HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.12.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, December 13, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Michael Guina.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and LariosPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft November 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft November 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the meeting
minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to
approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 -
a.1215 Vancouver Avenue, 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 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Rebecca Amato, applicant and architect;
Whitney and Denis Murphy, property owners) (94 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Page 1City of Burlingame
December 13, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1215 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report
1215 Vancouver Ave - Attachments
1215 Vancouver Ave - Plans
Attachments:
b.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2022 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
2022 Planning Commission Calendar - Memorandum
2022 Planning Commission Calendar
2022 Draft City Council Calendar
Attachments:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.3051 Arguello Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit 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.
(Marc Dimalanta, DScheme Studio, applicant and architect; Matthel Ma, property owner )
(96 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
3051 Arguello Dr - Staff Report
3051 Arguello Dr - Attachments
3051 Arguello Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item as she
lives within 500 feet from the project. Commissioner Terrones had a brief conversation with the neighbor at
3067 Arguello Drive about view concerns on the project, was not able to see the issues from the view
windows but was directed to review the received after letter sent this afternoon. Community Development
Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Marc Dimalanta, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Jeffrey Samuels, 1568 Alturas Drive: We have submitted something in writing and I don ’t know if we
should state it here for the record or not. I just want to make sure that we are heard. Again, we welcome
our new neighbor. We just want to make sure that we are doing the right thing to protect ourselves, the
value of our property, the beautification and the density of Burlingame as a resident for over ten years. If
I’ve already submitted it and you are considering that, please tell me. This is my first time in this side of it .
I’ve gone through a very extensive one when we did renovations, making sure it was neutral to the
environment and accretive to the neighborhood in the sense of the things that we put in. This is definitely
different and we pointed that out in our statement. Should I read it? (Chair Schmid: I believe all
commissioners have received and reviewed it.) I don ’t need to repeat it then. Just please consider it as
you are looking through to make sure that we are doing everything to protect both the applicant and
everyone else.
>Helaine Darling, 3100 Margarita Avenue: My question is not so much about how I ’m going to be
impacted, although I can understand where the Samuels’ are coming from. There are some story poles
that are up which I can see tangentially from my property. Something to be considered visibly on my
property is that there are some trees that are blocking the story poles for the most part. I don ’t know what
Page 2City of Burlingame
December 13, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
will happen in the event that those would be cut down or would have more impact on me. Those are not my
trees. I did send you a letter. I’ve been in Burlingame for forty five years. The architect came over to show
me the plans and asked if I had any questions. At the end of our little session, he presented me with a
paper to sign. I don ’t know what he was talking about. It was a paper that had three options: you agree
with the plans, you don’t agree and you have no comments about it. I found that very objectionable. I don ’t
know whether this is something new in Burlingame or this is something that is just particular to this
architect. I found it objectionable because I thought, the way I look at it, it was a way to hand -off at a
pass anybody who might have an objection to the plans of the property. I wonder if this is de rigueur or
something new. (Chair Schmid: Particularly in projects like this, where there is a hillside and a view
involved, there is a lot more sensitivity to the neighbors and there tends to be more discussion. I’ve
noticed that we’ve been seeing a little bit more proactive applicants and their architects to try and work
with the neighbors because it is more expensive and time consuming to go through the process and find
out in a meeting like this that you ’ve totally missed the mark with your neighbors. So, we do encourage
that outreach. Being able to say that they have talked to the neighbors and they don ’t think there are
objections helps us to know that we are going to have a harmonious decision. Sometimes neighbors don ’t
know or don’t get out soon enough and then we don ’t know that they had objections. I don ’t know that it
was meant to be a pressure as much as they being able to acknowledge that they have reached out to the
neighbors and being able to report back in a meeting like this, it helps. I don ’t think it heads off your
objection, if you have one, because we have this forum here for you to do that and we would be listening
to your comments. I believe it is a way to try and deal with the fact that things have changed lately, it ’s
getting more expensive and time consuming to get through this process.) In response, it ’s always been
time consuming and expensive in Burlingame. I’ve been to many Planning Commissions over the years in
various situations and houses that are around across or up the street, etcetera. I came to the Planning
office last week and they had never seen anything like this paper that this architect presented to me. They
didn’t think it was such a great idea. So, I think it might be wise to have a look at what I ’ve submitted. I’d
like you to take into consideration whether something that you ask somebody to sign is a little over the
top. Coming around and discussing it is one thing, but I don ’t think this kind of a paper is appropriate. So,
I’d like you to factor that into the next decision, on this property or any other properties going forward .
Something to think about. (Chair Schmid: We appreciate your feedback. That is something that maybe
we, as a commission, and the staff can talk about and decide if that can be helpful in instructions for
people that are starting the planning process in guiding them.)
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I am compelled to comment a little bit on the letters that we have received. Being on the commission
these last sixteen years, typically the letters that we get from neighbors are a minor consideration from my
standpoint and don’t really have a lot of bearing on adjudication and our consideration of projects. I can
recall several instances in which we had projects that were from very popular people within a given
neighborhood and mustered many letters of support, yet we have a project from an objective standpoint in
our application of ordinances and design guidelines, that project might not be approvable. We’ve had other
situations where we have letters of objection to a project but the issues in those objections don ’t really
have any bearing relative to what we can apply in regards to the design guidelines and ordinances. So
those letters, again, may not have much of an effect. From my perspective, those letters don ’t have a lot
of effect, they are not required by the city. As the Chair said, we ask applicants to do some outreach and
talk to neighbors so they can identify any issues ahead of time.
>I like the changes that have been made. From a design standpoint, I have some issues with the entry .
There were some issues with the window placement, scale and size from first floor to second floor. I like
the changes in the main entry area, the roofing engages the hipped roof behind it, and the windows are
better organized now. The issue came down to viewing the story poles. In viewing the story poles from the
uphill neighbor at 3067 Arguello Drive and looking at the photographs sent in from their view window, I will
say that there have been situations where we have considered relatively small windows like this from areas
that might be an office. If it is the only real view window that looked out to the bay, then we apply the
Page 3City of Burlingame
December 13, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
hillside area ordinance and ask the applicant to make some changes to the project. In this instance,
however, the views are primarily of nearby trees that are downhill from this uphill neighbor. So, I don ’t really
see a situation in which this applicant is going to be taking some view that the current uphill neighbor has .
They are simply making a second floor addition that is going to block some view of nearby trees. That
typically is not a view that we have considered for protection. We can only go by precedence. The hillside
area ordinance does not have a lot of details, so the precedence that I looked into is how we have applied
the ordinance in the past. As Director Gardiner reminded us, that is typically for distant views of the bay,
the airport, East Bay hills, etcetera. In this instance, I don ’t see an issue of view blockage from that uphill
neighbor. I don’t see an issue of view blockage from the downhill neighbor that is on Alturas Drive. I
realize that there may be privacy issues but we don ’t really have a privacy ordinance. I think that the
project is approvable at this point from a design standpoint relative to design review. As for the hillside
area ordinance, I don’t see issues relative to the neighbors in terms of view blockages.
>Question for the other commissioners: Was anyone able to access the property and verify those
photographs that we were given as to where they were taken from? (When I visited the neighbor,
unfortunately, they were getting ready to go out for the evening and I didn ’t want to intrude any further than
just knocking on the door and asking. He pointed me to the letter and photographs they have submitted .
He did say that those photographs were taken from that uphill room that he uses as an office and that
window that was described to us by the applicant is approximately 3’ x 4’ in looking from below. It looks
like they were taken from that window at least that is what I was told.)
>In visiting the site, I would note that the neighbor at 3067 Arguello Drive already has a second story at
his house. His view is enhanced by having a second story. I don ’t think this project blocks the view of
anything in the distance. I would have to agree that this project is approvable at this point.
>I appreciate the input from the various people who submitted letters and photos. I don ’t want to
diminish the value of your participation and points of view. But as has been stated, there are certain parts
of the ordinance that we are mandated to follow and work with. That’s how we try to apply it fairly for
everybody in all these situations.
>As far as the design itself, the changes that were made are better, they have definitely enhanced. I
still feel that the second story addition looks like a tiered cake in the back, it does not really engage with
the front of the house very much. I don ’t think that helps much. When I looked at many of the houses up
and down that street that do have second stories, there are a lot more front -facing and acting as two -story
solutions, thereby kept most of the middle line and blocked off the same views. This one, by putting the
second story in the back definitely makes a much bigger statement of the back for those downhill
neighbors and for others. They have a 10’ first floor ceiling height and a 9’ second floor ceiling height .
Even though you have a 30’ in height you are just putting it much higher, to me, you are putting a little bit
of mass to that area where were are trying to be more sensitive to mass. Better, but not as well as I ’d
hoped.
>This is quite of an improvement from the last time it came to the commission and I have to agree that
the back did seem to still look like a cake. Regardless, I can make the findings for this project to move
forward. Particularly, I don’t think this will pose any obstructive views.
>Looking at the comments before in terms of the placement of that second floor addition, it is about
84’ from the rear property line which is a rarity in a lot of neighborhoods. Because of the size of the
property, I believe it can absorb an addition like this.
>I think it is approvable. It didn ’t move very far off the mark based on the comments or the design
review consultant. The windows got rearranged a little bit and changed their shape. The front entry was
fixed, it was a moderate improvement. I think it is approvable.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios6 -
Recused:Tse1 -
b.9 Victoria 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
Page 4City of Burlingame
December 13, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Adrian Hurin, Seasons Residential, Inc ., applicant and
designer; Grant Takamoto and Daisy Yu, property owners) (154 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
9 Victoria Rd - Staff Report
9 Victoria Rd - Attachments
9 Victoria Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Adrian Hurin, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I really appreciate the changes that have been made. It is quirky, but in a good way as opposed to
ignoring the existing building. It does some really interesting things in some slightly unusual ways which
reminds me of Mackintosh last time with the massing. It is a very successful response to the existing
building. It feels right, now. It feels like it belongs as opposed to it being completely alien before.
> You did a nice job with the changes and I appreciate all the hard work that went with it.
>The project has moved forward substantially and I really like it now. We’d love to see it move forward.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 -
c.1556 Cypress Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
as-built changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form +One, applicant and designer;
Kasey and Bill Schuh, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
1556 Cypress Ave - Staff Report
1556 Cypress Ave - Attachments
1556 Cypress Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comarato was recused from this item .
Commissioner Terrones had an e -mail exchange with the property owners. It wasn't anything of substance,
but just an exchange on the application that is before us. Community Development Director Gardiner
provided an overview of the staff report.
Page 5City of Burlingame
December 13, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, designer, and Kasey and Bill Schuh, property owners, represented the applicant and
answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Comment sent via e-mail by Jennifer Pfaff: Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning staff, I find
the as-built design for 1556 Cypress Avenue inferior to that which was approved in 2019. It seems a lot of
your time and effort is wasted on projects from this applicant. Changes, some are significant, are routinely
built without proper review. Why is it that Mr. Raduenz seems to believe that the rules and processes
followed by most Burlingame developers somehow don't apply to him? I find this incredibly disrespectful to
all of you commissioners and planning staff.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I was not on the commission when this project first came forward. In many cases, when we are doing
after the fact approval, I'm disappointed because it's usually something that is cheapened. Although we're
getting maybe less trim and a few less details here, in a lot of aspects, it made for a clean house. When
visiting the site, I really do appreciate this. Without seeing this FYI with other details on it, I didn't miss
them. The medallion in the front adds a nice historic piece to it and the rest of the details were done really
well to where it doesn't necessarily need more decoration. Personally, I don't actually have any objections
to this one. But again, I was not part of the original team that discussed it.
>The question is always raised when we get in this situation is, would we have approved it as it's
proposed now? Yes, it's certainly possible, but that's not what was put in front of us. What really bothers
me about this is it feels like some people are thumbing their nose at us. I have wasted my time. We give
a lot of volunteer time here and I take it very seriously. When they don't come back to inform the
commission and just simply build it and ask for forgiveness later then we approve it, it sets us up for all
sorts of things to happen in the future. Again, like what's happened in the past. I don't like it at all. I tell
the story every time that this comes up of my wife overhearing two contractors at a public meeting saying
we change it and they always approve it. That's utter nonsense. So, the question for me is, would we have
approved it? Yes, we would have, but we would have pushed back. That’s part of the question I believe
that we have to answer here. Does what we do matter or not matter? Do we have a set of rules that get
played by or do we not have a set of rules that get played by and that's an issue for me. So I'm inclined to
not approve it for that reason. It's difficult and it's hard for all of us during the pandemic and it's hard for us
to meet twice a month during the pandemic and still do our respective jobs and everything else. I don't
think that's an excuse though. So, I'm disinclined to vote in approval because I expect people, if they're
going to make a change, to come back to the Planning Department and to have the discussion before we
get put in this situation again. I don't like it.
>I agree with my fellow commissioner in terms of the overall sentiment. In looking at the project, to ask
myself if we would have approved this originally, I can't make that finding. Looking at the gable ends, it's
sort of a stripped down version of what was approved. If it had come before us then as it is right now, we
would have looked at those gable ends and we would have likely pointed out that those are high foreheads
and there should be a vent or some sort of treatment like what was applied when this was approved, that
vertical siding. The bay window on the rear elevation is clearly missing something in that gable end. The
corbels were a nice touch and a nice detail that finished it off. We talked with the designer specifically
about the little box above the entry, the fact that it was not proud of the surface below, but the logic that
we were told then was that this would be an appliqué that would give scale above that arched entry. We
accepted and approved it and it was going to be a jewel box above the front entry. Now, it's a stripped
down version of itself. It's a handsome house, yes, but it's missing the details that we would have asked
be applied to this as a final round of design or condition of approval to make it meet the design guidelines
Page 6City of Burlingame
December 13, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
in terms of breaking down the massing and adding detail, charm and character like we've asked many
applications to do when they come before us. I have difficulty with this stripping of some of the details on
the project the way that it has occurred. I can sympathize with the difficulties of what everybody has gone
through, but I find it hard to say then that we set aside the design guidelines in this situation and let this
move forward this way.
>I just want to step back and say in response to the homeowners’ concerns and the issues they've
faced during the first year of the pandemic and maybe some other difficulty in getting communication
through to the Planning Department. Our Planning Department has worked really hard all through the
pandemic, pivoting quickly to how this commission can meet virtually. I didn't feel like we lost anytime at
all in moving projects through and addressing edits to designs. We didn't see anything stop at all. In fact,
the Zoom meetings have allowed us to take on many more projects than we even have had in the past on
our agendas. So I don't think I can sympathize with that because we all pivoted and worked immediately
on our end as volunteers. None of us complained that we suddenly had issues with our families and work
or whatever to not be able to do our jobs as commissioners.
>I, too, agree with my fellow commissioners in various aspects. I don't think that we would have
approved this design as it's being presented to us now. I can agree that it's a nice home, but a lot of the
character and details that we ordinarily are proud of in this city are now missing. If this was a first time
situation with the designer, maybe we can have some understandings. But the designer has claimed he ’s
done hundreds of projects in this city and I'm surprised to see on the staff report that this was discovered
during the Planning Department ’s review of the project at its completion as opposed to something that
would have been brought up by you to the homeowner to alert them of the changes that were carried out
during construction.
>I mainly would like to just echo the frustration of the other commissioners. I feel the same way, too .
We reviewed this project at length. We came up with an agreement to build this as it was presented to us
and it's very disappointing to have it come back and as my fellow commissioner said, to be spending our
time doing this. So I won't belabor the point. Some of those changes that were taken off need to be put
on because, as what my fellow commissioner stated, this is a very washed out version of the original
design. I don't know if we want to go through the changes individually or if we want to let the applicant
come back and offer us something.
>It's fairly consistent, what has been removed is the additional wood trim at the gables. That's the vast
majority of it and then there's definitely the area of the entry. Is there an area that we want to compromise
on or do we want to really stand firm to the original proposal?
>Had the project come to us before as it's being proposed now as built, as my fellow commissioner
stated, we would have discussed it because he didn't think we would have approved it. In my mind, the
best thing to do is to allow the applicant some latitude to come back with a proposal that can be done
now and not stick hard and fast to the original proposal. Have him come back with something they can
live with, they can pay for, that can be built without breaking the stucco barrier without too much effort,
other than what they're proposing now. That seems like a fair response to this. I don't feel like making
them rip all the stucco out and get everything in. That's over the top, but I think this is washed out. So, we
should continue the project, but let them come back with another response.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to continue the item. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios6 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
d.1235 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling (existing detached
garage to be retained). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines.(Altos Heights Investments LLC, property owner, designer, and applicant )
(164 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Page 7City of Burlingame
December 13, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1235 Paloma Ave - Staff Report
1235 Paloma Ave - Attachments
1235 Paloma Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item
because she owns property located within 500 feet of the subject property. Senior Planner Keylon provided
an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Sinclair Chou, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Frankly it feels dumbed down to me, it doesn't feel more modern. I don't think the use of the board
and batten improves anything. One thing that bothers me a lot was the window size. There is no
distinction between the lower and upper windows, they all seem the same size. The windows got bigger on
the upper floors, it makes the top feel more cartoonish. It lost whatever charm it had. It may be built
cheaper, but I don't think it's going to be improved by the changes that were made and I would have
pushed back had this come in front of us the way it's being presented here. I would have pushed back on
that homogeneity and the lack of charm. Farmhouses are somehow charming and this one has lost that,
in my view.
> That's where I'm at as well. What I saw is adding some detail, spark or charm as my fellow
commissioner said, in those outriggers and the corbels. In looking at what was originally proposed, the
horizontal siding combined with the vertical siding as originally seemed a little odd. I don't mind that
change so much. I get what my fellow commissioner is saying about the windows, but what it really came
down to for me was the detail of the corbels and the outriggers. Removing these really made it plain. So,
those two details are the ones I'm struggling with.
>I do agree with my fellow commissioner that maybe the outriggers and corbels would still be a nice
piece and not doing a traditional one, but a modern version of it would still add some value to this location .
So, I could see that being a part that may want to come back in. But otherwise, the other changes seem
pretty straightforward, the garage change actually is improved. So, I can see it going forward.
>This feels like a case similar to the one previously reviewed, although I would like to thank the
applicant for coming back before it got built. I appreciate that a lot. Now is the time to do this. It sounds
like it's going to be the same as the case we just went through, which is to come back with another
proposal. We all disagree with some stuff. We need to see a proposal that everyone can buy into and I
don't know what that is right now.
>I want to make sure the light fixtures meet the regulatory requirements of the city because that's a lot
of big light fixtures on the outside
>(Gardiner: Regarding whether to continue or deny, it is your prerogative to reopen the public hearing
should you wish. One thing also that is nuanced here is the original approval is still valid, so you can have
him come back and build what was originally approved. But should there be a desire for something in
between and you want to reengage the applicant, it's your prerogative if you want to reopen the hearing. If
you were to deny this, the original approval does still stand, so we can move forward with that and then it
could be resubmitted. That would be a denial without prejudice which would allow an immediate
re-submittal should they want to do that)
>If we look at the list of proposed changes, it looks like we're generally in agreement that all of the
Page 8City of Burlingame
December 13, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
items are acceptable, other than the removal of the wood outriggers and corbels, it's just really that one
item.
>I don't like the proposed solution, but I'm only one vote. I'm okay with that.
>I’m with my fellow commissioner on this. Now that the windows have come into question, I can't un -see
them and I really question what is the intent of coming back with this proposal. I appreciate the fact they
came, this is the time to make the corrections, but yes, we do have certain consensus.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
revisions as proposed except for removal of the wood outriggers and removal of the corbels as
was originally approved for the project. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid4 -
Nay:Loftis, and Larios2 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1534 Hoover Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, one -story
single family dwelling. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., applicant and
designer; Hector and Maria Fernandez, property owners) (82 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1534 Hoover Ave - Staff Report
1534 Hoover Ave - Attachments
1534 Hoover Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Please indicate that guardrails at the landing located outside of the family room will match other
guardrails when it comes back for action.
> I really like the project especially for a one -story house. The front and the rear elevations are much
improved. The right elevation is a little plain, but it's up against the fence and it's nothing to really worry
about. I appreciate that they're keeping the tree. I like the design and it will fit in well with the
neighborhood. I appreciate that it's not a house that's being maxed -out on the square footage. Overall, this
project should move forward
>I really like this design, the architect did a great job on it. I love that we can keep the tree there and
the car can go by.
> I agree, too. I like the charm of this house and it's so nice to see a new one -story home. We so rarely
see a new one-story home. I also appreciate the sensitivity to maintaining the tree as well.
Page 9City of Burlingame
December 13, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Larios6 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Commissioner Larios: It has been a pleasure serving with you close to a year now. I'm very impressed with
all of your expertise and all the work you have done for the city and the many years you've put in to make
our city look the way it is. Before I joined, I had heard praise for the work that this commission does. I
have learned so much from all of you over the past close to eight months and serving on the Rollins Road
Citizen Advisory Committee. I got to learn how the city and the planning works. I hope I brought that
perspective that anybody can serve on this commission.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Gardiner reported that the City Council adopted the Zoning Ordinance at
the December 6th meeting. There was also an item extending the parklet program to the end of 2022, with
the provision of rents and cleaning fees to help recapture the cost of maintaining the pavements. Lastly,
the Council chose one of the alternatives for the voting district maps to move forward with.
a.1 Adrian Court, zoned RRMU - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously
approved mixed use development project.
1 Adrian Ct - Memorandum
1 Adrian Ct - Attachments
1 Adrian Ct - Proposed Plans
1 Adrian Ct - Previously Approved Plans
Attachments:
Pulled for discussion. Concerned that the Adrian Court fence recaptures that public space. Would like to
hear what the developer has to say about that security gate being placed around that public space. Would
be interested in whether city parks are gated and secured at night.
b.2701 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously
approved Design Review project for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached
garage.
2701 Hillside Dr - Memorandum
2701 Hillside Dr - Attachments
2701 Hillside Dr - Plans
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
Page 10City of Burlingame
December 13, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative
format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the
meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, December 13,
2021 at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to
it, and your ability to comment.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda
or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information
via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256.
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on December 13, 2021. 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 27, 2021, 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 $708.00, which includes noticing costs.
Page 11City of Burlingame