HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.01.10BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, January 10, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin,
Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent6 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft November 8, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft November 8, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
b.Draft December 13, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft December 13, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to approve the
November 8, 2021 and December 13, 2021 meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Staff noted that Item 8a - 1556 Cypress Avenue has been continued at the request of the
applicant/property owner.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1534 Hoover Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, one -story
single-unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., applicant and designer;
Page 1City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Hector and Maria Fernandez, property owners) (82 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
1534 Hoover Ave - Staff Report
1534 Hoover Ave - Attachments
1534 Hoover Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Vice-Chair Loftis was recused because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. Commissioner
Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid5 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
b.1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -2 - Application for a One Year Extension of
a previously approved application for a Conditional Use Permit for re -emerging lots,
Design Review and front setback Variances for two, new duplex residential units on two
separate lots. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Ed
Breur, TRG Architects, applicant and designer; Kurt Steil, property owner) (138 noticed)
Staff Contact: Erika Lewit)
1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report
1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Attachments
1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones was recused because he lives within 500 feet of the project site.
Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
c.1457 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for One Year Extension of a previously
approved application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, and Conditional Use
Permit for building height for a new 4-story, 9-unit residential condominium building. This
project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Rabih
Ballout, applicant and property owner; A -Z Design and Engineering, architect) (310
noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1457 El Camino Real - Staff Report
1457 El Camino Real - Attachments
1457 El Camino Real - Plans
Attachments:
Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
Page 2City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1556 Cypress Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
as-built changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form +One, applicant and designer;
Kasey and Bill Schuh, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
This item was continued at the request of the applicant/property owner.
b.1 Adrian Court, zoned RRMU - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to
a previously approved mixed use development project. This project is Categorically
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Carmel Partners,
applicant and property owner; BDE Architecture, architect) (51 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
1 Adrian Ct - Staff Report
1 Adrian Ct - Attachments
1 Adrian Ct - 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.
Adam Mayer, applicant, and Brenna Weaver, architect, represented the applicant and answered questions
about the application.
Public Comments:
> Jennifer Pfaff, no address provided: I was thinking of a similar example, it ’s not quite the same, but
we do have that space. It’s called Public Park or Public Garden, which was built with the Safeway project
on top of the property at the corner of Primrose Road and Howard Avenue. I’m not sure if it was some kind
of mitigation because that was a huge project but that gate, I don ’t know if it’s because of COVID, it is
pretty much closed all the time now. Obviously, it is easier to leave it closed than opened, I just don ’t
know what the arrangements are. There is also the Facebook project on the bayfront, I don ’t know if that
is public space but there have been issues with the skateboarders. It is true, it is good to bring that up
now because whatever you do here will set the trend for whatever comes up in the future. I just want to
mention that we did have some examples in the City.
>Athan Rebelos, no address provided: I would think that crime prevention would be invited to
Burlingame. I would like to think that the Burlingame Police Department would appreciate the support of
the private sector taking the initiative to prevent crime. I frankly would appreciate more security where I
live at the top of Trousdale Drive, so I sympathize with the developer and I credit them with taking the
initiative to prevent crime. I think it also speaks to the significant housing crisis in the Bay Area .
Separately, it is okay to limit park hours; that is something that is okay and is being done in Burlingame
today. I would support these gates.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Page 3City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>It looks like a gated community, it feels out of place. Personally, it is not okay to create a gated
community out of a public realm. The reason I pulled this up for review is so we can have a conversation
about the public realm. The design guidelines regulate the architecture, but regulating and managing the
public realm is sort of new for us. We don ’t do it in a very sophisticated way like San Francisco does .
They take the public realm and urban design very seriously and I want to see us do the same thing here. I
don’t want to see a precedence set that anybody who wants to gate a public space can just do it. I think
the reason why this project site is being vandalized is because it is vacant.
>These are significant bi -fold gates, I love the look of the design, but am concerned about its ability to
cantilever and support itself without a track and a little bit more mechanism. Should you get through us
this evening with this vote and if you're going to run into those troubles, don't assume you can just add
track and make change because you're selling us on a certain look right now. If we're going to agree to it,
great. But if it goes vastly different, we want the opportunity to help and provide guidance in what we would
like to see in that. So, I wouldn't get too far along making changes without circling back to us.
>(Spansail: One option available, if you choose to go forward and take a vote to approve the
amendment, is to add a condition that this come back to you a year after the park is open to see how
things are going out there, whether times need to be adjusted, and whether operation of the security gate
needs to be adjusted. So that's also an option to take a look at this again in the future. I would say at
least give it one year for it to be fully operational once the project is occupied.)
>Maybe within that one year time frame, if you feel the need to still keep the gates, please provide a
report from the Police Department of what is truly happening in that area. I want to know why and see
some facts to back it up. We want to make sure that if you have transients that are out there, we would
know how often they are going, what is going on and what other things can we find out there. If it is an
occasional occurrence but it has become a big problem, we should know about it.
>I could support what is being proposed with an understanding that it is for flexibility and not a done
deal. What is really important to me is that we not just assume that every public space that is created in
the coming developments needs to be closed off. I don ’t know exactly what’s going to happen at the new
downtown plaza by the old Post Office. Would we tolerate gating that in to keep people from hanging out
there all night? That would be a bad thing. I understand that Burlingame is, by and large, a suburb. To
the degree we are trying to manage people that we don ’t want in certain places worries me. Lots of things
happen within cities that you might not want, skateboarders for example, but that is part of the public
realm, that is part of living in communities. It worries me if we approach the development of Burlingame by
locking everything down. I agree with the caller who said it is good to have hours on parks, I have no
problem with that. What I have a problem with is shutting down or tightly controlling the public realm. I
particularly have a problem in this case with the courtyard that is an extension of the sidewalk. That is a
much different kind of public space than the park is. So even if I can see putting up the gates at the park
to protect an area that is secluded, I have a real problem with it happening at the front door which is really
designed to be an extension of the public sidewalk. Hence, it reads more strongly as a part of the public
realm. I find myself persuaded a little bit, but my passion is about this and the conversation that needs to
be had now with respect to all new future development. Because if we are doing the right thing we are
managing the public realm carefully and not just building a gated community, which is not a good path in
my view. I could see supporting it to some degree, but this is a really important conversation that the City
needs to do a better job of mapping out the future of the public realm, like the better streets program in
San Francisco. We need some strategy around it.
>We need to look at this on a case -by-case basis. I get the need for a security gate down in this
neighborhood because it is near the freeway and it ’s not a residential area at the moment. There is going
to be crime there, but there is crime anywhere you get a high concentration of people. The design is good
and it integrates well into the building. We do need to control this somehow especially on some of these
side streets of the industrial area of Burlingame where there are transients and people living in their cars or
motor homes. As my fellow commissioner said, we do need to have a discussion, but I do believe we
need to have it on an individual basis. I was going to bring up the plaza that is above Five Guys on
Primrose Road also, that generally was open but it was closed from sunrise to sunset hours. The gate on
Page 4City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the parking lot side is now open just to access Keller Williams. They are still discouraging people to go up
there and I believe it was related to COVID. That plaza is actually used by people. There are kids there
skateboarding and smoking, but you will get that no matter what. I think this is a good solution. I would
like to see it revisited within a year or two because then maybe the gates don ’t have to be opened and
closed at night. I can support the application at this point.
>As I have often said, we need to look at projects on a project -by-project or location specific basis. I
can sympathize with the Assistant City Attorney, we don't want to be capricious or arbitrary, but we have
to look at the details of the various locations. As mentioned, this is a pioneer project and for me, when in
doubt, it has to have a certain durability and tenacity. What I would hate to see is to have this project
move forward and then suddenly the areas of our public realm have to be stripped of amenities because of
some trespassing that's occurring outside the parks hours of operation. I agree that this area is somewhat
remote in its location and somebody could probably do an algorithm to show where law enforcement tends
to gravitate and they don't go where there's not a lot of people. What's happening out there now, I agree
with my fellow commissioner, appears to be transient visitors which need a place to go. If they can park
there long-term, that's great, but if there's behavior occurring that shouldn't be occurring, we have to be
conscious of that. I also agree with my fellow commissioner that I'm a little nervous about closing off the
public realm. I believe in security through environmental design and doing everything you can to create
good design that creates its own security. But in a situation like this, we have to take some steps for
something that has specific hours; dawn to dusk, and that's how our parks are supposed to operate. For
this to operate and behave that way on behalf of the resident out there as pioneers for our new
neighborhood, we have to allow for a detail like this at this location. I can agree with the idea that this
come back to us after a certain period for review and consideration and we get an update on what's
happening or not happening out there.
>(Spansail: I've gone through the conditions of approval and wanted to go back to the point that you
brought up earlier about some sort of City regulation. The idea of bringing this back in a year is obviously
a good one. You can also add a condition in the motion, at least for the publicly accessible park security
gate, that those hours are approved by the Parks and Recreation Division or the Parks and Recreation
Director so then we have the consent to make sure the hours are consistent with what they want to do
since it is a publicly accessible park and we want to ensure it doesn't look like a private park. I wanted to
put that option out there in case the Commission wanted to consider it as well.)
>I really appreciate my fellow commissioner ’s tenacity because it would have been easy to say yes. I
appreciate the design, the intent and I understand that. I appreciate his point of view on this and it's going
to be a conversation not just for tonight, but of many nights coming forward. This happens to be the first
night and I would love to be able to take our experience here and not have a terrible experience for the
applicant as being the first person, but a successful evolution, which allows us to evolve many more of
these projects that we have coming up that had similar items. We are trying to get more space and not
just have wall-to-wall buildings. We are trying to get some open space for people to enjoy so it's a
residential neighborhood, so we have to be able to treat it well and manage it. It’s going to be an evolution
for us. I can support the solution as being attractive and useful in the short -term. I appreciate the
Assistant City Attorney looking into the idea of how we come back and how we can include that in our
conditions. We’ve given the applicant plenty of knowledge of what we would be looking for in the future as
we discuss the hours of operations and the use of the security gate in the future. This will set us up for
future projects that have similar issues.
Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application with the following added conditions:
>that one year after occupancy of the project, the applicant shall provide and present to the
Planning Commission a written update regarding the status of the need for the security gates at
the public plaza and publically accessible park.
>that the park hours for the publically accessible park shall be reviewed and approved by the
Parks and Recreation Director; the building’s maintenance staff shall follow procedures for
opening and closing of the park as established by the Parks and Recreation Director.
Page 5City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1516 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Azadeh Masrour, AMS Design LLP, applicant
and designer; Behzad Hadjian, property owner) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali
1516 Bernal Ave - Staff Report
1516 Bernal Ave - Attachments
1516 Bernal 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.
Azadeh Masrour, designer and Behzad Hadjian, 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:
>Consider other materials in place of stucco to reduce massing.
>Correct drafting errors and make sure all egress windows are noted on plans.
>In looking at the new driveway, it appears as though the existing wall that holds up the neighbor ’s
entire property is being eliminated for a new driveway. I also recognize that similar to almost every house
on this block which has a nonconforming side setback on the left, the neighbor's house is only a few feet
off your driveway. I am concerned for the neighbors because if you touch that wall, the neighbor on the
right is going to be in your driveway. It would be challenging if we take this forward to the next step in the
approval process and you come back in two weeks and say you don ’t have any problems. I encourage you
to resolve this wall issue with your neighbor to avoid problems because there isn ’t a side setback, and
they are right there next to your property. I would be concerned for their home foundation as that wall gets
disturbed. It is something that needs to get resolved if you are going to cut back and take advantage of
that driveway. If you are keeping the driveway and retaining wall as -is, then you are not impacting the
neighbor. But the drawings indicate cutting all that back.
>You might want to verify exactly which wall the Public Works Division was talking about in terms of
what needs to be removed. Looking at the survey, the front retaining wall that is over the property line
towards the back edge of the sidewalk is outside of your property line. In my experience, because you are
now pulling a building permit and scrapping the lot, typically Public Works will require you to remove that
wall and get it within the property line. So, it is likely that the wall Public Works was directing you to
relocate may have not been the driveway wall because that is fully on your property. I suggest that you
revisit that with Public Works because, as my fellow commissioner is saying, if you in fact take that wall
and move it over to your property line on the right hand side it is probably going to encroach on the
foundation wall of the neighboring house. It may potentially make your driveway difficult, if not impossible,
to build which means the house cannot be where it is located in which case the design cannot move
forward.
>From the design review standpoint, I am having difficulty with the project. It really is a stucco box with
Page 6City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
asphalt shingles with dark windows and trim. The project is at the maximum FAR, almost at the maximum
height, this looks like the type of project that would have been built prior to design review and the design
guidelines being put in place back in the 1990’s. It is just a stucco box without any ornament, any charm
or any character. I’m finding it hard to see how this addresses the design guidelines. There isn ’t a typical
hierarchy that you might see between first and second floor. I see the proposed vinyl windows; the
problem with vinyl windows often times, as we ’ve talked about in the past, is that they have a very clumsy
look to them. This is a good candidate for design review consultant.
>I was looking at proportion and scale, there are some funny things going on there. The first thing that
caught my attention was the front fa çade, because everything is so big and puffed up, it looks like a doll
house. It somehow lacks people scale. There are windows everywhere and they don't seem to be related
to each other. The smaller windows that show up on the second floor on the left and right elevations seem
to make more sense, then suddenly there's a big window that's inserted and all the windows seem too
close together somehow. It feels very utilitarian. It's a box with windows in it.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. It felt like a box on top of a box and the windows are too large .
This is a perfect candidate for a design review consultant. It needs something, not just blank stucco and
large windows. The upper floor windows need to be much smaller to give it some charm and adding
corbels would be great. I'm not opposed to having stucco, but we need to have some sort of character and
details added to this house in general.
>I agree with my fellow commissioner. I wanted to add that, I believe the designer stated at the
beginning of her presentation that this is her first project in the City. This is where the design review
consultant can be very helpful in familiarizing this designer with some of the design details, styles of
houses, and some of the aspects of housing that we review in our design review process and help her to
pull together a more complete design and presentation for us to review next time around.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. The design review consultant generally helps a candidate get
through the process faster and makes it work and be more compatible with our neighborhoods. This
street is probably one of the most traveled streets in the area and there is an opportunity to do a really
good design. Would love to see that in this neighborhood.
>There are technical things I ’m concerned about. The driveway concerns me. The fact that these
properties have a nonconforming side setback concerns me. I think that the garage at the moment is
currently shown on property line, yet we have eaves extending over the property line. There are some real
details that need to be thought through for it to be approvable and not have problems downstream with
changes for things that didn't get flushed out. So, I too think it's a candidate for a design review
consultant.
>About windows and the plate height on the second floor, if that plate height came down from nine feet
probably to eight feet, it's much harder to put in large windows on the second floor with a lower ceiling and
those two things are related. So I'd like to see them revisit that second floor plate height.
Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to refer the application to a
design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
b.1785 Sebastian Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit
dwelling. (Qifeng Lei, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates,
designer) (87 Noticed) Staff Contact: Ted Lopez
1785 Sebastian Dr - Staff Report
1785 Sebastian Dr - Attachments
1785 Sebastian Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid noted that he received an e -mail
from one of the neighbors and responded back with regard to their comments, but did not speak with
anybody during the visit. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she met and had a conversation with the
Page 7City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
project architect and spoke to the neighbor's son who is on the corner of Sebastian Drive and Trousdale
Drive. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
>Enoch Yeung, 1745 Sebastian Drive: Thank you for taking the time to review this application and our
comments. Regarding the home occupation permits and the Burlingame ordinances, it creates misplaced
expectations between the neighbors and the owner of 1785 Sebastian Drive. We're really trying to seek
clarification because right now, based on the Code Enforcement Divisions' actions, it seems that the
impression we are getting is that commercial activity is okay in this zone as long as incidents are
minimized. We're under the impression that no commercial activity should be happening to the level that
it has been happening in the neighborhood. With that said, I'm going to move on and thank Commissioner
Schmid for your response to the e -mail, understanding that we're restricted to making comments on the
architectural design. I wanted to bring up that the gray standing seam metal roof doesn't seem compatible
with the neighborhood ’s look and feel. Regarding the two balconies on the second floor with the big sliding
doors, there aren't any other homes in the neighborhood with that type of architectural feature, so it
doesn't seem to be compatible with the overall feel of the neighborhood. The overall massing is also a
concern, going from 3,000 to 5,000 square feet. We're concerned about blocking the view of the scenery
from 1745 Sebastian Drive, as well as possibly causing shadows into the yard. We also believe that the
second story will result in the loss of privacy, with the ability of the occupants to look into the backyard
because of the west side facing windows. I appreciate the architect mentioning they're going to try to
minimize the windows; I'm not sure I quite understand how that will ensure privacy, the fact that there are
still windows although they're shaded, still gives the occupant a view of the yard. Finally, we're not sure
how the massing and changes to the foundation might affect water drainage on property. I see there's a
chain link fence in the drainage area and I'm not exactly sure what's going on there; It might be an existing
chain link fence. We want to make sure that drainage is being addressed as a part of the overall plans.
>Walter Bankovitch, 2950 Atwater Drive: My family has lived here since 1974 so we're among the older
neighbors. Our view wouldn't be obstructed but I understand the concern of other neighbors a little bit to
the west of us. I'm concerned with what the motivation is for this second story. It appears that there are no
windows on the north side of the front of the structure. Maybe I'm seeing that wrong, but if that were the
case, I'm wondering with five bedrooms how many more bedrooms do they need or are they using this
property to enhance their business operations, which personally I object to. We are one neighborhood and
I suspect the Planning Commission gave a permit for something that did not involve a number of trucks
coming and going from the property. I can understand, for example, an accounting firm who may have
people coming in and out, that would be one thing. But I think the spirit of the law has been somewhat
violated here in as much as we're seeing trucks and all sorts of material in the backyard. It appears to me
that the sort of business that is being conducted here may not be appropriate for the neighborhood and
I'm not quite sure that when the permit was granted, the powers that be realized that this sort of activity
would be going on. So I submit to the Planning Commission that I believe that this activity should be
somewhat curtailed and maybe they should take their business elsewhere to a warehouse or something of
that sort. In conclusion, my concern is what will they be using this second story for? Is it warehousing or
residential living?
>Connie Lee, 1712 Sebastian Drive: I live across the street from the house with the proposed
expansion. I would like to share my views on the proposal on the potential impacts to me. The proposed
expansion is to build a second story with two balconies and a big sliding door directly on top of the garage .
I feel that this is not compatible with the neighboring houses and it will be an eyesore. I don't see any
other houses in the neighborhood that look like the proposed expansion. In addition to the architecture
concern, I have concerns with parking. For most of the houses, a two -car garage along with the driveway
Page 8City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
provides more than sufficient parking. Currently, there are already three to four cars, including large trucks
and large vans, from that house that park on the street. With the proposed expansion, I would expect
more cars and trucks and vans. This causes safety concerns with these vehicles driving up and down on
the narrow street. Very often with the big cars parked on both sides of the street, people have to drive in
the middle of the street, crossing the yellow line that separates the cars going in the opposite direction .
This is very dangerous. In fact, I once parked my car on the street overnight and my cars' left mirror got
damaged by passing cars. So, after the expansion, it looks like the house will be two times larger than
any houses in the neighborhood. There is already commercial traffic currently from the house, with the
proposed expansion, their business will expand and traffic will increase. Over time, I ’m concerned that this
will transform the desirable neighborhood into a commercial neighborhood. I also wanted to say that my
biggest concern was with privacy and views, so with the elevated height and the two balconies in front of
the house, they can look directly into my backyard. I feel I would lose my privacy when I ’m in the
backyard. I spend quite a bit of time in my backyard. Currently, I have a nice view; two green trees and
mountains and the expansion will probably block my view. I'll be looking at large balconies and buildings
instead. For the house expansion, can they expand on the ground floor instead of building another story?
>David Newman, 3000 Atwater Drive: I live three houses away from this proposed project. I want to say
that Vice-Chair Loftis spoke about passion, about the character in the neighborhood in reviewing the big
project. I find it offensive given the conversation about that, as well as the character of Bernal Avenue in
review of that application. This is a 5,000 square foot monstrosity and the architect can't articulate a
style. We don't have the style of Ray Park or Easton Addition, but we care about our neighborhood. I like
Vice-Chair Loftis' comments about the context of the public realm. I'm not sure if the space in front of our
homes is considered exactly that, but that's a space that my children travel frequently and that's one of my
concerns with regard to the project. Again, I ’m one of a dozen residents here. I know there would be more
if we had more than six days to have awareness of the project. I've gotten to know the property quite well
for three reasons and I ’ll tie these to architecture review. First, through Anne Yeung who lives next door .
As an elderly homeowner, she's called for my help when smelling smoke, which we have smelled from our
homes from the backyard of 1785 Sebastian Drive. When I visited her, I encountered the neighbors of
this project looking into her yard from the hillside. I understand the concerns about this home expanding
and blocking her sunlight and views in the yard, especially after decades of raising her family there. This
is an elevated location and looking down into her home. Second, I've gotten to know this home via the
Mah family that lives on Atwater two doors down. Due to poorly maintained beehives at the top of the
hillside, bees were in their yard. I know the view from their yard and the architect ’s comment about 40 feet
below, the architect should know it's a downhill view into the bay and not into the sky, the view that ’s about
to be impacted. I have gotten to know it from my two daughters who regularly ride bikes by the property
and were forced into the middle of the road. So, the idea of variance or exception to parking should
remove any grandfathering of a project of this size. Lastly, I would like to ask the City Attorney if the
application can be elevated to City Council given there are so many concerns here. We look to you as
stewards of our neighborhood and we appreciate your interest and the impact of this project in terms of
water, drainage, parking and safety.
>Anne Yeung, 1745 Sebastian Drive: I've lived here for 40 years and I’m a senior citizen. Since the
neighbor moved next door, there have been a lot of problems; they especially love to burn trash in their
backyard, I don't know why. I see a lot of business activity; they are manufacturing and there is a lot of
chemical fumes all over my backyard. They usually burn trash in the afternoon and evening time. When
they add a second story, my privacy and the sunlight will be gone. The houses on this street were built by
the same builder and they're all uniform. If they build up it will look very awkward in our neighborhood. Our
neighborhood is harmonious, lovely and clean. We try our best to keep our neighborhood in harmony. But
this family moved here and then caused trouble. Last year, they had at least eight cars parked on the
street. Their van and truck always block the street, I can't even put my garbage can outside because
there is not enough space, so the cans always fall down. They have so many businesses and vehicles and
they park on the street and take up all my parking in front of my house. Mainly, I don't like that my privacy
got invaded and would like my neighborhood harmonious and quiet. I’m very upset.
Page 9City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Petra Campos, 2935 Trousdale Drive: You're going to hear similar comments from my neighbors as
what I’m going to talk about tonight. I live around the corner from the neighbors in question here. My family
and I were some of the original residents of the Mills Estate. My mother lived on this property since 1963. I
grew up here and moved in here with my husband and kids in 2013. We have seen a lot of changes in the
neighborhood and they have been fabulous. This proposed project is not one that's in character with the
neighborhood so we have grave concerns about what the neighbors are proposing here. Comments are
similar to what you have heard. I believe the application they submitted fails to meet the Planning
Commission’s criteria and not necessary or desirable for this neighborhood and it will have a negative
impact on the neighborhood. Key concerns, specifically for my property, is that the expansion is out of
character with the surrounding homes. This addition will go against the natural fabric of Sebastian Drive. It
will scale down and bump up to a two story and down again, so it will be out of the character with the
neighborhood. Going to 5,000 square feet will impact the neighbors. For us specifically, it will impact our
views from our backyard and from the backside of our house. It will impair our ability to see beyond
Sebastian Drive and it will likely impact sunlight and views from the eastern area. Finally, we have so
many young children in the neighborhood. There are kids on Sebastian Drive, Atwater Drive and all around
the neighborhood. There are so many cars and vans, as you have heard with this project, that we expect if
they increase the house to 5,000 square feet, they're going to have more cars and vans and it is a hazard
to our kids to have so much commercial activity in a residential neighborhood. So, that is one serious
concern. Then finally, we have talked about the size and scope of the project, increasing by 2,000 square
feet, but they're not increasing the bedrooms, so I do wonder what are they doing with that additional 2,000
square feet? It seems excessive, out of scope and out of character with the neighborhood. Do they really
need an additional 2,000 square feet or are they going to use it for commercial purposes? I urge you to
use your discretion and powers around this.
>Tony Lei, 1785 Sebastian Drive: I'm the owner of the subject property. I find it sad that I ’ve been
having so many issues with my next door neighbor ever since we moved in. She walked into our backyard
and our home by herself, so we got into that fight. Ever since then, she's been having trouble with us. So,
let me go over what everyone has been saying about lots of cars, trucks or deliveries in the house. There
have been a lot of deliveries to our house since the pandemic and I order a lot of stuff from Amazon every
day. I have a family member who is on home dialysis, so medical supplies are delivered every week from
the dialysis company. As for the parking, my neighbor lives by herself and she has two cars. I have a
family of six and don't find it to be unreasonable to have four cars for a family of six. The main reason for
the second story addition is because we have kids, we currently have one child in the house and we plan
on having more children in the future. We want to have more play space and also for the rooms to be
bigger. I’m shocked that my neighbor is forming an ally with all the neighbors who have been here longer
to complain about deliveries. Who doesn't have a bunch of deliveries on a daily basis? She complained
that we park our cars on the street. I think that's why when the Commissioner visited our house they other
day, my dad parked on the side driveway because she ’s called the police many times about us parking on
the street and blocking her view, so that's why we decided to pull the van into the driveway area. She’s
called the police and fire department, many, many times. The compliance officer called to see what was
delivered to my house and found that it was medical supplies and equipment for a home gym. So every
time I had a delivery, the City would get complaints that I have all these commercial activities. Everything
I’m doing is legal and I don't think I need to change my lifestyle to please my neighbor who has been
unreasonable throughout these years; that's why we took a harassment case to the court a year ago.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Consider raising the window sill height on the left-hand side at the second floor for privacy.
>Provide a 3D drawing to help us see how the materials work their way through the building.
>While visiting the project site, a utility van pulled up and parked to the side of the garage in front of
the property, which from my understanding of the ordinances, is not allowed. When this comes back to
action, please provide an explanation on why these utility vans need to be parked off to the side of the
Page 10City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
garage as opposed to parking in front of the garage like a typical pattern that we see in our
neighborhoods.
>If the fireplaces are going to be wood burning, please make sure they are extended as required by
code.
>I want to go back to the architecture and style. I’ve been looking at the drawing and listening to
everything that has been said. Looking at the drawings again, there's something odd about the house and
it has to do with integration of the various sides. The front of the house, with the matching pair of
bedrooms with sliding doors, is frankly the most interesting part of the design. As you go around the
sides, there seems to be a lack of integration of the design and maybe caused by what's being saved,
but it seems very haphazard in its design. As I look deeper, there seems to be continuity problems of
horizontal siding that should wrap around a corner, but goes around the corner and turns into apparent
stucco. I certainly would want to see what should be seen as stucco wrapping a corner or horizontal siding
wrapping a corner, because it affects the legibility of the house. I do think there's a problem with
architecture integration. It seems it wanders from one side to the other and it's not very tightly bound one
side to another; that needs to be looked at some more.
>It's not self-evident in looking and trying to understand the architecture. Relative to the neighborhood,
we do have some to consider in that context. The metal roofing is not benefiting the project by pushing
itself even further and further away from the architecture of the neighborhood. I know that the designer has
a lot of talent. I don't think it's as simple as having to work with what's there because part of the difficulty
is the addition, which is all new on the second floor in terms of how it integrates. There is wood siding on
the left side elevation, but it doesn't continue around to the rear, so it would be changing at a
two-dimensional plain right there. That of itself creates a problem for what translates along the back of the
house that turns into another lump that wants to be wood siding to separate itself from the other lumps
that are stucco. It is not communicating well, it's not working well and needs another pass.
>It's somewhat difficult to see exactly what views might be blocked in visiting the property because it's
a high hillside behind, but nonetheless, it's important that story poles be erected for this project because
there are enough properties concerned about this project that's not in the immediate vicinity that might
have distant views. It is incumbent for us to require story poles so we can see the neighbor on Trousdale
Drive who says they have views out from their backyard that look toward the bay that could be blocked by
this project. I think story poles should be required for this project before it comes back and the design
needs to be revisited.
>It seems on all view homes that come in front of us, we ask for story poles, it will add a lot to what's
going on out there.
>I'm not opposed to the doors on the balcony on the front, but they look odd, there's something going
on there that doesn't fit. Some of the design needs to be revisited. A 3D rendering, taking it on all sides,
would be helpful so we can get a perspective of what it's going to look like. Although I love metal roofs, I
don't know that this home benefits from a metal roof. I’d like the applicant to possibly look at some other
options.
>Regarding the story poles, for the public's behalf for future reference, it should be noted that we're
looking for story poles in regard to the hillside area ordinance and view issues. We don't typically look for
story poles to help us mitigate privacy issues. We don't have a privacy ordinance, but we have a hillside
area ordinance which specifically references views, not privacy, so just something for the public to
understand for when this comes back and when story poles are erected.
>I'd also like to note that we've had a lot of discussions, as being part of the Commission now for a few
years, about neighbors concerned about the encroachment of views in their backyards. We've all said it
one time or another, people buy a piece of property, they decide to add onto that property, and it is up to
the neighbors to have conversations about trying to get along and trying to mitigate some privacy issues
between themselves. I had a neighbor do a frosted stairwell that helped a lot with our privacy into our
bedroom. I ask that neighbors try to work with their own neighbors to mitigate some of this. But we can't
look at that and say you can't build a home because you're looking into the neighbor next door.
>I agree that we should put up story poles. But given the challenges we've had lately on other projects
relative to story poles, we encourage those neighbors that when the story poles go up, they take pictures
from the appropriate places to be able to give us some insight because we really don't get access to your
homes and all of your key places. It's left us to use Google Earth to determine the angle from your
Page 11City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
backyard and whether you have a view or not. It's important that you understand that these are long distant
views we are considering from main living areas. Long distant view are towards the bay, not uphill views .
There are about seven or eight properties overlooking this property. Only a few of these properties
probably have any views over this property. Most of them are uphill. So, if you're going to send us pictures
and be arguing for the view corridor, really understand what it is that the hillside view ordinance protects .
We would love to be able to hear from you, so we can take appropriate action, but it's not going to be a
privacy concern or some of the other things that we heard this evening.
>People need to recognize that these lots up in this area are larger lots and this happens to be one of
the larger ones. Larger lots typically afford larger homes, so I don't know that I would go out of my way to
say this is a huge monstrosity given the size of the lot.
>On the privacy issue, there's some opportunities for improvement there. The fence on the right side
actually looks like it is deteriorating and it could benefit from a new fence and a bit of extra effort towards
screening landscape, which would help the downstream neighbor on the right of Sebastian Drive. Similarly,
for the neighbor on the left, there are some proposed trees coming. The new second story addition is
going to look at the house, not the backyard, so there's opportunities to solve some of these privacy
concerns that the neighbors have with active screening and being considerate with the landscape.
>As I was listening to the concerns on the front elevation, I ’m not so convinced that I ’m for the
balconies and the larger windows. There are second stories and windows facing out to the view, but none
of those second stories and windows are quite as large as these openings here looking over everything .
So, there's an opportunity for the architect to refine that. The 3D drawing is imperative given how complex
the shapes and the materials are on this project. I like a good metal seam look on a good farmhouse
design that has a cohesive design to it, but I am not seeing that here today. Like others have said, there's
an opportunity to refine this design.
>It's important that the applicant and designer think carefully about whether to put up the story poles for
the proposed design or revise the design and then consider putting up story poles, because it could come
back still lacking integration that it needs. The massing and the integration might not be resolved and you
might have a second set of story poles to put up.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Loftis, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed, and story poles erected.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
c.1141 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story,
single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Form + One, applicant and designer; Winnie
Wong and Michael Chin, property owners) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1141 Cortez Ave - Staff Report
1141 Cortez Ave - Attachments
1141 Cortez Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview
of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, designer, and Michael Chin and Winnie Wong, property owners, represented the applicant
and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Jennifer Pfaff, no address provided: Looking at sheet A 3.1, the proposed left elevation, I don ’t
understand what is happening in the middle of that elevation. It looks like on the left -hand side of the
Page 12City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
upper gable the roof cuts into the projection. I don ’t know what that is, but it looks like it is a mistake .
On the right side of that projection, the lower floor just stops at a random point. I am not understanding
what is projecting and recessing. It looks like it is centered on some part and not on other parts .
Something in the middle doesn ’t look right to me. (Raduenz: It was intentional not to be centered. Also,
the neighbor next door is a foot away from the property line, so the askew projection provides a more
modern aspect and it lines up well on the floor plans.)
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The choice of materials, horizontal siding with stucco on the second floor, seems a bit odd. A typical
pattern would be stucco, a rougher material similar to stone on the ground floor, and a more refined
material of the horizontal siding on the second floor. Suggest that it be consistent; study the choice of
materials.
>Please provide a 3D rendering.
>On the rear elevation, the window in the master bedroom that's fairly short looks like it could be better
balanced against the one on the other side to provide better balance.
>I like what's going on with the header and the big heavy sides, but they seem awfully light on the
bottom where you have the sill. Consider having an apron underneath it or something.
>Correct and update drafting errors.
>This is going to be a nice project; it feels like the iteration is there. I had the same feeling as my
fellow commissioner that the stucco seemed like a more natural fit at the bottom. Earthy stuff has more
of a visual gravity and that's what's going on, taking the heavy stuff and placing it on top even though we
know it's not really heavy, but it looks heavier. So it would be worth looking into flipping that.
>I have real concerns about the large stairway window on the property line, that ’s a bad trend in
Burlingame design right now. Frankly. it will be a problem for the neighbor next door when a new house
gets built. I also want to make sure that the huge light fixtures outside don't contribute to light pollution.
>It's going to be a nice project. I ask that your builder pays close attention to the details. We have
some beautiful architectural style on this street and this house, so be very cautious and make sure it fits
the plans being built.
>I agree with most comments. The detailing needs to be brought together to make it a more cohesive
design. I’m glad my fellow commissioner brought up the house to the right and the two across the street
because I was there today looking at those. They both have some really nice features at their eaves, the
rafter tails are carved and they look really custom. A lot of this looks more like a production house .
There's an attempt of the custom stuff, but it's not there yet. The details needs to be worked out .The left
elevation that Jennifer Pfaff pointed out, that bay looks off because one roof chops into it and the other
one falls two feet short of it. There needs to be something done there, too. It's going to come around, but
it needs another pass for sure.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
d.1357 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Hector
Estipona, JDeal Associates, applicant and designer; Archimedes O. Martinez, property
owner) (124) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali
1357 Bernal Ave - Staff Report
1357 Bernal Ave - Attachments
1357 Bernal Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Page 13City of Burlingame
January 10, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview
of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal, designer, and Archimedes Martinez, property owner, represented the applicant and answered
questions about the application.
Public Comments:
>Jennifer Pfaff: I think it is really well done, it is beautiful. My only comment was that it looks way too
high with the posts, it looks very monumental. It would be great if you could lower the front porch.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The front porch appears monumental compared to the rear porch, which has disengaged eaves to
align the gutter with the roof behind. Suggests bringing the front porch gable height down because the
house is already raised up so high from the street.
>I can make the findings for the Special Permit, we do have some unique circumstances. I don ’t think
that the project will be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the
application on the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Planning Manager Hurin reported that at their meeting on January 3, 2022, the City Council appointed
Jennifer Pfaff as the new Planning Commissioner; her first meeting is scheduled to be on January 24th or
February 14th.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:01 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 January 10, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on January 20, 2022, the action becomes
final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by
an appeal fee of $708.00, which includes noticing costs.
Page 14City of Burlingame