HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.10.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, October 24, 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 October 17, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 124-2022 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 124-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the
public for the October 24, 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 October 24, 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
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
To Join the Zoom Meeting:
To access by computer:
Go to www.zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 850 0771 4538
Passcode: 388194
To access by phone:
Dial 1-346-248-7799
Meeting ID: 850 0771 4538
Passcode: 388194
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior
Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, and PfaffPresent4 -
Comaroto, Schmid, and TseAbsent3 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft September 26, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft September 26, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Horan made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, to approve the meeting
minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, and Pfaff4 -
Absent:Comaroto, Schmid, and Tse3 -
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
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.720 Newhall Road, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for first
story plate height for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling
and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(2).(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. Commissioner Gaul noted that he spoke with the property
owner/applicant by phone. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
John and Kimberly Ohlund, property owners, and Carlos Rojas, designer, represented the applicant and
answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Jen Hoogeveen, 724 Newhall Road: Thank you so much John and Kim for agreeing to put some kind
of hedge in that area. Also, on the plans, we can ’t see where the windows are on the rear addition that is
facing the north side. We just want to continue to have the same level of privacy that we have. We could
see that there are no windows facing the north on the side where the roof is sloped down, but there is a
rear extension. We want to see what type of windows will be at the north. What are they going to consist
of? Are they going to be tinted or frosted? And what is the size? Thank you so much Vice Chair for
addressing the hedges and fence line and thank you John for adjusting that. We would love to have a line
of hedges, we are not super particular of the kind, but something that offers privacy for both would be
great.
>(Rojas: We have two dormers on the second floor facing the north side. Each has a group of 2’x4’
windows in three’s. There are two windows at the bathroom which will be frosted. At the rear, there are two
3’x2’ small windows facing the back on that side of the property at the bedroom and only one of them is
really close.) Is there a chance that those windows can be frosted?) (Ohlund: I’ve never seen a frosted
window in a bedroom. I can agree with a bathroom window to be frosted. However, with a frosted window in
the bedroom, one can ’t look out either and I wouldn ’t imagine a child in the bedroom not being able to see
outside the window. No, I don’t think we are at all interested in frosting the bedroom window.)
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>This project has evolved really nicely. This is a nice looking house. The applicant and property owner
have worked hard to mitigate the neighbor ’s concerns. I know that privacy is always a consideration, but I
think the proper hedge planted on the fence line can block out any view from window to window or window
to yard. I would think that it can come back as an FYI with the approval of this project tonight. I’d like to
see this move forward but I’ll wait to hear from other commissioners.
>I agree with my fellow commissioner. They have addressed the concerns and suggestions that we
have at the last meeting. The project looks like it is ready to go.
Page 3City of Burlingame
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, to approve the application with the
following added condition:
>that prior to issuance of building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted showing the
location and type of privacy hedge along the left (north) side property line.
Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, and Pfaff4 -
Absent:Comaroto, Schmid, and Tse3 -
b.1317 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
a second story plate height 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.(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:
>Consider reconfiguring the chimney so that the stone extends up past the first floor roof line.
>The chimney looks like an afterthought because it does not penetrate the roof. It is a zero clearance
fireplace, so you don’t have to have that minimum required height. The chimney could simply go up a foot
or 18 inches, maybe even two feet above the roof line with the same stone so it looks like a chimney that
goes up. The zero clearance can come out of the back or you can run it at the top, it only has to be a foot
away from the window. You can do it and I would prefer to see that too. It completes the chimney. I like
the look of the stone because it differentiates it from the siding. I agree with my fellow commissioner that
it will look better with the chimney poking through the first floor roof. Maybe just come up unto the bottom
of the window and it will not block anything. It doesn’t have to go up past the windows.
>I really appreciate my fellow commissioner bringing up the porch issue at the last meeting. That
happens a lot, they are like almost a false porch. It’s still not a huge porch but I appreciate you adding
more depth. It’s definitely improved. I also appreciate the comments offered by my fellow commissioner
regarding the chimney. I am still having trouble on the request for the Special Permit for plate height. I
understand that the client is tall, but what I am seeing is the use of the verticals help make the
impression that something is tall anyway. If anything, I feel that the elements should have been reversed,
with the verticals on the bottom and the horizontals on the top. I’m not sure if it is a good precedent.
>I appreciate that a lot of the comments were incorporated from the last meeting. Lowering the plate
Page 4City of Burlingame
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
height on the first floor helps in the overall scale of the project. The comments about having the chimney
poke through the roof would make it look better. Based on that change, I will be okay moving forward with
it.
Commissioner Horan made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to approve the application with
the following added condition:
>that the chimney along the right side of the house shall be extended one to two feet above
the first floor roof line and shall be reviewed by Planning Division staff based on direction given
by the Planning Commission; an FYI application shall be required if staff determines that the
chimney is not consistent with the design of the single-unit dwelling.
Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, and Pfaff4 -
Absent:Comaroto, Schmid, and Tse3 -
c.1549 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for removal of more
than 50 percent of exterior walls (substantial construction) of an existing two -story,
single-unit dwelling with a new detached garage, Side Setback Variances, Floor Area
Ratio Variance, and Special Permit for declining height envelope. This project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Dario Avram and Karen Goff,
applicants and property owners; James Chu, Chu Design Associates, designer) (99
noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1549 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
1549 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
1549 Burlingame Ave - Plans
1549 Burlingame Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Lowenthal noted that he had a phone
conversation with the applicant’s relative. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Dario Avram, property owner, and James Chu, 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:
>This is a really nice project. The house is lovely and very charming, kind of the forefront of the
neighborhood when you drive up. Most of these houses will be torn down, so it is nice and refreshing to
see a house rehabilitated and brought back to life without really doing much to the exterior. I have no
problem with the Variances and Special Permits considering this house was built almost one hundred
years ago and the only option to fix these things is to tear the house down. Universally, most people in
Burlingame would like to keep these old houses and it is kind of sad when you see the old ones come
down. I am very much in favor of this. It is very expensive and not convenient to stop a project in the
Page 5City of Burlingame
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
middle of construction, as I am sure we all know. I would love to get this project going.
>I agree with what my fellow commissioner said. This is a good looking project. It is clever the way they
have lowered the ground floor to create more ceiling space. Because the envelope is unchanged from the
existing, it is kind of a technicality that they ran into these issues during construction. I can support this.
>I’m generally in support of the project, although I don ’t like how the whole thing evolved. I just don ’t like
seeing things come back asking for things this far into it. I’m ok with the project in general. One thing I
would ask is for the first floor plate height be lowered to 9’-0” to comply with the standards of what we
typically approve. I don ’t want to start setting precedents for higher plate heights. If this had come to us
initially, this would be considered a new house, so it should conform to those guidelines that we typically
have for a new house.
>I agree with everything that has been said. I also agree with my fellow commissioner about being
consistent with the first floor plate height. It still disturbs me that we don ’t have a landscape plan. I feel
that this is all backward. I trust everybody that there will be landscaping, that it will make its way to the
City Arborist, not just trees but everything else around it. It’s not like there is a ton of landscaping there
now. It is a nice home. Nice job of redesigning and working with what was there, at least initially. I really
would like to see more greenery to have it set better than it does now.
>I fully understand the perspective on setting precedents. I just see this project a bit different. I see it
as an existing structure. Typically, I will view plate heights as a concern when the overall house gets tall .
This is an existing house and they are not changing the exterior dimensions at all. It is a clever trick to
just lower the floor to get that extra space. I’m ok with the plate height. If there were no termites then we
would have not seen it and would have been fine.
>I see my fellow commissioner’s point, but as the applicant stated the original ceiling height in that
area was 8’-4” mainly because of the mechanical equipment and I understand that too, but that is all being
redone and recessed into the floor space. So they are gaining more than a foot in ceiling height if we go to
9’-6”. With all the walls being removed, I don ’t see any issue with them bringing it to 9’-0” to set the house
down.
Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing.
>(Chu: About the landscaping, there is a row of existing street trees along Occidental Avenue and
because of the siting on this property, there really is not enough landscaping in front of the building or the
sides. So all the future landscaping and tree planting will be within the backyard. We already went through
a couple of revisions with the Parks Department testing a number of trees that need to be planted. I am
hoping that we don’t need to go to an FYI for landscaping. Secondly, I disagree with the Chair about the
ceiling height because we are only talking about 6” and it really is not impacting the exterior look of the
house. We even consulted a drainage engineer regarding the drainage issue because we want to make
sure that the finished floor is still higher than the sidewalk and curb so the water does not come back and
get trapped in the house. I appreciate all your comments.)
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>I don’t see much landscaping at the back yard either because it was not considered a new project .
When it goes this route, it’s just really awkward but I’ll not make a big deal out of it.
>I’m torn, I don’t see the issue with the plate height. I’d rather see the project go forward.
>(Hurin: Note that with this project the plate line is the same, they are not necessarily coming out of the
ground and raising the mass and bulk of the house. The plate line is the same, they are just going down
6” further into the ground.)
>That might be the reason for me that the second floor looks tall.
>The exterior has been the same for the last 90 years that is why I am supportive of just leaving it
alone so the look of the exterior is unchanged since 1930. Even the appearance of the plate from outside
is unchanged. It’s really clever the way they have lowered it on the inside but not the outside.
>I think that is really the intent of the code as it is. You create these plate height restrictions so that
Page 6City of Burlingame
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the houses don’t look out of whack, you have more scale. The exterior is the same for 90 years. It is hard
to see it as a precedent for future homes.
>I am having a hard time how this got to us, so I am looking for something from them.
>The reason why it is different is because the original does not have the horizontal band separating the
two, it is just straight up. To me, it looks different than it does right now. You can clearly see the
difference between the first and the second floor on the new drawings. It’s not there on the one that looks
more like a split level but I understand it’s not a split level.
Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, and Pfaff4 -
Absent:Comaroto, Schmid, and Tse3 -
d.1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road, zoned I -I: Commercial
Design Review, Special Permits for Building Height and for Community Benefits for
Increased FAR, Parking Variance, and Tentative Parcel Map for a new research and
development campus in one seven -story building, one eight -story building, and a parking
garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill
Exemption). (King Bayshore Owner LLC, Peter Banzhaf, applicant and property owner;
Perkins and Will, Derek Johnson, architect) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1669/1699 Bayshore Hwy & 810/821 Malcolm Rd - Staff Report
1669/1699 Bayshore Hwy & 810/821 Malcolm Rd - Attachments
1669/1699 Bayshore Hwy & 810/821 Malcolm Rd - Class 32 Infill
Exemption
1669/1699 Bayshore Hwy & 810/821 Malcolm Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Horan noted that he had an ex -parte
discussion with the developer. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Peter Banzhaf represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Ethan Lester, Operating Engineers: We strongly support this project. The company in question is
Hathaway Dinwiddie, they are definitely a great company. This project will create over 2,000 union jobs
over a course of four years which will bring a lot of positive feedback with all our union members in the
area.
>Humberto Nava, Carpenters Local 217: I represent over 200 members in San Mateo County. I am here
tonight to express my support for the 1699 Bayshore Highway project. Hathaway Dinwiddie is part of this
project and they have made a commitment to Burlingame workforce and San Mateo County. This project
will create up to 2,000 union jobs and many more permanent jobs when this project is built. Tax revenue
will be expended back into the community of San Mateo County. No more taxpayer dollars will be spent to
subsidize help to pay for contractors who refuse to do it right by the community. Fair living wages,
pension, and premium for the local union workforce and employment opportunity to local residents, that is
Hathaway Dinwiddie’s commitment to Burlingame, San Mateo and the work force. What better community
benefit than elevating the working class. As inflation and housing crisis continue to rise and have an
Page 7City of Burlingame
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
impact in our working class, I applaud the level of engagement Hathaway has to the community. They
have and continue to elevate our blue collar workers and create opportunities to make the bay area
diverse and livable. Thank you for your time and I ask for your support for those who look to improve our
community.
>Lisa Fong Kershner, General Manager, SFO Waterfront Marriot: This project is right across the street
from the Marriott hotel and we are in full support of the project. Early on, even as early as last year, Peter
reached out to me directly. Now, he and his team have continued to update me on the project. I can ’t say
enough what this will bring to our community and also to Bayshore and Airport Boulevards. If you know
me at all, I have attended some of these meetings and City Council meetings. I have continued to speak
how we must invest in the community where my hotel is located. We are a huge contributor to the general
fund and one of the top three complaints that my guests tell me is that there is not a lot to do and not a lot
of pretty things to look at in the neighborhood. I think the community will really benefit from having the life
sciences project at 1699 Bayshore Boulevard. I definitely urge this commission to fast track the project
and not delay it. Covid has really hurt our industry. The neighborhood is really suffering and trying really
hard to get back to 2019 levels and before. I am really motivated by the jobs the project will bring and
also the beautification to the neighborhood. I am also a resident of Burlingame and I use the bay path all
the time. I appreciate the commitment to ensuring that the natural beauty we all enjoy in Burlingame is
preserved. I think Peter and his team are committed to Burlingame. They are definitely good neighbors,
they have been to me so far. I imagine they will be very good for our community as well.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>From what we have seen, I feel that Peter and his group are extremely receptive to most all of the
comments we’ve had, which have only improved the project greatly in my opinion. These are really
significant items that will contribute to the quality of life, not only for that area, but for everyone in
Burlingame. I definitely appreciate the effort that has been made wherever they could, including the palms,
thank you very much. Thank you for a great presentation.
> I wholeheartedly agree with my fellow commissioner. It was a very nice presentation. They did a very
nice job listening to the comments in previous meetings and incorporating them into what we have today
which I think is a gorgeous project that completely redefined that area. I’ve been going to dinner there
since I was a kid and so it is sad to see some of those restaurants go away over the years. It is nice to
see a refreshing building come with some nice public amenities. I love the attention to the bay trail. I
definitely think the plaza is actually usable. Having a café there the way the applicant described is
brilliant, I only wish there is more of that type. I am very much in favor of this project, it is a fantastic
project. I am excited to see it built. It will transform that whole corridor of our town.
> I would agree. I can find reasons to approve this whole project, they have come a long way. The
outdoor area will set a precedent, but I hope we see it in a lot of future projects down in that area. I am
wholeheartedly in favor of this project. I hope to see this move forward tonight.
Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application for
Commercial Design Review, Special Permit for building height, and Special Permit for
Community Benefits for increased Floor Area Ratio. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, and Pfaff
Absent: 2 - Comaroto, Schmid, and Tse
Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, to recommend approval of the Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, and Pfaff4 -
Page 8City of Burlingame
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Absent:Comaroto, Schmid, and Tse3 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1441 Alvarado Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, and Special Permits for building height and new attached garage for
a first and second story addition to an existing split -level single-unit dwelling. (Joshua
Larson, architect and applicant; Mikayla and Robert Cameron, property owners) (101
noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
1441 Alvarado Ave - Staff Report
1441 Alvarado Ave - Attachments
1441 Alvarado 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.
Robert and Mikayla Cameron, property owners, and Joshua Larson, designer, represented the applicant
and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Michael Rudolph, 1435 Alvarado Avenue: We are next door neighbors and had the opportunity to
review the project with about a week and a half ago. In general, we are very supportive of their plans and
what they would like to do. If anything, we uncovered a couple of issues that I think we will work with them
on. One has been mentioned by staff which is the longer range view that we have to day of the bay and
airport, potentially, that may go away with some of the landscaping. The other item is the addition to the
back of the their house would potentially provide increased access to our pool view. Again, that is
something that we can work on. These are not major issues in our opinion but these are things that we
would be concerned about as we move forward. Thank you.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>It is a really nice project. I had an opportunity a few years ago, from one of the previous owners, to go
through the house and it has quite a bit of deferred maintenance which the current owner has discovered .
The design is really nice. It fits in well with the neighborhood. I can support the Special Permit for
attached garage. I understand the neighbor ’s concern. I am glad he is willing to work with the applicant
about any view blockage. I don ’t know, however, if landscaping constitutes something that would be
considered view blockage or do we just mainly go forward mainly with the building itself? (Hurin: The
Commission's review will be on the proposed addition to the building and not the landscaping. The
landscaping can be something that can be worked amongst the two property owners in terms of what was
planted and keeping it trimmed. The Commission’s review will be based on the building itself.)
>It is very cleverly done. The architect has done a really nice job of concealing things. I love the detail
on the garage, it is really interesting and very pretty. It’s not worth holding the project up, but I am just
going to comment that I feel that the detail on the raised relief around the window would be nice if it were a
little more delicate to match what you have in the front which is quite special. The shape is somewhat
circular, I would have picked something different, but it is a personal choice. I just want to mention that
the front is really lovely. It is a really nicely done plan and the landscaping is lovely.
Page 9City of Burlingame
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>I want to commend the architectural team for a very beautiful presentation. The 3D renderings are
always helpful for us. The project looks really nice, it speaks for itself. I certainly have no issues with the
findings for the Special Permits. I would be surprised that this is not even close to the tallest house on the
street even after it has been remodeled. There are some big houses on that block. I walk there every day
with my kids and none of those tall houses bother me. This will fit in very well in the neighborhood and I
am very much in favor.
>I do think it is a good looking project. I like the automobile court that is a clever reuse of the front
yard. I was struggling to find the front door even with the more prominent arch to help identify it. That is the
only aesthetic challenge I had, but this is a good project.
Commissioner Horan made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to place the item on the Consent
Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, and Pfaff4 -
Absent:Comaroto, Schmid, and Tse3 -
b.912 Linden Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single-unit dwelling and attached garage. (Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes,
applicant; SF21G, LLC, Thomas James Homes, property owner; KTGY Architecture and
Planning, architect) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
912 Linden Ave - Staff Report
912 Linden Ave - Attachments
912 Linden 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.
Hannah Chiu and Cynthia Thiebaut, designers, represented the applicant and answered questions about
the application.
Public Comments:
> Karlene Harvey, 920 Linden Avenue: I know that there are some other residents who are listening in
the meeting. We are concerned about the size of the project with a one -car garage. We have parking
problems on the 900 block of Linden Avenue. The project is very large. It’s got a bathroom attached to
each bedroom and then you have the ADU with a kitchen, a bathroom and a bedroom. It’s almost like it
can be used as an AirBnB or some kind of a multi -family residence, which would mean that they could
possibly have anywhere from six to eight cars and yet they only have a one -car garage. It’s a very large
project. Some of the examples of two -story houses they showed are not on this 900 block of Linden
Avenue. On Toyon Drive, one of the houses they showed, there are several second stories there. We only
have a two-story house on each corner of Linden Avenue. The size and scale of this project is just way too
big for our neighborhood. I don ’t understand what they meant by removing a maple tree, I don ’t believe
there is a maple tree at that house. There is a large tree in front of the house at 916 Linden Avenue that is
not being built right now. We also sent an email to the Commission raising our concerns. The developer
came in, brought this property and now is developing it to the hilt. These are our concerns, thank you very
much for listening.
>Joshua Dunetz, 917 Linden Avenue: We live across the street. We have been living in Burlingame for
five years and we love it. We met with the group back in September to go over initial designs. I’m pretty
sure during that time Karlene and another neighbor sent an email to the City. I share Karlene ’s concerns,
Page 10City of Burlingame
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
this home seems very big. In our block of Linden Avenue, Azalea Avenue and Larkspur Drive are all
one-story homes except one of the corner homes that may have an addition on top of the garage. The one
shown by the design group in the bottom middle from Toyon Drive is not really representative of our block .
It's kind of a standout house where you notice that it is a big home in this relatively small neighborhood. A
lot of our neighbors have developed their homes a bit and usually they go back a little from the front
property line. I know that this property certainly has a lot of room to go back. One of the other things I ’ve
noticed is that the setback is not as quite as deep as the homes around it. It is a pretty big house to be
too close to the sidewalk. It just seems that this house will change the look of the neighborhood of the
900 blocks of Linden Avenue, Azalea Avenue and Larkspur Drive. I know in the past, the Commission
has appreciated when people try to redo homes and stay with the look of the neighborhood. This one
seems a little bit big and out of place. I also share concerns about parking. I don ’t think a two-car garage
will make this home out of place, but rather the massiveness of the current plan makes it out of place. I
would ask the design team to consider if there is any way to go back instead of up. If there is any way to
increase parking on site because street parking is rather tight around here. Thank you for being here. I
appreciate the time.
>Sangeeta Mishra, 913 Linden Avenue: I live immediately across the street from the proposed
development. We share the views that all of our neighbors have voiced today. The primary one is that it is
a very large home for the size of the other existing homes in the neighborhood. Everything is a one -story
house, there is only one on the corner that is two stories. This one seems like it is going to completely
change the culture and look of our neighborhood. It definitely is not fitting in with the traditional look of
what the existing homes are. We, ourselves, just recently remodeled our home. We did a one -story and
fits in with the neighborhood, so I don ’t see why another house couldn ’t do something that is similar while
at the same time modernizing the house. The other concern that we have that our neighbors have also
voiced out is that every bedroom has an attached bathroom to it, including the ADU. We are really worried
that this will become a multi-rental place and not a family home. There is not a single house on the 900
block that is a rental home, whether it is for a family or multiple families, so this really scares all of us .
Parking is a very big issue in our neighborhood. Not only do most homes have two cars, but we also have
to put up with the overflow from Rollins Road. People who live on Rollins Road park their cars on our street
and leave it there overnight which sometimes make us having to park our own cars a block or two away .
We also have people who come and go to the airport and park their cars on our neighborhood streets for a
day or two or three until they come back from holiday or business trip. So we are very tight with parking. If
this home is not going to be a home for one family but a multi -family, you are pretty much pushing the
neighbors out from what they call their own home. I strongly urge that you take consideration of that .
Thank you.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>(Spansail: I just want to bring something up in case it is helpful for the neighbors to look at. The
Commission knows that we can ’t discuss ADUs at these meetings. I want to make sure that the public
understands that it is a ministerial process. Our Planning Division can take a look at that but it is not
something that our Planning Commission can actually consider. I did want to refer them to Chapter
25.48.030, that is the ADU chapter of our Zoning Code. It provides details about what can and can ’t be
done. There are no parking requirements for JADUs. On top of that, I did want to at least allay the concern
about short term rentals. Our ADU code does say that you cannot have a rental for under 30 days in an
ADU. So AirBnB concerns are something that would not be necessarily applicable to this project. I just
want to put that information out there before the Commission begins to consider the project. Thank you.)
>I appreciate the neighbors’ comments. I view it from a planning perspective, it is complying with the
zoning requirements, and it ’s not an unusual residential design for Burlingame. Parking is an issue, so I
feel for them. This house is not unusual from the different houses we've reviewed in the past. The design
looks okay; all the elevations have some interest to them. The windows might look a little bit tight to the
eaves and maybe that is a 2D issue, it might look better in a 3D rendering. Overall, I can ’t find enough to
Page 11City of Burlingame
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
fault the house.
>I echo my fellow commissioner’s sentiments. As a previous owner on this block, I actually lived next
door to this house for six years, I can certainly empathize with the parking issues on this street. However,
that being said, there is not a whole lot that we can do about it. As everyone said, this has become an
overflow parking for Rollins Road and airport parking. I don ’t think altering the design here is really going to
move the needle much if we get a two -car garage, there is not much that will happen to alleviate the
parking issues.
>I did want to speak a little bit about the design. Overall, I like the design concept, however I do have
issues with the windows. For some reason, the front windows are not registering to me. You have the very
large ADU windows at the front that are too imposing. You then have these windows on the second floor
which are six inches from the plate height. I understand the argument, but it does not resonate with me
because the windows can be redesigned to meet egress and not have them slammed so high to the plate
height so they don ’t mess with the roofs below. Then you have the two windows on the left side of the
house for the bedroom. I understand why it was located up there so the bedroom can have a bed in it, but
they just look very small and out of place compared to the very large downstairs and upstairs windows .
The metal roof, for some reason, doesn ’t do it for me. I understand why you do that, but I wouldn ’t quite
classify it as an inviting front entry way with a metal roof. You have a lot of great dimensional details on
this house. It is really nice, however, adding the metal roof is not doing anything for us. To me, it takes
away from what you are doing. It throws in a very modern feel to a very traditional neighborhood. It’s not
going to kill the project for me but I am not a big fan of it.
>I completely understand parking issues and the concerns about privacy when two -story houses are
built. I am familiar with this neighborhood and it has not gotten so many two -story homes yet, but it
happens. You just need to control the ones that come in and make them the best that you can. It is true
that the house is not that unusual for Burlingame, but I find that it has room for improvement. The
windows on the front seem very large. The hipped roof and some of the other faces that go around the
house, they just need to come down at least another six inches. I don ’t think they look right. Even if you
have to shorten the window, you feel it is too close to the floor. It can be done and make it look more
cohesive. I also don’t understand what the metal roof does. I have to agree with my fellow commissioner
on that. The design can use some more refining to improve it a lot.
>I would agree with the comments that were made. During the presentation, the building section
showed there is six inches above the window, but structurally it will not work. You need to have a bigger
header over your window because you have a double top plate as well. Especially on the rear elevation
where you have those long windows. I don ’t think you will make it by shoving those windows underneath
the eave. There needs to be a little more work to be done structurally to make it work, which of course will
change the architecture. I agree with the large window comment on the front. The windows can be
reconfigured a little bit and brought to scale that works for the house that will be helpful. As a side note, I
know in some neighborhood in Burlingame that have had parking problems, it is possible to get
neighborhood parking permits; this is something that the neighborhood can look into. I had the same
problem when I lived on Laguna Avenue and we had people parking in front of the house for days as they
went to the airport. I sympathize with the neighbors. I think that if you have parking permits, you might
solve a little bit of outside people coming and parking overnight or for days on end.
Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lowenthal, 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, and Pfaff4 -
Absent:Comaroto, Schmid, and Tse3 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Page 12City of Burlingame
October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
a.620 Trenton Way, zoned R -1 - FYI review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review project.
620 Trenton Way - Memo and Attachments
620 Trenton Way - Plans
Attachments:
>Accepted.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
>Commissioner Pfaff suggested that in the future the Commission discuss requiring projects to provide
public artwork on the private property, or paying into a fund to provide artwork offsite, equal to 1% of
project costs.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 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, October 24, 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 October 24, 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 November 3, 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 13City of Burlingame