions always is what makes this lot unique from other lots in the area? I'm having trouble
making that finding.
>In looking at the existing conditions, I found it hard to believe those existing conditions are new. The
structure has been there for some time, clearly and obviously. We have structures, other buildings that
are either grandfathered in or were allowed to be considered as existing conditions or exceptional
circumstances. They're asking to rebuild the garage in its current location. I don't see how that would be a
detriment to other properties. I can support the project and make the findings for the variance as it's
submitted.
>Agree with my fellow commissioner. I can support a garage in the same location that it is now, it
wouldn't change. The structure has been there for a long time and would agree to move this along.
>I'm struggling with this one myself. But in the absence of an approval to rebuild it as is, it will remain
as is and it will be potentially dangerous and fail at some point. I wouldn't ordinarily support this proposal,
but we're pinned in a corner here and likewise it seems the homeowner is too. Having to set aside my
thoughts on the ascetics of this garage, the shape of it, the difficulty in parking in it, I can see supporting
it to move forward as well.
Vice-Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Gaul1 -
d.141 Victoria Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review 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. (Audrey Tse, inSite Design, applicant and designer; Yunfeng Cai,
property owner) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
141 Victoria Rd - Staff Report
141 Victoria Rd - Attachments
141 Victoria Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Chair Tse was recused because she is the project
designer for the subject property.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Acting Chair Terrones opened the public hearing.
Lauren Lee, inSite Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There were no questions and comments.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Terrones closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Like the change, like the project and appreciate the trees in the rear yard.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Tse1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.812 Linden Avenue (vacant lot adjacent to 816 Linden Avenue), zoned R-1 - Application
for a Conditional Use Permit for re -emerging lots and Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling with a detached garage at 812 Linden Avenue (vacant parcel next
to 816 Linden Ave). (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; 812
Linden LLC and 816 Linden LLC, property owners) (148 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika
Lewit
812 and 816 Linden Ave - Staff Report
812 and 816 Linden Ave - Attachments
812 and 816 Linden Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for
non-statutory reasons.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Is there anything relative to 816 Linden Avenue that ’s before us or within our purview this evening? Or
that's all being processed separately, is that correct? (Hurin: Correct. There are some changes that are
required as noted in the staff report, however they are not within your purview. The existing accessory
structure needs to be converted back to a garage and there is a bay window and a portion of the porch
that needs to be adjusted so that a driveway can be placed along that side of the house.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant.
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:
>It's a nice project. It addresses the issues we were focused on when it came before us before. It's
fairly straight forward in terms of the entitlements and conditional use permit; it is obvious it has to be
processed for this lot to re -emerge in order to do something with the vacant area. Can make the findings
from a design review standpoint. It seems to be well crafted, well detailed and nicely scaled. The project
should move forward.
>Still having some problems with the design. Agree with my fellow commissioner about the
re-emergence of the lot line. This street mainly contains single -story homes; the massing is going to be
the biggest house on the block. We've got things like the front setback on the first and second floor have
a difference of five inches. That is contributing to the massing and it's the same as comparing the first
and second floor plans, they're almost the identical amount of square footage. What it looks like is that
there are walls almost stacked on top of each other with a little gingerbread or a roof trying to hide those
sheer walls or vertical faces. Going back to the comments from the previous meeting, I really don't think
the way to solve the height issue of a steep roof is to cut it off at the peak and make it flat in the middle .
Looking at the roof plan, it would be a nightmare to frame. Don't see where the massing has been solved
properly for this block. Again, it's a block of smaller homes. Many single -story homes and the two-story
homes that are there are broken up a little more and the upper floor seems to be smaller than the lower
ones.
>Really thought the 3D rendering of the front was nicely handled. Not sure if that's the original. Agree
with my fellow commissioner's comments, it seemed like the 3D was better handled. Still needs some
more work.
>Looking at the design itself on the page and seeing the 3Ds, I liked what was presented. It's not
typical from what the architect does. But looking at Google Earth and the surroundings, I can appreciate
my fellow commissioners’ opinion on the scale. There are some two -story homes there and some massive
ones, but a lot of smaller ones too. Over time, they're all going to be getting to their maximum FAR ’s.
Overall the project looks good and can support it.
>Don't disagree with my fellow commissioner in terms of resolving the height via the flat roofs, but with
that said, the only thing before us is the conditional use permit and design review. Looking at the
articulation we're seeing on the four sides of the project, it's much more nicely detailed and articulated
than a lot of the projects that have come before us in the past. Finding it hard to challenge this project to
go further when there are other projects that we have accepted for whatever reason and it's well articulated .
Can make the findings for the design review.
Chair Tse re-opened the public hearing.
>(Raduenz: I’d like to say we're 1’-6” away from the setback on the far left side of the property. That
helps instead of doing standard building design and then doing a four or five and 6:12 pitch, our
articulation works well. It's a narrower house. It's not a fat, four -foot to four-foot side setbacks kind of
house. We're giving a little bit of breathing room which should help and should give me the extra space to
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
do something cool, to give a little bit more of a pitch to it. It's an English -style house that we're trying to
do and that would be my response to some of your comments about the massing. Thank you very much.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, 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, Terrones, Tse, and Schmid4 -
Nay:Gaul1 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
b.112 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit
for a new, two-story single family dwelling and an attached garage. (Alex Mortazavi,
Habitat, applicant and designer; Oceanwide Global LLC, property owner) (113 noticed)
Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
112 Costa Rica Ave - Staff Report
112 Costa Rica Ave - Attachments
112 Costa Rica Ave - 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.
Alex Mortazavi, Habitat, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>What material are you planning to use on the garage doors? (Mortazavi: It’s wood. Sometimes for
garage doors, we look for alternatives like metal doors that look like wood. On the elevations, finish item
number three, we're proposing a wood finished dark stained. All our elevations are very well detailed and it
has all the information. The dark line that you see is a strip of glass. I used it on a home I designed in Los
Altos and it looks beautiful. It's a smoked glass inserted in between the wood.) As a comment, I would
want you to update note number three that it says wood because at the moment it doesn't. That leaves it
open for interpretation downstream. (Mortazavi: Sure.)
>Can you explain a little bit more about that wood -looking tile material as noted on finish number one?
(Mortazavi: I’m sure you have seen it in tile shops, they are 6-inch x 48-inch tile that looks like hardwood
flooring. It's very fashionable now for the interior finishes. When we glue the tile on the stucco, it makes
the life of this building long because it has no maintenance. It's not like a cedar finish that you have to
keep sanding or finishing, and if the owners fail to do that, it would look awful. Using this material it can
make it permanent, easy to clean, you can hose it down. It’s more expensive to do it, but it will 100% look
like a wood as what you see in tile stores.) Would you be able to provide a sample? Is it like a porcelain
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
tile? (Mortazavi: Yes, it is.) What we’re seeing in the faux wood porcelain tile is there's a sheen to them,
and not to say a wood finish material could have a sheen to the sealant or to the stain, but the reflective
quality of a porcelain tile faux wood product is what I would like to look at. (Mortazavi: Sure.)
> Will finish item number two be a natural stone finish? (Mortazavi: Yes, it's matte and it's stone.) Will
your transition detail be a miter? (Mortazavi: Yes. Actually, there's another method, it's a 90-degree and
it's a nice detail and I have used that. The inner edge touches and gives you a nice little notch at that
corner, which is a very nice shadow line. So most likely we'll do that instead of a typical miter.)
>Going back to the tile, finish item number one, how do you see the joints working on that horizontally
when they are four-foot long? Looking at the drawings and renderings, everything looks linear and has a
longer look to it, so how do you see the horizontal joints versus the vertical joints and how they come
back together working? (Mortazavi: Well, it's a very good question. I did a project in Laguna Beach this
way. Anything vertical will be butt joint, it will be pretty much not recognizable. Anything horizontal will
have a quarter-inch gap to delineate the line that it gives you that horizontal look. So you're not going to
see the vertical look. You're going to see the horizontal look with the grout line.)
Public Comments:
>Elliott Margulies, 113 Crescent Avenue: I just found out about the design and want to congratulate our
neighbors. It looks like a very beautiful modern design and I ’d like to discuss their plans more, but I don't
know how to do this. There are several concerns I had when I looked at this and I was hoping to get them
documented, so you can tell me how to move forward. There's a new ADU being built four feet from our
back property line. Is there a way to request to see what the new residence will look like from the
perspective of our property given that it's going to be a new structure? I also wanted to point out that we've
carried several water drainage and erosion issues from that property on to ours over the last several years
and I was wondering how that might be addressed with this new design. Also am curious about how noise
from a new pool would be addressed. It looks like the fence that they've proposed to divide our two
properties is being proposed to be erected on our side of the property line. In addition, that new fence is
going to block our ability from getting and doing any sort of maintenance on the back side of the garage
that is up against that property line. Then finally, in our neighborhood, we've seen a number of large, old
trees from neighboring properties taken down and none of them have been revived or replaced, I think one
of them was on their property or on a nearby property. I was wondering how that would be addressed given
that the new landscaping looks like it replaces a lot of grass or dirt area with patio area. But overall, it's
going to be a beautiful house, but it would be great to see how these types of things can be addressed .
Thank you. (Hurin: I would encourage you to reach out to the project planner or if you'd like, you can
provide your e-mail address via chat and then I can put you in contact with the project planner. I would also
encourage you and the applicant to meet together, as some of these items can be addressed between the
two of you before the next meeting.) (Margulies: I’m happy to do that. That sounds great.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Typically, when we have applications like this before us that are somewhat different than what's
existing in the neighborhood, we look at it closely, that's what we're required to do. We have an
experienced applicant. In looking at this modern design, what I commonly ask myself is, regardless of the
style, regardless of the type of architecture that is being presented, does it look and feel residential even
if it's different than what's in the neighborhood? Does it still fit as a residential project and I believe it
does. It's going to be very different than what's there, but the existing neighborhood is somewhat eclectic .
Traditional, but eclectic. Based on the experience of the architect, the work that he's done and some of
the details that he's explained, it's going to be finely detailed. I can support the project the way it's
presented. The only things before us are design review and a special permit for an attached garage. There
are other properties in the neighborhood that do have an attached garage. It may not be the dominant
characteristic, but they're putting an ADU in the back of the property, which helps in supporting our
housing needs. Bringing the garage forward is supportable, particularly with this type of architecture, the
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
way the garage is subdued relative to the rest of the structure.
>It is definitely different, but the overall scale and detailing looks nice. The question is, which one is
going to be the first in the neighborhood? If we continue to say no, we can't have any modern homes, then
we will never have them. This is a fine project. Also noticed the same things that my fellow commissioner
noticed with the garages in the neighborhood and I can support that. The side neighbor has a rather large
tree that looks like it's going to cover three quarters of the pool. Should consider how big that tree is and
the impact on that site location there. But could otherwise support this project.
>Also really like the design and we have other modern homes in the neighborhood. We have two right
around the corner on Barroilhet Avenue, one is next door to me and the other one is up the street which is
a single-story modern approved at staff level. We also have a mixture of modern homes in a traditional
neighborhood on Pepper Avenue, so there are modern homes coming up in Burlingame Park. The
applicant has done a really nice job in the design of this house. He's done some beautiful work and I am
aware of the quality of the work that he's done. Please reach out to the neighbor on that property line,
make sure the fence issue has been resolved. I could also see supporting this project.
>Agree with my fellow commissioners that it is a very nicely designed home. Would like to see a
materials board for the next meeting. I found it interesting because the house is very different looking. It's
a modern design in a fairly traditional neighborhood. There's a home almost immediately opposite of this
address and the massing of this proposed house is nearly identical. It has a different roof profile, but I
found it interesting that from a massing perspective, they're very similar.
>I appreciate that the garage, though it's attached and visible from the front, is rather subdued and has
two separate doors which is better than one very frontal two -car garage door. The other thing to commend
you is on the location of the swimming pool in that it's oriented towards the backyards of the Barroilhet
Avenue neighbors, as opposed to being to the back of this property. From a noise level, it's directed more
towards the backyards of those homes that are perpendicular to this property on Barroilhet Avenue. It's a
nice addition to the neighborhood. I could see supporting this project.
Vice-Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, 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, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
c.912 Linden Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit, and
Front Setback Variance for a new, two -story single family dwelling with an attached
garage. (Christian Ruffat, Residential Design Solutions, applicant and designer;
Templeton Holdings LLC, property owner) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle
Markiewicz
912 Linden Ave - Staff Report
912 Linden Ave - Attachments
912 Linden Ave - 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:
>I don't recall ever seeing before that the garage had a 35-foot front setback requirement. (Hurin: We
have different front setback requirements for attached garages and it depends on whether the garage has
one double-wide door or two single -wide doors. For a garage with one double -wide door, as is proposed,
the minimum required front setback is 35 feet. For a garage with two single -wide doors, the minimum
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
required setback is 25 feet. Alternatively, you can stagger the two single -wide doors with a 20-foot and 25
-foot setback.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Chris Ruffat, Residential Design Solutions, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>The project is nicely articulated and the massing works well. I don't have too many issues in terms of
the design review.
>In terms of the special permit for the attached garage, if you actually proposed a detached garage it
would be unique in this neighborhood. Driving through the neighborhood, every house on that block has an
attached garage. But, I am having some difficulty in terms of the variance because the existing attached
garage is set back about 24 feet, right? (Ruffat: I don't have the survey right in front of me, but if that's
the numbers you're mentioning, that may be the case.) I saw it in the staff report and scaled it off the
survey, it looks like it's at 24 feet or so. You're pulling the attached garage forward a bit. (Ruffat: Yes. We
would be pulling it a bit with the adjustment for the 20-foot mark, then we would be pulling it forward four
feet if 20 feet was the mark.) Can have more support for the variance if you were putting the attached
garage in the existing location. But what's tripping the variance is the fact that you've got a broad garage
door that sort of screams homage to car, and the reason for the increased setback for the two -car garage
door is to minimize the car -forward house towards the front of the property. Did you look at any other
articulation of that garage door, maybe doing two single -wide garage doors or any other possibilities?
Every other attached garage in that neighborhood has a single garage door that's fairly subdued, even if
it's close to the property line. (Ruffat: Originally, we started out with a single garage configuration with a
setback along the left-hand side. I could see how we could articulate the garage door in a more effective
manner by proposing a two -door look if you will, but we'd really like to maintain that extra garage space for
potentially an in-home office, in-home unit of some sort, being that we're only proposing a one -car garage.
So we did look at a one -car garage at one time, but then we reverted back to the two -car garage if that
answers your question.) Having a hard time making those findings for the exceptional, extraordinary
circumstances that would cause us to have to accept the garage coming that much more forward and now
becoming a two-car garage with a double-wide door. So otherwise, can make the other findings for the
project and find it supportable, but I'm hung up on the variances. (Ruffat: We can definitely set the garage
to where the existing garage is located. We still have room in the rear yard to manipulate the back patio to
coincide with that adjustment. So therefore, we would be adding an additional four feet to the proposed 20
feet to make it 24 feet, or at least to where the garage door is currently.) If you're applying for a variance
and you're going to the line of the existing garage, personally I find that more supportable even if it does
trip a variance.)
>I have the same concern with the garage as well. If the requirement for the setback is tied to the
width of the garage door, you would not need to necessarily change the size of the garage, although I
would like to see it pushed back further as my fellow commissioner said. Can you do something to modify
the front so the garage door wasn't as wide? You're only required to have a one -car garage, but you could
keep it the same size if you decrease the size of the door, add a window or change the front a little bit so
it stepped forward or offset from the plane of the garage door. (Ruffat: Thinking of articulating it to a
single-car garage, even just having a break along that plane would give us a little bit more play there .)
You still have the room inside the garage, which is understandable because that's something everyone
wants, more space. Can support the attached garage because that's the predominant pattern, but
appreciate that you're not going back and encroaching into that small grove of redwood tree between your
neighbor's house. (Ruffat: That was a tough decision. That was also weighing heavily on the rear of the
single-car garage and the left -hand side of the garage.) That's great that you kept those trees because
walking in the backyard, it makes it nice back there.
>When visiting the project site yesterday, the neighbor next door was parked in his driveway with his
truck halfway into the sidewalk because he only has 20 feet to the sidewalk, so I can't support the
attached garage with a 20-foot setback. Would like to see it set back to where the line of the garage is
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
now and if that were the case, then the fact that it's attached and a two -car garage isn't bothersome. But
to continue to do a short driveway and have more people interrupting the sidewalk doesn't add value to the
neighborhood. Otherwise, I am in support of the design.
>I like the project and agree with what's been said so far about moving the garage back. Personally
prefer looking at a pair of smaller single doors instead of the larger double -wide door, which would fit better
with the neighborhood.
>Agree with my fellow commissioners and all the comments that have been made thus far. Noticed on
a couple of your other elevations that there are some corbel details added under the roof lines and wanted
to see if you can consider putting some at the front as well where they would actually be more visible than
on the side or even the rear. (Ruffat: Yes, I did have some corbels there, but we wanted a clean look on
the front. So I just kept them on the other elevations to get some feedback.) It adds more character to
that top gable and especially the gable over the front door. (Ruffat: I wouldn't mind doing them over the
window. I'm not sure if I would add it on the small porch, it might be a little too busy, that was one of the
owner's comments.) Maybe just one in the middle, I'll let you decide, but I noticed that you had that detail
around the other sides and it seemed like it wanted to be on the front too. (Ruffat: I can definitely have
that discussion with the owners.)
Public Comments:
>Thomas & Laxmi Rees, 916 Linden Avenue: I just wanted to see if there is any information on
construction, when it will begin and how long it would last? (Ruffat: I'm not sure when staff would meet
again on this project, hopefully in January. Construction plans will need to be laid out. Probably the
soonest permits may be available would be June or July and we definitely would wish not to be held to
those dates. It really depends on when permits are issued and when the contractor is ready to start.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>This is a fairly nice project and generally supportable. It comes down to the issue of the variance. If
they can address that, make revisions and some other considerations as we've discussed, the project can
come back for action.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, 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, and Schmid6 -
Absent:Loftis1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioners Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.29 Humboldt Road - FYI for review of revisions requested by the Planning Commission to
a previously approved Design Review project.
29 Humboldt Rd - Memorandum
29 Humboldt Rd - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021
December 14, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
b.137 Costa Rica Avenue - FYI for review of revisions for changes requested to the right
side elevation on a previously approved Design Review project.
137 Costa Rica Ave - Memorandum
137 Costa Rica Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on December 14, 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 December 28, 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 19City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021