HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.04.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, April 12, 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, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and Interim City
Attorney Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and SargentPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Chair Tse, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting
minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Schmid, and Comaroto5 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
a.Draft March 8, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft March 8, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
b.Draft March 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft March 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item 9d (1208 Burlingame Avenue) has been continued at the applicant's request.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.220 Primrose Road, zoned HMU - Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code and
Downtown Specific Plan to allow health services as a permitted use on the ground floor in
the Howard Mixed Use (HMU) Zone. (Northern Trust Co. c/o Woodstock Development,
applicant; Harriman Kinyon Architects, Inc.) (155 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
220 Primrose Rd - Staff Report
220 Primrose Rd - Attachments
220 Primrose Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>The staff report says that in going through the updates for the zoning code for this area, staff was
already considering the possibility for including health services as allowable on the first floor. Can you give
us some insight on that discussion? In particular, was there any thought to allowing for this use on the
ground floor, but perhaps with a conditional use permit or does that overly complicate something that you
feel is supportable on the ground floor by right? (Gardiner: The origination was with the General Plan
Update. The sense was that the Downtown Specific Plan was working pretty well except the Howard
Mixed-Use zone has not taken off as the secondary retail street, so the thinking was to broaden the type
of uses in the Howard Mixed -Use zone. So, the zoning code should catch up to that and it could either be
a CUP or permitted use. That could be something, if for example the commission was amenable to this
type of use, but thought a conditional use permit was more appropriate because there may be unique
conditions you want to consider given the ground floor, that's an option that the commission could
entertain.)
>Can you give us a little more specifics, or we could have the detail when it comes back for action,
what are the specifics that relate to a health services use? (Gardiner: It varies and that may be an
argument for requiring a CUP.)
>I can see a little difference between an application like this where there's a lot of patients coming and
going, being brought by other family members or attendees, so there's activity that's generated. To me,
there's a difference in that as a health services use versus a therapist office. That's more of a quiet, less
active use, but I can see somebody saying, this is a health service, so by right, I'm allowed to create this
use on a ground floor when we're looking for activity and generation of energy. (Gardiner: I would also like
to clarify, should that be the direction, we pair the entitlements with the zoning amendment. So this would
come back with a conditional use permit as well as a zoning amendment in the next round, and the
commission can still take action on this.)
>I just want to understand this correctly. This change is not a change to the ground floor uses. It's an
extension of the ground floor uses. It doesn't preclude retail on the ground floor, so it's not about
concentrating retail where it already is. That made me think we wouldn't want to take retail off the market
because there are pre-pandemic lease rate issues, but this really is an extension to the use and not a
change of use which makes a big difference, right? (Gardiner: Correct. To give the perspective, health
services are allowed on the upper floors, so it's not that it's a use that doesn ’t exist. What's unusual is
having it on the ground floor, but retail would still be allowed too. The thinking with the General Plan
Update was that waiting for retail may not be the right move, and this is a case in point. The building has
been empty for nearly three years, so it's not to say that a retailer couldn't come back in. Prior to the
Anthropologie store, this was a restaurant and uses change over time. This would be another use that
could be available in the Howard Mixed-Use district on the ground floors.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Kirk Sim, Becky Garland, Debra Jeronda and Donald Kinyon represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>I realize this is not design review. This is really about amending the zoning code and a specific plan .
While we don't want empty buildings, one of the things we're giving up potentially is this active retail
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
environment. We certainly have people coming and going here, but one of the things that ’s happening in a
retail environment is you typically see that it has a front and what ’s happening inside is turned inside out to
be put on display for the passersby, that ’s part of what enlivens the street front. I see the waiting lobby,
that’s great because people will be sitting in that lobby. The existing door passes through an area where
it's called patient prep and a laboratory. What else goes on in that space? What is going on where you
need a laboratory there? What do we see going on in that space, as a passerby? Is it stacks of
wheelchairs or what? I probably worry more about an empty building not being used at all, but we have to
ask the question, what's going on in that space? (Garland: You'll see a lobby area which is something that
the public can have access to. Beyond that, as a passerby, you're not able to see into the facility in part
to protect patient privacy. So we do have a laboratory space because our patients get their labs on during
their treatment for their monthly labs. But you won ’t see much of that from the street. What you'll mostly
see from the street is the lobby area.)
>That entire storefront is transparent glass, correct? Is there going to be new window film to turn it into
something other than vision glass? (Kinyon: We would typically use rolling shades that allow light to
transfer through so the patients can have natural light. To talk about what you see coming in, the waiting
room is the public realm, the vestibule in to the patient prep area. There is not a lot of lab activity in that
area; you might be referring to the countertop next to the Med Prep.)
>I shouldn’t have said laboratory, but a sink in the area to the left and the left -hand door. The screens
will be pulled out all the time, so there's really no activity going on there? (Kinyon: Exactly. Not a lot of
activity that you'll see with patients. Generally, what we would like to do with the screens is to have the
bottom of the roller shades translucent so you can't see too much and the upper portion will bring in a lot
of natural light. It will look nice from the exterior and block the patient activity that's happening right there
in the initial room.)
>How do we approach changing the zoning code that allows non -active activities to non -active
occupancies along our public faces that we would otherwise hope to be retail? I am trying to get a sense
of what are the things that might happen in a health service at the ground floor. It does worry me a little bit
that there is a need for patient privacy and you end up getting film put up or shades that pull down and
therefore these spaces would become closed off.
>Of the patients that you have at this facility, how many are going to be in -patient type dialysis? For
example, will there be patients from assisted living facilities that will need dialysis and be dropped off by
ambulance or is this strictly an outpatient facility where patients walk in, maybe with somebody else
driving them? (Garland: About a third of our patients drive themselves so those are the walk -in types, and
40% who are dropped off by family members. The remaining 29% are dropped off by a transportation
company. So this is a fully chronic setting. It is not acute. However, we do have a few patients who may
come from one of those longer term care facilities as you're describing, in which case they would be
dropped off by a transportation company. Not necessarily an ambulance, but some other form of
transportation.)
>Will any of your patients have to be brought in with a gurney type situation and if so, have we looked
at where they may need to be parked and how are they going to be wheeled into the facility? I know
wheelchairs, possibly not as big of a deal, but a gurney type situation could be a little bit more
complicated for this scenario. (Kinyon: We're planning to work with Public Works to try to look at drop off
in front of the facility. We would like to covert two of the stalls in that area. Because we're in a downtown
district, we know we don't have parking or the standard type of setups you have for patient drop off. So
we're understanding that this is the typical fabric that we're working with, but we ’re looking into it with
Public Works.)
>The laboratory is going to be inside your facility, will you have somebody pick up your specimens and
bring them to another laboratory site to do the analysis or done onsite? (Garland: Typically, we have a
carrier through FedEx who will send the labs to a centralized site to be processed. We draw lab tubes and
put them in a centrifuge and box them up and ship through FedEx or UPS.) How often does that typically
happen? Does that happen at the end of the day or in the mornings or a couple of times during the day?
(Garland: That would happen at the end of the day.)
>I know that you're working with the Fire Department and Building Division to assure them that you're
going to have a cross easement to have your exit pathway out to the street across the City Bank property .
Have you thought about striping that back area, where the new rear exit door is going to be? When visiting
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the site, cars were parked back there. One car was immediately blocking the existing door and I can
easily see that if it's not striped off or have some bollards put there, cars may park and block that exit
door if not careful. Has that been looked at and considered as part of the project? (Kinyon: We’ve
considered this and would prefer to stripe that area, for the assisted rescue as part of the exit path for the
rear so we don't have folks parking there. The parking you ’re witnessing, because the building is vacant,
is probably next door users borrowing the space right now. When there's activity there, it will be taken
cared of and be monitored more closely.)
>Regarding the drop off/pick up area, how many patients are typically arriving in wheelchairs, or being
brought and need access to wheelchairs? I'm not sure if the parallel parking on the street is going to be
wheelchair friendly. Has there been any discussion about that? (Garland: I will have to get back to you on
the specific percent of patients using wheelchairs. I don't know that off the top of my head.)
>Considering the activity that we want out of a retail space or block, I understand that putting in the
shades will diminish that activity, is there a signage component or anything that brings life to the business
itself or are you trying to hide within plain sight? (Kinyon: I don't think we're trying to hide in plain sight. We
would love to introduce activity the best we can. Signage would be welcomed and we'll work with the
Planning Division to make sure we're abiding by the rules of the proper signage size and what we can
provide out there. But signage would be something that we would want to introduce.)
>There are a lot of “medical light” uses becoming more retail friendly. We're seeing it in San Francisco
too. Fertility clinics that are no longer just hospital activities, they're becoming retail activities too. Some
of those brands are really pushing to create a brand identity so that they do have a retail presence and as
they mix in with all those uses, they fit in and continue to generate activity. I would like to not see this one
be cut off. I would like to try and see that we can come up with a solution that celebrates that front a little
bit more.
>Given that the appointments generally take several hours per patient, how are the appointments
usually scheduled? Are they blocks of time, are they hourly, are they staggered? (Garland: For the
patients who come to the center, they have a set treatment time. You might have a patient who comes
every Monday, Wednesday and Friday during first shift, second shift or third shift. Or Tuesday, Thursday
or Saturday for one of those shifts. So the appointments are set and they don't change, you have those
three set shifts. On the other side of the building where you have those home dialysis rooms, those
appointments are more of a traditional doctor style scheduling where you might have an appointment for an
hour or something like that. The appointments are a bit longer during the initial training phase for a patient
which is just during their first eight days. But after that, it might just be an hour long or so for them to
check in with their caretaker.)
>When you're working with public works, it would be important to establish how much space you may
need in front of the building, especially if you have blocks of appointments during the week for your
regular patients, that there might be a lot of crowding at certain times of the day. Kind of like when kids
are getting dropped off and picked up from school. Momentarily, there's 15 minutes of time where it's really
heavy traffic in terms of cars needing to park or pedestrians and or wheelchair access back and forth from
parking to the building. I wanted to make note of that, that it is considered when you're working with public
works.
>We only have metered parking there, right? If you have a patient who is going to be in there for four
hours or more and if they're driving themselves, how will you be able to get them parking and make sure
they don't get tickets? (Garland: That was on slide two which shows the different on -street and off-street
parking options. There are several ten -hour lots and some up to four hours as well. I think there's even a
nine-hour parking in the vicinity. Within a few blocks, there are some longer term options which we think
the patients can use.)
>Will you tell the patients where they are and direct them to park in those spots? (Garland: Absolutely.
Because these are chronic patients, they ’ll go through the first time and they'll need guidance. After that,
they'll go to the same place every time. That's only a third of the patients who drive themselves. This won't
apply to the other third who are dropped off. The last third will be dropped off by family members and the
family members can benefit from a wider variety of those options because they could move their cars and
they can shop throughout the area. A third of our patients at any given time, that's six people
approximately.)
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
>Chat comment from Ray Larios: Where is the nearest comparable facility to this proposal located?
(Garland: There are two facilities that are currently the closest. One is located at 100 South San Mateo
Drive and the other is located at 1720 El Camino Real.)
>Chat comment from Ray Larios: Is it correct that you were mentioning earlier that the 1720 El Camino
Real location may be relocating to this potential site? (Garland: Yes. It would be a relocation of either of
those two sites.) So there will be one other location, still new facilities? (Garland: Potentially.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I'm a little confused because we've spent the entire time talking about this specific project. I started
by asking about the laboratory that I might be able to see, but in fact, the request is not about this
specific project nor the actions about this specific project. It's about changing the specific plan. We're in
this funny situation because this is not design review and this is not about this specific project, though the
project is described in full and we've asked lots of questions about it. Is our job now to talk about what
the pros and cons of changing the specific plan or talk about this project before we get into great detail
about this project? Because every health project is going to be different. (Gardiner: This project shows the
types of issues that will come up with a medical office or health service use. Some of the questions are
quite specific to this particular instance. But others such as what to do with the storefront windows would
be applicable to any kind of health service use. Same goes with the access and the drop -offs. There are
themes here that would be part of that discussion of the zoning amendments. If this would be allowed as
a permitted use, the permitted use could have standard conditions that go with every application. If the
commission had entertained the thought of a conditional use because of these types of meeting
circumstances, the action that will be in front of the commission and ultimately the city council, given that
this is an amendment to the zoning code, would be the plan amendment and the conditional use.)
>So what’s going to come back to us is something relative to changing the specific plan. What’s going
to happen to this proposal? Is that going to come back as part of that change? (Gardiner: When we have
a project and a plan amendment joined together as one package, it gets a little confusing in terms of
what's being reviewed and in fact, it is both. Another example that we looked at in the last year was the
1214 Donnelly project which involved a mixed -use project and included extending the residential zone to a
portion of the block, so those two requests were considered together. Maybe that was a little easier to put
the pieces together. This project is a very specialized medical use, so these questions are pertinent to the
project, but that is a good point. The Planning Commission would not be considering these
project-specific issues unless it went the route of a conditional use permit. Then these would be the
questions that would be asked for the conditional use permit and include conditions related to the topics
that have come up here.)
>So this project, in a lot of ways, is a vehicle for the discussion about changing the specific plan? Or
should we be talking about things that we want to see from this project when it comes back in addition to
that? Should we speak more generically in our discussion? (Gardiner: It is a more generic discussion .
Suggestions in terms of how the project might work better are helpful to the applicant. It can't be the
reason you would support or not support a zoning amendment. They could benefit from that experience,
but you can't say we're not going to recommend the approval of the plan amendment because of the
window design or something. What it could make you think is what kind of storefront windows would be
appropriate for a health service use, and is that a universal issue? We had a similar discussion where we
looked at commercial recreation on the 1400 block of Burlingame Avenue. In that case, there was not a
project but there was a discussion around if the use was allowed, what kinds of qualities, how should it
interact with the streetscape and how does it work in terms of the parking and hours of operation. It's more
about the use as a generic use.) (Spansail: It is more of the general issue of the amendment that would
be universally applied. So that's what we should be focusing on right now because we need to make a
recommendation to the city council to process that for this process to even be feasible.)
>Should we then be talking in general about the things we would like to see in every health project, that
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
if we're going to approve this, these are the conditions we would like to see left? (Spansail: I think so. This
is something that's going to be passed through the vehicle that is this project just because it's the one in
front of us and easier to conceptualize. What you should be considering, and what you're doing a good job
considering as a commission, you need to look at everything you would be afraid of happening and that
everything you think could be beneficial from it. That's the real talking points here, to make sure this
project might have something unique that's not going to happen again. That's not much of a worry. We're
looking at every health use on a first floor is going to entail that and we're worried about that in this zone .
That's the main focus for tonight. But of course, any details that you go into on this project are going to be
beneficial to other projects and similar projects in the area.)
>I'm concerned about what happens in a health project at the ground floor, and it will vary from project
to project a little bit. What we hoped to happen was people coming and going and activity at the ground
floor. I’m okay with seeing people sitting in a room. But it would worry me to have half of that storefront get
shutdown because there's something you don't want to see back there. It's a standard approach of the
Walgreen's stores. It's common to have blocked off views to the interior of retail. I'm not sure how to
approach this, but in general, I would want to see less dead space caused by film on the glass or shades .
One of the problems with many types of health care is one way flow. You have a patient that comes in one
direction and they go around to the horseshoe and come out the other side. Some stuff happens
differently, whether going into a health situation, that happens when you're coming out. So it can be very
different depending on the type of healthcare that's taking place. The primary thing for me is the loss of
activity, the deadening of that storefront, especially on a downtown street.
>The issue for me is solved if instead we simply allow for this type of use with a conditional use permit .
Agreed that the nature and the details for health service can vary. We could have a lot of different
applicants making a claim that their service is a health service when in fact it offers very little activity and
very little energy to the storefronts and what will become offices along a ground floor. If we allow for this
type of use, via a conditional use permit, then we can vet if there would be potential impacts to
neighboring properties and the street in general. That's the nature of our conditional use permit and the
findings we would have to make. So, for example, if this project came back before us with a conditional
use permit, they could address those issues.
>If not celebrated, this is a renal care and a dialysis treatment which is becoming familiar and
increasingly common in our culture, and that it is almost a retail use. I think that it could fit. This use in
particular, because of the nature of that use, the users, the patients, their family members that will bring
them, is going to offer some energy and life to that street. If I saw a conditional use permit that had those
details, then I might be able to make those findings. But with other applications for health uses on the
ground floor, I might not. I would feel much more comfortable when it came back before us for action,
include the idea that these uses would be allowed on the ground floor with a conditional use permit and
this project could include that CUP application when it comes back.
>To me, if we already had this use permitted here and they were not going to do any significant work to
the storefront, this would go straight to Building Division and have nothing to do with the Planning
Commission. We wouldn't have an input on trying to improve it. The CUP is not intended to be a nuisance,
but rather that it is an opportunity to enhance the project. I hope we all as commissioners are trying to
enhance the environment that we live in. If there is no opportunity for us to engage, then that opportunity is
lost. I agree that a CUP would then give us that opportunity to provide guidance because I am a little
concerned about a transportation plan for how people get dropped off, especially those that have more
troubles. I'm less worried about the patient that can park three blocks away and walk himself to the front .
I'm more worried about my grandmother who I've got to get out of the car and get in a wheelchair and push
through the front door. We probably need a little help with that. I think about other medical use like
optometry and others that are a retail that happen to provide a medical to it. They too are trying to
celebrate their storefronts and encourage activity. It's an opportunity and I like to see the use. I just want
to see it done well. It's not anything about this application, but how do we put things into place so that we
can encourage that to be done well and not actually try to catch up from behind.
>My concern in this particular application is the transportation. Having been in the medical field for 25
years in my prior life, I’ve seen that it's tough for ambulance and other transportation bringing in pretty sick
individuals. We need the city's help with transportation if we're going to okay a facility like a dialysis
center. Other than that, I agree that we should be looking at other opportunities for our storefronts. We
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
need to regenerate the area and the conditional use permit is a great avenue. We should look at that and
for each individual project.
There was no motion because this was a Study Item. The application will return on the Regular
Action Calendar at a future date.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent
Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Schmid, and Comaroto4 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Recused:Terrones, and Tse2 -
a.1144 Balboa 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, and Conditional Use Permits and Special Permit for a new detached garage
and for use in an existing accessory structure. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Richard Terrones, DTA Inc, applicant and architect; Mark
and Catharine Intrieri, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1144 Balboa Ave - Staff Report
1144 Balboa Ave - Attachments
1144 Balboa Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioners Terrones was recused in this item because he is the architect of the project .
Commissioner Tse was recused in this item for non-statutory reasons.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.14 Peninsula 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. (Eric Dumican, Dumican Mosey Architects; Gemini
Development LLC, property owner) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
14 Peninsula Ave - Staff Report
14 Peninsula Ave - Attachments
14 Peninsula Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was recused from this project for
non-statutory reasons.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Sean Nolan, Dumican Mosey Architects, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>I appreciate the added details. I'm struggling with the flashing and transitions at the roof. It seems that
the metal angle will go up and down on the gable ends. How does that stop? It still seems like water is
going in there. (Nolan: The aluminum top plate wraps around both the gable and the gutter edge. It’s fixed
with intermittent tabs. It would be a rain screen system so water gets in there and drains in the slicker
screen behind.)
>You have flat roofs with drains. Have you been able to trace those through your sections and know
how they're going to get out? There's a little space there, I agree, but I'm wondering if you traced out the
slopes and are you able to get out of that structural area into a wall? (Nolan: Yes. We're working on those
at the moment, developing that kind of detail in coordination with our structural engineer.) It's a very
shallow area and you're going to have slopes. I'd hate to see it not work out for you downstream and then
the commission having to look at this again from the standpoint of changing the heights and things that
don't work.
>Is the only natural light coming into the master bedroom going to be from the slider to the rear?
(Nolan: Yes.) I understand the request of the neighbor, but did you look at doing anything on that bed
wall? Adding either a full height window or some kind of smaller awning window on either side of the bed,
perhaps? (Nolan: We were considering that but then we got the correspondence with the neighbor. Bearing
that in mind, it was felt that it wasn't the right location. We would be getting enough light directing it toward
the rear garden through the sliders.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I like the project. It's a little bit different, but as I said in the study meeting, it can fit into this
neighborhood. I like the revisions made. They're not substantial, but they articulate the elevations a little
bit more.
>I like what they've done with the carport and the garage, that ’s a nice change to the project and it
could add a flexible feature to that rear yard. The architecture is residential. It's almost humble in nature .
It's less than 3,000 square feet. It's a nice project.
>I struggled with the water issues, but it's different and we have to trust that the builder will get that
right. It's a great project and I'd like to see it move forward as well.
>I really think that the left side elevation needs to be revisited in terms of the windows. On the second
floor, there are two windows across the whole expanse and I can't think of a single project we have
approved similar to that. We've really pushed back hard with a lot of other applicants about creating blank
walls like that.
>I appreciate the changes they've made from the carport to the garage. I understand that garages are
often used as flexible spaces and not always in the majority for parking cars. The code has provided a
parking space for a car. When you put in a $20,000 folding wall system, it seems like we're taking that to
the next step of not making it a garage, and that makes me uncomfortable. But more generally, I have to
disagree, I don't think this style of architecture is appropriate for this neighborhood. I can't make the
findings of architectural compatibility, so I can't support the project.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Schmid, and Comaroto4 -
Nay:Sargent1 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
b.1428 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit to allow the
plate height to exceed nine (9) feet above grade for an accessory structure. The project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (e). (Chris Horan,
applicant and property owner; R&S Tavares Associates, Inc ., engineer) (124 noticed)
Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1428 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report
1428 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments
1428 Cabrillo Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item
because he owns a property within 500 feet from this project. Commissioners Comaroto and Tse had
separate discussions with the applicant about the project.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>We don't see the ADUs come in front of us as much as the staff have seen. Can you talk a little bit
about these type of projects that might be coming in front of us with raised foundations, height restrictions
and what are we seeing out there and maybe more information about these modular accessory dwelling
units? (Kolokihakaufisi: In terms of the ADUs that are coming in, we find the ADUs that are having
difficulty complying with the accessory structure regulations are the prefabricated models, especially when
it comes to measuring the plate height from grade. Because some of these prefabricated models are
pre-made, they're unable to comply with that requirement. Since an ADU cannot have a variance request,
we're bringing it forth as a conditional use permit request. So the review is specifically just on the plate
height structure and not reviewing the ADU itself.)
>Do we think that we're going to see more of these or has staff looked in greater depth at this type of
situation? Are we going to be changing any of our ADU requirements in the future or is that something that
staff is looking at? (Kolokihakaufisi: Yes, we are currently discussing it. It’s one of those nuance things
that we didn't expect that we would be looking at with these ADUs. As more applications are coming in
and more models are prefabricated, we are discussing looking at this specific regulation and others in the
accessory structure chapter.)
>Given that this is asking to be a higher plate height and it's doing so on a virtually zero lot line, do we
have any input on setback when we're approving something like this going up above? Because what we
have there now is a six-foot fence regulation, a virtually zero lot line and a nine foot plus plate height .
That's a lot more exposed than my garage that's a foot away from the property line. (Spansail: I think we're
getting into dangerous territory if we do. That's probably somewhat untested right now. The best thing to
do is to focus on the plate height and if you can make nexus as to why the plate height changes
compared to other portions of the ADU, we can try to consider that. But on this, a better stance and a
more defensible stance is to look at the plate height and look at whether you believe that's something you
could approve for all the normal reasons you would approve something like this. Base your decision on
that because there's very little wiggle room in state law, but obviously, this is one that exceeds our
standard and is defensible in that way.) (Gardiner: If it were not for the raised foundation, this ADU would
be compliant and approved ministerially. The one and only thing that is bringing it to the Planning
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission is the plate height.)
>Can I clarify that the plate height measuring from finished floor is under nine feet is the same plate
height from finished grade that is above nine feet? (Gardiner: That’s correct. We have had instances
where there is a flood elevation and then the rule has to be applied slightly differently because that's
outside of the control of the site. Then in that case, the nine feet is measured from the floor elevation. In
this instance, it's not driven by a flood plain restriction, it is simply a unique characteristic of this particular
installation.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Chris Drent, R&S Tavares Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Do you build the foundations or is that done by a contractor on site separate from your services?
(Drent: We've hired two general contractors, we ’ve got a bunch of these going up along the West Coast .
We've got two companies that we're working with that will handle the site work from start to finish, then
also the installation and post installation. We fly down there and make sure everything goes the way it's
supposed to go. So far we have landed about 20 of these. Usually the installation takes a day and then
the post installation work takes about a week and a half to two weeks depending on what's involved. The
site work itself is pretty site specific, depending on what we need to do. We try to get in and out quickly
and cause the least amount of commotion as possible.)
>In your section drawings, you've got a 1’ 1-1/8" floor sandwich that's sitting on the concrete foundation,
is there a reason why there's an 8 inch clearance on that concrete stem wall to the bottom of that floor
frame? Does that say eight inches or six inches? (Drent: There's a discrepancy that people argue about in
the international building code where you need to have, if you are to dirt, basically you need eight inches or
six inches clear. It's an argument, we could go to six inches and lower this two inches.) But that's what it
is. You're trying to get your clearance above grade? (Drent: Correct.) We're talking inches here, but again,
I'm trying to understand technically how this thing works. From your standpoint, it's your interpretation of
the code? (Drent: We put eight inches to be safe. If we can get away with six inches, we would absolutely
do so.) I would ask when you work through with the building official and getting your permits, that's
something you can look at. It squeezing inches out of this, that's all.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>It feels like we're in a funny territory tonight. We have a set of rules in place and once we've made the
determination like this one, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. It worries me that we effectively
would be, in some ways, changing rules just by fiat and rules have to do with massing of these things in
the backyard. That's the only reason that the plate height would matter is how tall is the wall that you're
looking at? And the top constraint of the mass that's being built in any kind of accessory building is
constrained by the ridge line at 16 feet. So we're saying that we will accept the volume that starts at nine
feet, thereabout, and rises to 16 feet. As much as I think this general direction is the right direction to go,
it feels funny. Suddenly it changes the rules and the next time someone comes forward with something
like this, how do we say no to them? Effectively, are we just changing the rules? I'm uneasy with it for that
reason because we're rubbing the genie out of the bottle. It makes it harder and harder to say no to
anyone in the future who wants to come forward with any kind of accessory building that doesn't meet the
rules that we've got in place.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Tse re-opened the public hearing.
>(Drent: I completely understand what you're saying and I agree that these are new and we're all working
our way through these. The plate height, I'm imagining that is probably to help lower the overall height of
the building with the pitched roof. Where we don't have a pitched roof and it's flat, the overall impact of us
being four feet lower than the allowed height, is less of an impact or invasive on the views around the
neighbors. That's one thing to look at as the overall impact. While the plate height is one thing, it's the
overall impact that we should be looking at.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
>Is staff looking to possibly change some of the parts of the ordinance for ADUs because we're seeing
more and more of this? If so, is this the first project that has come before us that we're seeing or are you
seeing more? (Gardiner: Just as a general statement, if we are starting to see this as a trend and in
particularly, it's a characteristic that's typical of these kinds of buildings, then that would indicate wanting
to change the standards as opposed to doing that one -off.) (Kolokihakaufisi: This happens to be one of
the first ADU's that we have come across this issue. It's the pre -fabricated models in general that we're
seeing not being able to comply with these specific regulations, especially the plate height. So we are
discussing as a team, because it's coming up more often, to see if we need to change the ordinance or
amend it in order to address these prefabricated models.)
>I take solace in the fact with any discretionary review like a conditional use permit, we would look at it
on a case-by-case basis and that's the nature of any CUP. For example, what I look at with a project like
this is, yes, it's on the property line. But the details of this structure, it may not be a design that I
necessarily like or think is compatible, but we're not looking at it from a design review standpoint. We are
looking at it from an impact standpoint. It has relatively small windows that are away from the side property
line that face toward the front of the house and face toward the existing garage. So that checks a box for
me, so-to-speak. I also look at the fact that it is a relatively simple structure that does not have a pitched
roof. As a hypothetical, if a project would come before us with nine foot plate heights, a sloped ceiling and
windows facing to another side and potentially could have impacts on a neighboring property or something
in the vicinity, then I may not be able to make the findings for a conditional use permit. In this case, it's a
relatively simple structure and we're not commenting on it from a design review standpoint. In terms of
impacts, any impacts on surrounding properties would be negligible, so I can make the findings for the
CUP.
>If the discussion is about plate height only, then how do you say no to plate height only once you have
taken the genie out of the bottle? This is really tricky. We want to see this sort of thing go forward, but I'm
not sure how to say yes to something that we can't say no to later because if the only criteria is the plate
height and the plate height has impact or it doesn't have impact, how do we determine that without talking
about its proximity to the property line?
>(Spansail: I wanted to point out, because the commissioner brought up a good point that typically we
cannot look at anything else. Like here we're looking at the plate height, if that can go higher than the
conditional use, in that there's a strong nexus to the ultimate height and the maximum that's set there. In
this instance, complete height is something we can look at, that ’s something that can be a factor
especially if it comes under what we normally see. This is something fairly related and you can consider
it.)
>It feels like a similar nexus being directly on the property line. Something that is 10’-7” high on the
property line is much different than 4 feet back from the property line and 10’- 7” high. Where does this
stop? It's a set of dominos and I don't know how to interrupt the dominos? (Spansail: I don't think anyone
does right now. I think the property line is more troublesome because there are some specific exemptions
in the state law saying that's something that we can ’t consider. The plate height is something that is within
the city's discretion. So we could have said 12 feet plate heights and 16 feet ultimate height, we could
have done that. We can't say you need to go two feet back from the property line, that ’s not something
we're allowed to do. I wouldn't be comfortable trying to make that nexus because we're not allowed to
make that nexus when we make our own laws, but we can regulate the heights.)
>I agree that they're not trying to go with a huge volume. This particular one seems to be a fine
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
application of what they're trying to do. But what I'm thinking about is some of these sites where there are
downslopes, now it starts at nine feet and then it is twelve feet by the time you get to the end of the
pre-fab unit because of the way the foundations work. So unless we have some sort of way to say you
can't do the long side down the fence down the hill, we've created a monster. If all we're going to be
allowed to do is raise the plate heights so the pre -fab units can work, then we're not helping anybody fit
contextually with that, it has been taken out of our hands completely. I hope there's a way we could help
our community with this, not just be bypassed.
>I would like to see that this opens up more discussion at the staff level and that we can have staff
come up with new rules because we're going to see more pre -fab units. It’s more affordable than doing it
from scratch. People are going to start demanding it. We want to make sure that we can help our
community be able to have these ADU's and also fit in with Burlingame standards. I think staff is going to
be the ones to move us in that direction. Unfortunately, we have to make a decision on this project. In this
case I like this project and I could see moving it forward.
>I'm going to try to navigate a fairly narrow path for myself and maybe for us, but and I'm going to look
strictly at the conditional use permit application that is before us that we're being asked to act on. I can
make the findings for questions one, two, and three of the CUP.
>I wanted to add that, as we're looking at these projects, a CUP application is on a case -by-case
basis. In this particular situation, looking at the context of where this ADU will be placed in relationship to
its neighbors, there is a service road behind the property that's 10 feet wide that separates it from the
neighbor to the other side on the back. Immediately on that side of the fence, for that backyard neighbor,
it's the back of a garage and that's basically where this ADU would be opposite. Understanding that
context, that's why I can support this particular application.
>That helps that being very, very specific about why we can make these findings is going to be
important because it will come up again and we were going to have to make the findings for another
specific condition. We will need to do exactly what you just did and hone in on precisely why it's
acceptable here. It might not be acceptable elsewhere.
Vice-Chair Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Terrones, Tse, Loftis, Schmid, and Comaroto5 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
c.1115 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for
facade changes to an existing commercial building. This project is Categorically Exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Lijun He, applicant; Ren Huang, Ren Plus Architects,
architect; Olive Grove Capital, LP, property owner) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
1115 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
1115 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
1115 Burlingame Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Ren Huang, Ren Plus Architects, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There were no questions/comments.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The changes that have been made are good changes. We generally liked the project the last time it
came forward and everybody focused on this one change, and that was made.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, Schmid, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
d.333 California Drive, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for
changes to the facade of an existing commercial building and Conditional Use Permit for
a new food establishment. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Lara Dutto, LLC DBA, Lara Architecture, architect and applicant; Ann
Sabatini, property owner) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
333 California Dr - Staff Report
333 California Dr - Attachments
333 California Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Bob Trahan, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There's a comment in the staff report saying there was an updated commercial application, but we
don't have the previous one. Can you tell us what changed in the commercial application identifying the
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
hours, number of employees and people onsite? (Trahan: We made a mistake on the number of
employees. It was an over count, actually.) So the numbers came down a little bit? (Trahan: I have an
operations head who ran those numbers for me, but they came down slightly. We had double counted the
service hours.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I like the project just as much as we all liked it the last time this was before us. The changes are
minor. They addressed the steel entry arbor that was in the plans before making it a simple topiary. It will
be a nice setting once the landscaping sets in in that courtyard area. It's a nice project.
>It's a great project and I look forward to being one of the first people there.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, Schmid, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1105 Oxford Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Stanley Panko, Panko Architects,
Architect; John and Patricia Jones, property owners) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika
Lewit
1105 Oxford Rd - Staff Report
1105 Oxford Rd - Attachments
1105 Oxford Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There are no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Stanley Panko, Panko Architects, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>I wanted to confirm that you will in -fill and remove the existing glass block window on the right side
elevation? (Panko: That is right.) The one 4'-0" x 4'-6" glass block window located further back, that goes
into the existing stairwell, will it be removed because of the configuration of the new stairwell? (Panko:
That is correct, it is being removed.) It was hard to see during the site visit, but I figured that will happen .
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
(Panko: Keep in mind that the glass block window is visible from the outside but in the inside it is all
covered with sheetrock.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Generally, this is a well done project. The front elevation seems quite nice, but the side elevations feel
a little bit like a wedding cake because the new addition is completely disengaged from any of the lower
walls. It stands entirely on the roof of the lower level. A lot of houses that we see do that, but some of
them are closer to the exterior walls and the lower floor than this one. In general, it is good but it feels like
it ought to engage in the lower floor somewhat better.
>I like the project. It fits the neighborhood.
>This is a great project, a vast improvement of what is currently there.
> The overarching consideration is that it is taking some existing attic rooms and spaces that appears
to have been carved out of the roof at some point and making it better. It nestles into the neighborhood
nicely.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Terrones, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent6 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
b.1555 Los Altos Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, Special Permit, and Front Setback Variance for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and attached garage. (Alex Tzang, Alex Tzang Group, applicant and
architect; Fred and Sherry Koo, property owners) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle
Markiewicz
1555 Los Altos Dr - Staff Report
1555 Los Altos Dr - Attachments
1555 Los Altos Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>We are calling this new construction, but we are being asked to consider a variance for the setback
of the garage because they are proposing to keep the existing garage? (Kolokihakaufisi: Yes. When a
house is under substantial construction, it is considered new construction. Anything that is
non-conforming at that time requires an approval of a variance because if during construction those
non-conformities are exacerbated, they would have to come back to the Planning Commission to request
a variance.)
>Do we know how much of the existing garage they are planning to keep or is that a question for the
applicant? (Kolokihakaufisi: That is a question for the applicant.)
>For clarification, just because it is substantial and considered a new construction, it does not matter if
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
they are keeping the existing garage or not? And it triggers the variance request? (Kolokihakaufisi:
Correct. Even though it is existing, if it was not substantial construction, it will still be considered
non-conforming. Now that it is substantial construction and is considered to be new, whatever is
non-conforming triggers a variance.)
>Please clarify that we have 12’-9 1/4” from the property line to the gutter, is that correct? During the
site visit it seems like there is a lot of space there, but the property line as shown in the drawings is
substantially different than what I would have thought being up on that street. Maybe because they don ’t
have any sidewalks? (Kolokihakaufisi: We have to look at the plans again.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Alex Tzang, Alex Tzang Group, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>(Tzang: To quickly address the garage situation, we kept the entirety of the existing garage. That
garage and the driveway is exactly where it was. We worked with the planning staff, asked for information
and advice in terms of how likely this kind of garage can stay as is when our entire project is being taken
down and rebuilt. Our goal was not to take advantage of the setback requirements. However, with the
unique slope situation at the existing site, moving the building in the cross slope and keeping the garage
and driveway as is created a much better resonance to the existing situation. About the front setback,
what we are measuring is the face of garage to the property line. Typically, the property line is at least 8’-
10’ away from the edge of the street. So it is correct that there is a much deeper setback from the street
at the garage, which is typical in that block.)
>Is the driveway going to be replaced? The site plan indicates “existing driveway” and the utility plan
states “new permeable”, is that correct? (Tzang: We are not changing the driveway length, location and
relations. We still want to keep that access similar to how it was. However, it is a Public Works
requirement that we need to make that driveway pervious to allow the rain water to dissipate through the
driveway.)
>Will the main living floor be two feet lower than it is now or is it going to be the same? (Tzang: This
building is originally a split level. The main floor is about four feet above where the garage is. The
homeowners wanted it to be a much easier access from the street and backyard so we lowered that side
to slab on grade and slightly higher. Yes, the whole main floor actually dropped.)
>Have you had a chance to show the plans to the uphill neighbor to the left? (Tzang: Yes. We
appreciate the planning staff because they want to make sure that we have reached out to a significant
amount of people before coming in. Immediately after the final drawings, the homeowners talked to five
crucial neighbors and dropped another five sets of drawings in other neighbors’ mailboxes. I am happy to
report that both uphill and downhill neighbors support the project.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I like the project. The architect explained that it ’s relatively low slung and nestles into the site nicely .
We looked at a number of projects in that neighborhood and we were encouraging the applicants to keep
the garage on the down slope side which therefore results in a solution that nestles itself into the site .
Looking at the elevations, it is a two -story ranch house that is typical in the neighborhood. It can fit there
nicely.
>I am torn whether or not to require story poles. We typically do in the hillside area. In looking at the
house, I couldn’t see from the street any windows that face on that front portion of the facade towards this
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
property, but couldn’t see around that corner towards the back as to whether or not there are views or
oblique views from the front of the house. Otherwise it is a nice project and should move forward.
>I didn’t see any neighbor that will be negatively impacted from the hillside as well. In a lot of ways,
having the low side of the house on the upside of the hill creates a pretty big buffer to that neighbor. I am
a little bit more concerned about the two -story wall for the downhill neighbor, but they don ’t even look back
so there won’t be a whole lot of negative impact other than some light. My biggest concern is how the
drainage on the driveway will work out, because now towards the front of the property will be below grade
line. The concern is not design related but I would hate for it to be a huge change later. There are
definitely some things to work out and detail.
>The aerial views with these broad expanses of roofs did not do the project any favors, but digging in
the elevations, it is pretty well crafted and articulated. I did not get the sense that there will be any distant
views that are impacted. I wouldn ’t be inclined to do the story poles unless a neighbor comes forward and
says their distant views are impacted.
>I like the project. The architect makes a compelling case about the variance request for the garage .
The hardest finding for a variance is what is unique about the property. If we didn ’t grant the variance, the
property will then be unique in the neighborhood because it is the only one without a garage set in the
same pattern. That is supportable.
>I would agree about the lack of need for story poles. That property is pretty low relative to the ones
around it. It is hard to see how distant views can be impacted by the second floor.
>I like the project. I also wanted to make note of the back porch on the second story, it fits the project
nicely. I want to make it very clear that I always look at the back decks especially on the second floors
because we have to worry about the impacts to the neighbors.
>Further support for the unique aspects, we have these fairly exceptional conditions within this
neighborhood along that side of the street. The property line is set back that substantial distance of about
12’-9” from the edge of street or drainage gutter, which then causes the garage being set back almost 28’
from the edge of the street. I would caution the applicant that in moving this forward, we are not requiring
the story poles. But they have to understand that it is always possible that a neighbor could come out
during or prior to the Action meeting and pull this off of Consent and ask why story poles were not erected
and make a case for why it should have included story poles. We can still reject that request but that can
be an issue that I want them to be aware of.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent6 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
c.1320 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single
family dwelling (detached garage to remain). (Brandan Podesta, applicant and architect;
Roberto Amijo and Yungting Liao, property owners) (118 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
1320 Mills Ave - Staff Report
1320 Mills Ave - Attachments
1320 Mills Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones was recused on this item for
non-statutory reasons.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Brandan Podesta, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There were no questions/comments.
Public Comments:
>Question sent via e -mail by Lisa and Chris Chai: We have a question regarding specific location of
the air conditioning unit along the side of the house. As the neighbors to the west of the property being
discussed, the master bedroom in our house is on the second floor at the similar line in the property as
the AC unit. The concern is night time sound volume due to the close proximity of the AC unit below our
home’s two awning bedroom windows which are kept open at night with our un -air conditioned home to cool
on warm days. We are wondering if that can be located on the other side of the house or further towards
the back of the house along the same wall to minimize noise that would get amplified in between the
houses. (Podesta: We can certainly move that AC unit further back. You can see it is somewhere in the
middle of the breezeway on the left side. We can definitely move that back more to get it out of earshot
from their bedrooms.)
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The project is generally ok. It is not exciting but not offensive. I have problems getting past the
partially rendered facade, I didn ’t think it helps. It’s a nice house. It feels a little Frank Lloyd Wright
somehow, probably because of the window treatment. It’s a good application.
>When I first looked at the project I was taken aback by the colors in the rendering. As I dug in to it, I
like the project. It has nice intricate details but it is simple in its own way. That neighborhood has some
really unique homes and it will potentially fit nicely there. I thank the applicant if they can move the AC
back for the neighbor, that would be great.
>I struggle with the front elevation a little bit because it looks flat. If this was a 3D rendering, we would
see the relief that is actually there, it just doesn ’t show up in this drawing format. It would be a lot easier if
it were an angled view. I do think that the detailing and effort is there.
>For both the applicant and the neighbor, the city does have an ordinance regarding air conditioning
and mechanical equipment placement on the property. They have to meet certain noise guidelines. In
addition to moving it, assuming that the applicant complies with it, that will really help noise transmission
to the neighboring property. As they are planning the project, I suggest they meet with their HVAC
subcontractor early because the requirements are really hard to meet on the property line. They have to
use specific equipment to make sure to meet it. It would be unfortunate for them if they have to move it
after or at final inspection.
>To follow on my fellow commissioner ’s comment regarding the front facade, I would ask the applicant
not render the facade in dark color because it is really hard to understand. From looking at the plans there
is quite a bit of articulation on the front, that it is not as flat as we thought it to be. It looks flat because
everything is so dark. If it comes back with just a black and white drawing, or better yet, black and white
with shadows and not rendered like this it will be a lot easier to understand. It works but is really hard to
tell.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Loftis, Schmid, and Sargent5 -
Absent:Gaul1 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
d.1208 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for
exterior facade changes to an existing commercial building and Conditional Use Permit
for a full service food establishment. (Green Banker LLC, property owner; Christen
Soares, Field Paoli Architects, architect and applicant) (68 noticed) Staff Contact:
Michelle Markiewicz
1208 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
1208 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
1208 Burlingame Ave - Plans
Attachments:
This item was continued at the applicant's request.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
At its meeting on March 5th the City Council reappointed Commissioners Comaroto and Schmid to the
Planning Commission, and appointed new Commissioner Ray Larios to finish the three remaining years of
Commissioner Sargent's term. Commissioner Larios will start on May 10th.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
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, April 12, 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 April 12, 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 April 22, 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 19City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021
April 12, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Page 20City of Burlingame Printed on 5/12/2021