Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.09.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, September 12, 2022 On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, which allows a local agency to meet remotely when: 1. The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency; 2. State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and 3. Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. On August 15, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 099-2022 stating that the City Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1. There is still a declared state of emergency; 2. The State recommends that individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks; and 3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners in their meeting spaces. Pursuant to Resolution Number 099-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the September 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging on to the Zoom meeting listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on YouTube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the consent agenda. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure your comment is received and read to the Planning Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 12, 2022. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Planning Commission after the meeting. Page 1City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 864 9704 7133 Passcode: 301476 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 864 9704 7133 Passcode: 301476 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 Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent6 - ComarotoAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.August 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 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. Page 2City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.230 and 234 Victoria Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Lot Line Adjustment, Lot Frontage, and Lot Width Variances for 234 Victoria Road, and Floor Area Ratio Variance for the Existing Single -Unit Dwelling at 230 Victoria Road. (Ted Catlin, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Joshua Einhorn and Melissa Nemer, property owners) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 230 and 234 Victoria Rd - Staff Report 230 and 234 Victoria Rd - Attachment 230 and 234 Victoria Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he spoke with the neighbor across the street. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Richard Terrones and Ted Catlin, architects, and Josh Einhorn and Melissa Nemer, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Kieran and Finola Muldowney, 235 Victoria Road: We don't want this to be an us against them type of thing and we didn't want to feel like we were blindsiding anybody in the meeting. We think that's the neighborly thing to do, to be upfront and honest. I think a lot of you know us from around the neighborhood. I want to be conscious of your time so you'll get right to the point. On the variance application Section D, my opinion is that's not quite accurate how that's being determined there. If you look on the map that was provided and go to Victoria Road, Bancroft Road, Channing Road, Stanley Road and Dwight Road, as you continue up all those streets that are parallel they actually are 50-foot lots. They don't change the lots that are less than 50 wide until you go perpendicular and that would be Howard Avenue, Burlingame Avenue and so forth. We're talking about something that I don't feel is accurate in the application. On Section B, I don't understand what the rush is here. We don't know what they're going to do with the property once these lines are divided and there is just too much ambiguity. It's tough as neighbors to get behind and be agreeable to something that we don't know what the end result will be . You come to an application and there's a single -family home there. To be honest, I would prefer not to have another house across the street from me, but it's their right to build this. If that's their right, good for them, but it's going to get sold. That's great for Josh and Melissa, but I don't know if it's necessarily good for the neighborhood. Parking is a significant issue in our neighborhood. Just in the area of Humboldt Road and Howard Avenue before you get onto Rollins Road, we have 16 businesses there and all those workers need somewhere to park; you need to look at that also. The biggest message here was in its current form, this needs more time and we would appreciate it if you would consider that. Thank you for your time. >Adam and Davina Chall, 616 Lexington Way: My wife and I live in the neighborhood with the Einhorn and Nemer family. We had to go before the Planning Commission to renovate our own home. I want to say it was actually a fantastic experience and I never came on to say thank you. The Commission sent us back once with a front porch which we enjoy. We recognize the important work you do in considering these proposals. I just wanted to say thanks for the great experience we had. We're here to speak in support of the Commission granting this variance. We have known Josh and Melissa for quite some time and they are great members of the community and candidly, dear friends. We have studied the proposal . We have read the application and staff report in detail and reviewed the plans as well. As Mr. Terrones pointed out, this was originally two lots. Obviously, the original owners built the home over the middle of it, Page 3City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes so putting Josh and Melissa in a pickle. Removing a portion of their home is clearly a hardship that would be unreasonable to expect anybody to undertake. We have a 5,000 square foot lot here, we love our home and we're really happy to have the opportunity to be part of this community. The proposal in front of you, while it creates an irregular lot because that's what they are able to do, does create a 5,000 square foot new lot. I heard Josh clearly say, he doesn't know what might happen with it, but clearly I think we might all expect that a new single -family home would get built on this surplus land. I believe that's a common sense proposal that we take 12,000 square feet of land and create two lots so two families can have homes on. I know that we're just so grateful to be here. California has a severe housing shortage and Burlingame does a good job of recognizing we need to do our part. Supporting this so that a new home can get built on that new land is the right thing to do here. So just wanted to again say thank you for our experience and thank you for hearing me out. >Sean and Olivia Canniffe, 223 Victoria Road: Thanks for the hearing and allowing us to speak. We have known Josh and Melissa for over a year and they have been a nice family. We get along with them fine. We’re not here to create alarm or anything. It's that there's just so much uncertainty around the neighborhood about what can be done with the property. I know your time is short so I ’ll get straight to the point. We live in a neighborhood which for the last 18 years has been a family -friendly neighborhood. We have block parties, Halloween parties, Christmas and holiday get -togethers and it has been like that always. The danger here is if the two lots are separated and approved the way it's being proposed and there's no plans to do anything with it, what is to stop a developer from buying both lots and developing them both as apartments under SB 9. If we have that situation, it will completely destroy the character of the neighborhood that we brought our kids up in. I hope that doesn't happen. I heard Josh earlier on saying that isn't the intention. I hope that's the case, I have no reason to disbelieve that. However, obviously that's a concern. The second concern that we have is regarding parking; parking around here is abysmal. We have the new park which we're grateful for, we have Victoria Park, we have a lot of light industrial buildings on Rollins Road, and we have Kitchentown. Most days when we come home from work, it's really difficult to find a parking space on the block, and this will make it even worse. We only actually heard about this project last week. My wife has been out recently because her mother died and I'm busy at work. We seem to have been given a really short period of time to digest all this information or get our heads around it. I would really appreciate if the Commission would continue it for a couple of weeks to at least figure out what we're going to say or even if we have any objections. And it also would give the time to the City to do a parking survey which is really important. Thanks for your time. >Public comment sent via email by Ken and Marilyn Dittman: By way of introduction, my name is Ken Dittman. My wife, Marilyn, and I have enjoyed living on the corner of Victoria Road and Burlingame Avenue for 37 years. In that time, we have seen families change along with the development and improvement which often accompanies them. Anyone living on Victoria Road can attest that the families in our neighborhood have fostered a community where everyone is welcomed and appreciated, and everyone has a voice. To the matter at hand, our home is located across the street from 230 and 234 Victoria Road. We are writing to formally express our concerns regarding this application and proposed project . Apparently, this project has been underway behind the scenes for many months, yet as a long -time homeowner literally within feet of the project we are just learning about it via a postcard from the City of Burlingame Community Development Department, posted on the Friday afternoon of a three -day holiday weekend. The timing of the City’s notice certainly does not allow much time prior to the Public Hearing to review and understand the full impact of the proposal. While we do not purport to be familiar with the City’s Planning Department or its processes, in our opinion, there needs to be more clarity as to what, exactly, the intentions of the owner /developer of this property are. We are not necessarily concerned with what we do know, it is what we do not know that is very unsettling. Any Municipal Code issues aside, to the lay person the lot line adjustment (s) identified in the Variance Application seem to be straightforward as to intent; however, final disposition of Parcel A is not addressed at all. Statements include that the “dilapidated” structure on Parcel A may be renovated or may be removed and may be replaced with a single unit dwelling or may be sold for development by others. We appreciate that no one has a crystal ball, but we strongly believe the approval of these variances puts us on the edge of a very slippery slope . We respectfully request the Planning Commission allow additional time for further discussion on this Page 4City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes matter to provide clarity to those of us that not only have a significant vested interest in the future of the neighborhood, but the entire Burlingame community. >Public comment sent via email by Sean and Olivia Canniffe, 223 Victoria Road: We are writing this letter to the Commission because of our concerns over the proposed variances being discussed, and possibly granted, at tonight ’s Public Hearing regarding dividing the lot at 230 and 240 Victoria Road. We are very worried that granting the variances necessary to divide the lot has the potential to change the entire character of the neighborhood. It is our understanding that recent legislation passed in Sacramento would allow the current or future owners to subdivide the resulting new lots once more, and that in the worst case scenario those lots could be used to build multiple residential units. We have lived at our home on Victoria Road for 18 years and have brought our three children up here. Our block, and the surrounding blocks, have been the perfect location for young families, and that is the main reason we moved here. The recent renovation of Victoria Park was welcomed by all the neighbors as it gives other young families the same chance to enjoy the neighborhood as we did, and still do. It is impossible to overstate the strength of the community we have all built in this little corner of Burlingame. As well as the potential to destroy the family -orientated nature of our neighborhood, we also have deep concerns about the parking situation on our block. It is already bad. We own two cars and when we are all at home at least one is parked in our driveway, meaning we only need to find space on the block for one car . Unfortunately that is not possible a good percentage of the time. Many people who work in the light industrial buildings on or near Rollins Road use our block to park, as do many of the people who work at and frequent Kitchentown on Bayswater. As well as this, people who use Victoria Park use our block to park their vehicles, particularly so as an entrance was made into the park from our block. Another concern we have is the speed at which this appears to be moving through the planning process. We received the postcard about the hearing only last Thursday, September 8th. As we were away that day, we effectively only got to know about all this on Friday, September 9th, leaving us just three days to ingest all the information and possibilities. We have no idea what the intentions of the current owners are right now, but we do know some of the options that they or any future owner would have. In order to grant the variances the Planning Department would have to overlook some fairly significant longstanding City codes . Those codes have guided the planning process for many years and are there to protect the integrity of neighborhoods such as ours. We urge the Planning Commission to put this decision on hold for at least two weeks. In the scheme of things that delay will not significantly affect the plans of the homeowners of 230 Victoria Road, but it will give everyone else on the block some time to gain a better understanding of what is being proposed and what the final intentions are. We also ask that the City of Burlingame carry out a parking survey of our neighborhood in that time. We also ask that survey includes weekends when the park is being used the most. We appreciate that the decisions of the Planning Committee are always made in the best interests of the City of Burlingame and its residents. We just ask for enough time to make sure that the decision is not made without input from the neighbors who will be affected. Thank you for your time in reading and considering this. >Public comment sent via email by Tony and Cris Toti, 224 Victoria Road: Hello Burlingame Commissioner, We have lived and raised our two girls here for over 20 years. We absolutely adore Burlingame and all that the community offers. The only concern we have with the application for Project Site 230 & 234 Victoria Road zoned R-1, is that if it is granted, that there would be a multi -family units being built there. We feel that it would change the dynamics of this charming single -family home neighborhood. Thank you for your time and we appreciate all that you do for the City of Burlingame. >Public comment sent via email by Daniel, 225 Victoria Road: I just received a postcard informing me that the hearing is for tonight (9/12) at 7pm. Is there a possibility that the hearing could be delayed and /or additional time (days/weeks) could be granted before a decision is made? The reason for this request is that: 1) my family can learn more about this proposed change, and 2) since we just found out about this notice, we're struggling to figure out how we can attend. There isn't a lot of time to understand these changes, and we have concerns about the impact to the lack of parking in the area and potential construction. If this is possible, we'd appreciate it greatly. As a family of four, we value how our street is family-friendly, and we'd like to preserve the feel of our area if possible. Thank you, Page 5City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Public comment sent via email by Kieran and Finola Muldowney, 235 Victoria Road: We live across the street from 230 and 234 Victoria. My wife Finola Muldowney and I have some concerns regarding the application for the lot line adjustment and variances for Floor Area Ratio for the second lot. We have lived at our current home since 2003 and have lived in Burlingame since 1994. The Lee family who lived at 230 Victoria Road built the house in 1947 and lived there until 2020; they were wonderful neighbors. When our new neighbors, the Einhorn's moved in a little more than a year ago, we were very happy to see a new family in the neighborhood. The Einhorn's have been a great neighbors and we are happy to have them in the neighborhood. My wife and I have been active in the Burlingame Community for many years and intend to continue doing so for many years to come. This email is not intended to be necessarily against what the Einhorn's are applying for but there's also a big picture that we think needs to be considered. We are very much for improving our neighborhoods here in Burlingame but also see the need to maintain the guidelines set forth in our Municipal Code which we believe are in place to conserve and protect the integrity of our neighborhoods. We believe that the Einhorn's intent is good here and this is an unusual situation. The reality is also that sometimes circumstances change, and this is where we believe it's important to look at what could potentially happen if this application is passed in its current form. For this reason, we would ask that more time to given so that the residents of Victoria Road would have time to understand the application and have a little more clarity as to the end result. Looking at this application there are several things that don't comply with the Burlingame Municipal Code, or at least that is our interpretation. We think these should be considered in the overall big picture. Table 25.10.2 – Density 25.10.090 – Lots shall have an average width of not less than 50 feet 25.10.060 – Max Floor Area ratio 25.10.2 – Setback requirements 25.10.055 - Declining height envelope 25.52.020 – Legal nonconforming lots may not be modified in any manner that increases the degree of nonconformity For the purpose of being mindful of everyone's time, we have sent those separately through the Planning Department and each commissioner should have got a copy. >(Terrones: First of all, this application has not been rushed. If Josh and Melissa had their way, we would have been on our way much sooner than is now. In regards to any sort of sense of rushing, this step is what's necessary for Josh and Melissa to get to a next step of some certainty in order to figure out what can happen on that property. Without this consideration, there's a risk that dilapidated portion of their lot will sit and remain fallow because they have no desire to develop there. In fact, they have plans that they are working through, as Josh mentioned, for landscaping and improvements to their existing house. The fact that they are committing to improving their existing house actually addresses neighbors’ concerns over the danger of some intense development. In fact, that danger exists now. Regardless of this application, Josh and Melissa could sell this lot and a developer would love to have this lot to split, create more density and more parking situations in that neighborhood. Instead, Josh and Melissa are committing to their portion of the property at 230 Victoria Road and just looking to do something that brings it more into conformity in terms of the several nonconformities and then allows them to do something with the other portion of that lot that they don't need. And it can contribute to, as a modest property in the neighborhood.) >(Catlin: I’ll also add, on top of what Richard was saying with the concerns about SB 9, we should be very clear that it is currently two existing lots and this lot line adjustment would not affect their eligibility for SB9. Currently, there are two lots on this subject site that are eligible for SB 9 and after this proposed lot line adjustment, there will still be two lots, so that concern might be a little bit misstated.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Page 6City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I wanted to make a statement that this is not an R 2 zone. So, the idea that this is going to become an apartment complex, I don't think is possible given that it's actually zoned R 1. As was stated, the lots are the same and the fear of SB 9 is the same. It doesn't change anything, so it's no different than any of these lots that are facing this lot. They all have the same risks of SB 9 that these lots have. I don't know that this changes any of that. What I do see is that it does make the new lots more conforming. They are not perfect, but it is better than the existing condition now. I agree with Mr. Terrones in that if they don't have some certainty about this property line, there's no reason to do anything other than to let that second house rot. It actually is a danger as other people will break into it, so this is a step forward for this property. I don't think it puts any of the neighbors in any more risk. It's not changing their parking area. I'm sorry their area is challenging. There are a lot of areas in Burlingame that have similar challenges with parking but this is not an action that's going to change that. So, I ’m in support of approving this so that they can move forward. >First of all, I appreciate all of the community input. Clearly, there's passion around it. I don't see what an alternative is. Having more time to study it doesn't help, if there were options that would be different than this outcome, then maybe that would make sense. I think Richard Terrones made some good points . The floor area ratio is still going to govern that smaller site, so it would encourage a smaller house which is good for Burlingame in terms of affordable housing. If there were some alternatives that somehow were going to be brought up, then maybe it requires more time but it seems that this is an improvement from a nonconforming situation and we're still going to be able to have control over what gets developed on that smaller lot. > I too see that this is a step forward for the property owner. The architect has done extensive work and there's been a lot of discussion about all the technical opportunities or limitations that they face with this property. They essentially are trying to make these nonconforming conditions conform to existing code . We have some guidelines in place for addressing it in the future, if the larger home was to be demolished, it would need to return to a standard FAR for the property. Those are all protective elements for the future, either reconstruction on that property or for both properties. I do think that the smaller property is a little bit more challenging to build a new home on because of this narrower lot size, however, it is definitely possible with our planning guidelines. I would think that with the shortage of housing in California that it would be great to see this kind of empty lot be developed into a new or a better home for another family to move into. So, I too support this project moving forward. I do also appreciate all of the community comments and thoughts to help with this decision. >I'm going to go on a different direction. I'm really having a problem with the variances because they are big asks to me. One of the variances has to be granted to grant the next one. You have to have the lot width variance to get over to the FAR variance. It seems like too many steps to me. It is two lots, it's not unheard-of in this town to buy a lot and tear an entire house down and build a house that is conforming. I’m not asking that, but a creative remodel could bring the bigger house into conformance because it can use some help. I was noticing that there are six bedrooms in that house, so would that require a three -car garage or two-car garage? They still don't have off -street parking, they would need an additional parking space for six bedrooms. There are other issues that are coming up. As was stated by some of the neighbors, really and truly all lots in this neighborhood are 50-feet wide. When you start going to that, then I go to the required findings for a variance. Maybe I can make the argument for where there are exceptional extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or that don't apply to the property in the same district. But in my opinion, this can easily be solved by a creative remodel . Granting the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights of the applicant; I don't see that at all because the applicant obviously has been meaning to do something if they are able to afford the property. The granting of the application would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity will not be detrimental to public health safety and general welfare; I think that it will because it's going to create more of a parking issue. I think it is changing the character of the neighborhood. This is the most convincing, the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity; I don't see that at all. Again, there's going to be work done on these properties, so why don't we work with the existing structure, keep the lot line where it is, and make both of the lots and both houses conforming. I can't get over the amount of variances that are needed to make this work. >This is really difficult. I am having trouble with it because I don't know what's coming. I think they Page 7City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes should use the current lot line. It’s true, everybody in Burlingame with a minimum 3,000 or 1,500 square foot lot, I don't remember, can build and use SB 9. I’m also having trouble with it because if the variance were to be approved for this structure, it could be rebuilt completely as long as the percentage of the rebuild was up to 49.9% of the structure, then the entire structure could be rebuilt right where it is at the larger variance level than it currently is, even though it would essentially almost be a new structure. We all know that Mr. Terrones is an incredible architect and I would have loved to have seen this come as a project either with the lot as -is and the changes on the current house, a house or no house, but something done already so that I could also make the leap that this was not going to be turned into some large project that had been taken down to the studs because that happens in Burlingame. Not to accuse the Einhorn’s of having malicious intent, not all. Usually when these are done, it's with a project in mind and this would not be a problem if I can see what is coming next. I have some concerns about this project also. >I too have enjoyed the community involvement on this. Obviously, it struck a nerve with several folks and we certainly appreciate the words. I have a hard time trying to restrict these owners when a house was previously built and approved in an incorrect way. Obviously, there probably wasn't a Planning Commission around to approve this house back in the day and now these folks are having to deal with those repercussions. All over Burlingame you get some of these issues where structures may have been built over property lines and it can create several issues with neighbors. I do agree though that this project would probably be a lot easier for me to go forward with it if it was attached to another project. I totally understand the limitations. So the only limitation I have on approving this is why are we doing this? I understand and Mr. Terrones made a great point, but why? All of the reasons make sense, but why are we actually doing this? What is it going to do to change anything? Whether you split the lot or not, the house, the dilapidated property can exist or not exist. It doesn't change anything. It can sit there and nothing in this is requiring it to be torn down or remedied. It's a tough one but at the end of the day, my conclusion is, I don't want to hold these homeowners accountable for a previous decision and that's where I’m leaning. >I’m still having trouble that we're having to grant one variance to get to another variance and grant that . But again, people buy houses all the time that have issues and need work done on them and we'll see a couple tonight that are remodels. I’m really struggling with the amount of variances and the types that they are. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that if the floor area ratio on Lot 23, 230 Victoria Road is increased at a later date, or the existing house is proposed to be altered so that it is considered a new structure or is demolished, that the Floor Area Ratio Variance shall become void. Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, and Tse4 - Nay:Gaul, and Pfaff2 - Absent:Comaroto1 - b.209 Dwight Road, 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jorge Carbonell, Carbonell, architect; Melissa and Glen Kirk, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 209 Dwight Rd - Staff Report 209 Dwight Rd - Attachments 209 Dwight Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview Page 8City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jorge Carbonell, designer, and Melissa and Glen Kirk, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The project has been improved and the proportions look better; it looks more like it was originally built this way. It could be a real asset to the neighborhood. It reuses an existing property cleverly and I like the additional landscaping that was not there last time. It's very nicely done. >I’ll echo my fellow commissioner's points. They heard the comments about the windows and the proportions and everything matches a lot better than it did before. The addition of the landscaping shows the intent of making this a nice-looking project. I find it very supportable. Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - c.2669 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (David Kuoppamaki, applicant and designer; Grace and Larry Ngai, property owners) (80 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2669 Martinez Dr - Staff Report 2669 Martinez Dr - Attachments 2669 Martinez Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. David Kuoppamaki, designer, and Grace and Larry Ngai, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Byron and Miriam Maldonado, 1 Toledo Court: My wife sent an email maybe last week with a couple of pictures showing the new poles that we put up. If you did see it, you should be able to tell that the new proposed modification to the structures will block our view. The architect made a comment that they want larger windows because they want to enjoy the view. With the same principle, that's what we have from our Page 9City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes window facing east including the master bathroom, and the reason we have larger windows is because we want to enjoy the view that we currently have. If they do approve this new construction, obviously, it ’s going to block our view. We all know here in Burlingame that views are an asset to the property, every property owner enjoys the view that they have. If this is going to be something that's going to get in the way that we no longer get to enjoy this view, we cannot approve or we cannot just let him do it because you take advantage of enjoying the view against our view. From that point on, we will no longer have what we have been enjoying for the last 20 something years. So, my suggestion is that they have to either lower the roof so it doesn't block at all our current view. I don't think we should compromise in any way, shape or form to have a partially blocked view from this new construction. I wonder if you did see the email that we sent and I suggest that you take a second look and see how you feel about it because as we speak, we don't really think that this new proposal should move forward. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Correct drafting errors to properly match the floor plan windows with the elevations. >Concerned about the cricket and the long length of roof that is north facing side. If there's any water or leaves trapped under the eave in that area, that can create a nightmare. >Consider matching the size of the corner windows at the rear elevation to five feet in height. >To address Mr. Maldonado’s questions and concerns, our code states that the view preservation shall be limited to obstruction of distant views to the San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Airport and Mills Canyon from primary indoor living areas. I was not able to get to his house to see that view and I don't know if any other commissioners had ex -parte communications or able to get into his house so see. From the pictures that were submitted, I don't see a view blockage of the bay, of the airport or of Mills Canyon. I see a slight view blockage of some office buildings. I am actually really pleasantly surprised to see the improvement in the architectural design in going away from the flatter roof. It's a much better looking project and I’m impressed that the pitch of the roof is kept flat enough not to block the views but that's my take on it. >Similarly, I did read the neighbor ’s email, looked at the photos very closely, and I appreciate the effort that both parties did on this with both the story poles and the view. Any changes, of course, to a view is sad and it's a change. But I really wouldn't be able to call it a blockage of the bay. What I see is a blockage of the BART residential complex that's coming up there. I didn't see a blockage of any other view. If I’m being honest, I thought it was also an improvement with the roof. Personally, it's not make or break, but the windows could be vastly improved if they break up the glass a little bit in a modern way. It could look really nice. You still have your view and the alignment on that corner; it could look more cohesive if that were fixed, it comes five feet in height around the corner it would look better. Otherwise, I’m more satisfied with this than the first one we saw. >I support what my fellow commissioner has said. The new roof is much better than the shed roof that was originally proposed. The fact that the house looks exactly the same from the street is a plus. The photos are appreciated, but I concur with my fellow commissioner that the view blockage is not, in my view, an issue. The rear windows don't bother me that much. They have been aligned and a little bit more cohesive, but I’m inclined to let the architect and the owner decide since it's in the rear yard. >I agree, it has gotten better. I hiked all over that hill from half the street further up, across the street at the other neighbor's house and really found it very difficult to see the story poles. I appreciate the photos being sent in because that is one of the hardest things for us on these kind of designs; either we need to invade your space or you need to submit good photos. Of the photos we received, these are some of the best. However, it does speak to the point that the view blockage is really in the foreground and not of the distant views as the code requires. So, I can support this project moving forward. >I appreciate the effort from the applicant to try to explain the story of the trees, that's great. When I commented last time about the lack of trees in the front I meant the public trees. I did go there, drove by and have been to the site three times trying to figure things out. I see there are a number of trees on your property that are marked as Maple but the one in the front is not a Maple. It's very small and I ’m not really sure that's what I would call a significant tree that adds to the public space. I get that nobody wants huge Page 10City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes trees there. I understand that because of the view, but I just ask you whatever that little tree is, it needs some tender loving care if it's going to even look improved over what it is. I know it's a plum or something like that, it's not a big tree but if I ask you if this goes through to pay attention to that tree because it sounds like you do not intend to put in any more trees, which is disappointing not to have something there . But I did want to acknowledge that I appreciate your answer about the trees in the back. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - d.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. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Qifeng Lei, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates, designer) (87 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1785 Sebastian Dr - Staff Report 1785 Sebastian Dr - Attachments 1785 Sebastian Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Horan noted that he had an ex -parte communication with an uphill neighbor. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >David Newman: Good evening Commission. In the past, I have heard Commissioner Gaul taking into consideration not just the look of the house or the scale relative to lot size, but also the impact to the environment and how property can cause problems for the neighborhood. As a citizen, I'm grateful for that . The Commission has heard the prior concerns about the unsafe activities of the owners. I know many of the concerning activities fall outside of the jurisdiction of the Commission so I'll hold off on speaking on those. With that said, I do want to raise the unsafe parking situation that persists at this home. As the Commission knows I'm sure from their visits, there are typically four to five passenger cars and industrial vehicles parked up and down the block belonging to these applicants that create an unsafe situation for bikers. Ms. Ann Young, who lives next door, is elderly and has to reverse out of her driveway and there's a typically a massive industrial vehicle there, so I hope that's been noticed. The garage functions as an industrial storage and the current driveway is not lengthy enough to accommodate more than one of their vehicles. I'm worried even with these new plans, the large vehicles that the applicants have won't fit on the proposed driveway. Can we look at the length of the driveway in the plans and whether it provides enough parking for their additional vehicles? From what I can see on the plans, a larger driveway would be a great addition to ensure a safe parking situation. I would love more rigorous study on that topic and an additional site visit from the commissioners. Also, I remember in the last meeting that the architect made a funny statement that he could not articulate the design or aesthetic style. It is nice to see the design look more house-like without the gaudy balconies. With that said, there are very real safety issues here and nothing about the design does anything to address these existing safety concerns with regards to parking. The parking variance stipulation seem like they should be looked at. Grandfathering such little parking for Page 11City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes what is a known problem site with regard to vehicles and industrial activity feels like an oversight. I'm also concerned about the size and number of trees given the extensive size of the addition and how the property looms over the neighborhood. I would appreciate the commissioners making another visit to observe these topics. I would like the City Attorney to take note of this concern should ever an unfortunate event like a fatality arise prior to construction, beginning or after construction is completed, based on these vehicles. These are very important safety reasons that the neighbors on all sides are continuing to speak out about this project and we appreciate the Commission taking one more round to consider the risks given the unique location of the property so close to Trousdale Drive and on a critical walking path that kids take to Burlingame Elementary and Burlingame Intermediate School. Thank you. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >We have all seen that big trucks were parked on the street there. There were some code enforcement issues that apparently have been mitigated and resolved, so I don't know that it is a problem any longer . But the neighbors are certainly able to contact the City if they do see any further problems. As far as I can tell, the parking issue is existing and nonconforming so we let that stand as it is. It's because there's one legal spot in the garage. Typical of Burlingame, people don't put their cars in the garage anyway. So I think that would just be something the neighbors would need to monitor. But at this point, I don't know that we can enforce anything as a Planning Commission. Other than that, the design is much improved from the last time. I don't fault the applicant for taking so long because it took work to get it to where it is and it looks better. I can see this project moving forward. >I agree. It looks to be 25 feet from the garage to the property line which is appropriate for many of these garages that actually face out on to the street and not detached in the back third. So for a garage, that's a typical layout. They actually do have more paved space in front of their garage and it appears that they get a good two to three cars in their off site. I understand the number of cars, but that's not really anything that's relative to Planning Commission ’s guidelines and anything that we have purview to. I do think that the design has gotten much better. It looks very cohesive and I like it. The rendering does a great job of showing the intent. I don't think it's going to be too large in that area. It really looks like many of the other homes in that area that are two levels. The work on the front to reduce the size of the glass facing across the street and removing the doors and the balconies is a huge step in making this fit in a lot better. So, I'm in support of this project and I like to see it move forward. >I went there expecting to see all kinds of trucks and activity. Maybe it was the day that I went, but it was very quiet. It doesn't mean it's always that way. I understand all of us in various neighborhoods have things, that when you live there, know what's going on. I’m sorry about that but it just sounds like that's really something that needs to be dealt with by code enforcement and it's frustrating, I realize that. I really thank the designer, this plan is three hundred percent better. It sits in that little valley area really nicely. I just think it's one of your really better projects. It looks excellent because I remember the first round as well and just want to thank you for being responsive. I know you don't go through the code issues, but I really appreciate the design alterations to reflect many of our comments. >Just to reiterate what my fellow commissioners said, given the purview of the Planning Commission, the resubmission is a much better project than the original. It doesn't discount all of the neighbors ’ complaints and certainly they should continue to pursue those complaints through the right channels. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.720 Newhall Road, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for first Page 12City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes story plate height for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and new detached garage. (Carlos Rojas, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; John and Kimberly Ohlund, property owners) (95 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 720 Newhall Rd - Staff Report 720 Newhall Rd - Attachments 720 Newhall Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Carlos Rojas, designer, and John and Kimberly Ohlund, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Jen Hoogeveen: The applicants for the project do not live there. Thank you so much Commissioner for bringing up those points. We definitely strongly oppose a large metal roof. We bought our house because we had two very small houses on each side. We really like the views and the light that we get . We have only one small window on the upper side of the bathroom facing south and their house will completely block all of that light that we get on that side of the house. We have a couple of major issues that need to be brought up first. We have a ten year old son that has a severe allergy to sawdust. We had no idea about this until the house behind us being built. Our dear friend Steve was awesome. When he took down the tree, he didn't know what happened but we ended up in the emergency room. Our son was covered head to toe in a rash and it impacted his breathing. Then we figured out it was because the tree was taken down and that the rashes were coming from sawdust from other projects around the area. We were unaware of this and now we are very attuned to it. We blow any sawdust there is and we're very careful. Both my husband and I work from home from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and our jobs involve talking to people. I’m talking to patients and doctors and he's talking to clients. We do believe that any kind of construction from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm would impact our jobs or us keeping our jobs because that's what we have, we need to maintain our house. We do not have any insulation on the south side of our house, so that's just studs and stucco. We hear everything and any kind of project would impact our working day, therefore, putting our jobs at risk and the ability for us to keep our house. We also repaved the front of our house because we had a lot of construction on the block, people parked in front of our house and caused major damage. With our kids playing outside riding bikes it was a safety issue. We paid $2,000 to repave it. We do not want a single car parking in front of our house. We also have just views that would be obstructed. You can imagine going and looking at a large metal roof with a very large front window that is a very monstrous window. We just want to make sure you're highlighting this. I have expressed my views with the Planning Division staff to let them know we're very concerned about this. We've got really awesome neighbors all the way around but we don't have very good communication with these neighbors . We hope that when our kids hit a ball over, they do pass it over within 48 hours. So, thank you so much for your time. Thank you for considering this and thank you for considering the health of our son. >Public comment sent via email by Jen and Eric Hoogeveen: Hello, we would like to provide a public comment for the 720 Newhall Road. We have a number of concerns: 1. Noise - Both my husband and I work from home from 8-5pm and we are on calls throughout the day . We do not have insulation on the south side of our house, which will be exposed to loud and disruptive remodeling noise. We are concerned the noise will not allow us to perform our work tasks successfully therefore, putting both of our jobs at risk. 2. Sawdust - Our 10 year old son has a severe allergy to sawdust. We were unaware of this allergy until our neighbors took down two 100 foot redwood trees and we had to take our son to the emergency room four years ago. We noticed our son's body was covered in a visible rash and he suffered from shortness of Page 13City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes breath. We ask that the project work to keep the saw dust to a minimum by putting up a 15-foot fence on the property line to keep the dust at a minimum. We would also like the dust to be swept and cleaned daily to minimize the dust in the air. 3. Parking - We would like to request additional construction vehicles to not park in front of our house as we had to pay $2000 to repave our property. If there are cars on the property, and damage to the property in front of our bushes, we will ask the neighbors to pay for this property to be repaved to be brought back to its current state. Thank you. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider reducing the size of the street facing window at the primary bedroom upstairs. It's a beautiful window, but I’m struck by how large it is and how the face of the second story takes over and reduces or dwarfs the first floor area. >Overall I like the quality of the drawings and the project. I do agree that the window in the front seems to be a little overbearing in comparison to the rest of the scale of the elevation. I did take a good look at the upper windows and what they are looking towards, they seem to have done a pretty good job of minimizing large window spaces on either side to the neighbors. It's a two -story home like many of the homes in the area and we are on smaller lots so it fits with the neighborhood; I don't feel that it's out of scale. Given the down slope of the lot going backwards, I can support the height variance. They are not trying to go higher but lower, so that seems straightforward to me. So with some finessing of the windows and maybe doing some coordination with neighbors, this is a good project to move forward. >I would agree, this is a house that they are trying to save and it has good story that goes along with it . This could easily have been a tear down, but the renovation looks good and I love the front porch. I do agree with the front window comments. I also am not sure about the seam metal roof for this style of house, but it looks good. >I’m pleased with the design and I agree with my fellow commissioner regarding the upper floor window, it does seem odd. I feel like a 3D rendering would help a lot in understanding the scale of that window with the porch because it certainly seems massive over the top. I'd like to see more detail on the port hole louvered attic vents. I don't know if they are going to continue with louvered attic vents or it's going to be a window or other material. So we need more clarity there. >Overall, this is a very charming home. I've already made my comments earlier about the couple of items of concern; the large window and I ’m not certain the standing seam metal roof may be the right choice for this home. But it was a very crafty raised height area, how the rear of the house has been tucked in for the addition, I think that's a nice design. I definitely appreciate working with the existing home, expanding it and minimizing those full demolition of an entire home. I just wanted to add the positive thoughts that I have for this project. >I like the project overall. I appreciate saving what you can of an older home and it's a nice quality home. I’m also not one hundred percent sure on the standing seam metal roof, but a rendering goes a long way to bolster your argument. So if it could come back, a 3D rendering might be helpful. Overall, it's a nice project. >I completely agree with my fellow commissioners on everything including the window and the metal roof. I love the story, I happen to know the applicants. It's a nice story and they've done a really beautiful job of reusing an existing structure. I hope things work out with the neighbors. We're all impacted by this small lot so I get it. Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Page 14City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes b.1317 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for first and second story plate heights, and Minor Use Permit for detached garage plate height for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Ardalan Djalali, applicant and designer; Behzad Hadjian, property owner) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1317 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 1317 Paloma Ave - Attachments 1317 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Ardalan Djalali, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Reconsider the different siding from the first floor to the second floor on the East Elevation. Those walls are stacked on top of each other and on the same plane, and that small roof is just going to project out a foot or so and go along the edge there. I think that's one of the spots where that detail becomes a little odd. >On the West Elevation, consider keeping the same width of that chimney through the plane of the roof and terminating it at the same height. >I make the findings for the extra half foot of plate height on the lower and upper floors of the house nor for the garage. Because of the strong verticals, it would be better to have it down a little bit, it's not much but it will help. I want to agree with the comment about the chimney. It would be really nice to see that continue up further where it has a more logical end. >On the plate heights, I actually understand the request, not so much based on the doors, but because the kitchen/dining/family area is a huge open space. It's an editorial comment, but since every project is requesting a special permit for plate height we might want to look at increasing that in the Zoning Code because high ceilings in very expensive houses are something people desire. I don't find the driver for that on the garage. I don't think you would notice it is six inches shorter. It is set back and it's a detached garage so I don't agree on the garage, but I understand the request on the first floor. I love front porches, but at 3'-6" wide looks like a faux front porch. I don't think it's very useable and that's a shame because I think the purpose of a front porch is to have chairs and hang out. >I like the look of the project, but the plate heights and the windows are all out of scale. The reason we have those guidelines are so that the houses don't get bigger like this. We have found over the years that many of these projects with the higher plate heights don't look well when they get done. We really want the architects to be creative, to be able to have a well broken up and scaled elevation. When I look at the person standing on the porch, he's dwarfed by the house and that really is something that the applicant should be looking at and getting this back to a human scale. I agree with the chimney and a few of the other things that my fellow commissioners are bringing up, but overall the scale was an issue. I don't support the special permit request for the change in plate height. This one is completely different than the one that we looked at earlier where it was going down, not going up. I would like to see the plate heights looked at again before the project comes back. >I was just driving around that street, in particular that block, and felt there was a really nice quaintness Page 15City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes to that neighborhood. Somehow, proportionately the increased plate heights don't work so well for this street. Maybe I could support the main floor but I don't think the upper floor is really necessary. You can utilize the attic space for some volume ceilings to get a little bit more height. I definitely don't think the garage needs to have an increased plate height, so that's certainly not going to be noticeable as a detached garage in the rear of the property that needs to harmonize with the main floor of the house. I'm not sure if there's too much going on. I appreciate all of the renderings, it helps a little bit. It looks better in the renderings than the elevations. There are too many lines, horizontal and vertical lines, and there are shutters, there are muntin details in the windows, and there are the decorative gable ends. I’m wondering if the applicant might want to take a look at that again and see if it's necessary to have so much detail. I want the front porch to feel more welcoming, a little bit more comfortable for one to use, a little more like the one we saw on a project earlier, it's a little tall. I can see, from what the human figure shown in the elevation, that proportionately it seems like a cold porch. Not one you want to sit down and enjoy ice cream or lemonade on a front porch or anything. I don't know if the stacking on the first floor on the left-hand side is not helping this case too, making the house feel a little boxy and blocked. Certainly, they don't have a declining height envelope issue on that side with a driveway, but I would love to see a little bit more articulation on that side to also improve the wrap around roof that they are attempting on that left elevation. >I would have to agree, there's too much going on. I like some of the details like the gable ends and the knee bracing at the front porch, but I agree with my fellow commissioner's comment, the front porch could be bigger. The stacked wall with the change of siding is where I ’m having a problem with. If there was just the horizontal siding around it would look more traditional like the homes on that block. I don't think I can support the request for a special permit for plate heights because it is a new house and we have not typically approved that. As what my fellow commissioner said, it doesn't give it much of a human scale, it makes it a little too big. I would like to see the plate heights brought down and again like what my fellow commissioner said, the upper floor could be vaulted if you want more volume. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - c.1312 Montero Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for second floor deck for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc ., applicant and architect; Kate and Joel Rosenquist, property owners) (120 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1312 Montero Ave - Staff Report 1312 Montero Ave - Attachments 1312 Montero Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Richard Terrones, architect and Kate Rosenquist, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Page 16City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The style is fabulous; it is a wonderful project. It's great that the property owner wants to reuse the structure completely and is keeping all of the landscaping. >This is a very beautiful and charming design; love the very natural expansion of the home at the rear . It's great that you were able to talk to the neighbor to the right and get their consensus on the project . This is a perfect project to go to the Consent Calendar. >I can support the Special Permit for the second floor deck because 75 SF is allowed and there are 10 -foot wide alleys on two sides of the property, which helps to separate the neighbors. It sounds like they have support from the neighbors. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - d.2836 Mariposa Drive, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit for second floor deck for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Audrey Tse, InSite Design Inc ., applicant and architect; Vikram Rao and Sonam Prakash, property owners) (104 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 2836 Mariposa Dr - Staff Report 2836 Mariposa Dr - Attachements 2836 Mariposa Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item because she is the architect for the project. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Lauren Lee, representing the architect, and Vikram Rao and Sonam Prakash, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Concerned about potential view blockage on the uphill neighbor at 2840 Mariposa Drive. >It is a great looking project. I didn ’t find any issues with regards to views or other impacts from being on the hillside. There is currently a lot of vegetation out there and there isn ’t a lot of view corridors that this project affects, so I can support that. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. The proportions are done really nicely on this project. The different materials and the proportions complement each other. >It is a really good project. Page 17City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid5 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Tse1 - e.777 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Second Review of Application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and Special Permits for building height and Development under Tier 3/Community Benefits for new 13-story Office/R&D building. (LPC West, applicant and property owner; Gensler, architect) (24 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 777 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 777 Airport Blvd - Attachments 777 Airport Blvd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioners Horan, Schmid and Tse noted that they had met with the developer and the architect on site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Marc Huffman, Ben Tranel and Jacob Petersen, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Public comment sent via email by Adrienne Leigh: The giant rectangle I saw when I opened the plans is what struck me first. I request the Commission work at adding some charm, natural feeling, and softening of the project to its exterior shape. It appears purely utilitarian. My comments pertain to neighborhood friendliness, land use, and amenities the building will offer. First, I ’d like to insure that all street and walkway lighting along this project be ark Sky compliant. That all sidewalks are lit with low level pedestrian friendly light fixtures. That the crosswalks and places where driveways cross sidewalks have brighter light on the area to illuminate the pedestrians from the rest of the area. All crosswalks should be high visibility with advance stop lines placed 4 feet in front of crosswalks and perpendicular to vehicular travel direction. All sidewalks should be a minimum of 8 feet wide plus they should be separated by a 4 -foot minimum parkway the entire length of the project. Bollards should be placed at corner of Anza Boulevard and Airport Boulevard to insure no vehicle can drive up over the curb when people are standing there. Sidewalks should have 4-foot wide parkways with a mixture of native Northern California trees and plants to encourage local wildlife to live along Bayfront. Will there be a small gym for the workers to use? Outdoor lunch sitting areas with tables out of the wind? The area where the project is adjacent to the creek should have a few benches for viewing the herons and egrets I have seen wading there where the creek hits the bay. The shoreline should stay natural but be comfortably viewable to the public. The cafe should have tasteful exterior signage to encourage members of the public to visit the cafe. People who work in other buildings or walk the Bay Trail should feel welcomed by the front of the cafe. Again, it should look charming and inviting, not utilitarian. There should be a convenient exterior bike rack for the people who do not work in 777 Airport Boulevard but want to visit the cafe or a friend in the building. I would like to see childcare added to the building. Space set aside for a childcare company to assist parents who work nearby. Additionally, the building should add a roof top restaurant with a beautiful view of the bay . The bay shore is sorely lacking commercial amenities for Burlingame residents to enjoy. Will there be any offices zoned for medical space? Small medical practices have very few choices in Burlingame. And Page 18City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes others specifically for small businesses? Is there any first floor retail? We need to think of this as part of a neighborhood and design it to add amenities to the neighborhood. Are there any offices that are live/work? I’d like to see Burlingame encourage mixed use zoning. Are there EV chargers in the garage? Outside in the stalls? Thank you for your time and attention to my comments. And though I am a commissioner on the TSP Commission, these are my personal comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It's heading in the right direction. It's almost like the first plan was a bait and switch. It was really tall and boxy, it's a huge improvement now. I like the articulation of the fa çade, the promenade that's covered would be inviting. As with the other projects, it's figuring out how the public amenity is enough to give back and I’m not sure that one cafe is going to do it. Encourages the developer to think of ways to keep that area lively. The Bay Trail in this area extends under Anza Boulevard, I would like to see if they can help make sure that it is safe with proper lighting. But other than that, they've addressed our preliminary comments at the last meeting and it's much improved. >This has come a long way, a positive way from what we saw and I really do appreciate all the efforts that the team has gone to really listen to the Commission. I also really appreciate that you were able to get the height down because height doesn't have to be necessarily an issue, but when the building is too blocky, it just looks even larger. Very much appreciate pushing that pinched corner back as well. Suggest that perhaps for the pillars or columns around the building and between the stories, if there's a way to be really creative and use a material so a vine can climb up and you have this green element attaching the building to its base and making it feel more organic. It's probably not impossible but I ’m looking at it, it might be really cool and something different, just putting that out for the applicant to consider. I appreciate all the effort you've done. >I really appreciate how this process is working and this is a really good example of how the public and Commission process works for design of a building. It has come around so much in a better form and shape. I really like the scalloping detail, the articulation of the building and the effect of what looks like sails. It definitely does look like a much lighter structure. I did get a chance to see that the model that was prepared, it looks quite nice. It's a challenging site. The height of the building proportionately looks taller because it's a skinnier site. The waterfront view that you put together was very helpful for us to see from a bigger picture across the Bayfront and how your project compares to others currently in the pipeline, so thank you for that doing. Looking at the landscape plans and some of the photographs for some of the furniture, amenities and equipment that may be utilized in the project, we like to see a unifying style to pull it all together. Some images show just tables with four square legs on the corners and others have more design interest. It is preliminary, but I would love to see a more defined set of landscape plans that pull together all the outdoor equipment and furniture in a more unified sense going forward. I thought Adrienne Leigh ’s letter was interesting for a lot of the things she mentioned, but the rooftop restaurant idea certainly is a good one to consider, if there's any ability to bring that into the program of the building that would draw a lot more interest to the area. We have some beautiful views there on the Bayfront and could certainly bring a lot of attention and interest to that part of our City. So, something to consider if you can. I still would also like to see some more street side amenities for the public with either retail space or other additional support spaces, such as a gym or a daycare, something that will definitely work together with the public in a sense of wanting to go to this place as a destination and not that you just happening to be there, so pushing that a little further would be great. Overall, the building is really coming together. I appreciate the reduced height and wish you good luck in trying to get to that December 31st deadline so we can maintain the shortest building that we can, but meet all your program. >I would like to thank the team because you did a really great job of coming back and focusing on the items that were discussed. We had an opportunity to meet and discuss on site and look at the drawings which really helped, being able to see the things that you're working on. The project has come a long way . You've gotten some good feedback tonight. I hope that we can move the project forward and be able to get it going. I support it and I think that there's a lot of good things with this project. >I agree with everything my fellow commissioners have said. The project really looks beautiful. The Page 19City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes scallop details and the sail goes well, specifically offsetting the rectangular box we were presented with before. It's a night and day difference and so I ’m pleased with that. I'm pleased with the community benefits to the Bay Trail. It's really important to me and several folks I have talked to. The waterfront and Bay Trail are dear to the Burlingame community and Peninsula, so I ’m excited about that. It did catch my eye though about the sea level rise infrastructure. It hasn't been designed yet and they are referring to a geotechnical engineer which will refer this to FEMA rules, and I ’m concerned and the riprap can get large . The resilience is through the mid -century, that is only 25 years from now. I would certainly like to see more longevity than mid-century. On paper, the community space looks gorgeous. I love the community space, but now my eyes are caught to the sea level rise infrastructure change and I think we're going to be presented with several of these bayfront properties. I personally might do more research on it, but I like the way the project is going. >I am encouraged by the changes in design, the lightness of the design is encouraging to me. I'm still a bit stuck on the height because on a realistic perspective, I don't know that you can get this in time to get that reduction of 32 feet. If we're going to the steel structure as opposed to concrete, we're only going to lose 15 feet, so the building looks tall and skinny to me and that's probably the problem I have. I like the idea of maybe a top floor restaurant and I brought that up on a couple of other projects, we'll see if the applicant can pull it off. One thing I would encourage the other commissioners to do is walk around the Burlingame Point project. We started out with 20,000 square feet of retail space, but as you walk around what they have done is the same thing they are proposing here and that is to have this amenity space, but it's not accessible to the public. So, at Burlingame Point you have a bike shop and coffee shop, neither on the Bay Trail or along the water. The bike shop is in towards the canal. It didn't come out the way I thought and I reviewed that project from the beginning. I thought we were going to have an amenity space that will be open to the public. I would encourage more public amenity space. We’re trading this height limit for public benefit. There are a lot of users beside the residents of Burlingame who are going to use this. People in hotels would like to take walks and walk along the Bay Trail. I like what's happening with the walking space and the Bay Trail will continue on, but that part of the Bay Trail is a dead end, there's an overpass and there's been some questionable activity down there. I don't know if people would want to go down that way, so we give them another reason to come whether it is something else happening on the ground floor. It doesn't have to be coffee, it can be anything and people come down to see that there is a nice restaurant. Kincaid's is out there all by itself along the waterfront and there are a lot of times you can't get a seat in that place. So if you have something that's nice and workable, people will come. The application is required to return on the Regular Action Calendar because it includes environmental review. No vote was taken. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin noted that the City Council reviewed the Design Review project at 1345 Vancouver Avenue (Planning Commission action was appealed by applicant) at their meeting on September 6, 2022. The City Council remanded the application to the Planning Commission for further review. a.1548 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - FYI review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1548 Westmoor Rd - Memo and Attachments 1548 Westmoor Rd - Plans Attachments: >Pulled for further discussion. Commissioners noted the following concerns: Concerned with proposed changes to the second story bay window and scaling of windows at the front of the house. Page 20City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, September 12, 2022 at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on September 12, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. September 22, 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 $745.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 21City of Burlingame