HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.04.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, April 11, 2022
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 Assistant City
Attorney Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and PfaffPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no meeting minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1516 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single-unit 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. (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
Page 1City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Azadeh Masrour, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Appreciate the revised elevations that show the corner board because that was the only question I
had. They've addressed the comments and fixed the board and batten. They're showing what looks like an
all clear wall sconce on the exterior lighting, but that light fixture could probably come with a cut -off portion
at the upper section of that light fixture. I don't think we need to hold the project up in that regard. It's
something that could be tracked as the project moves forward in order to meet the light pollution
requirements that we have for the City. So generally, the project is approvable.
>I agree with my fellow commissioner. The proposed exterior lighting won't meet the regulations right
now. I think the project is approvable.
>Clarify the height of redwood fence on the plans to not exceed six feet. Other than that, the project
has come a long way. I find it approvable.
Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application
with the following added condition:
>that the fence along the left side property line shall not exceed 7’-0” in height (6’-0” solid
plus 1’-0” of lattice or open design) as measured from adjacent grade on the subject property.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff7 -
b.1366 De Soto Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits
for building height and attached garage for a first and second floor addition to an existing
single-unit dwelling and new attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Wing Lee, applicant and architect; Nelson Wong,
property owner) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1366 De Soto Ave - Staff Report
1366 De Soto Ave - Attachments
1366 De Soto Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she was not present
at the February 28, 2022 meeting, but did review the meeting minutes and watched the video. Associate
Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Wing Lee, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Page 2City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Should fix some drafting issues; use the correct line weights to clearly identify windows on the
drawings.
>I like the project. It's starting to hang together really nicely. Extending the tile roof that way is a clever
solution since the interior worked for you, it probably works better than moving the upper floor would. It
holds together nicely now, so thanks for addressing those issues.
>I wanted to thank the applicant for addressing all the issues, you've done a really great job. If the
applicant can address the grading issue sent to us by a neighbor via email that would be important to put
into writing. Thank you for a really lovely job in retaining a really nice structure.
>I agree with my fellow commissioner. The project is really nice.
>I still miss that breakfast nook or garden window bump -out especially with the 16-foot wide driveway. I
think there's room for it. I'm not going to make it hold up the project, but especially in rendering, it looks
very blank and plain with that wide driveway and the flat wall with windows on it. Where you did have an
opportunity to leave that portion in, even if it was added on at one time, was done very well. I would
encourage you to do a small cut -out next to the building so you can add landscaping or something to give
that driveway life. We get a lot of driveways that are nine or ten feet wide, but this is 16 feet so you are
going to have a greater visual impact from the street. I can support the Special Permit for the building
height based on the slope up from the street and the top of curve. I can find a reason for the Special
Permit for the attached garage as it is, there are many houses with attached garages.
>I do appreciate the effort put in by the team and it's going to be a good looking project.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff7 -
c.1536 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition (major renovation) to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jackson Hsieh, applicant
and property owner; Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., designer) (122
noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1536 Columbus Ave - Staff Report
1536 Columbus Ave - Attachments
1536 Columbus Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones was recused for non -statutory
reasons. Vice Chair Loftis was recused because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property .
Commissioner Pfaff noted that she had a conversation with a neighbor. Commissioner Comaroto noted
that she was absent on the February 28, 2022 meeting but reviewed the meeting minutes and watched the
video. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, designer and Jackson Hsieh, property owner, represented the applicant and answered
questions about the application.
Page 3City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
>Lynn Israelit, 1560 Columbus Avenue: I’m also a resident of Columbus Avenue and it's not just the
neighbors on the right who oppose the design of this particular home. As you probably recall when you
saw it the first time, we felt that it was a very stark house that was somewhat imposing and cold compared
to the other Tudor and storybook homes that line our street. While I can appreciate this might be a style
that the new owner likes, it does not blend in with the neighborhood. It really stands out despite the fact
that it's a little bit different than the one across the street and that is what we're trying to explain, that it
looks like a house but not a home. I appreciate that some changes were made, but they are really very
small. They did extend the roof line across the front part of the house which made a big difference, but I
feel that the side of the house, the west elevation, still looks like a dairy barn. It's completely flat with a
long flat run and several windows, though the number of windows have been diminished, and the roof line
is without character and no gables and nothing to break it up. I guess the best way I can explain it is, the
house seems disjointed and doesn't really hang together. You look at the front, there are pillars in front of
the garage and stone veneer, there ’s board and batten, it just doesn't pull together. I would be very
disappointed if the house is built on our street as presented this evening. I truly hope that something can
be done to pull this design together a little bit better so that it is an asset in the neighborhood as opposed
to the current design. There are still improvements that could be made to make it look less hodgepodge,
especially the front aspect. Something needs to be done to break up that long side elevation as well. It's
just, I don't know any other house in Burlingame that has a flat run like that from front to back. I really
hope that you can get a better design and something the neighbors feel belongs on the street and would
be a welcome addition. Thank you for your time.
>David Mauro, 1532 Columbus Drive: Good evening, I'm the neighbor on the right side. You have read
my letter. I have a 16-foot tall ADU going on the back on one side that runs the whole length of my
backyard. Then my neighbor wants to propose a 28’-9” tall house on my other side which is only probably
six feet from my house. He did come and talk to us the day my father -in-law passed away and we were
trying to book tickets to Ireland and he wants to talk about his house. I’m really not thrilled with the
design, but that really is not the issue. The issue is the height of the house and the windows that look into
my side. He talked to the neighbor on the other side of the house and half of the windows were taken out
on that side, yet we never had a conversation about taking some of these windows out. I understand it's a
lifetime investment. I bought in this neighborhood because I love the design of the Spanish Mediterranean
and the Tudors. If I wanted to build a farmhouse I would have gone to an area where that's common, not
come into an area and disrupt the character of the neighborhood. That's not really how it's done. At the
last meeting, one of the commissioners said that the farmhouse across the street should have never been
approved, so why are we going to approve another one? I'm concerned with the height of the house. I
remodeled my house in 2007-2008 and I have 9’ ceiling on top and bottom, split level house. My house is
22’ tall, yet they think 29’ now is okay. You don't need the A -frames that high to make this project work .
I'm not thrilled with the design but I can live with it with some other design elements for the front. I agree
with Lynn, it does need some work up front. I’m concerned about my side of the house and my backside
now. I'm living in a tunnel. Who is to say that the neighbor to my right side doesn ’t decide to tear their
house down and put that up against me also? I hope the commissioners can see my point of view of where
this is going. I feel like I ’m getting trapped by two people on the side. The one to my right doesn't even live
there. He's renting both places out so I have new neighbors, four neighbors every year. Jackson is
probably going to be a good neighbor and that's fine. The house is the inside, that ’s where a house is
made is the inside, not the outside. I can take you around the block around the neighborhood and show
you 20 to 50 designs that would be perfect there instead of this farmhouse. I really wish that you would
wrap your heads around this and do the right thing and make them go back to design. He took five
windows out on the other side. Why didn't he ask me to take windows down on my side that looks right
into my bathroom? I won't be able to see out my bathroom window anymore. I understand property rights,
but it has to be property rights with some cohesiveness to concerns of the neighbors.
>Public comment submitted via email by Christina Habelt, 1531 Columbus Avenue: I’m the neighbor
diagonally across the street from the planned building. I'm hoping that the revised plan did indeed try to
make the building less imposing and original. It still looks super huge to me but maybe that is an illusion .
Page 4City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
I noticed that on one side it went from current 4 to 11 windows, on the other side it went from current 6 to
15 windows. I understand wanting natural light but also, how can some neighbor privacy be incorporated?
Also, I ask that the driveway remain as is to accommodate at least two vehicles. The drawing shows just
one vehicle plus an ADU access path. Please understand that our segment of the block has already been
traumatized by one maximized white modern farmhouse style building that sticks out like a sore thumb on
the block. I also understand that two houses away a garage is being replaced by an ADU, plus tentative
plans to expand activity at the Mercy site contributing to additional future parking congestion exacerbated
by additional Mercy traffic. This is a comment to the Planning Commission, the fact that I didn't know an
ADU was incorporated into the plans until I happened to notice some faint blue lines in the plans is not
transparent. This information should be included on the blue project notice postcards that are sent to
neighboring properties. (Hurin: By state law, if an ADU complies with all the regulations, it is not a
discretionary review, so it wouldn't come before the Planning Commission or to any public hearing. If it
complies with all regulations, then it is what we consider ministerial review where just a building permit.)
>(Hsieh: As David mentioned, when I went there it was a bad time and I didn't want to impose. The
windows need adjustment, all four. I wasn't saying that I prefer one neighbor over the other. So going
forward, I was telling Jesse that I ’m fine if no windows on the side, but he said the commission wouldn't
like that. These are the type of things I have mentioned earlier, I want to be as accommodating as
possible. I want to be a member of the community. I want to be good neighbors and invite them over after
everything is done. If the window is a big issue and the height, even though we're within regulation, we
already lowered it by another foot. And the windows, absolutely. When it's a good time, when they're back
from Ireland, we'll be more than happy to talk it over with the neighbors on my right side to make window
adjustments. But at the same time, the biggest issue is the disagreement, we want to be respectfully
disagree. It's the style. My neighbor is not a fan of farmhouse and I am. This is something that I leave up
to the commissioners. I feel like there are other people that have had their farmhouses built and I believe
I should, too, in that sense. I’m not trying to design a weird rectangular spaceship and it's a design that
we love.)
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The front elevation has been nicely developed. Thank you for listening to our comments and
addressing them. Consider adding one more step at the front stoop so that the level between the top of
the front porch and the entry through the front door is a little more comfortable rather than to have to make
a full step into the house.
>Obviously we have some neighbors that are concerned with the project and maybe they didn't have the
opportunity to address those concerns before getting here tonight, I can understand that. I would
encourage you the applicant to continue to communicate. Just because we might give an approval tonight
or not doesn't necessarily mean that you can't continue that communication and come up with a solution
that benefits both of you. That could be done as an FYI to us because chances are, what you're going to
end up doing is reduce some windows, which I don't know that's going to kill us. So there's a process for
you to handle it between neighbors as long as we get the FYI.
>I appreciate the applicant's willingness to work with the neighbor on that side. In looking at the floor
plan and elevations, it doesn't look like it would intrude as much as the neighbor might think because
there's some articulation on the second floor that steps back and moves it around so there's some
character. Please provide a perspective drawing or rendering of that side from the street so that the
neighbor could see how that steps back. In a two -dimensional drawing, you can't always read what's going
on there. One of the problems that I have with the farmhouse across the street is it seems to have a lack
of landscaping. You can always mitigate a lot of the blankness with some landscaping, along with paint
colors of course. The house across the street is stark white and it makes it stick out so much more. As
far as the farmhouse style, I don't have any objection to it. I think this fits in relatively well because of the
stone and not having a metal roof on it. Yes, it's a different style than what we have on the rest of the
block but it can fit in very well, again, with some landscaping and the work needs to be done well. The
covering over the front door should be a little bit bigger. It looks like the same awning overhang on sheet
Page 5City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
A5 on the side door, it makes it look more like a side door. I think it was a little too grandiose the first
time around. Consider stretching the awning from corner to corner across the fa çade where the front door
is. You could come back as an FYI, it's not a deal killer for me. Suggests to do something that makes it
read more as a front door there. Overall, it's a good project and can move forward
>I agree with a number of the points that my fellow commissioner just made. I appreciate that this was
not a full tear down and a brand new two -story house. The applicants have done a nice job of working with
the existing structure and bones of the house and updating it to a look that the client desires. This is a
much softer looking farmhouse than the one that's currently across the street. The composite shingle roof
and some intermediary standing seam metal roof here and there softens that farmhouse look and
appearance. It has a bit of a transitional style to it with some of the proposed paneling at that bay window
at the front of the living room. I like the stone cladding that has been introduced in various proportions of
the home. I too feel that the front could benefit a little bit more with a full front porch since there are some
columns introduced at the garage that could tie into the front door area. There’s plenty of lot coverage and
FAR to work with. There's not a limitation there. That could add a little bit of substance to the entry. I
would also like to see a rendering to better communicate the design to better view what the
three-dimensional aspects of the massing of the proposed house would look like. I appreciate that the
applicant is willing to work with the neighbor on the reduction of the number of windows on the right side of
the house. I feel that the shaping of that second story is a very clean, fairly minimalist roof detailing that is
not too imposing an elevation for the neighbor on the right. Of course, it's a second story expansion and
there is increased massing, but with the reduction of some windows and rendering that basically
demonstrates how the massing looks on the right side, it won't look quite so flat and everyone can get a
better read on the three -dimensionality of that side. Overall, I appreciate addressing our comments and
really do appreciate the fact that the client is working with the existing bones of the house.
>I also agree with my fellow commissioner. The applicant has done a great job with the house. Suggest
continuing to work with the neighbors. Consider using some frosted glass windows if you need windows in
for some light. We had a neighbor who did that for us because it looked into a bedroom, so it defused the
light as well and we have privacy. There are other options. I can see approving this project this evening.
>I have a similar comment with my fellow commissioner. I see that it's not just the overhang on the
door that's not wide enough. I think each one could go six inches wider on each side because by doing
that it just pushes everything down. It looks more generous and warm. I'm not a great fan of the columns
but I understand, unless it were a part of a porch, I ’m not sure they're necessary in the back. Consider
other ways to have some amount of stone so it pulls together and not a whole wall again, but maybe a
wainscot.
>I see the addition of the stone, the reduction of the height, the belly band and a lot of little details
were added in this go around that do really help breakdown some of the more vertical planes that we have
going on in this design. I appreciate the effort put in by the applicant to break that down a bit more .
Overall, it is going to be a nice project. It's always hard when a second story or a higher story goes on a
house next to you. Nobody really wants it, but we all have the desire to build our dream homes and that's
what we try to do and work within regulations that the city has set. I could see this moving forward.
Chair Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Pfaff5 -
Recused:Terrones, and Loftis2 -
d.120 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to
a previously approved new, two -story single-unit 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. (146 noticed) Staff
Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Page 6City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
120 Dwight Rd - Staff Report
120 Dwight Rd - Attachments
120 Dwight Rd - 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.
Natalie Hyland, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue: I live around the corner from the subject property. I want
share my comments because I live by the project. I really like the previous design. I thought it was nice
and in keeping with the neighborhood. If you go down Dwight Road, I have done a lot of projects on that
street, a lot of them have siding and they have a more bungalow look to it. I really liked the previous
material design that it had on it when approved by the Planning Commission. I agree with the
commissioners of it being very stark and white. There isn't any other building on that block that would
look like that. In my opinion, it will be very cold looking. Again, I think it needs to be more warm and more
part of the neighborhood. It seems like it's going to be really, really cold.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Consider adding some details on the gable ends or some other decorations to enhance the style of
the home so it's not so blank or plain. It's a very clean look in comparison to what we have approved, it's
very different in terms of details.
>Consider adding some knee braces or some elements that can be created to not give it such a blank
wall.
>There’s something very interesting that happened when all the board and batten and horizontal siding
went away, it's related to a sense of scale; something funny happens to the scale. I don't know how wide
they are, but the vertical board and batten was rather wide, the panels look like they're a foot wide and
maybe bigger. What happens when those go away is they're hiding the scale and the size of the window on
the second floor, especially on the front elevation on the second floor on the front -most gable. Something
needs to be done to bring the project back into proper scale. Everything seems disjointed now somehow .
Part of me thinks it was hidden before by the scale of the board and batten and the horizontal siding,
which are a bazaar combo to begin with. I’m not sure this isn't going to be a better house. It might be a
better house if the scale can be brought under control.
>I would agree. It has become very blank. I understand that there are other stucco houses on the
block, but something changed dramatically when it went to stucco. The front door looks odd to me. It's
identical to what was there originally but it seems like with all the stucco, it doesn't fit any longer. I don't
know if it's the columns or what can be done there. We can mitigate this whole thing with additional
detailing. I'm glad to hear the applicant talk about the problems with Hardie siding. I have experienced that
before and everyone knows I have never really liked that material. In the years to come, people are going
to see that it's not this indestructible product that everyone thinks it is, it requires as much maintenance
as anything else. I'm fine that it's gone. I wasn't fond of the vertical and the horizontal sidings together on
the original design, but the stucco could work. It's going to need more than what's in front of us now. As
far as the chimney goes, that should remain stone or a different material than the stucco, so that it
becomes an architectural element as opposed to just a bump in the side of the house.
>I had almost an identical reaction as my fellow commissioners. I wasn't a huge fan of the two different
sidings originally, but it did give the house some scale and detail. I have the same opinion that something
needs to be done to give it back scale. It could be some more elaborate gable vents and maybe a
Page 7City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
wainscoting to give it a base, but it's generally stripped of all its detail other than just some window trims. I
like the idea of the smooth plaster and have been a big fan of that. It gives some elegance to a facade,
but not having any detail is an issue and it's so far up field of what was originally approved.
>I have similar comments. The plaster should not be completely smooth. I’m not a fan because it
shows errors if it's not done well; it can look cheap. What was the intention for the stucco, smooth type or
did it have a normal finish? I ’m not a fan of a bunch of different materials and different directions on one
house so I’m happy to see it calm down. The chimney needs to build back something and maybe it would
be a wainscot. It sounds like you don't like window boxes. The windows look very large to me, so I don't
know if it's too late to make it smaller.
>Changing the different finishes to one finish almost accentuates the difference in the roof pitch from
the first floor to the second floor. The pitch over the front doors is 4.5:12 and the other is 7:12. When the
plate heights are the same on two floors, it ’s almost like the upper floor is taller than the lower floor. So,
there's an issue with the proportion of two levels if left blank like this. That is why I wanted to see
something in the gable ends because it reduced the height under those gables at least the appearance .
The applicant said the frame is now complete, but it's not too late to introduce other details to reduce the
height of the second story which is making the front door look very squat.
>I agree with all other comments. Where it differs a little bit, the 3D rendering looks better than the 2D
elevations. What's throwing me is the monochromatic of it. I have seen stucco homes lately where they
have gone with a bolder color and kept it very clean and I thought they looked very nice. If you end up
whitewashing the stucco or the trim, you're going to get no differentiation, which is what the rendering is
showing at the moment and it's not going to look as classic as it could. Color could have a huge impact
on the way this turns out. I would highly recommend exploring some rendering to see if that can help with
the adjustment of the scale. I’m not hearing a full -fledged standing behind the change at the moment and
it feels to me there's work to be done here. So, we probably need to propose a continuance to give them
the opportunity to work on this some more and come back again.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
>Chair Schmid: So, we have a couple of options here; one being a denial, which would give you an
appeal option that goes to the City Council or continuance and we're asking you to fix it and come back to
us for another review. Is there a preference on your part on which way you would like to see us go?
(Hyland: Is there a third option to leave it the way it is and proceed with the building the way it was
originally approved?). Yes, you have the right to build the originally approved design. But if you're refusing
to make a change, you're seeing that you're not going to get our full support so you need to pick an option
of what's best for you and your client. I'm hoping you got enough feedback from us this evening on the
things that we're seeing that are not helping us. You need to look at adding architectural details as
opposed to the changes.
>Hyland: If I ask for a continuance but come back with the stucco with some more detail, is that
acceptable? The feedback I heard had a lot to do with the actual architecture, so I can't change anything .
The windows are going in tomorrow. The house is framed. I can't shrink the size of any windows and can't
reduce the plate heights. I can't change the size of the front gable. So I ’m wondering if I can ask for a
continuance and take a stab at some vents, brackets, colors, trim, wainscot, put the stone back on the
chimneys, give that a shot and if you guys don't like that, then I can still go back to the original design. I
need to talk to the client. In the past, you guys didn't look at colors. Will you consider color as something
that helps? Thank you very much for all of this. I really appreciate it. I would like to continue it if it's okay
with you. (Chair Schmid: It doesn ’t have to be expensive stuff to do. You need to do some work on the
rendering, try to work with colors and things that will help you work with the massing and start to change
some of those perspectives. In order for you to manage your scale, you're going to need to look at colors .
You know that a darker color is slimming and lighter color is not, it's the same on the house, too. If you
pick the right colors, it intends to create one vibe and big white house creates another vibe.)
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Page 8City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff7 -
e.1617 Ralston Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Mark and Linda Garcia, property owners; Robert Bryant,
architect) (105 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali
1617 Ralston Ave - Staff Report
1617 Ralston Ave - Attachments
1617 Ralston Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid was recused from this item
because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. Commissioner Tse noted that she wasn't in
attendance at the last meeting when this project was presented, but did read the meeting minutes and
watched the video. Commissioner Gaul noted that he was not present at the last meeting, but did review
the staff report and watched the video. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Acting Chair Loftis opened the public hearing.
Robert Bryant, designer, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Loftis closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Thank you for listening so carefully. It also looks as if you have changed out several windows on the
side of the house, unless I missed something, it was not done before. I know it costs a lot of money to do
that but it makes everything come together much better. It looks like you did change the pattern on the
window, which is fine but I miss the shutters, they actually were really nice and blended with the garage
door really well. I really think you simplified it. There was a lot going on and different styles, it was an
improvement definitely.
>I really appreciate the revisions. I agree with my fellow commissioner. The revision or the addition of
the muntins on the windows is subtle, but it does a great job of giving scale to the openings and tying
them together around the various facades. So, I appreciate that. As I ’ve said before, this project is
actually adding some charm to something that otherwise didn't have much. It's a good project. It should
move forward.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Pfaff6 -
Recused:Schmid1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.3080 Arguello Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Page 9City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Jack
Tam, Team 7 International, architect; Hin Fang Tsang, property owner) (78 noticed) Staff
Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
3080 Arguello Dr - Staff Report
3080 Arguello Dr - Attachments
3080 Arguello Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse noted that she spoke to the neighbor
to the left of the project and toured their home to see the potential implications of their distant bay views .
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Andrew Tang, designer and Hin Tsang, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions
about the application.
Public Comments:
> Public comment sent via email by Wayman and Christina Wong, 3125 Rivera Drive: We received a
public hearing notice regarding our neighbor ’s proposed two-story project at 3080 Arguello Drive and we
reside diagonally across from their backyard. We made it clear to the owners during their open house
meeting that we're not in favor of this project and voiced concerns. We oppose the two -story project due to
the obstruction of our view which in turn will depreciate our property value when and if we decide to sell in
the future. This two-story project will significantly affect our neighbor to the right whose backyard is
back-to-back with the 3080 Arguello Drive neighbor. Our neighbor has a ranch style home and with the
addition of the second story on Arguello Drive, our neighbor will lose their privacy and major sunlight
coming into their backyard. As for the neighbor behind our backyard, their view of the airport will be
completely disrupted. The noise level during construction is also another concern. We baby sit our infant
grandson who needs a nap during the day and with the construction, his naps will be interrupted. We have
lived in this neighborhood for 20 years and love the peace and quiet this neighborhood provides. We do
not appreciate a new owner joining our neighborhood with intentions of disrespecting the housing around
them. We are not prepared to depreciate the value of our home while the new owners are only looking to
increase the value of theirs. Please consider the impacts this will have in the surrounding neighbors if the
project is approved.
>Public comment sent via email by Kathryn and Andrew Wong, 1618 Escalante Way: We, the owners
and occupants of 1618 Escalante Way, oppose the proposal to add a second floor. Our primary reasons
are; number one, the impact to our existing view of bay waters and Mount Diablo, East Bay, airplane
descent path and the local Burlingame landscape. Number two, the loss of privacy. Number three, the
inability for us to adapt to the changes given that we completed a three -year renovation in 2020. We invite
the Planning Commission to visit our home to see the existing bay views live and have also submitted a
letter containing photos. To provide additional detail, our home currently has a beautiful view of the bay
waters and East Bay. The second story addition at 3080 Arguello Drive will completely eliminate and /or
impact this view from two bedrooms and the first floor. This was previously communicated with the
architects and owners of 3080 Arguello Drive. We also updated our backyard with a terrace and metal
retaining wall to enjoy the view from outside. We would also lose this view with the addition of a second
floor. Any windows facing our property from the second story would impact our family's privacy, particularly
from two bedrooms, the family room, kitchen, dining room and backyard. With our renovation, we made
major changes to the first floor layout in order to create a family space centered on the back half of the
house. We added two large sets of floor to ceiling sliding doors and windows, enlarged all other east facing
windows. To ensure privacy we replaced the previous 3’ fence between our property and 3080 Arguello
Drive with a 6’ metal fence. If 3080 Arguello Drive added a second story we would lose privacy from both
inside and outside our home. We're very concerned about the obstructed views and loss of privacy. Thank
you and we look forward to arranging a visit to our home.
Page 10City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Suggests studying the gabled fascia rake that's over the living room on the front fa çade. It is offering
a big scale, it doesn't fit within the context of the neighborhood and it is not adding to a modern character
that you are wanting to achieve. Otherwise, it becomes one big fascia board that looks like a track home.
>Show the proposed exterior trim around the windows on the drawings and provide a detail of that. Also,
note on the plans that all windows are to be replaced.
>The skylight material was not noted on plans. As a general rule, we prefer to see skylight with flat
glass as opposed to the acrylic dome, they rise up and look cheap.
>Consider looking at other options for the small window on the front elevation of the second story.
>The front landscape plan has a lot of brick there. The site could be softened up if you were to remove
that and do some planting. Showing the vegetation on the plans would be helpful.
>Looking at the four elevations there appears to be different size panes being proposed around the
house. If all the windows are going to be replaced, please clarify or simplify which you want to propose. In
light of the fact that you have noted that you like the house to look more modern, please keep in mind the
muntin details that you propose and the number of grids per window.
>Consider other massing opportunities for the rear and the left elevations. That second story is
completely on the same plane as the lower floor. Should think about other ways of articulating the second
story addition. It's a nice size backyard, but if one is in that backyard enjoying it, consider how the very
flat, tall face of the left elevation facing the yard might feel to the inhabitants.
>Recommend continuing to work with your neighbor about addressing the vegetation (extensive branch
and dead branches that are overhanging their property).
>The two issues we have before us are Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit. In terms
of the design review, the architect stated that the homeowners needed more space which looks like they
have achieved that. That they were going for a minimal modern aesthetic and made the statement in
regard to the budget -friendly massing and the fa çade. My concern is that I ’m not seeing a minimum
modern aesthetic. If there's some efforts to try to reference the uphill neighbor on Escalante Way on the
corner, I would note that uphill project has more detail particularly around the entry area of the fa çade. It
has a more detailed garage door in terms of the materials. It has the board and batten materials that are
in the gable ends, so there's just more scale in reference that has been done there. I’m not entirely trying
to compare the two, but they made reference to at least a metal roofing that they were referencing on their
project. The reason I mentioned the fascia is because I see a clumsy stucco box. I'm not seeing a lot of
detail and charm. The existing charm on the front facade with the shutters, the dentils that aren't shown in
the drawing but are there in the gable front, and the brick that's there is being stripped and a stucco box
is going back in its place. I can see it being budget -friendly but unfortunately that ends up manifesting as
plain and simple stucco. So, I have those concerns in terms of the design review and being able to make
the findings for context within the neighborhood and the architecture.
>In terms of the Hillside Area Construction Permit, there's no choice but to have story poles erected
before this comes back for action. While they may have surveyed, inventoried and taken into account
specific window sill heights of uphill neighbors, we have seen too many occasions where there's a
neighbor or distant neighbor that has a view that couldn't be accounted for with their design if they were
just looking at adjacent neighbors. So, story poles are critical for this project to move forward.
>I did get a chance to look at all the rooms where there were potential view implications from the
proposed addition at 3080 Arguello Drive. At this time, I cannot tell without story poles being installed
whether there would be a distant bay view implication for any of the rooms. The best views from their
home is the upper level where they have nice large windows from all their bedrooms looking out towards
the bay. Those are not of course main living spaces, but definitely the windows were sized and placed to
enjoy the views from the upper floor. I did not see, from what I could tell, any view implications from the
proposed addition from the main floor of the house. There's a bit of a view of Mt. Diablo that is visible from
their family room space between some trees. It's not a large view and the story poles will help to
demonstrate that. The applicant has some issues to contend with the design of the home and definitely in
Page 11City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
terms of the accurate rendering of materials, dimensions and scale of particular building elements. But I
do think they were considering any view issues by their proposal of a fairly low scale addition and a
placement of that addition. I don't know if their proposal would actually implicate other properties in the
area and we'll hear more about that once the story poles go up.
>Generally, I’m not a fan of standing seeming metal roofs but this is a neighborhood where you might
pull it off. What bothers me is that this doesn ’t feel like it is very modern, it just doesn ’t work and doesn’t
hang together. It is very formulaic. This is a ranch house with a standing seam metal roof with no other
apparent changes to address its being modern. An Eichler style is what you would find in this
neighborhood and they don ’t need a standing seam metal roof. They are modern in their spatiality. This is
just dressed up modern. It doesn ’t feel like much attention has been paid to design and my inclination is
to send this to design review consultant. It is not very well thought out. Clearly, there ’s the view issue, but
it’s the design that bothers me the most. It doesn’t feel like it is trying very hard and certainly not modern.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. The first time I looked at this, it felt like it really needed some
warmth. I also would propose that this goes to design review consultant. I would ask the applicant, if they
are going for a modern look, to consider some wood siding, elements of some lights, and some
landscaping that can pull this whole thing together. It just doesn ’t feel that this is a very modern design. I
also agree that story poles need to be erected.
>This is highly lacking in detailing. I would agree to send it to design review consultant. My fellow
commissioner touched on a very good point that an Eichler home in this area can solve a lot of problems .
It may be a bigger project, budget obviously seems to be one of the parameters of the design, but an
Eichler home solves a lot of problems by having a flat roof. You can do a two -story style of an Eichler
home and keep the profile low. The house is going to be completely redone. Unfortunately, a lot of people
think that putting a second story right on top of an existing wall is an easy solution. There are a lot of
costs in putting a second story in a house. Suggests to completely look at a different design than what
was presented to us tonight.
>I am not in disagreement with those comments. The design doesn ’t hold together very well. It looks
like it is just going for an inexpensive solution and that is not really the point. We do want a design that
holds together and will enhance the neighborhood. When it does come back, it needs more information .
The windows need to be solved. Saving the aluminum clad windows or the suggested vinyl windows will not
work. That is a cost that will come back later and become problematic. We also need to see the details
of the windows and trims so that we know what we are getting. The materials need to be flushed out better
so that we know. This will be a perfect example of a project that is under design and come back with an
FYI with a bunch of things missing or were done differently. I would like to see it be very specific in what
is being offered. Out of a massing standpoint, the solution is trying to be as sensitive as possible to the
height and obstructions. I can appreciate that there ’s not too many opportunities to get more square
footage and not going up. They’ve got something to work with, but it needs help too.
>It is important that the massing is resolved and it goes to design review consultant before the story
poles are erected. It seems to be a waste if they put up the story poles when they end up having a
different design solution.
>As they work through with the design review consultant, I would ask that they have a specific
discussion with the consultant or planning staff of what is expected for the windows in regards to simulated
true divided light. My concern is, if they mistakenly identify the existing windows as aluminum clad
windows and keep them, but they are actually vinyl windows with a simulated muntin in between the glass
that we generally don ’t accept and they decide that they will be matched because they think they have
identified something that is acceptable, then we have a hornet ’s nest of failure. They should get a grasp of
what the existing windows are, what is not acceptable and what they are going to match or replace with.
>They need to figure out what they want to do so they can price it accurately before they get into this. I
don’t want to see it get half way and half-baked.
Vice-Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to refer the application
to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Pfaff7 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Page 12City of Burlingame
April 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Planning Manager Hurin congratulated and thanked Vice Chair Loftis and Commissioner Terrones for their
years of dedicated service as Planning Commissioners to the Burlingame community. Vice Chair Loftis
and Commissioner Terrones expressed their gratitude to the Planning Commission and staff .
Commissioners Pfaff, Gaul, Comaroto, Tse and Chair Schmid expressed their thanks and appreciation.
Planning Manager Hurin noted that at their meeting on April 4, 2022, the City Council reappointed
Commissioner Tse and appointed two new commissioners, Chris Horan and Sean Lowenthal, to replace
outgoing commissioners Loftis and Terrones.
Planning Manager Hurin reminded the Commission of the Annual Joint City Council and Planning
Commission Meeting on Saturday, April 23, 2022 from 9 am to 12 pm (to be held virtually on Zoom).
a.2411 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously
approved Design Review project for a first and second story addition to an existing
single-unit dwelling.
2411 Easton Dr - Memorandum
2411 Easton Dr - Attachments
2411 Easton Dr - Plans
Attachments:
>Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 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 April 11, 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 April 21, 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 13City of Burlingame