HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.11.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 14, 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 November 14, 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 November 14, 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
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
To Join the Zoom Meeting:
To access by computer:
Go to www.zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 813 0279 3828
Passcode: 643502
To access by phone:
Dial 1-346-248-7799
Meeting ID: 813 0279 3828
Passcode: 643502
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, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney
Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft October 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft October 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the meeting
minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
b.Draft October 24, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft October 24, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the meeting
minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Tse6 -
Recused:Schmid1 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
Page 2City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.Overview of the North Rollins Specific Plan. Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
Staff Report
North Rollins Specific Plan – Public Review Draft
Attachments:
Community Development Director Gardiner introduced the specific plan consultant team, including
representatives from KTGY, Gates + Associates, Kimley -Horn, and Rincon Consultants. The consultant
team presented an overview of the draft specific plan.
Commission Questions and Discussion:
>Housing projects are putting in mostly housing and not much else other than open space, and our
office projects are putting in office and not much more as far as amenities for doing a small plaza or
something. It's great that we’re encouraging the grocery and ground floor but without more direction on
that, I'm afraid they are going to skip it and choose the easier benefits. Who wants to be the first to invest
in retail and grocery in an area that actually doesn't have any people in it yet? It's going to take ten years
to get a grocery store. (John Moreland, Rincon Consultants: There is a requirement for retail space along
Rollins Road. The community benefit is going above and beyond an additional requirement and
furthermore on top of the requirements is we also want to have the design of Rollins Road appear
commercial so whether there are residential amenities or other spaces, it has the consistent street scene
along Rollins Road. It is difficult to identify which property is going to have the grocery store, so we think
the community benefit is the best approach for a grocery store. In other cities they had been able to
encourage uses through the economic development staff working with developers and trying to encourage
that and promote a grocery store within this area, and working with the landowners identifying a spot that if
someone is willing to encourage that grocery store to the development at that location.)
>Why are we saying that a grocery store needs to have ten thousand square feet? There are smaller
grocery stores that can have smaller spaces for milk and eggs, just little spaces. Can we make that a
smaller space? What are the challenges that you've seen and how do we overcome those challenges?
(Moreland: The grocery store square footage can definitely be adjusted. Our retail division has worked with
grocery store developers and right now. For frame of reference, a Trader Joe's would be looking for 15,000
square feet. Sprouts and Whole Foods are in the 20,000 square foot range. What we wanted to distinguish
as part of the specific plan is something different than maybe just a convenient shop that may have other
items and may not be considered a food mart that may be able to provide all the groceries. Could it be
6,000 square feet? Yes, but I wouldn't recommend anything lower than 6,000 square feet. One thing that
might help promote the feasibility of a grocery store is showing the pipeline of how many residential
projects could theoretically be in this area and how fast this area is growing.)
> We're asking developers to give us public spaces but the public spaces that we've seen are kind of
within the development that they are doing themselves. Looking at Figure 2.6, there's an area under the
power lines that is now currently being used for some parking for Facebook. Could we ask the developers
for some kind of an in lieu fee instead of having them build a small park or a public benefit for that
particular project? Put a fee aside so if we decide that we want to, the city can purchase a parcel or
somebody gives us some land that we decide that we want to create a park there. The public spaces that
I'm seeing are not really public benefits in my opinion. I'd like to see a big plaza, so if somebody wants to
build a plaza, we have some funds and they dedicate it to the city. (Moreland: We've seen the
implementation where there is an in -lieu program that looks at the area and identifies places for parks. A
developer could negotiate with the city and receive the credit for open space above and beyond. It's a
pretty common practice elsewhere.) (Casey Case, Gates + Associates: The utility corridor has been
designated for open space. It has power lines overhead and a lot of infrastructure underneath. It fits best
for a semi-passive recreation opportunity, but in some of our studies, we did take a look at the projects on
the books at the time and identified their open space and used our 1/8 radius to locate potential other
park locations. That was the guidance in our design guidelines, that the open space that is associated
with development is for open, public use. We have language to make it obvious that it's open and
Page 3City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
available so it's not tucked behind other things. In addition to that, really playing up the connections
between the spaces. It's not an individual park spaces in and of themselves. One of the things we're trying
to accomplish with a lot of jurisdictions is creating the network between all of those because it's not just
the destination, it's going from one to the other, so that's why a lot of our language is about the paseos
and the wind rows and connecting to the linear park, so it's not just the destinations themselves.)
>I think it would be really nice if we have a uniformed streetscape lighting program in the sense that the
developers know exactly what light we're going to use, what company it is, how tall the street lighting is
going to be. Also I think lighting is a safety issue for pedestrians and cars and the bikes and everybody
else, so I strongly want to keep that very uniform.
>I’m looking at all these beautiful pictures from the presentation and I'm thinking, how do we get there
from here? I'm not seeing it. For example in 5.5.2 it says where a total lot area or development is 50,000
square feet or greater, a pedestrian plaza or other public open space, gathering space shall be provided
that meets the following criteria. It's a minimum of 1,500 square feet in size, with a minimum dimension of
30. I feel that the size of the open space should be commissariat with the size of the project. There are
some are enormous projects and just to say well, it's over 50,000 square feet, so it should have a 1,500
square feet plaza, it doesn ’t seem to be in proportion. I’m thinking an in-lieu system might be better where
the city is actually saying whether it's under those utility wires or whatever, the ideas or a chain of them
here and there or perhaps even obtaining land on a site that is going to remain industrial but maybe they
want to let some of it go for that. It seems this may be a more attainable way to get this.
>I was disappointed and surprised to see how prescriptive the planting specifications are. It's probably
boilerplate from the Native Plant Council, so I pulled some sheets where I was shocked to see that first of
all, there is nothing else besides native plant vegetation can be planted. Nothing listed on the Native Plant
Council's invasive plants list, and I think that it is very prescriptive. Certainly nothing to do with our General
Plan, and we had a good section about landscaping and sensitive areas which this is not, it's landfill. The
General Plan encourages planting of natives, but does not force it. The projects we've seen come through
are definitely are not all native and they tend to be more native adaptive landscaping. Fin ally, were you
aware that the street tree list that has been established here for roads, none of them are native. And a
couple of them, at least one is on the bad list from the Native Plant Council. I'm asking if you would revisit
that one.
>I was thinking about the community benefits and some of the support services that we want to see
come together in this neighborhood. I was wondering if there was a way to overlay some type of a metrics
and some type of master plan that could help future developers and existing property owners to pick and
choose whether they want a café here, a dry cleaner, whatever type of support spaces or event center or
whatever it may be, to make this neighborhood thrive and vibrant. So instead of developers thinking for
example they have a space and they ’re thinking of it being a caf é, but maybe we already have too many
cafes in this area. Could we give them some options to choose so we also build a little bit of core retail
and community spaces that would really make it an activated neighborhood? When I say the master plan,
I mean an overlay on top of these five areas that we're developing and maybe dot in where might be a
good location for a café, where might be a good spot for a laundromat or whatever it might be to give
developers some kind of guideline of what we might want or need to support all the residents and workers
in this area. (Moreland: In terms of the guidance, a marketing study would assess and identify that this
area is providing x-amount of residential and would need these services, and based on that, there could be
an overlay or guidance).
>It looks like there is only one major crosswalk area in this neighborhood, or am I misreading it? Do
you know how many crosswalks are planned to get to the other side? (Moreland: I believe there's one type
of crosswalk design that would be repeated at all three cul -de-sacs intersecting with Rollins Road. As
development comes in, you could look at a new crossing location at the intersection. Along with those
three cul-de-sacs, there's also crossings at the paseo paths.) (Mike Mowry, Kimley -Horn: It's slightly
outside the plan area, but Millbrae will have an upgraded crossing at the intersection of Rollins Road and
Adrian Road.)
>These crosswalk intersections with the bulb out areas seems like they would be natural nodes for
retail and these community support services. I also agree with the suggestion of creating a universal
lighting plan for this whole area.
>Just a question for school -aged kids, which elementary school are the kids supposed to be attending
Page 4City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
from this neighborhood and how will they get there? (Gardiner: Right now the area is in the boundaries of
Franklin, but there are no residences in this area yet. It is a challenge to get to the school areas from
here. One interest is the possibility of having a crossing under the railroad or above railroad. That is not an
insignificant endeavor but it would be part of a strategy for a route to school. We have been coordinating
with the district and based on current enrollment trends, they should have sufficient capacity but will need
to figure out which district assign the kids to.)
>Is there a projected residential population if everything goes to plan and certain density was reached? I
don't know if you have a number just based on the housing units. it's a little harder to estimate
school-aged children based on the type of housing much, so I'm thinking general population. (Moreland:
The specific plan is implementing the density that's identified in the General Plan, with a small
adjustment, to be around 1,800 units so it would be around 4,500 or 5,000 people total.) Assuming one of
every five, that's one thousand kids. That's something to consider; we love the density, we love the
population growth, and obviously we need more housing but I don't see any schools being built.
>I’m not understanding on how the pattern of the street frontage works with the setbacks. (Moreland:
What we really want along Rollins Road is to increase the pedestrian experience. We want a wider
sidewalk. We looked at alternatives to potentially pinching the Rollins right -of-way down, really trying to
keep Rollins Road as a transit corridor that accommodates both bikes as well as accommodate the truck
traffic that's there. We don't really envision the curb to curb dimension being dimensional so we're saying
the movable property line is going to be requiring a wider sidewalk that would encroach into the private
property. There would be a ten -foot-wide sidewalk, five feet would be within the public right -of-way and an
additional five feet on private right -of-way so you get a 10-foot-wide sidewalk There would need to be
easements attached to it but it would feel like a 10-foot sidewalk. Beyond the 10-foot sidewalk, the
building would be setback ten feet from the property line. So five feet will be used for landscape or
additional sidewalk area like a cafe or anything like that along the sidewalk.) (Gardiner: I'll add, this was
something we already had built into the interim zoning. As complicated as it sounds, it's not that
complicated and the three projects approved so far have utilized this approach. They have all mapped the
public access easements as part of their maps so it's a way to create a more consistent streetscape
without knowing exactly where the property line is going to fall in an individual place, but you know that you
want a ten-foot sidewalk regardless. Plus the planting zone and the amenity zones creates that
consistency regardless of the specifics of a site. We have a good street section diagram that shows the
geometry of the lanes and the sidewalks and the bike lanes, so we could add buildings to the diagram to
better explain this.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing to allow for public comment. There were no public comments. Chair
Gaul closed the public hearing.
Community Development Director Gardiner acknowledged that there is a lot of material in the draft, and
invited commissioners to mark up their drafts if they would like to provide further comments. This was
also done for the General Plan and was effective.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
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. This project
is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(2). (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:
Page 5City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
The item was pulled for discussion by a member of the public.
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Robert Cameron and Joshua Larson, represented the applicant and answered questions about the
application.
Public Comments:
>Michael Rudolph, 1435 Alvarado Avenue: Good evening commissioners, with regard to 1441 Alvarado
Avenue, the Cameron ’s proposal for modifications to their house. When it came up before the
commissioners in their last meeting, we were in general agreement with the Cameron ’s plans. However, we
did indicate that we had some concerns about the landscaping. So, if you refer to the PDF file 1441
Alvarado Avenue plans.pdf, slide seven shows our house and the Cameron ’s house. It shows landscaping
that goes above our roof line which we are concerned will take away our current views of both the airport
and the bay. When we spoke with the Cameron ’s in the last meeting, they said their architect would be
willing to work with us to make sure that that didn't happen. So, we are very concerned that what appears
to be olive trees and the street trees are going to interfere with our views and want to express concern
about that. Again, not being familiar with this process, whether there could be something that needs to be
entered into the record on the commissioner's side that we have expressed that concern because we don't
want to find three or four years from now that we don't have a view. Thank you very much. (Cameron: The
amount of foliage was an initial attempt to ensure the beautification of the street and the neighborhood
and promote as much of a green atmosphere to minimize the presence of the building. With that said, we
are very much willing to ensure that our neighbors are able to enjoy the views that they have today as we
enjoy them as well, and to be able to find a resolution here to ensure that all parties were happy. We’re
happy to ensure that we select a variety that does not impair that view. Our interests are aligned as we
want to ensure that the entrance to the home is still visible through that arch way.)
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>It is not the house that is going to prevent this project from moving forward. We are talking about a
landscaping item that needs to be negotiated between neighbors. It seems to me that there is not an item
that we can put in place as a condition of approval.
>Gardiner: The commission can't really regulate the maintenance of landscaping and landscaping can
change over time. It does seem like there's willingness and interest from the applicant to coordinate with
the neighbors and that's very encouraging. That starts to get outside of the realm of the design review and
the different permits being requested, particularly with maintenance.
> Assuming it's just a regular olive tree, it says 20 to 30 feet, so it's not an enormous tree. It should be
easy to control.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
b.1855-1881 Rollins Road, zoned RRMU - Application for a Vesting Tentative Map for a
Lot Combination of three existing parcels. (BKF Engineering, Engineer; SJ Amoroso
Properties Co, E and S Property LLC, and ANRM Holdings LLC, property owners) (72
noticed) Staff Contact: Victor Voong
Page 6City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1855-1881 Rollins Rd - Memorandum
1855-1881 Rollins Rd - Vesting Tentative Map
Attachments:
Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application on consent. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.740 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Dain Adamson, Thomas James Homes, applicant;
Bassenian Lagoni, architect; SF 21G, LLC, Thomas James Homes, property owner) (112
noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
740 Paloma Ave - Staff Report
740 Paloma Ave - Attachments
740 Paloma Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item .
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Hannah Chu and Anna Felver, designers, 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:
>I appreciate all the changes made. The applicant has listened to a lot of the feedback that we gave in
the previous meeting. The front looks a lot better. All of the changes really made each elevation look
better and I really appreciate that. I'm stuck right at the moment with the fiberglass. We've not seen those
come through or approved them lately. So, I’m not convinced that it's a good choice.
> I am familiar with Ultrex by Marvin and it appears as a clad window, so I'll vouch for that brand and
material for a window. You'll see them around town. It's the standard for Marvin now. The reason is
because a lot of the window manufacturers are getting away from the wood windows just for warping,
durability and weather proofing. They last longer. I have a bigger concern about the fiberglass front door
because fiberglass doors look like fiberglass doors. They don't look like wood doors. I have brought them
and put them in, but typically in the backdoor on an apartment building. Haven't seen a fiberglass front
door that looked really good especially in a craftsman house. I just think a wood door would look better .
I'm also concerned about that tall skinny look on it.
> I was also going to vouch for the Marvin windows. I’m currently reviewing a project of ours, a
fiberglass entry door compared to wood door mainly due to the weather exposure and orientation of the
home facing south in my situation. I have installed a fiberglass entry door before. Not often, it depends on
Page 7City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the brand of course, they can look very realistic with wood texture and you can have them unfinished to be
stained onsite or pre-finished. There's a number of ways they can be prepared for installation. Suggests to
have the applicant provide that information to us, what brand they might be using for the entry door, just to
give us a little bit more information. Maybe as an FYI so we know it's not some stamped fiberglass door
you would put on the side of a garage entrance or something, which is what we usually imagine when we
think about fiberglass doors. Not so much as what brand but a spec sheet so we can see what quality
entry door would be proposed.
>I'm a fan of the grids on the window, so I was disappointed to see those go away. They add a lot of
character to the home. The windows were still quite sizable, especially the front elevation with the
proposed single hung windows, that top half could have grids very easily.
>Generally, it has come a long way from what we first saw which I really appreciate. I commented last
time about how narrow the door looked and now I know why. It's artificially stretched because it's a taller
door. If it's three feet wide that's fine. Now that you have the grid in the door and without the grid in the
windows, something looks out of proportion. It looks really large. The top grid disappeared and it would be
more cohesive if you put that back in because it really is an older neighborhood. You could get away with
it but it lost some of the charm. Is the garage door metal? Do we typically see metal garage doors?
>It doesn't specify that on sheet A 3.2. We have had metal doors in the past, I'm not a fan because
they dent when kids kick a ball on them. So we have a few things, it sounds like there's a desire for grids
to be put back in the windows, which I would go along with. We are asking for a cut sheet on the
fiberglass entry door to be provided and then the garage door to be either fiberglass or wood.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve with the
application with the following condition:
>Prior to issuance of a building permit an FYI application shall be submitted which shall
include specifications for the fiberglass entry door, and revised plans showing grids on all
windows as originally proposed, and specifying the garage door material to be either wood or
fiberglass.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
b.877 Mahler Road, zoned I-I - Application for a Master Sign Program for wall signs above
the first story of an existing commercial building. The project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15311
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Carl Cook, United Signs and Kerry Apex, applicants; Fast
Signs, sign designer; 877 Mahler LLC, property owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
877 Mahler Rd - Staff Report
877 Mahler Rd - Attachments
877 Mahler Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Aurora Sanchez, designer, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Page 8City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>This is pretty straightforward. I don't see anything that's disruptive to the area with the size or the
location of the signs. It's a natural spot on this building to put them so I ’m in favor of the project. I would
like to see this move forward.
> My compliment goes to this one, particularly for the sign that is on the building itself and not
necessarily for the podium one, the font looks really great with the building. It looks like a 1950s building.
It looks nice. Nice job.
Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
c.1 Adrian Court, zoned RRMU - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to
a previously approved 265-unit mixed-use development project (proposed changes to art
wall). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects) of the
CEQA Guidelines. (Carmel Partners, applicant and property owner; BDE Architecture,
architect) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1 Adrian Ct - Staff Report
1 Adrian Ct - Attachments
1 Adrian Ct - Original Plans
1 Adrian Ct - Proposed Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an
overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Lisa Phyfe and Debi Zumtobel, 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:
>Concerns about the longevity and maintenance of the mural paint.
>Suggests to consider putting some foliage on that wall instead of a mural. Like climbing vines or
something that could be really nice and green, which might have that impression of a little bit more
greenery from the ground up. Or consider featuring a local artist. We have lost an amazing artist in town
by the name of Dale Perkins. He’s done a number of works in Burlingame and maybe we could do a
tribute to something that he created or something to that nature.
>(Phyfe: When it comes to the greenery and planning, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe providing
art at this wall is a condition of approval for the project, so we had assumed it was required to stay as art.)
> (Hurin: The art wall was originally offered by the previous developer. The code doesn't require it per
Page 9City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
se, but the developer offered to do an art wall. At the time they didn't have the concept down, so the
commission asked that it come back as an FYI item to review the art wall. Now that it's been changed
because of that condition, it's before you now. There aren't any specific regulations or requirements for an
art wall, what it should look like and what should go on the art wall.)
>Maybe that's something that the applicant can look at. Consider another way to create the wall that
might also help with its maintenance.
>Consider a wall to be built of something that wouldn't require maintenance that would have some
textural or color interests. Tile can be applied in patterns and almost a large mosaic. It might be very
pricey, but another way to build an art wall or some kind of interest wall. It doesn't have to be an art wall
but something with textural interest and it can be done in color. To this previously proposed poppy design,
even though it was really large and to the pedestrian scale, you can read very easily that those were
poppies on the wall. You can't get too much distance from this wall where this wall would be located in
relationship to where one would walk and be able to enjoy it. You lose the sense of scale with what's
currently being proposed. Trying to imagine being up close to this wall, I don't know if you can see the
birds on what's currently being proposed. Scale is fine but maybe if it was more open, more obvious what
the imagery is so one can enjoy it and consideration of some other type of material that the wall could be
built out of.
>I actually like the previous solution a lot better. I'm not inspired by the new solution and I agree that
it's going to wear. I have never seen a painted mural last. Whereas a baked enamel metal panel actually
could last quite a long time without fading. It would have more three -dimensional interest on that wall than
the painted solution. Conceptually, it's nowhere near where I ’m thinking that wall would be more attractive .
I would actually side with putting the vines on. Unless we're actually approving the design, I don't know that
I would approve this conceptually either. So I’m not necessarily in favor of making the change.
>I'm not in favor of this mural. We can come up with something better for that wall and create
something that is more beneficial to that wall, to that community and for maintenance.
> I would have to agree with that. The original proposal was better, it gave depth and is more
dimensional. Something flat isn't going to work. I agree with my fellow commissioner, unless we have
concept or the actual art, I don't know that we should be moving forward with it. I'm in favor of the art, it's
going to be less maintenance than a vine and it could ultimately last longer. My fellow commissioner was
talking about tiles, but you can do cast -in-place concrete with relief. Not necessarily like what they have
on the freeway but that whole idea, even though those retaining walls look like big huge pieces of stone as
you're going down 92 freeway out to Half Moon Bay. There are things you can do with concrete that are
zero maintenance and they will last forever. There are other ways where we can go with this. I am not for a
flat one dimensional mural.
>I agree with everything that have been said. A vine is certainly preferential to what we have seen. I like
the 3D look of the poppies. To piggyback on the discussion we started this evening on making a special
neighborhood, this is part of that neighborhood. It would be fun to have something different, happy and to
start some motion in that direction. You have to start somewhere. So here, we have something on our
plate and was part of the approval. Sorry to say, I can't approve the second concept.
>We all, more or less, agree that we're not in favor of the proposed project and we would like to see
something that is a little more specific as opposed to a concept.
>(Spansail: We've had some commissioners go the direction of maybe not having it be an art wall,
having vines or some other material on there. Is that something that would be considered because we
want to make sure the applicant knows whether to stick with the original condition of an art wall or if
there's more flexibility on that?)
>I would rather see art than a vine wall.
>Wondering if the Planning Commission is the right group. Are we experts in art appreciation? Is there
an art commission in Burlingame or some other venue that should be adjudicating this? I don't feel like I ’m
well qualified to be an art critic.
>I actually would like to see the art. The reason I like the poppies is you would see it from the park
that's in the parking lot that we've spent an hour and a half talking about. Because that wall was close to
20-feet tall, the top of the poppies will go way above the six -foot fence that separates this project from the
parking lot that's behind. Granted that it is a parking lot now, but we just looked at how we want to see
that whole central area become more pedestrian -friendly. So, it wouldn't just be the dogs and the people
Page 10City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
who live there that are going to appreciate this. I would agree with my fellow commissioner, I would like to
see it remain as an art installation. I just don't see the proposal that was before us tonight being
something that adds value.
>I, too, would like to see the originally proposed in the form of an art wall, not necessarily having to be
metal panels, but I love the graphics from the poppies. The color and the vibrancy was brought to life in
that area compared to what was proposed this evening. I’m open to some other contextual interest whether
it is tile, some kind of pre -formed, and pre -cast panels that can be installed on a wall. Something that
conveys that originally approved design and proposed art but can be in other materials with some textural
interest would be what I would be looking for.
>I’m good with artwork. We can take off the vines for now, so the applicant knows which direction we
can all go in.
>The commission would like to see an art wall there because it would be helpful and beneficial to the
park area and to the development. However, we are looking for something more than one dimensional art
and we can give them artistic license with that.
>The paint makes me nervous. It's not going to look good. I mean, who is going to be bothering the
company or trying to get every paint job done when it's faded. I'm not for the paint unless it ’s something
that's more 3-dimensional as opposed to one -dimensional. The metal, whatever original was, sounds like
it’s more permanent like a car paint. It sounds like something that's longer lasting. That's great and fine.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to continue the item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
d.500 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application for a Special Permit for building height
for a new elevator enclosure on the roof deck of an existing four -story office building. This
project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Carlos Castillo,
Element One Architecture, applicant and architect; Waterfront Plaza Properties LLC,
property owner) (13 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
500 Airport Blvd - Staff Report
500 Airport Blvd - Attachments
500 Airport Blvd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an
overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Will Johnson and Carlos Castillo, 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:
>I truly appreciate the challenge on this one in trying to make this work. Struggling with a 20-foot tall
tower on top of a 47-foot building. I appreciate the applicant putting up the story poles because that made
it even more evidently clear what I thought the last time. I understand the need but I ’m not at all in favor of
the solution.
Page 11City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
> I get the reasoning for bringing an elevator up, but I have to agree with everybody. A 20-foot tower on
top of a 47-foot building, we need to be able to come up with something better.
> Consider taking the elevator outside of the building. There's an inside corner area that if you went up
the side it would be less weird looking than in the middle of the roof. Because the story poles don't lie. I
saw it in every direction as I circled the project. Study the possibility of putting it on the backside of the
building, going up the side and cladding it in glass instead, not the most economical but it might make it
look less intentionally in the wrong place.
>I totally appreciate the need. I appreciate the reason. I appreciate the challenges and the desire to
solve this in an economical fashion. It doesn't change the fact that it's a 20-foot eyesore on top of a 47
-foot building. So, I have not come up with a way to change that other than figuring out how to recess it .
Only other way would be looking at a different elevator that's hydraulic that pushes up from underneath and
not an overhead which needs so much over travel. I have never seen a 20-foot tall elevator penthouse. I
don't know how to make this any better for them at this point, not without adding a tremendous amount of
cost. So, I’m struggling with how we help them resolve this.
>This is just an eyesore and I can't see approving it. Again, they have to come up with maybe a
different device that might work in this situation. This not going to work.
>I understand they are in a pickle. It's an existing elevator. Not that they can rebuild that anywhere they
want around the building, but historically throughout architecture and design, you come up with decorative
elements to hide the things you don't want to see. Consider some type of a false shell around what they
are proposing. Part of the problem is that it's tall and it's skinny. But if it had a shell around it that serves
no purpose other than decoratively to make it a little wider so that scale feels a little bit wider and shorter
respectively and finish off the shell so it looks like the building. Some kind of glass panels wrapped
around it or something so at least it looks like the building instead of just a shaft sticking up. It's just an
idea if there's no other way to relocate this elevator. They need to build something to service this elevator
shaft.
>There's got to be a way to make it blend in. It's not so tall but it doesn't blend in with the building .
Regarding my fellow commissioner ’s comment, if I’m reading the drawings correctly, this is a hydraulic
plan underneath but there's a requirement by code for four feet above the car when it's at the height of it
so a guy doesn't get crushed in there. If the elevator was ten feet, it's still 20 feet.
>Just one last comment that came up at the last review, so they are going to upgrade the elevator to
get equipment onto the roof but it doesn't land you on the roof. It lands you on a platform that is five steps
above the roof, so they are still going to have a problem with people having to carry things on stairs. It
seems to me that simple roof mounted equipment hoisted on the end of the parapet, a small crane where
they can bring stuff up from the ground to the roof would be solving the problem much more economically
for them and wouldn't create an eyesore in the building, so maybe they just go back to square one and
think about what is the use case for this in the first place. Just to permanently mount it. It's like a window
washer crane, right. That can just lever off the side of building and lift up the side.
>That’s a very good point because their argument is they want all these solar panels.
Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing.
>I want to address a comment regarding the stairs. As we thought that the elevator is the safest and
most efficient way to get there. The stairs were unavoidable but five or six stairs is far preferable than
going up. It's 19 steeper steps on an access ladder and it's safer when carrying equipment up when you
have room to carry that equipment up and down. We would prefer to get this approved of course. It serves
a functional purpose. But if rejection is eminent, I would prefer to continue this.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to continue the
item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
e.777 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application for a new 13-story office/research and
development building. (LPC West, applicant and property owner; Gensler, architect) (24
noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
Page 12City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1. Application for Commercial Design Review and Special Permits for building height
and development under Tier 3/Community Benefits.
2. Environmental Review - Proposed Finding: The project does not require further review
under CEQA pursuant to the streamlining provisions contained in Public Resources Code
Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Consistency with the General
Plan).
777 Airport Blvd - Staff Report
777 Airport Blvd - Attachments
777 Airport Blvd - CEQA 15183 Checklist
777 Airport Blvd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Brandon Wang, Mark Hoffman and Benedict Tranel, 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 focus of this presentation was on the ground level cafe. I'm one thousand percent behind that. I
appreciate you guys doing that. I know that sometimes doesn't pan out economically but it's a great
benefit. Consider making the amenity area on the first floor something that was open to the public as with
the building tenants. Maybe a cafeteria type place because there will be a lot of foot traffic from the hotel .
People are looking for things to do. Otherwise, good job.
>Thank you again for the presentation. It has gotten better each time. I appreciate the effort being put
into it, especially the effort into bringing down the scale of the building, the incredible effort on the public
park in the back and the open space. I recognize there's a lot of money and effort being put into that area
as a public amenity and it's great. The cafe piece worked really great. All of that is good. I encourage your
amenity programming to consider how food and beverage might benefit your tenants as well. This area
doesn't have a lot of places. So your little 1800 square foot cafe will be potentially mobbed. There is still
more opportunity in that amenity space for good programming that would help in that area. But otherwise,
great job. I’m in support of this project and want to see it go forward.
>They've done a great job addressing all our comments, great project and I’m ready to approve it.
>It has been really wonderful listening to and working with this group. For them listening to our
comments and taking them to heart. I love the design. It's really looking beautiful and can't wait to see it
constructed. Thank you very much. I definitely see us moving forward with this project.
>It's a really nice project that has come a long way since we first saw it. The overall architecture has
really risen to the occasion, no pun intended. It will be a good landmark building and with Topgolf going in
across. The cafe leaves more to be desired but we'll have a Topgolf across the street and other amenities
going down the road. My little concern is that the cafe, although it sounds nice in that location, it's going to
be facing the freeway. It may get a little loud. Does that matter? I don't think so. I would love more
Page 13City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
amenity space but I think they've done a nice job here and I look forward to approving it.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners. I think Gensler did a great job.
>I would agree. Let’s get this thing into engineering so we can save that 32 feet and not have to go to
concrete. But to reiterate my point, if you can make more public space, it would be very helpful and
beneficial to the city, to the hotel guests and even to the tenants of the building. It's going to be a
landmark building and the first things you see when you get off at Anza Boulevard which will be a more
popular off-ramp in the coming years. With Topgolf across the street, it will be a good addition to the area .
It's a good development. I really like to see this move forward.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the
environmental review. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
entitlements application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1353 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit
for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Anna
Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant; Bassenian Lagoni, architect; SF 21G, LLC,
Thomas James Homes, property owner) (118 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali
1353 Columbus Ave - Staff Report
1353 Columbus Ave - Attachments
1353 Columbus Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item .
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Miranda Clark & Anna Felver, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Matt Reidy, 1349 Columbus Ave: Good Evening. I would like to compliment the team from Thomas
James Homes, they are very upfront and had a nice conversation with the neighbors here. My wife and I
own the home adjacent to this property. If you look at the house from the street, we are on the left hand
side. I just want to note for the record that it is a bit tricky topography on the property where it slopes. It
also has some retainage at the rear of the property but there is also a good 7’ down from our property down
to the elevation of the lots between us. It has always been a little bit of a slope, probably was put around
a hundred years ago when the first homes were built. I just want to bring that to your attention so that
when we do fill work and looking at retention walls, we have to be careful about that. Maybe there is a
change of slope problem and erosion which could affect our house on that side. I would also like to note
that we have a couple of mature trees on the boundary line and to be careful during construction work to
preserve it as best as they can. Thank you.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
Page 14City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Consider a weather protection, maybe a cantilever or awning at the rear elevation entry door, it looks a
little bit exposed.
>Provide some ventilation at the attic. Some gable venting could add decoratively to the design.
>We typically see plate height at 9’-0” on the first floor and 8”-0” on the second floor. The drawings
indicate 9’-1” and 8’-1” respectively.
>Fix drafting error on the front elevation where the door and side lite is located.
>Overall, it is a good project. I would like to see some clarifications on the materials, specifically the
shutters and the decorative foams at the front. I want to hear form my fellow commissioners about their
take on the plate heights. I know it is just an inch but if we give an inch here, the next one will be 9’-2”.
>The electrical panel looks very odd to me. I see what they are doing, corner boards that build out a
shaft for the mechanical, but it just looks very strange. There are other ways to do it. There is plenty of
room on that nice long wall. With a 2 x 6 exterior wall, there will be plenty of room. I’d like to see it
addressed and dealt in a better fashion.
>I am not fully comprehending all of the slope within the drawings. I looked at two different landscape
drawings that show different stair configurations. I appreciate the neighbor being transparent about the
side to side conditions of the properties. There needs to be a more thorough retaining on the civil drawings
and show this because they are asking us to approve it to go over the height limit on a 5’ floor to curb.
The design of the house can go down 1’-6” easily. They need to work a little bit on that. The square
footage numbers on the plan don ’t match the staff report and the FAR and lot coverage don ’t add up.
Please provide clarification there. The front windows, we don ’t really see 8’- 0” windows. All of a sudden, we
are seeing them in all of this company ’s projects. It is not typical for homes in Burlingame. I had 7’- 0”
windows and I thought they were tall. You need to rethink some of these. The window on the right side of
the porch is not scaled correctly. The side lite on the door does not work. We keep pushing all these
windows up high underneath the eaves and there will be structural problems with that. Pushing these
windows to 8’- 0” in all of these projects is creating a problem. Overall, the project looks pretty good but
there are things that we have brought up that should be looked at for the next time when it comes back.
>I wanted to reiterate the point my fellow commissioner brought up about the 8’- 0” windows. That is not
really working for me. It is not nestled very nicely inside the front porch, it seems very tall underneath that
porch and it is no longer relating itself to the front door. In the earlier project, they said they have the 8’- 0”
tall door to match the windows. This one does not do either. I would want to see that window pushed down
as well as the side lite. It just looks strange that both of them are floating taller than the tall door. I don ’t
even know if I like the 8’- 0” tall entry door. That area needs to be re -looked at. One of the definitions of a
Cape Cod home is symmetry. On the rear elevation, the windows on the primary bedroom, over the family
room windows down below, should be split up or separated a little bit symmetrically over the roof of the
covered porch. Something should adjust there to make it balanced. Also consider a weather protection
above the rear door if possible.
>I don’t understand why the 9’- 1” plate height is allowed and does not trigger a Special Permit. Usually,
you see a 9’- 0” plate height and the ceiling becomes 8’- 11”. It is interesting that this is 9’- 1”, I don’t know
if this is finished or unfinished. Please clarify, make it really clean and 9’-0” finish and same with the 8’-1”
at the second floor. I don ’t see a need for the increased building height. Once you adjust for the grade,
you are going to have some height issues to address. Consider looking at that as may be the reason for
height request because the drawings were presented as if it is on a flat parcel. I don ’t see some
justification for that height.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to place the
application 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 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
b.2316 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc,
Page 15City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
applicant and designer; Andy and Monica MacMillian, property owners) (103 noticed)
Staff Contact: Fazia Ali
2316 Easton Dr - Staff Report
2316 Easton Dr - Attachments
2316 Easton Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon 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:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>There is an area on the site that can accommodate more trees. Please provide a planting plan.
>I don’t really like the parking space. There needs to be some clarification on the parking space on
how the section through the new driveway will work. It slopes up about 1’- 6”, if not 2’- 0”in the space of
that parking spot. Also, please clarify the location of the power pole. It is a lot closer to the curb cut than
is shown on the plans. There are opportunities for clarification regarding this curb cut and parking space .
It is not a deal breaker but there are unintended consequences coming. Otherwise, I don ’t have any
issues with the ADU or the addition, it looks fine.
> They have done a really good job on this. It looks very classy. The parking part is a real bummer. I
don’t know how it’s all going to work out. It is a very lovely design. When the trees get planted in the front
or back it will be even better.
Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the
application on the on Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
c.2105 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits
for Second Floor Plate Height and Declining Height Envelope for a second story addition
to an existing two -story dwelling. (Aaron Avelar, applicant and property owner; OXB
Studio, architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
2105 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report
2105 Carmelita Ave - Attachments
2105 Carmelita Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Page 16City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aaron Avelar, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
> Public comment sent via email by Martin John Lee, 2103 Carmelita Avenue: The proposal extends
beyond the declining height envelope, not by a small amount, but by an enormous amount. More than half
of the proposed development encroaches on the declining height plane. The significant departure beyond
the declining height envelope results in a significant loss of natural daylight to the adjacent property and
an increase in overshadowing. The proposed increased in height will further compound the issue of
overshadowing to the neighboring property. There are a significant number of new windows proposed on
the second floor addition on the side elevation (five in total). Because the addition extends beyond the
declining height plane, this will result in significant increase in overlooking onto the neighboring property .
On the rear elevation, the portion of the second floor that extends beyond the declining height envelope
has a set of French doors and balcony. These will also result in overlooking into neighboring property. If
the proposal is setback within the required declining height envelope, this will not be an issue. All of the
above issues are a result of the proposed addition stepping significantly beyond the declining height
envelope.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The architecture is really good. The second floor, especially at the back, and roofline looks a lot
better. It was really well proportioned. I like that they are saving the house, so I am in favor of this.
>I totally echo my fellow commissioner ’s comments. I completely understand the need for the Special
Permit for Declining Height Envelope and I totally support that based on the findings. The applicant gave a
reasonable response regarding the Special Permit for the second story plate height. In keeping with the
architecture of the home, with the applicant mentioning interior details, I can understand why an 8’-6” plate
height would certainly be nice to have and would fit, so I am in favor.
>I can appreciate the way that the Declining Height Envelope was calculated may reflect the actual site,
but it changes the departure point considerably. I would be in favor in looking at something that is not as
quite restrictive as that, but this house is pushing dramatically over to the left and is going to tower over
that neighbor’s house on the left. The pop out for the bathroom overdoes it. Consider moving the wall
further in and not make it lopsided. I like the architecture. The new windows at the second floor are big
and will just pound on the left side neighbor. There needs to be more consideration on that. I don ’t see
supporting these Variance requests given how much impact it will have on the left side neighbor.
>I echo what my fellow commissioner just said. I feel that the left side of the house is towering over the
left side neighbor. The property and the street slope upwards. There is a little bit of imbalance with so
much of the addition over on the left side and extending way beyond the Declining Height Envelope. I can
understand the challenges that they are working with and can accept some penetration of the Declining
Height Envelope. I don’t feel that the primary bathroom needs to have the vanity protrude out at the bay
window extension. It can be a beautiful and generously laid out bathroom tucked in to reduce the
encroachment on the left side. I feel for the neighbors to the left as well and cannot support that much
penetration at the Declining Height Envelope, at least at this point.
>Similarly, I agree with my fellow commissioners. I very much appreciate the reuse and the respect of
the home, its architecture and its history. I do think there is room to pull the addition in a bit because it
will definitely be a burden more than the usual. Good job so far but more can be done to help the issue.
>I agree with the recent comments. It is a nice looking addition but it is a little lopsided on the left side .
Suggests to show a different point of departure if the lot did not slope to help bolster the argument for the
Declining Height Envelope. We all get it that the property slopes at the back, but if this is shown to us as
if it is a flat lot, it might be presented to us that it would be acceptable. The left side needs to be revisited
a bit.
>I agree, that left side needs to be looked at. Otherwise, it is a nice project. They have tied it in well
with the existing home.
Page 17City of Burlingame
November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Following up on the declining height envelope suggestion, an interesting way to look at it more
objectively would be an average of the front and the rear corners on the existing building in that driveway.
Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, 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:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Community Development Director Gardiner reported that at the November 7th City Council meeting, the
Building Reach Code was introduced and will go forward. There were no amendments proposed, so the
ordinance will go forward for adoption in the next council meeting.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
No Future Agenda items were proposed.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:44 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, November 14,
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 November 14, 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 28, 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 18City of Burlingame