Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.01.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, January 9, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:04 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, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent6 - LowenthalAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft December 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft December 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: The following corrections were made: >Page 10; 11th and 12th line from bottom of page: change "Deson" to Dessin". >Page 11; first bullet under Commission Discussion /Direction: change "original windows" to "originally proposed windows". >Page 11; sixth bullet under Commission Discussion /Direction: change "They sometimes gets pushed back by the applicant and the applicants ultimately is the one that submits the plan." to "They sometimes get push back by the applicant and the applicants ultimately are the ones that submit the plan." >Page 12; first bullet point under Public Comments: change "Carlene" to "Karlene". >Page 13; seventh bullet under Commission Discussion /Direction: change "trim on the crown" to "trimming on the tree crown". Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.2023-2031 Housing Element Update. Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Staff Report 2023-2031 Housing Element - Public Review Draft Appendix A - RHNA 5 Programs Appendix B - Outreach Appendix C - AFFH Appendix D - Sites Inventory Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner presented an overview of the draft Housing Element. Commission Questions and Discussion: >What is the logic for discouraging converting apartments to condominiums? (Gardiner: This is a policy matter. Currently the Municipal Code does not allow conversions of apartment buildings with 20 or fewer units into condominiums. The intent is to preserve affordable rental stock. However through community engagement, there has been some interest in allowing condo conversions as a means for providing an opportunity for first -time home ownership, particularly at a lower cost than new construction.) Condo conversion may be the best opportunity for entry -level homeownership in Burlingame, and preserving rental stock seems to be at odds with creating entry -level ownership. Particularly as most of the new construction is rental. >Interest in opportunities to preserve naturally affordable housing. >Wondering how the tree requirements apply when adding ADUs to a property. In the interest of environmental justice, it is important that if there are more people living on a property, those people also have a right to enjoying more trees on their property. Not everyone has the opportunity to access a park, and the City has less parkland per capita compared to others. >Do we track the percentage of workers living in Burlingame? It would be an important statistic since we are obligated to provide housing for those who work here, but not convinced that ’s how people actually live and work. >Are the RHNA numbers discouraging ownership? Do they encourage rentals over ownership? (Gardiner: The RHNA allocations are neutral regarding whether they are rental or ownership. The lower income categories tend to apply more to rental affordable housing, but lower income ownership opportunities could be welcome as well. The City does not influence whether projects are rental or ownership; must has to do with the financing and what types of development projects get funded.) >How are the ADU income percentages determined? (Gardiner: The allocations are based on a study conducted by the state that has determined typical income allocations statewide. We are using the formula provided by HCD). An alternative would be to provide a questionnaire so we could better determine the rental characteristics in Burlingame. >How is the coordination with the school district administered? (Gardiner: Staff meets regularly with school district staff to review the pipeline developments. Currently the school districts have been experiencing decreasing enrollments, which would be partially countered by new students in the new units.) >How are the below-market rents established? (Gardiner: For each income category, rents are set to approximately 30% of the household’s income. The rents are reassessed each year. Ideally projects will have a range of income categories so that household income can rise without causing the household to lose their eligibility.) >Do we have statistics or data to indicate what percentage of lower income units are occupied? (The Village at Burlingame will be the first project with lower -income units. Occupancy is anticipated this year . Up until now, all below-market units have been Moderate Income units. The Moderate Income units can be difficult to rent given how close the rents are to market rate. They do get rented over time, but the smallest studios and the larger 3 bedroom units can be more difficult to rent.) Public Comments: Page 2City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Kenneth Do, Carpenters Union Local 217 representing thousands of construction workers living throughout San Mateo County. I’m encouraged by the idea of bringing more development like this to our community because greater density makes a property more accessible and benefits the people who want to live and work in Burlingame. The Housing Element is great because it provides housing for all income levels. However before granting approval to any developer, there needs to be some labor standards in place. A labor standard would ensure contractors pay fair wages, and use experienced well -trained workers. This leads to a higher quality workmanship, meeting building standards, and completing the project quickly. Prevailing wage support for a viable apprenticeship program, health care for construction workers, and a workable local hire are all critical elements to ensuring the City of Burlingame has and will have in the future the workforce necessary to build the housing this community desperately needs, while achieving and even exceeding the policy goals outlined in the Housing Element. The Nor Cal Carpenters Union believes that strong language and a labor commitment on the following policy areas will enhance the Burlingame General Plan and its vision for the future. For all these reasons, the Carpenters’ Union urges the City of Burlingame to adopt these labor standards as a requirement for any developer planning to build in our city. We look forward for your support and thank you for your time. >Athan Rebelos (via public comment email): I want to comment on item 6A. I am glad Burlingame is ahead of the game regarding the housing element, but I ’m saddened by some of the positions I ’ve heard expressed tonight. Families are getting smaller and more people choose to be single or childless. These are lifestyle choices and shouldn ’t be judged as lesser than someone who owns a 3 bedroom single family home. Home ownership should be an option for folks who choose that path but it ’s a myth that home ownership is always a smart financial decision. This has been addressed in publications like the Wall Street Journal and Barrons. Anecdotally, Elon Musk recently announced that he no longer wants to own a home. There are very few scenarios in which it would be a good idea to convert rental stock into condos . Finally, workers should be able to live near where they work, certainly in the same city. 70% of workers still have to commute daily to their workplace. Commission Discussion: >Wants to better understand whether there is any latitude for discussing the design of JADUs. >There needs to be tracking of occupancy of the lower-income units. >Needs to increase the percentage of lower -income units in the larger projects, rather than concentrate the lower-income units together. We are trying to mix it. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to make a recommendation that the City Council submit this draft of the Housing Element to the State Department of Community Development (HCD). The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1915 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc, applicant and architect; Anthony and Gail Mosse, property owners) (93 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1915 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report 1915 Carmelita Ave - Attachments 1915 Carmelita Ave - Plans Attachments: Page 3City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Tse was recused from Item 7a - 1915 Carmelita Avenue because her architecture firm prepared the plans. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, and Schmid5 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - Recused:Tse1 - b.912 Linden Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant; SF 21G, 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: This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar by the Planning Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Comaroto was recused for non -statutory reasons. All Commissioners have visited the project site. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Miranda (last name not provided ), designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. >On page A5.0, the material for the front door is shown as Masonite and on page A 4.1, the material is shown as fiberglass. I’m not sure if these are different materials. What are you proposing to use? (Miranda: Masonite is the brand of the door; it is a fiberglass door. The door material has not changed.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >There was no further discussion. Vice-Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - Page 4City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1353 Columbus Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a).(Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant; Bassenian Lagoni, architect; SF21G, LLC, 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 for non -statutory reasons. Planning Manager Ruben Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Hannah Chiu and Miranda Clark 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: >Suggests changing the profile of the window grids so that they are not flat in order to create a richer exterior and to match the traditional detailing of most homes in the neighborhood. >Appreciate your choice of landscaping trees. There are a substantial amount of trees proposed and the neighbors would appreciate them. >Appreciate the changes and updates made to the project and the attention paid to the feedback made in the last meeting. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that the windows shall contain simulated true divided light grids with a spacer bar in between the glass, that the girds shall have a traditional profile (Ogee profile - not flat), and that the grid width shall be proportional to the windows. Aye:Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as -built changes to a previously approved new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (Joseph Hassoun, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., designer) (106 noticed) Page 5City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1327 Benito Ave - Staff Report 1327 Benito Ave - Attachments 1327 Benito Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Catherine Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Joseph Hassoun, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Carol (last name not provided): The window on the left hand side, which would be off the driveway and appears to be in the kitchen, is much wider than the rest of the windows. That window faces the bathroom, so if I’m taking a shower and someone is in the kitchen, they ’re probably going to be able to see what ’s going on. That’s also an area where the lights are left on and last week the lights were left on upstairs. I contacted Joe by text that the lights were on and he said “Oh I was there and must have left the lights on .” That’s good enough but we ’re going through the same thing again. In regards to the trees, the tree in the back is an existing palm tree. When the home was being knocked down, this tree was just left there, not attended, and not even landscaped, just left alone in the corner. Then once the house was built and the house was coming alive, the tree became the centerpiece of the backyard. I submitted photos of the tree . The tree has yellow leaves, so it appears to be not maintained at all. In the front part of the house, there are all these old trees that were there before and there ’s a planter box. Is that on the property or is that owned by the city to block the house from the easement? If that ’s so, the trees don ’t look good either . Regarding the driveway on the next property at 1323, when the guys put in the pavers, they chipped all this concrete. But then they just painted the property the same color as the 1327 building which is blue/grey. So the homeowner at 1323 has this long driveway colored grey that doesn ’t even match his house. Now, when someone’s coming down the street, it ’s going to stop them in their tracks and think this is a house we’re going to. I sent all this information to staff with photographs of all the trees and all the business. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I am familiar with snap-in window grids, but they just don ’t hold up. They can snap on easily but they can also snap off as easily. >That one piece of awning in the front looks completely tacked on. There has to be a solution to make that look better. >I can go with most of what you’re proposing here, but I’m having trouble with the window grids. >I would almost prefer the windows to stay as they are without grids. I worry the grids would cheapen the look of the windows. The other alternative is to ultimately replace all the windows, but I don ’t think we should do that. I think either keep the windows as-is and let that piece go or do the snap-on grids. >The applicant listened to a lot of the feedback from the previous meeting. I think enough is enough at this point. I think I can go either way on the window dividers, but I think at this point it ’s time to approve this project. >I will again voice my frustration with people deviating from the plans on such items that are big items . It’s a different house from what was approved. I agree that some stuff that ’s going to be changed is going to help. I’m just really on the fence on whether the windows should be changed. I get that the front door, the garage door, and the columns will be changed. The trellis remains incomplete. I am disappointed with the end product and I’m still not sure what to do with the windows. >My view is when I’ve seen the property in person it ’s not a bad looking house. It might not be what we Page 6City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes approved but it fits the neighborhood and it ’s a good looking house. I think replacing all the windows is a bit onerous and not necessary given that the house looks good. >I am also not satisfied with the grid solution, but at the same time, when I look at the house as it is now, I’m not as bothered that the grids are not on the windows and I think they look better in person than they did on the drawings. I’m equally frustrated with developers or builders who are not following the approved drawings. But from a sustainability perspective, I don ’t think it’s very responsible to throw away all these windows and replace them. I would probably err on leaving the windows alone without grids than doing anything else with them. >I think we need a policy change that holds owners more accountable. I’m also frustrated. But I’m also in agreement that the snap -on grids will probably fall off. But we need to move this along, and I believe the owner is going back and making a better effort on a lot of these items. I agree that the front porch remains incomplete and something better can be done. >I’m having a hard time with this. The comments from the neighbor and the issue about the landscaping, I feel like if we ’re considering no window grids then it probably needs some beefed -up landscaping. Something to make it fit in better. It’s just a completely different house and it doesn ’t hold together for me. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI to the Planning Commission to review changes to the trellis located at the front of the house so that it is more complete and integrated into the design of the house, as originally approved. Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Schmid, and Tse4 - Nay:Gaul, and Pfaff2 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - c.556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Amendment to Design Review, Condominium Permit, and Conditional Use Permit for review and clarification of changes to a previously approved new, five -story 21-unit residential condominium building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (RSS Architecture, Architect; Roman Knop, property owner). Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 556 El Camino Real - Staff Report 556 El Camino Real - Attachments 556 El Camino Real - 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. Mark Huda, Andrew Raymundo, Abby Barata, Dennis Taniguchi, and Jane Knop, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I know renderings are not necessarily accurate, but the rendering you provided shows a different Page 7City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes pattern with a different area for the turf block pavers /grass. There is also a tree present in the rendering that is not on the landscaping plan. >Unless I remember incorrectly, when this project was originally reviewed, I thought the discussion was about how to provide privacy along the front and not just the sides in the sense of things that might be stored on balconies and protecting that from the street view. I see that you are proposing clear balcony railings but there’s no privacy provided by clear glass. >It’s a lower height structure on a very public street. I’m not sure what buildings are opposite of this property. With all of that glazing on the front, I ’m just wondering for a resident if they would prefer to have a non-transparent balcony just for their own privacy from the interior. Obscure glass is still a very modern material, but I am just wondering about the comfort level of the residents living there on a relatively short building. >Some of the grids fall in line with the windows and some of the grids do not. I don ’t have a problem with the clear glass though on the balconies. I think it would be more appropriate if the transparent piece felt materially more akin to the panels than to the frame. >Even if they space those verticals exactly the same as the mullions, you ’d only ever see it in pure elevation which you’re never going to see. You’re never going to see the grids overlap. But you bring up a good point, in the rendering in black and white you can see it. But perhaps heading to a stainless or anodized color of the railing system would minimize its framing colors and would make it go away. >The artist rendition seems to show taller glass panels just above the deck level of the balconies, but in the elevations it looks like there is a partial solid surface material that has been capped with a shorter glass panel railing. I want to clarify which one you are proposing. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Nay:Gaul1 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1205 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for first story plate height and second floor balcony for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (John Mabe, JM 3 Design, desinger; Nitin Handa, applicant, RRP Homes, LLC, property owner) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1205 Mills Ave - Staff Report 1205 Mills Ave - Attachments 1205 Mills 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. John Mabe and Nitin Handa represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent by Jay Larlarb, 1209 Mills Avenue: I’m expressing concern that the concrete patio on the right of the ADU will adversely affect the root system of the adjacent 42-inch redwood tree on our property at 1209 Mills and potentially harm its structural integrity. This large redwood tree is Page 8City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes approximately 2 feet from the property line and over 50 feet in height. The base of the tree extends above ground beyond the fence onto the neighboring 1205 Mills property. It looks like from the plans, this concrete patio runs right up against the fence and onto the top of the base of the redwood tree. Redwood trees have very shallow root systems that extend 50 feet in every direction and are mostly located within the top 3 feet of soil. I’m wondering if a more porous surface such as pavers might be better than a concrete patio in this area to allow water to get to the root system of the redwood tree. In addition, I want to confirm that no part of the base of this tree will harmed during construction, and that any installed patio will not compromise the integrity of this wonderful tree, it’s base or it’s root system. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Some of the windows at the elevations don ’t match the floor plans. Please clarify and fix drafting errors. >Fix all drafting errors to clearly show intent of design. >Recommend checking if you are in the FEMA flood zone. This will change the whole design of the house if that is the case. You will be required to be 3 feet above grade and you can ’t have anything that can be damaged by water: wood, duct work or anything below that number. Of course, that will affect the ADU at the back because it is at a low level too. >The redwood tree mentioned by the neighbor is gorgeous. I would like to reiterate that the applicant needs to be careful and consider a different surface material for the patio so that tree is not harmed in any way and it needs to be protected. >There is a lot going on in these plans. I wouldn ’t be comfortable with the height. Maybe the height extensions for the lower floor were something that was done for a while, but was changed because the house has become massive -looking taken all together and that is the reason you need a Special Permit in this case. I see a need to raise the whole house as my fellow commissioner has mentioned because of the flood zone, but not what this is proposing. It is not a good design to have a different material at the front as opposed to the sides because you want 3-dimensions. I find the design not holding together as well as it could. It will benefit from a design review consultant. >There are a lot of drafting issues to be resolved. That all needs to be coordinated. >I agree with the flood plain issue. That will really be a driver and change this design. >I would not support the 9’-10” plate height variance for this house. When this comes back, you really need to take a look at how you measure all these vertical heights on the elevations because none of them add up. >I certainly don ’t support the idea of stucco siding on three sides and lap siding at the front. There is not a lot that I can support. Even on the renderings the trim, the overhang, and the scale just doesn ’t hold together. I am in agreement with my fellow commissioner that this could be a good candidate for design review consultant. >If we are sending this to a design review consultant, I would like the applicant to start looking at exterior lighting. We’ve got some lights on this that are going up into the air. As per our last meeting, we are starting to look at exterior lighting and how they impact the neighborhoods. I also agree that this should be referred to a design review consultant. >I also think that this will be a great candidate for a design review consultant ’s review and assistance . As some of the commissioners have mentioned, the design will change after you address the flood plain requirements. Even without that, I will not support the 9’-10” plate height on the first floor. I disagree with the applicant’s statement that the house fits in with the neighborhood. The neighborhood has mostly a lower 8’-3” plate height and even at a 9’-0” plate height will be pushing it. Certainly, beyond 9’-0” will not be acceptable in this neighborhood. >The front porch bothers me that it is only 3’-0” deep. It is really narrow and it is not a real front porch . The left elevation is completely flat. There is no architectural interest whatsoever. It is open along the driveway so it will be a very long flat wall. I don ’t think it will be aesthetically pleasing. The roof is very boring. The house does not have any architectural interest from my perspective, add to that the stucco on three sides. It is hard to review anything else because an important comment has been raised regarding Page 9City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the flood plain issue. It will change the design a lot, especially at the back. The ADU is essentially shown to be even with the grade that has to come up three feet. A whole lot will change. I’d be interested to see what it looks like once that aspect is addressed. >I agree with everything that has been said. I do recommend that the applicant find out if the elevation is per the FEMA 100 year flood plain level. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - b.2812 Rivera Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Robert Medan, applicant and architect; Ben and Laura Wylie, property owners) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 2812 Rivera Dr - Staff Report 2812 Rivera Dr - Attachments 2812 Rivera Dr - Plans 2812 Rivera Dr - Rendering 1 2812 Rivera Dr - Rendering 2 Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Ben and Laura Wylie, property owners and Robert Medan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Public comment email sent by Alex Yu (no address provided): I am concerned about the design review project at 2812 Rivera Drive, specifically the proposed second story addition. In the lower part of Rivera Drive, all houses are single -story to ensure that no views of neighboring houses are obstructed . Adding a second story to the project site would deviate from this established pattern and potentially obstruct the views of neighboring homes. >Public comment email sent by Hanji Huang, 2833 Rivera Drive: I am the owner of 2833 Rivera Drive, Burlingame. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed 2nd story addition at 2812 Rivera Drive. I am very concerned that the 2nd story addition will obstruct our house ’s view of the beautiful bayfront, the airport runways, the East Bay hills and skyline as well as Mt. Diablo. As you would appreciate, this will certainly cause some amount of mental and financial distress to my family. It is my understanding that the City of Burlingame has processes and policies in place that protect the rights of homeowners. >Public comment email sent by Terry and Doneen Roberts, 2829 Rivera Drive: We, the owners and occupants of 2829 Rivera, oppose the proposal to add a second floor to 2812 Rivera Drive. Our primary concerns are the impact to our existing views from 1). Our family room bay window. 2. Our breakfast room table window. 3. Our front enclosed patio table. Our existing distant views are as follows: 1. The San Francisco Bay shoreline. 2. The San Francisco Airport runways and the descent paths. 3. The distant San Page 10City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Francisco Bay waters. 4. The East Bay Hills. 5. Mount Diablo and skyline. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider using siding on the upper floors since it is in the front and more visible. >We need to look at story poles. We’ve come across this several times, do we request for the applicant to install the story poles first or do we approve the project first before they erect story poles? I will leave it up to my fellow commissioners, but I think we need to put story poles up. >I like the design, it looks good from the street, but story poles are the only way to confirm if these views are truly blocked or whether it is just a perception. >I agree about the story poles. The sooner they go up, the better. We have found on some of these projects where we ’ve asked for story poles, we have them go back to Regular Action and then put up the story poles, then that leaves us with not a lot of wiggle room on how to correct something that needs to change. I recommend that we need to have the story poles up before we go any further for them. I do like the design; I like the rendering. >I agree. I do like the design, but we need to see the story poles. It can move forward if we didn ’t need the story poles. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, 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, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - c.2888 Adeline Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (EAG Studio, applicant and architect; Susan and Jing Zhang, property owners ) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2888 Adeline Dr - Staff Report 2888 Adeline Dr - Attachments 2888 Adeline Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Pfaff noted that she drove by the project site but was not able to see the house since it is located at the bottom of a steep driveway. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Vin Leger, designer and Jingo Zhan, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Mary (last name not provided): I am an uphill neighbor on the 2900 block of Adeline Drive. I am just curious about whether this might impact the view. We have a beautiful view down into Mills Canyon. From the quick look I got from the pictures, the drawings shown and from what was described by the applicant, it appears that the house is not getting taller and that the addition is on the downhill side. At this point, I cannot see the roof or the house. Is it correct that it will not change? (Leger: There is no increase in height and we really don’t expect the neighbors’ views to be changed. Most of the proposed addition is Page 11City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes happening under the existing massing.) (Zhan: I apologize that we did not check in with you beforehand, but yes, we did make sure that we are not blocking neighbor’s views.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Please provide renderings to see details of finishes and materials to be used. >There was a deck that is being converted into a room. A deck is transparent and a room can have some kind of blockage. I know it is in a weird location, but I would recommend doing some type of story pole. A neighbor has expressed concerns about the view. We probably should get some story pole at least on the second deck of the main floor area where the office /study is going to be. Other than that, I don’t have any objections to the addition. It looks nice and it is really not visible except from the back . You have to go down Mills Canyon to really see it. >The rear elevation really does not show a whole lot of materials to it. Because it is rather small, it is harder to see the character of what is being built out. I realize that most of it is underneath and is not creating a new building, but that rear elevation is getting a whole new wall and new windows in the office build-out. We need a little bit more information on the materials and the trims, what is being done back there, and how it is going to either match the existing or whatever. Because that house is hard to see, none of us really got to go back there and see where this addition is going to happen. It is true that people from Mills Canyon will see it. Otherwise, I don ’t see it being impactful to others because of where the build-out is going to be. >Please provide elevations at a larger scale where the remodel is being done and its adjacent area instead of the whole house elevation to provide clarity. The exterior materials should be indicated on the building elevations. >I would recommend that the applicant and neighbor discuss the project before coming back to confirm that no views are being impacted. I do agree that a larger elevation would help us see the character better. Part of our job is to preserve the character of these homes. Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing. (Leger: I want to offer some clarifications. The deck that is being internalized, but is in the very corner of the house that has higher roof lines all around it, it is about 12’ x 10’. It is a very small corner; I don ’t think a story pole will be visible for everyone to see. To clarify the intent of the rear, for architectural integrity, we would like to preserve what is existing and carried all around. I apologize if it lacks details, but we think the house should look consistent all around. If we were doing a more ambitious remodeling or restyling, we would have suggested otherwise. We would just like to carry the same look all around.) >I agree, but I want to err on the side of caution. (Zhan: I appreciate the commissioners’ concern about the impact on the view of the neighborhood. Realistically, nobody in the back can really see it because it is a really steep slope. Even people in Mills Canyon can ’t really see it because of the steep slope.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schmid 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, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - d.523 Francisco Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Abhishek Sharma, applicant and property owner; Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., designer) (110 noticed) Page 12City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 523 Francisco Dr - Staff Report 523 Francisco Dr - Attachments 523 Francisco 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. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Ben and Polina Sfard, 519 Francisco Drive: We saw the plans for the first time today. The new addition on the second floor is facing our deck and pool in our backyard. It does appear that the second floor will be staring right into the deck and our pool. I don’t think we see any other issue on the first floor. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Considering the neighbor ’s concerns and having large windows in the addition, please look into landscaping within 15’-20’ between the properties and coordinate with the neighbors to mitigate the privacy concerns. The addition is not bad, but yes it will impact the neighbor; you will need to find a way to mitigate that. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, 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, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Lowenthal1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS >Planning Manager Hurin reported that its December 19th meeting, the City Council honored retiring City Arborist/Parks Superintendent Bob Disco. Richard Holtz was selected to fill this position. >Planner Manager Hurin also reported that with the Rotation of Officers, Michael Brownrigg is Mayor and Donna Colson is Vice Mayor. Peter Stevenson was sworn in as a new Councilmember. Outgoing Councilmember Ann O’Brien Keighran was recognized for her many years of dedication and service to the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 13. ADJOURNMENT Page 13City of Burlingame January 9, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 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, January 9, 2023 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 January 9, 2023. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on January 19, 2023, 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 14City of Burlingame