HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.05.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
6:00 PM OnlineMonday, May 24, 2021
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Online
a.Zoning Code Update - Review of CMU (California Mixed Use) and BRMU (Broadway
Mixed Use) Districts
Memorandum - CMU and BRMU Districts
Draft CMU and BRMU Regulations
Draft Article 8 - Definitions
Attachments:
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin,
Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Associate Planner Michelle Markiewicz, City Attorney
Michael Guina, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and LariosPresent5 -
Comaroto, and TerronesAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft April 26, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft April 26, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to approve the meeting
minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no Public Comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
Page 1City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1431 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Hao Hao Construction LLC, property owner and applicant;
Han Li, Han DesignStudio, designer) (166 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1431 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report
1431 Capuchino Ave - Attachments
1431 Capuchino Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of
the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Han Li, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
>Rachel Franklin: I'm the neighbor on the north side that the architect mentioned. Wanted to confirm
that the owner had come by and we reviewed the window position; I had told her I was fine with the
windows as you mentioned assuming that when you are inside your house you can't look directly into my
house. Am especially concerned about my bedroom and that's where I understand the master bedroom of
1431 is going to be located. The locations of where the windows might be were approximated, so wanted
to make sure that if I'm in my bedroom I won't be able to see into their bedroom and vice versa.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Concerned with the large window sizes on the second floor in the stairway at the side and rear of the
house, specifically windows labeled #204 and #205. These windows are out of scale with the other
windows on the upper floor. They should be reduced in size or subdivided to match the rest of the house.
>Concerned with the termination vent for the fireplace; should make the fireplace vent (on South
Elevation) look more like a chimney rather than a termination cap.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Chair Schmid, to approve the application with
the following added condition:
>that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted to include
revised plans showing smaller second floor windows in the stairway along the side and rear of
the house (reduced in size or subdivided to match the rest of the house) and changing the
termination vent for the fireplace to a design that looks more like a chimney.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Page 2City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 -
b.728 Lexington Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for
attached garage, and Front Setback Variances for a new, two -story single family dwelling
with an attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Tristan Warren, Tristan Warren Architect, applicant and architect ); Tuhin and
Shelby Sinha, property owners) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
728 LexingtonWay - Staff Report
728 Lexington Way - Attachments
728 Lexington Way - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis noted that he had a Zoom meeting
with the architect who wanted to better understand comments and concerns about compatibility made
from the last meeting, but did not discuss the merits of the project. Associate Planner Markiewicz
provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Tristan Warren, architect and Shelby Sinha, property owner, 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:
>Would like to see the change in material on the left side elevation recessed as it would be a nice
reveal and create shadows. It doesn't have to be the full depth like the other one.
>The articulation of the project through its mass and bulk are compatible with the neighborhood, but
am struggling with the proposed architectural style because clearly it is not compatible. The one
characteristic of that neighborhood is having a low pitched roof.
>The project is well designed, proportionally correct and the massing is done well but am concerned
about the compatibility with the architectural style of the neighborhood.
>This house fits in just fine with the current landscape.
>The chimney on the right -hand side sticks out a little bit. It doesn't articulate well with the horizontal
and vertical lines of the building, it seems out of place. Would like to see that chimney be placed towards
the back where the painted metal pipe is not visible from the street as much.
>Struggled about the compatibility with the neighborhood, but the overall context is still going to be
within the neighborhood; the landscaping becomes an important statement of architecture as well. It's an
opportunity to diversify the neighborhood a lit bit more.
>It's a good project, but cannot find compatibility of the architectural style with the existing character of
the neighborhood.
>Struggling with the architectural style. The proposed landscaping is going to help a lot, but don ’t see
the compatibility of this house on that block.
Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to approve the
Page 3City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
application with the following added condition:
>that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted to include
revised plans showing the horizontal wood siding, along the Left Elevation on the first and
second floors, recessed further to add depth and articulation, and the chimney on the Right
Elevation placed further towards the rear of the house so the metal pipe is not as visible from the
street.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Tse, Schmid, and Larios3 -
Nay:Gaul, and Loftis2 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 -
c.1804 Devereux Drive, 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. (Waldemar Stachniuk, KWS United Technology,
Inc., applicant; Hillary and Chris Milks, property owners) (94 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1804 Devereux Dr - Staff Report
1804 Devereux Dr - Attachments
1804 Devereux 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.
Waldemar Stachniuk, 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:
>Should change the 4” x 4” post on the right side of the porch to a column that matches the other two
10-inch square columns.
>Would highly recommend that there be no changes to the James Hardie siding with mitered corners,
and there will be no corner boards on the second floor as stated on the plans.
>Appreciate the changes that have been made and the applicant working with the design review
consultant, this is definitely a better solution than was previously presented.
>Second story still looks like an addition, it doesn't seem to flow well. Concerned with the mass and
bulk on the second floor.
>It's a fairly good size mass as a second level addition, it is still pretty top heavy.
>Massing looks tall from the side elevations, but seems to fit in better from the front view. Side views
are fairly visible from the street.
Page 4City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Isometric views provided help to better understand the massing; there is enough articulation to create
a good balance in massing.
Vice Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Chair Schmid, to approve the application with the
following added condition:
>that the column on the right side of the porch shall match the other porch columns in size,
material and shape.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 -
d.1349 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form + One, designer; Cabrillo Ave LLC,
property owner) (78 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1349 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report
1349 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments
1349 Cabrillo Ave - 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.
Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Anahita (last name not provided ), 1240 Cabrillo Avenue: It was just brought to my attention last night
that another beautiful heritage redwood tree is to be cut down, probably the third tree on Cabrillo Avenue
that I have seen cut down just on this street alone. One of the beautiful things of this city are the trees
and we need to do whatever we can to protect our trees for the sake of better living for us who live here, as
well as our wildlife. Please reconsider constructing this home around that tree, that would make us very
happy.
>Brian Benn: I have five quick points I would like to make. My first observation is that the developer ’s
reply on May 13th was really non-responsive. A number of commissioners had encouraged the designer to
try to work around the tree. Instead, it seems he's trying to steam roll the commission by asking friends
and neighbors if they're okay with removing the tree without offering a redesign. Number two, when asked
if there is a downside to flipping the design to save the tree on May 10th, he said “just the street pattern .”
So, the notion of needing to change the street pattern here seems really contrived. In terms of driveways,
this block's pattern has ten homes with driveways on the left and four homes with driveways on the right,
including this house, and that's a pretty common ratio around Burlingame. Some blocks have more on the
right and even some homes in Burlingame share a driveway. There is a wide variety of patterns, so the
idea of changing the existing right side driveway really seems to be an excuse to just get rid of the tree .
Number three, as an example of how development should work around the trees, I suggest walking past
the majestic redwood trees at 1543 and 1537 Drake Avenue, they provide beauty, shade and character to
the neighborhood. Number four is about the water issue that was brought up at the last discussion .
Burlingame has very shallow groundwater to nourish a large redwood tree and keep it healthy. The San
Page 5City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Francisco Public Utilities Commission does semi -annual monitoring of the west side basin, it ’s collected
data since 2006 showing a consistent 6 to 13-foot depth to groundwater and that's well within the reach of
a large redwood tree's roots. Number five is regarding safety which was brought up in the response, these
trees can and should be maintained. We prune our large tree every 4 or 5 years and it did very well in the
recent strong winds. Of course there are risks with trees, probably lower risk than getting in our cars, in
terms of liability standard homeowners policies cover damage from falling objects in an unlikely event
something were to happen. In conclusion, it's agreed the tree is healthy, it's in good condition so let's
protect the beauty and characteristic of Burlingame for ourselves and future generations. Don’t let this be
a sterile development just because it is easier to develop the site and flip a quick profit. If we lose this
tree it will be another big scar for the City of Trees. Please insist that the design be worked around the
tree.
>Jan Robertson: Am a long time resident of Burlingame, have lived here 25 years as a homeowner and
within a couple of blocks from this project. Walked by it over the weekend and the argument about the
driveways is bogus, as the previous speaker pointed out. There are a number of driveways located on the
right and left on the street. I noted last time in the meeting that the developer is not only out of the area,
but the developer is out of state. It’s easier and cheaper to come in, mow all the trees down and make the
project a lot cheaper so they can do a quick flip for maximum profit and move on. That is great for
profitability. Those of us who really treasure the beauty of the trees in Burlingame in our neighborhood
know that's what makes our real estate valuable and our community so special. The previous commenter
also pointed out that there is ample precedent for developers being required to work around existing
redwood trees. At the end of Vancouver Avenue, several years back the developer had to work around the
beautiful stands of redwoods there. They are a treasure for the neighbors, so let's not do the expedient
thing and take down the tree. I implore the commission to require this developer to work around and save
the trees.
>Jennifer Pfaff: I do have an issue with some of the comments that are included in the packet where
the applicant went to the adjacent neighbors and said “are you okay with this?" That might be fine when
you are talking about a second story porch or something like that. This is really a landmark tree and was
there well before this was purchased. I look at it as a preexisting condition, like being under airline air
traffic and close to a train track or a highway. It's an existing condition that didn't just appear. So you go
into it knowing what you are getting into. Certainly anybody can research that redwood trees are messy. I
had one and it does not use any where near the amount of water I heard about. I'm not an arborist and I
will not pretend to be. I do want to say, I looked into this property today in the Sanborn Insurance maps
from 1921. The property directly to the left of this one, which is 1345 Cabrillo Avenue, used to be two
parcels. A cute little house to the south was on a larger parcel. When this house on 1349 Cabrillo Avenue
came along around the 1930s or 40s, they accommodated a pre -existing tree with the driveway and with
what looks like incorporated garage pushed up so it's left space in the back plenty of room. So this has
been accommodated before. Basically, we're talking about risks. Kielty Arborist finished his report by
saying that the only way to eliminate risks is to eliminate all trees. I don't think that is what Burlingame is
about frankly. I hope you will again consider and ask the developer to look at this again. To trade two
young sapling redwood trees somewhere else is not the same for this huge tree. It's not an equal trade.
>Leslie Mcquaide: I was on the Beautification Commission for many years and back then redwoods
were a protected tree. We saw a lot of appeals for removing redwood trees. The redwood tree at 1349
Cabrillo Avenue is in beautiful shape compared to some of the other ones we saw. I don't know if I'm
allowed to say this since I am not on the commission anymore, but we would probably turn down the
request to remove this tree on Cabrillo Avenue. It doesn't have any uplifting of ground or pavement and
there are no long unruly branches that may fall down. It's a very compact looking tree. There is no redwood
mess on the ground anywhere and it provides a lot of shade to this deep lot. It doesn't seem to affect the
property owners behind it. The redwoods are almost a perfect tree, they have a great ability to store water
and because of that, they really do well in a drought condition. They have essential oils that protects them
from rot and fire. They are home to owls and is a great tree to consider for climate change. My suggestion
is to not remove the tree and see what the possibility is of putting the driveway and the garage on the other
side of the tree.
> Linda Ryan, 1532 Drake Avenue: I live at 1532 Drake Avenue across from a lovely grove of protected
redwoods trees that are healthy, well maintained and enhanced the quality of life on our street. The trees
Page 6City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
also protect us from sun, airport noise and wind. We are grateful to the people that fought to preserve
them. A spec developer would liked to have removed the grove but the neighbors and the Planning
Commission won the battle to preserve them. The grove still sits healthy and well maintained. The home
has sold three times and has appreciated by at least 1/2 million each time. Large trees add monetary
value to a home and neighborhood. The redwood tree at 1349 Cabrillo is healthy and a protected tree in
Burlingame. It is the duty of the commission to fight to preserve it. The report shows that the tree is
healthy and can be maintained. It would be shameful of the commission to let the spec builder take it
down. Please make him design to include this large, beautiful tree so that our neighbor can have some
large canopy of trees. Lastly, we all know this builder will make $4 million or more on this home with the
redwood tree included in the design. Again, it ’s your job as commissioners to protect that which can be
protected.
>Alisa Johnson, 1233 Cortez Avenue: I'm very pro -building and pro-development of Burlingame and I'm
also pro-tree. We are the City of Trees. Lately, we have been taking out a lot of trees because of damage
and people alarmed at branches causing destruction on human lives and property. I would like to see ways
to start building around these beautiful trees. As far as value, I have seen beautiful new construction built
with a redwood tree, it gives a lot more value to the lot. We need to preserve right now, it's important.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The designer has made a good argument for keeping the tree by proposing to flip the design. The tree
should be kept.
>Should consider designing around the tree, perhaps with a different style of architecture, something
like an Eichler or modern design. Something that would fit and have an open feel to the outdoors.
>There is a large, beautiful thriving tree on the property that can be designed around. Flipping the site
plan can be a simple solution. Can even deliberately design with the tree in mind. Cannot see any
possibility of removing the tree on this property with all it offers our community.
>Suggests pursuing different design options and keeping the tree.
>Encouraging the opportunity to work on the design with the tree in mind.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 -
e.22 Channing 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303 (a). (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Gary Coover
and Ayelet Konrad, property owners) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
22 Channing Rd - Staff Report
22 Channing Rd - Attachments
22 Channing Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the
staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Ginger Feretto, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Page 7City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The project is much improved and addressed all of the concerns that were brought forward at the last
couple of meetings.
>Think that the project got a lot better with the effort put in by the applicant and working with the design
review consultant.
>There were no additional changes suggested.
Vice Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 -
f.220 Primrose Road, zoned HMU - Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code and
Downtown Specific Plan to allow health services as a Permitted or Conditional Use on
the ground floor in the Howard Mixed Use District. Application also includes a proposed
health service use at 220 Primrose Road. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15305.
(Northern Trust Co. c/o Woodstock Development, applicant; Harriman Kinyon Architects,
Inc., architect) (222 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
220 Primrose Rd - Staff Report
220 Primrose Rd - Attachments
220 Primrose Rd - 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.
Kirk Syme, Woodstock Development; Becky Garland, DaVita; and Donald Kinyon, Harriman Kinyon
Architects represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
>Aria Escaria: Live in Burlingame and visit this area quite often. Was quite shocked to hear that a
dialysis center was proposed on Primrose Road given that it is such a busy street. Finding parking is
difficult in this area. Patients who need to park close to the dialysis center, and have issues with walking
or other health issues, are going to be in a bind. In terms of parking, it will not be very favorable to the
patients. Don't know if they're planning on using some of the current parking spaces, but parking is
limited in downtown Burlingame. Don't know how a large vehicle would be able to drop off the patients .
Don’t think DaVita or any dialysis center would be compatible with Primrose road and other businesses
that are at street level on that street.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Page 8City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Changes to the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan should allow for health service uses as a
conditional use and not as a permitted use. Want to maintain flexibility to drive the outcomes that we
want there.
>We talk about promoting retail and enhancing retail uses on side streets, but am having a hard time
finding the reasoning for allowing a dialysis center in downtown Burlingame with a conditional use permit .
Understand that the building has been empty for three years, however this is a retail area. Don’t think
there should be a knee jerk reaction to try get the space occupied.
>Parking is going to be a huge issue. Don’t think dialysis patients are going to want to walk around
downtown after their visit. Ideally, the site should have parking for patients.
>Think that health services uses should be allowed as a conditional use, I think it ’s appropriate in this
case.
>Appreciate the service this business is bringing forward and the need we have in our community. Also
appreciate the programming needs that have been so eloquently explained to us and how this site does fit
those needs. However, this is a retail site in a retail district where we have a Specific Plan. Intention in
our plan was to energize this side street as it connects between Howard and Burlingame Avenues. Not
seeing how the design we're talking about creates a compatible energy or engagement on that block that
would fit with the other tenants in the area. This would be giving up a sizeable location in a retail district
that we feel should be retail to a use that we aren't really supporting there.
>Think we struggle enough as it is connecting Howard Avenue with Burlingame Avenue and we need
these arterials between these streets to connect these two business districts together.
>Extent of glass along building frontage is perfect for retail, allows one to look inside to see what is
being sold. With this particular health service use, all of the glass would get covered up to provide privacy
to the patients inside, so it would not be a good fit for the area. Not sure this is the right type of zoning for
this particular site.
Chair Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to recommend that the City
Council deny the request for Amendment to the Zoning Code and Downtown Specific Plan to
allow health service uses on the ground floor within the Howard Mixed Use District as either a
permitted or a conditional use.
Comment on the motion:
>We have a fiduciary responsibility. Feel that the right thing to do is to allow health service
uses as a conditional use, and therefore would not support the motion.
>In one respect you would be thinking we're putting a tenant into a space and activating that
space again. On the other hand, what we're doing is trading a different kind of tenant that then
is not necessarily the same kind of tax generation and use that we have zoned that area for.
Changes the space from something that is a high activation opportunity to a much smaller
activation. It's the same reason allowing office on the ground floor isn't good for us either. It
changes the use patterns and the way we spend money in the city. Would like to have this
business in Burlingame, we just need to find the right spot. Concerned that changing the zoning
for this particular business would then change the zoning forever.
>We wouldn’t be having this conversation if this project hadn’t come forward. Think we
should have more flexibility than we have, but would also argue that this is not a good project at
the same time.
>Worried that we’re saying that this particular 10,000 square foot health service use is not a
good project, but that another ground floor health service use may be appropriate. So what
we're doing here is throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's unfortunate it came about the
way it did.
>Don't know how we go forward to put in parameters around what would be acceptable. This
is a large impact project, may not be having the same conversation if it were a smaller project
since it wouldn’t be deactivating the space as much. This seems to be a larger zoning
Page 9City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
discussion that may need to come back with the zoning code update.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Tse, Gaul, and Schmid3 -
Nay:Loftis, and Larios2 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 -
g.Recommendation to City Council on Proposed Zoning Code Update regarding the
introduction of a proposed ordinance that would amend the City of Burlingame Municipal
Code Chapter 25.77 related to wireless facilities and to amend Municipal Code Title 12
to add Chapter 12.11, “Wireless Facilities In Public Rights -Of-Way.” The proposed
amendments are not a "project" pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Staff Contact: Scott Spansail, Assistant City Attorney
Staff Report
Draft Ordinance
Draft Resolution - Design and Location Standards
Resolution - Recommendation to City Council
Attachments:
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Appreciate that proposed ordinance and resolution no longer requires review of wireless facilities in the
right-of-way by the Commission.
>Proposed process, along with guidelines in the resolution, will help speed up the review process.
>Like that resolution provides the ability to update the guidelines with changes in technology.
>Ordinance and resolution were very well written.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to recommend that the
City Council adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 25.77 and adding Chapter 12.11, the
resolution providing design and location standards for wireless facilities in the public
rights-of-way and on public and private land, and standard permit conditions.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
Page 10City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
a.2013 Easton Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. (Alicia
Ader, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Bart and Carol Gaul,
property owners) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
2013 Easton Dr - Staff Report
2013 Easton Dr - Attachments
2013 Easton Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul was recused due to a family
relationship with the property owner. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Alicia Ader, architect and Bart Gaul, property owner represented the applicant and answered questions
about the application.
Public Comments:
> Arya Askari: We live in the house just east of the project and the adjacent house. We couldn't tell
from the plans, but we do have some concerns about privacy. The one thing we're considering is that there
are trees and foliage that provide a screen between our two properties as well as a fence. We were just
wondering if either of those would be affected by the project. I don ’t know if this is the right forum for this
question, but we have little kids who play in our backyard and are wondering about any mitigation for
release of asbestos and lead paint.
>Martha Beshore, 1234 Vancouver Avenue (comments submitted in email): I would like to be on
record regarding my concern with the creek area which is part of the 2013 property just beyond the
concrete culvert. There is a down slope, then the creek, and then the upslope of the property. I am
concerned with the maintenance of this area since it seems to be fenced off entirely and possibly not
accessible to those who occupy the property and not aware of its existence. I just wanted to call attention
to this section of the property particularly when we have wet weather in the fall and winter when branches or
tree debris may rush downstream or clog up the works. We did have a bad rain situation a few years ago
that caused some water damage to the fences and small bridge standing there. The owners, however, did
build new fences and took down the small wooden bridge that crossed the stream which was partly swept
off the concrete banks.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The Commission complimented the design of the project and its compatibility with the neighborhood .
No revisions to the plans were requested.
Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Tse, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios4 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 -
Recused:Gaul1 -
b.1114 Eastmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback
Page 11City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and
Side Setback Variance and Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage. (Shan S. Yu,
U:Design, applicant and designer; Philip and Laila Louridas, property owners) (105
noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1114 Eastmoor Rd - Staff Report
1114 Eastmoor Rd - Attachments
1114 Eastmoor Rd - 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.
Shan Yu, designer and Laila Louridas, property owner 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:
>Four existing windows along the front of the house shown to be retained and all new windows
throughout the house should be changed to a better grade window, such as a wood windows that is clad
on the exterior.
>Concerned with the long blank wall along the South Elevation; this should be looked at more closely.
>Proposed design is bulky and large and is not consistent with the neighborhood. Should consider a
design that works with the curve of the street like the existing house does. Project should also be scaled
down.
>Concerned that a variance and conditional use permit is needed for the detached garage .
Neighborhood consists primarily of attached garages. Not in favor of a detached garage.
>Struggling with the form; front door faces one way and other dominant forms facing another way .
Design is not cohesive.
>Design is not cohesive and is blocky.
>Don't understand the need for a tall attic simply for a few pieces of equipment; should consider a
partial attic instead.
>Not in favor of a detached garage to gain the extra FAR. Concerned with 1'-5" separation between the
house and detached garage; doesn't allow enough room for access.
Chair Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to refer the application to a
design review consultant.
Comment on the motion:
>Don't like seeing justification for variances and conditional use permits based on smaller lot
sizes. This will require good design work. It's a tough problem and there is not an easy
solution. Will probably require scaling the house down.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 -
Page 12City of Burlingame
May 24, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Absent:Comaroto, and Terrones2 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.1110 and 1112 Bernal Avenue - FYI for update to landscape plan as required by the
Planning Commission on a previously approved Design Review project.
1110 Bernal Ave - Memorandum
1110 Bernal Ave - Plans
Attachments:
>Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:56 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 May 24, 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 June 3, 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 $1,075.00, which includes noticing costs.
Page 13City of Burlingame