HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.10.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, October 25, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney
Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent5 -
Comaroto, and LariosAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft September 27, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft September 27, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Schmid, to approve the meeting
minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
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.1120 Summer Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit
for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single
family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Richard
Terrones, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Mark and Catherine
Page 1City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Intrieri, property owners) (138 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1120 Summer Ave - Staff Report
1120 Summer Ave - Attachments
1120 Summer Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid4 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
b.520 Howard 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (e)(1). (James Stavoy, designer and applicant; David Hackos and Lauren
Cony property owners) (110 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
520 Howard Ave - Staff Report
520 Howard Ave - Attachments
520 Howard Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid4 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
c.1870-1876 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU - Application for a One Year Extension of a
previously approved project for Design Review, Density Bonus, Community Benefits, and
Lot Merger for a new 7-story, 169-unit residential apartment development. The project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Bay Area Oil Supply Inc ./Prime
Plaza LLC, applicants and property owners; Studio T -Square Inc., architect) (67 noticed)
Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1870-1876 El Camino Real - Staff Report
1870-1876 El Camino Real - Attachments
1870-1876 El Camino Real - Plans
Attachments:
Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
Page 2City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1505 Alturas Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit for a
first floor addition at the rear of an existing split -level single family dwelling. This project is
Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section
15301(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Alex Tzang Architects, applicant and architect;
Nina and Bishwa Ganguly, property owners) (80 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1505 Alturas Dr - Staff Report
1505 Alturas Dr - Attachments
1505 Alturas Dr - View Study
1505 Alturas Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse noted that she spoke to the neighbor
at 3101 Cananea Avenue. Commissioner Terrones noted that he was able to visit the neighboring property
and spoke to the property owner at 3101 Cananea Avenue. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of
the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Alex Tzang, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
> Arvind Akela, 3101 Cananea Avenue: I want to thank the three commissioners who came out to see
our perspectives. We really appreciate you taking some time out of your busy schedule, it ’s not easy.
That’s really valuable. We wanted to bring up the issue that we are looking from at so many different
angles. What would be very helpful for all of us is having story poles installed so we can all see the same
thing rather than looking at different photos. I also submitted photos. We have different perspectives .
Again, I am fully supportive of my neighbors’ construction but at the same time when we purchased the
house a year and a half ago, one of the main reasons we were so attracted to this property was the exterior
of this house and all the views around the house, which is very open. If we were to sell our house in the
future, it will not be as attractive as it was for me last year. Again, the value of the views are tremendous
from our side. I can totally understand our neighbors not having that perspective because they have not
seen it from our side. Whatever the commissioners decide, we will go with that. I am requesting story
poles be put up so we all have the same perspective as it will be very valuable to us. I called the architect
to reach out and have them come to our house and take pictures from different angles. I thought we all
had a good compromise, unfortunately the architect said the idea was rejected. That wasn ’t as exciting for
us. I would like to request that story poles be installed so we can all see the impact of the roof height,
which is pretty significant from our side, with the longest side of the structure being raised by 38 1/2
inches.
>Martha Laboissiere, 1 Cananea Place: My property is at the northwest corner of 1505 Alturas Drive.
Like others have mentioned here, and as Vice -Chair Loftis has highlighted, I have to admit that I am a
little bit confused about the plans. The articulation is unclear. The heights are not easily understandable. I
actually spent quite a good amount of time outside looking and trying to understand what was the highest
point. I am not an architect and I apologize if the understanding is not so easy for me. But to the best of
my understanding, the property height increase is over three feet based on the drawings submitted. Like
my neighbor, I would very much welcome if there is guidance to put up story poles so we can all have
clarity. Right now, it feels very unclear of what views I would lose. I have a beautiful view from my bedroom
that looks into that direction. Like what my neighbor Arvind said, when we bought the property, the view is
of course a big part of it. It is embedded in the value. We have all glass doors in the back of the house .
My bedroom looks toward 1505 Alturas Drive. I just want to understand what they are doing as the
Page 3City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
renditions are simply not sufficient. That is my request of this commission. I was a little bit confused with
the 3D projection because it does not match the drawings. Thank you so much for your attention and I
appreciate the opportunity.
>Ethan Pang, 3 Cananea Place: My property sits right above the subject property. We went through
the same process a few months ago. I was looking at the renderings and drawings, adding less than 400
square feet shouldn ’t be too much of a problem for us. However, I agree with the other two neighbors
about the height difference. At this point, I am not quite confident of the accuracy of the renderings. If
they expand horizontally without adding the height difference, we should be okay with the view. Adding
story poles will be a good idea so some of us have a better understanding of exactly what impact this will
have in terms of the views. Having some clarity will be very helpful. Thank you very much and I appreciate
your understanding of this.
>Nina and Bishwa Ganguly, 1505 Alturas Drive: We wanted to thank the commissioners for taking the
time to review our permit application. Based on the evidence provided for us by our architect, including the
computer generated renditions and through the discussions we had with our project planner to try to
understand what the definitions of view obstruction and view are, we feel there is no distant view, view of
the bay, or view of the airport. The only view is of the trees next to Hillside Drive. We don ’t see there being
a long distant view. Taking that one step further in looking at the renditions, we see absolutely no
obstruction of views. Finally, it ’s hard for us to understand what the story poles can add to our
understanding of the situation. Like the other two neighbors in question, they have a view over the top of
our house, the other neighbors don ’t have a clear view over the top of our house. So I will focus on the
main complaint and I just don ’t see a view or an obstruction of view. I don ’t think story poles will add to
the understanding of it and it is going to cause financial burden for us since we have already invested a lot
in this improvement. We respectfully ask the commissioners to accept our application as presented.
>Tzang: As far as I am concerned, the view directions of all these three neighbor houses are against
the protected view over our lot. The clear discrepancy here is the agreement of whether a protected view is
being obstructed. Erection of story poles should be required only if there is such a view in question in the
path from our neighbors to our site. But if we look at the Google map, it is very clear that the view
directions from these neighbors are at the other side of where the protected view is. Erecting story poles in
Burlingame is very cumbersome. We would be spending about two to three thousand dollars for a
contractor to erect them and an additional two thousand dollars for a surveyor to certify it. We understand
the need of it if there is a legitimate view in question, but I urge the commission to look at the site plan
and view direction and find that story poles are not required since there is no protected view in this case.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I deliberately chose not to go out on the site because I didn ’t see in any of the photographs that there
are any distant views being obstructed. As the applicant and their architect said, story poles will not give
us any more information. I trust my fellow commissioners who visited the site to let me know whether I am
right or wrong. If I am wrong then the correct thing to do is erect the story poles. I didn ’t see the need to
erect story poles based on what we saw here. I just looked at the Google map and the architect is exactly
right, it is looking due east towards Foster City and it is not looking directly across the bay. I’m not seeing
any evidence that there is a need for story poles.
>In visiting 3101 Cananea Avenue, I did not see any views that are typically protected. In reference to
Planning Manager’s statement, what we have traditionally and typically considered protected are distant
bay views, views of the east bay, views of the airport and more distant views. The only potential blockage
was of more local trees in the near distance beyond the project towards Hillside Drive. I don ’t see a
protected view from 3101 Cananea Avenue. What I don ’t know, unfortunately, is if there are any views
from 1 Cananea Place and 3 Cananea Place. It is a little bit difficult to tell from the street. I am in a
quandary because we have two additional voices that we weren ’t aware of before this was called up for
action. If this came to us as a study item, we might require story poles. My fear is that if we require story
poles and it turns out that these are not views we typically protect. Yes, from the neighboring properties
you can see the roof, but it doesn’t mean it is blocking a view that is protected.
Page 4City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>I agree with my fellow commissioner. I have the same reaction to my perspective of the view
blockage from 3101 Cananea Avenue. I was not able to enter the home, but the neighbor ’s specific
concern of view blockage would be from their backyard. It is a view of the trees towards Hillside Drive. I
don’t believe it is a view that we protect or is a desirable view. I believe that the house itself has more
desirable views looking due east. I agree that from 3101 Cananea Avenue there is no concern to ask for
story poles. The second neighbor at the corner would again have a similar issue that the views would be
towards the east and not southeast towards Hillside Drive. Being at a higher point as well, I can ’t imagine
that there will be any view blockage. I didn ’t get to visit that property as it was not an option for us. I have
visited 3 Cananea Place in the past when it was in the market, and in my recollection being on the deck
on the main level was there weren ’t any bay views from that property specifically. I don ’t believe there is
any potential distant bay view being blocked as well, but I don’t know for certain.
>I also did not get into the neighbor ’s house at 3101 Cananea Place, but I did visit the site and looked
at the subject property. It was clear to me from that perspective that you are looking at nearby trees .
There is no distant view blockage. I am having a hard time with holding this thing up. The overall ridge
height according to the plans is about nine inches. I don ’t see how it can have a huge impact on the views .
I agree with the applicant that the cost of installing story poles is significant for a minimal to no impact on
distant views. I can support this project and don’t see why we should hold this up.
>I haven’t seen in any of the photographs that would suggest that we are seeing anything other than the
nearby trees. I’ve been in 1 Cananea Place when it was on the market, so I know those views. There are a
lot of trees, but I am not seeing enough evidence that would suggest that there are significant distant view
blockage and that we should stall this any further.
>If any of the neighbors can take a photograph to show distant views then we can reconsider.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
b.2752 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Michael Kuperman, applicant and property owner; Stepan
Berlov, designer) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
2752 Summit Dr - Staff Report
2752 Summit Dr - Attachments
2752 Summit Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Misha Kuperman, property owner, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
> Public comment sent via e -mail by Eric Bryan: My family owns property on Tiara Court, down the
steep hill westerly of 2752 Summit Dr. Due to the huge mass of the proposed building at 2752 Summit
Drive, I'm concerned about the stability of the hill it will be built on, during an earthquake or landslide. I'm
also concerned if the great mass of the building could cause or conduce a landslide. Just below the
Page 5City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
proposed site there is an original, unspoiled coastal live oak grove, and below that several houses which
are on Tiara Court. My concerns are about the oak grove, and the homes below it, should the weight and
mass of the proposed new building increase the chances of a landslide, whether occurring due to heavy
rains or other weather factors, or a landslide triggered by an earthquake, either of which could damage or
destroy the oak grove and homes below on Tiara Court.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The project is greatly improved. I really appreciate the applicant and the architect revisiting the project,
reconsidering their program and redeveloping their plans. I can make the findings and find support for
Special Permit for the attached garage, it is the pattern of the neighborhood. Seeing the story poles today,
the project is minimally above the existing ridge line and the existing structure. It fits in with the
neighborhood and general pattern. I can ’t see any impacts that would cause us to apply the Hillside Area
Construction Permit to restrict the project any further.
>I agree, this project has largely stayed within the envelope that is there now. I don ’t have any concerns
about the hillside view or any items at this point.
>I concur with my fellow commissioners. I appreciate that the applicant has avoided the declining
height envelope penetration. I was pleased to see with the story poles that the height of the structure is
barely above the existing home.
Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
c.2312 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for
declining height envelope and detached garage length 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. (Diebel and Company, applicant and architect; Susan Shao and Wei
Zhu, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
2312 Hillside Dr - Staff Report
2312 Hillside Dr - Attachments
2312 Hillside Dr - 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.
Gary Diebel, architect, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Jennifer Pfaff: I just wanted to say that I was familiar with this project and did see the original plan .
This is an amazing transformation from something that was very large and quite plain. The commissioners
had really good comments and the architect obviously listened and did a great job.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Page 6City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Would suggest to match the window color with the wrought iron details.
>I like the revisions made and the addition of stones at the base of the chimney.
>I like the changes; this will be a gorgeous house and a good addition to the neighborhood.
>The architect did a great job listening to our comments, addressing them, and applying a layer of
additional design details onto a home that is already nicely designed.
>This is a nice project. I would like to reaffirm my concern about the exterior light fixtures meeting the
requirements of the lighting ordinances.
Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
d.567 Airport Boulevard, zoned AA - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for floor area ratio and building
height for a new, eight -story office/research and development building and parking
garage. (Peninsula Owner, LLC, applicant and property owner; DES Architects, architect )
(43 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
567 Airport Blvd - Staff Report
567 Airport Blvd - Attachments
567 Airport Blvd - Response to Comments
567 Airport Blvd - Revised Traffic Impact Analysis
567 Airport Blvd - IS/MND
567 Airport Blvd - MMRP
567 Airport Blvd - Plans
567 Airport Blvd - Graphics Package
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Tom Gilman, architect, and Chris Kinzel, transportation consultant, represented the applicant and
answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Michael Ochoa: I am a field representative for Carpenters Union Local 217. Thank you for giving me
the opportunity to speak. Having been a part of the carpenters union for 20 years, I can speak directly on
the positive impact it has had on my family and myself. I was able to start my career here in San Mateo
County and had the pleasure to work in cities all throughout the county. Having a developer commit to
using a union contractor will provide the residents of Burlingame with an opportunity to start a career that
does not discriminate on whether you are a woman or man and pay you equally for the work you do. This
project will provide hundreds of jobs and will have a direct impact on those workers and their families .
Providing a livable wage, health care and benefits. So on behalf of 38,000 members here in Northern
California, thank you for your time and I ask that you approve this project.
Page 7City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Moises Yeda: I am also a field representative for Carpenters Union Local 217. I come to you tonight to
urge you to approve the application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review and
Conditional Use Permit for the 567 Airport Boulevard office research and development project. This project
will help to create the much needed work opportunities and much needed jobs. Jobs that will provide
access to many opportunities, not just for the workers on the project but also for their families. Jobs and
pathways to careers in construction for journeyman carpenters, apprentices, young men and women,
single mothers entering the workforce and returning military veterans. The NorCal Carpenters
Apprenticeship program is state certified and it bears no cost to taxpayers. Apprentices will have the
opportunity to learn and perform both in class and on the field. Jobs that have family supporting dignified
wages. This create benefits and are made available when developers choose responsible family -oriented
general contractors to build in our communities. Thank you to Lane Partners for your selection of DevCon
Construction to build your vision that is this project. Thank you to DevCon Construction for being a
conscientious partner who understands us and important issues as they affect our community and our
membership. I urge you to approve the application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design
Review and Conditional Use Permit for the 567 Airport Boulevard office research and development project.
>James Rodriguez: Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I am a journeyman carpenter with
Local 217. I have been a carpenter for 10 years and majority of my work during my career has me driving
an hour plus each way every day. This project will allow myself and other carpenters like me work close to
home in a decent livable wage and work towards a respectable retirement all while being able to spend
more time with my family. I hope to see this project approved and moving forward soon.
>Jason Rojas: Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I am a third period carpenter apprentice with Local
217. I live in San Mateo. This project will benefit much of my brother and sister carpenters. It will allow me
to build something to be proud of in my hometown all the while advancing myself in the trade and working
for a respectable retirement. It would also allow me to be closer to home and spend more time with my
family. I’m looking forward to see this project move forward.
>Matthew Miller: I am a resident of Burlingame and I am also a member of the carpenters union. I am
urging everyone here to approve this project. I think it is a great project. It can provide good jobs for
people in the area. Being a carpenter has afforded me a great living and I love the city of Burlingame. I live
near Paloma Avenue. I’ve made a great living through the trade with all my brothers and sisters. We work
hard. This will be done by skilled and trained workforce who will make sure that you have a beautiful
building for us to look at. It is really exciting to see something like this come into the area. I want to thank
everyone for their time. Please consider passing this project.
>David Morrow: I’m a resident of Burlingame for almost 30 years and live on Columbus Avenue. I also
represent the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, electricians of San Mateo County. Like my
brother carpenters, I do believe this is a very good project for all the building trades in general. Also, I do
walk out there quite often with my dog and any improvements to that area on the walking trail is greatly
needed. I believe using a quality contractor such as DevCon along with Lane partners, I don ’t think you
can get a better group together who can build you a project that will do Burlingame justice. So, I urge all
commissioners to approve this project.
>Joe Fitzgerald: I am an assistant business manager for the electricians union here in San Mateo
County. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the upcoming project located at 567 Airport
Boulevard. This project is located in an area that continues to be revitalized with new development that will
help this part of Burlingame provide good properties for the growing need for bio -tech and life science
research facilities. In addition, the developer has agreed to use local union contractors and the members
that they employ that live and work along the Peninsula. This provides good paying jobs for the members
that help build these type of facilities over the last few decades throughout San Mateo County. By using a
local workforce, this will ensure that the wages earned are spent here as opposed to the importing of
workers and exporting of wages to another area. I speak in support of this upcoming project.
Page 8City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Public comment sent via e-mail by Rocky Allen: I would like to express my concern with the future of
this building causing further traffic congestion at the Humane Society on -ramp especially once the
Facebook building is fully occupied. Caltrans has already taken a lane away on the on -ramp. The traffic
is already an issue without this building and Facebook being occupied. What are your plans to resolve
this issue should the building pass?
>Gilman: Thank you very much for the several union members who have spoken for the project this
evening. I just want to add that Lane Partners is in fact committed to using all union labor on the project.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>This is a terrific project, the refinements are spot on. Thank you for addressing the comments. The
graphics package is particularly helpful to make the assessments that we have to make. The project
should move forward. It’s going to be good for that part of the city.
>Overall, I like the project. It was designed very well. It is a very handsome building and as a unit it
could work. However I do have problems with the traffic study. I’m out there enough to know and
experience some of the traffic related to those areas. I am not seeing how this will not have a huge traffic
impact, not just this project but the other projects as well. It deserves more study and a better look. I
can’t accept the environmental review because of the traffic study. I like the design, it is a good looking
building. It looks really great on the renderings by the water. But we are digging ourselves into a hole that
we will have a hard time getting out of with all the development out there.
>I too like the project. I really appreciate the refinements that have been made. Aside from the idea of
having a bird safe glazing, I like the idea of the transparency of the glazing and being able to see activity
and not having anonymous reflective glass building where you don ’t really know what is happening inside .
Overall, this is an area of increased FAR that we have allotted within our General Plan. We have Traffic
Demand Management plans that are being put in place for projects like this. I get what my fellow
commissioner is saying in terms of the level of service at intersections. But I have to accept the traffic
analysis that shows that this project is not contributing to those existing intersections to the point of
significance where we have to do anything further under CEQA. I can accept the findings of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration. It is a handsome building. It will not only fit in but will complement and raise the bar
for the designs of the buildings in that neighborhood so I can make the findings for the Commercial
Design Review. The Conditional Use Permits for the height and the floor area are tending towards what we
are already putting in place with the new General Plan and the ordinances that are forthcoming. The
project should move forward.
>I agree, the FAR and uses in that area are in line with what we have been looking at and are in line
with what we’ve seen in the adjacent properties. It is a big piece of property and it is being utilized. So, I
can make those findings as well. I do appreciate the effort of the design team, it continues to get better
each time I see it. I would like to see this move forward as well.
>To revisit the concerns about traffic, the traffic consultant made a statement that the study outcome
meets the requirements of the City of Burlingame. There are published requirements by the city and it
reads to say “the City of Burlingame General Plan EIR establishes significant impact criteria. Increase in
traffic is considered to have a significant impact if it meets one of two criteria: moving a signal intersection
from B to D or moving a signal intersection from E to F." That’s what we’ve got to go on. It is important to
recognize that we have design criteria that folks have to meet. I share the concern, but this is what we ’ve
got.
>I don’t agree with it. I believe we are going in the wrong direction with this until some of those roads
are widened, the Peninsula on-ramp interchange is developed, and a closer look has taken place.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to accept the findings in
the staff report that the requests for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for
floor area ratio and building height are in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act. The motion carried by the following vote:
Page 9City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye: 5 - Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid
Nay: 1 - Gaul
Absent: 2 - Comaroto and Larios
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to approve the
application for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for floor area ratio and
building height. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
e.Consideration and Recommendation of a Proposed Ordinance of the City of Burlingame
Providing a Comprehensive Update of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Burlingame Municipal
Code:
1.Resolution Recommending General Plan Amendments to Increase Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) for Office and Research /Development Projects on Properties Fronting Old
Bayshore Highway in the Bayfront Area and to Provide Additional Specificity to Sea
Level Rise Goals and Policies
2.Update of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Burlingame Municipal Code and Zoning Map
Staff Report - Zoning Ordinance
Attachments - Zoning Ordinance
Burlingame Zoning Ordinance
Zoning Map
Staff Report - October 12, 2021 PC Meeting
Attachments:
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Community Development Director
Gardiner and Planning Manager Hurin answered questions of staff.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>In Article 2, Section 25.20.080, E., 2., the reference to Section 25.20.090, D should be corrected to
state 25.20.080, D (Gardiner: Correct, that was an error. The intent is to reference back to those
standards which also apply to lot splits.)
>In Article 2, Section 25.20.080, A. (Purpose) notes that this section regulates two -unit residential
development. However, there is another sentence further down below that states "A proposed housing
development containing no more than two residential units shall be considered ministerially". I would read
that to include single -unit development proposals. I would suggest that we be specific and say "a
proposed two-unit housing development shall be considered ministerially ", because otherwise we may get
applicants saying that their single -unit proposal falls under this section and therefore must be considered
ministerially without any design review by the Planning Commission. (Gardiner: We can look at the
language under Purpose, it is derived directly from the legislation. Whether we can specify that it only
applies to two units, we can look into it as it moves along to City Council. The intent is that it applies to
two units, not to single units.)
Page 10City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>In Article 3, the figure for Habitable Attic Areas on page 4 should be Figure 25.30-2, not 25.30-1.
>In Article 6, Section 25.70.020, C. talks about story poles. We should consider making a more
explicit recommendation regarding installation of story poles. Currently it states that an applicant is
encouraged to install story poles, however am concerned that most applicants would just ignore it unless
it's required. Look at ways to more objectively state that if there is a potential of view blockage of long
distant views, that story poles are required to be installed at the time an application is filed. Or perhaps
include more guidance to the applicant so it is clear when story poles would be required to be installed.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
Jennifer Pfaff: I submitted a page of policy comments and I wanted to follow up with one specific
comment. The code mentions minimum driveway width requirements, but don't think we've ever
mentioned a maximum allowed driveway width. It does concern me that as we discuss the allowed
duplexes and lot splits under SB 9, it seems to me that this is going to be a problem. Should look at this
more carefully when the objective standards are created.
Virginia Calkins: As invested land owners on the Bayshore, we at DivcoWest and Woodstock have
reviewed the draft zoning code in detail and made a few suggested clarifications and revisions and
submitted them to city staff for their consideration. These are not yet reflected in this draft, but we look
forward to working with city staff to discuss these potential modifications in coming weeks.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Further Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Good idea to specify a maximum driveway width. Perhaps this is an enforcement issue, but we're
seeing more people wanting to park in front of their house outside of their driveway.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to accept findings in the
staff report that adoption of amendments to the Burlingame General Plan to increase the floor
area ratio (FAR) for office and research/development projects on properties fronting Old
Bayshore Highway in the Bayfront Area and to provide additional specificity to sea level rise
goals and policies is in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid
Absent: 2 - Comaroto and Larios
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to recommend to the City
Council amendments to the Burlingame General Plan to increase the floor area ratio (FAR) for
office and research/development projects on properties fronting Old Bayshore Highway in the
Bayfront Area and to provide additional specificity to sea level rise goals and policies. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid
Absent: 2 - Comaroto and Larios
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to accept findings in the
staff report that adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Burlingame providing a comprehensive
update of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Burlingame Municipal Code, adoption of the City of Burlingame
Page 11City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Zoning Map, and repealing Title 21 (Historic Preservation) and Title 22 (Signs) is in accordance
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye: 5 - Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid
Absent: 2 - Comaroto and Larios
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to recommend to the City
Council adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Burlingame providing a comprehensive update
of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Burlingame Municipal Code, adoption of the City of Burlingame Zoning
Map, and repealing Title 21 (Historic Preservation) and Title 22 (Signs). The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.2112 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit
for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage .
(Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and architect; Cristina and Alexey
Abrahams, property owners) (94 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
2112 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report
2112 Carmelita Ave - Attachments
2112 Carmelita 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.
Jeanne Davis, designer, and Christina and Alexey Abrahams, property owners, represented the applicant
and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>It is a well-done project; it is supportable. I like it and it will fit nicely in the area.
>This is a very nice, well-crafted project. It feels compact in a very nice way. Achieving the architecture
that was accomplished is well worth the Special Permit for the height.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to place the item on the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Page 12City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
b.1129 Killarney Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. (Chu
Design Associates, applicant and designer; Robert Gilson, property owner) (130 noticed)
Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1129 Killarney Ln - Staff Report
1129 Killarney Ln - Attachments
1129 Killarney Ln - 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.
James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>At the stairwell window overlooking the neighbor to the right, consider reducing the window height by
raising the sill height if light from that window will affect the next door neighbor.
>On the rear elevation, the window sill height from the master bedroom and the master bath are on the
same level. Consider raising the bath tub window that is clipping the gable roof of the lower floor, for better
privacy.
>The project is very nicely done. Make sure that the light fixtures comply with the exterior lighting
ordinances.
>Looking at the side elevation by the stairwell, it may be looking at a blank wall today but may not be
looking at a blank wall tomorrow. Encourage the applicant to consider a window that would be more
respectful of a house next door that will have a window someday.
Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
c.1548 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage. (Tony
Pantaleoni, Kotas/Pantaleoni Architects, architect; Sarah and Theo Wong, property
owners) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1548 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report
1548 Westmoor Rd - Attachments
1548 Westmoor Rd - Plans
Attachments:
Page 13City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Tony Pantaleoni, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Make sure to coordinate with neighbors regarding the fence on the garage side and to provide
temporary provisions during construction.
>The front elevation looks a little bulky. The trellis is not helping break up the fa çade. A bay window,
similar to the master bathroom, as an added element on the façade could help to break up the scale.
>The fascia size is putting the house out of character. Consider reducing the size of the fascia to
match what is existing in the neighborhood.
>I like the idea of this house, but it feels uncomfortably large. There are very large planes in several
areas. On the East Side Elevation, the high floor plates on both the first and second floors feel like the
spandrel is being stretched because there is a big gap in between. The West Side Elevation feels a little
mundane and plain. The second floor plate height should come down a little bit. Everything is too big, tall
and plain. It’s not well-articulated despite its best efforts. There are a lot of things that are not working
somehow. It needs a lot of work. It needs to come down in scale whatever it takes.
>It is a challenge to retain the vaulted ceiling and I appreciate the desire to try and keep it. I don ’t
disagree with the scale issue, partially because the gables are going side -to-side which results to a very
tall peak as opposed to it going front -to-back. I agree with my fellow commissioners that there are some
scale opportunities here and that the stretch in the middle has made a fairly large belly area that is hard to
deal with.
>There is enough of an effort here as my fellow commissioner mentioned. I would ask that some of the
things be revisited: plate height, mass and bulk, and detailing of the fascia on the front elevation.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Schmid, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Larios2 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.2721 Martinez Drive - FYI for review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design
Review project.
2721 Martinez Dr - Memo and Attachments
2721 Martinez Dr - Plans
Attachments:
Page 14City of Burlingame
October 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
- Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on October 25, 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 November 4, 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 15City of Burlingame