HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.02.27BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM OnlineMonday, February 27, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott
Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no Minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no Public Comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.2735 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, Special Permit for first and second story plate heights, and Minor
Modification for covered parking space dimension 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. (Tim Raduenz, Form + One, designer and applicant; Jeffrey and
Stephanie Thompson, property owners) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
Page 1City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2735 Burlingview Dr - Staff Report
2735 Burlingview Dr - Attachments
2735 Burlingview Dr - 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.
Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
>Albert Ho: I sent in my objection to the proposed project. One of the two points is the water situation .
My concern was not addressed the first time. The recent rain has brought up the issue even more. I have
seen rain water run off from the project property and I have shown pictures of the mud condition in my
backyard. That needs to be remedied especially if they are putting on more changes. The amount and
direction of water flow will be significant going into my property. Number two, I am not quite sure about the
setback. Is the extension beyond the garage going towards my side of the property? I don ’t know enough
of the requirements from the City in terms of setback from the boundary lines. I would like to make sure
that the addition is within the setback requirements, because when I look from my backyard from two
different perspectives, one from the lower level and one from the upper tier, it is blocking my view. These
are the two things that I am concerned about. I ask that they address the water issue running down my
backyard and make sure that the setback is within City limits, so the addition is not impeding my view
and privacy.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Consider adding some landscape for screening to address the neighbor’s privacy concerns.
>I like the project. Having gone back the second time to see the story poles, I still like how the project
looks and the way it fits into that part of the neighborhood. Yes, it is big on one side, but that is the
nature of these hillside lots. Looking at the setback, that piece over the garage is well within the 7-foot
setback requirement on the side, so I am not too concerned about that. I didn ’t see where anybody else
has hillside view issues. I’d like to see this project go forward.
>I appreciate the applicant for anticipating and putting up the story poles. It really helps for all of us to
be able to visually see the massing three -dimensionally and the spacing that the addition will take up. It
does look large and looming on the hillside, but not much different from a lot of the homes in that
neighborhood along the hill. I too can see support for the project and the special conditions that the
applicant is asking for. I can see moving the project forward.
>To follow up on my comments from the previous meeting about the second floor plate height, which
was linked to whether the story poles will create problems for anyone. Since nobody has complained, I
am okay with the Special Permit request for the second floor plate height.
>Are civil drainage issues within our purview? It seems something that the Building Division will handle .
(Hurin: Yes, that is correct. Drainage issues and complying with drainage requirements will be reviewed as
part of the building permit, so there is really no need for a special condition of approval regarding that.)
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to approve the application
with the following added condition:
>that prior to issuance of a building permit, the site plan shall be revised to show additional
landscape screening (tall hedge or trees) along the left side property line to screen the second
floor addition; the screening shall be planted prior to the final inspection.
Page 2City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
b.1829 Sebastian Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit
dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Tim Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and designer; Gina and Yousef Shamieh, property
owners) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1829 Sebastian Dr - Staff Report
1829 Sebastian Dr - Attachments
1829 Sebastian Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid noted that he had a conversation
with the property owner. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
>Tim (last name not provided): I know that the Planning Commission does not get involved over lot
lines, but I believe the Planning Division needs to look at the lot lines. We have raised the question since
the last meeting that the survey report submitted by the applicant is inconsistent with the County records
and the actual physical building. It said 5’-7” from the property line to the building, but it is approximately 8
feet. Everybody is busy, the Planning Commission is busy, but the Planning Division and the County
should look at it. Number two, the applicant said the proposed windows are shutters. What if one year
later they change the shutters into windows? The Planning Commission needs to enforce and make sure
that they use shutters instead of windows. The lot line issue involves everything. If the lot line is wrong,
then everything is wrong. The City should look at it and the Commission should not ignore it.
>Theresa (last name not provided): The drawings are confusing to me. It is hard for us to be convinced
that these are shutters. I’m not good in looking at drawings, but I was wondering where the windows are
actually located on the second floor? Are they facing east and south, but not on our end?
>Christine Lee: I have the same question as Tim and Theresa. The windows that the architect
mentioned as shutters, will that be facing only on my side of the property? Is that an operable window?
Also, the property lot line is a concern for his side and my side, I don ’t know how to correct this. I didn ’t
hire a surveyor because Tim and Theresa did, but I measured it personally and it is exactly the same, the
lot line is 72 feet in front and then it goes straight up. It has to be cleared because that will be a problem
later by the time we sell the property.
>(Raduenz: Just a quick note to the comments from Tim at 1833 Sebastian Drive. They also hired a
very seasoned surveyor. I think both the surveyors and owners can work it out themselves. Brian Taylor
was their surveyor and we used Quiet River; they are very seasoned in Burlingame. This is not really a
concern of the Planning Commission, it is more of a neighbor review. I think they are creating items to get
the application off track, but this is an issue that the neighbors can work out themselves having two very
capable surveyors.)
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Page 3City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Consider changing the roof profile to a real shed roof to make it look better. The proposed is a shed
roof but does not have enough pitch to it.
> I looked very closely on both surveys. There is a cap and rebar set, both surveys show that they are
on the property line. The survey provided by the applicant shows the house footprint being 5 feet off the
property line. The agreement is that the property line is at the same place. The neighbor ’s survey shows
about 7’-6”. I think what happened is that Quiet River used the roof eave as their reference point from the
property line. The property line is in the same spot on both surveys and the house is within the setback. I
don’t think there is an issue there. The project designer is correct, if they want to get the two surveyors
together, they can certainly iron it out. The discrepancy probably was because it was measured at the roof
eave and not at the house footprint.
>I’m glad that the applicant was willing to work with the neighbors to lower the plate height and the ridge
height of the second floor roof. It probably is not the most attractive addition I ’ve seen but it works. I don ’t
have any objection to it because the shuttered windows will work. It is a condition of approval, so if those
were changed the neighbor could come back to the Planning Commission. I’m glad they were able to work
it out, getting a little bit of an additional room, stayed within the height limit and not block any distant
views.
>Thank you for researching the property line, that was helpful for me. They have come a long way to
address the concerns that we ’ve heard originally. They are allowed to have windows on the second floor, so
it is quite neighborly to not put windows on that side. I don ’t think that is a requirement. I am happy with
where they have landed. If the uphill neighbor does not think their view is blocked, then I am open to
approving this project.
>I am sympathetic to the applicant and the neighbors all trying to work together, but it looks an awful
lot like things we would see before design review. I don ’t think it looks good. I don ’t understand that if they
are not going to have windows on one side, then why even bother. Consider a pitched roof the other way,
no windows on the other side and raised higher since they are way below the height limit. Then they will
have a very nice and pretty modern view of the wall on one side. Honestly, it is really quite far away from
the neighbor’s pool. I would love to find another solution. This is very unattractive.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners that it is not the most attractive solution, but it is an effective
solution. Any changes to the roof mean more height which then impacts the neighbor uphill and /or the
right or left neighbors. If we are talking about the best compromise, it seems that the design team and
the owner have come to that to try and minimize the impacts of this addition to the neighbors. Whether or
not there are some more screening opportunity is fine. That is something that the neighbors can work out
together. I agree that we should make the shutters a condition of approval that they are not actual
windows. Given the use of that room, they don ’t really want windows on that side anyway. It works. I
appreciate that story poles were put up. I couldn ’t even see the story poles from the street when I was out
there. I don’t see a huge negative impact here. I’d like to see the project move forward.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the
application with the following added condition:
>that the second floor addition along the right (north) side property line shall only contain
shutters (no windows) as shown on the Proposed Right Elevation, on sheet A3.2, date stamped
February 16, 2023; any proposed change to add a window or windows on the second floor along
the Right Elevation shall require an application for Amendment.
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, and Tse6 -
Nay:Pfaff1 -
c.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. The
project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Page 4City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1). (Robert Medan, applicant and architect;
Ben and Laura Wylie, property owners) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
2812 Rivera Dr - Staff Report
2812 Rivera Dr - Attachments
2812 Rivera Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Lowenthal noted that he was absent from
the design review study meeting for this project but was able to watch the video and visit the property .
Commissioner Gaul noted that he met with the neighbor at 2829 Rivera Drive to view the story poles from
his living space. Commissioner Pfaff also noted that she had communication with the neighbors at 2829
Rivera Drive. Commissioner Tse noted that she communicated with the neighbors, Mark Sherwood and
Terry Roberts, and both advised that it is no longer necessary for her to visit their homes. Senior Planner
Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Robert Medan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
>Public comments submitted via email by Bruce Thompson, 1600 Granada Drive: I object to the
second story addition at 2812 Rivera Drive. I walk daily and most days walk down Rivera Drive. The story
poles alerted me to the plan to add a second story. The Hillside Overlay Zone code states that
“development shall be designed to preserve existing distant views” and specific to the homeowners on
Rivera Drive. The second story addition impacts those of us who walk down Rivera Drive. It becomes
apparent as one walks down Rivera Drive, the view of the airport and the bay above 2812 Rivera Drive
begins to disappear. When you pass the home immediately west of the water towers, the airport and bay
view is completely blocked. While the code is specific to Rivera Drive homeowners, I ask that
consideration be given to those who walk through the neighborhood and from many vantage points, enjoy
and appreciate the views which express the character of our neighborhood. There is a code that is specific
to downhill views. Mills Estate homeowners are well aware of it. Why should anyone be deprived of it?
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Consider reaching out to the City Arborist or Parks Division regarding pruning of the City trees within
the property and the street.
>It is very tricky with the views and impacts. Cumulatively, there is a concern, I completely understand
that. It is a very lovely job that the architect has done; it is very attractive. Regarding the existing trees on
the street, suggest asking help from the City in pruning them. There is not enough blockage from what I
saw from the two views that I have visited. It goes beyond hiding or obstructing the view of part of the
hotel. I don’t know how narrowly we should see the definition of view. The bay certainly is there. The issue
is more cumulative. The view issue can be greatly mitigated by pruning of some of the neighboring trees
that go down the street.
>The project looks really good there; it scales well. The challenge with that particular street, like many
in the Mills Estate, is either do nothing or do something. Anything that you do is going to block and go
up. That is not how we have held standards in other parts of the City. We looked really hard at this,
looking at various neighbors’ views trying to get the right perspectives from the windows that they have. I
saw very minimal view impact and mostly in the foreground of trees down below, not any distant view
blockage. This is why the story poles have proven out to be valuable in this case and it helped the two
uphill neighbors that were concerned about the views that they were going to lose. Again, it is an
attractive solution and that they have worked hard to making it a good design. I am in support to move this
Page 5City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
project forward.
>I like the project and agree with my fellow commissioner.
>I agree with my fellow commissioners, we should move this project forward.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
d.2615 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This
project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (1015 Laguna LLC,
applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., designer) (65
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
2615 Hillside Dr - Staff Report
2615 Hillside Dr - Attachments
2615 Hillside Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit 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:
>It's a beautiful project. I appreciate the applicant addressing the tree issue and several other
comments regarding moving the front door to the center and such. It looks really good.
>Likewise, I appreciate the applicant addressing the comments that we had. It's a nice improvement to
the already very nice design.
Commissioner Tse 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 -
e.1549 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for
proposed changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling with an
attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Erik Chan, Bay 9 Architects, applicant and architect; Thomas Lo, property
owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Page 6City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1549 Los Montes Dr - Staff Report
1549 Los Montes Dr - Attachments
1549 Los Montes Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Erik Chan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application.
Public Comments:
>Jill (last name not provided): Our property is to the rear of the project and I wonder where the new
windows are located on the back of the house. There were no windows in the original plan, so I wonder
where those new windows are. Can you show the new plans for the rear of the house? Are there any
changes? (Hurin: There are no windows proposed on the 2nd floor.) How about the height of the 2nd floor,
is it changing? (Hurin: The height was originally approved at 29 feet above average top of curb and that is
not changing with this proposal. The proposed changes are to the windows, not to the height of the
building.)
>Public comments submitted via email by Shan and Craig Hou: Hi, we received the public hearing
notice for 1549 Los Montes Drive. We may not be able to attend the meeting due to our existing schedule .
Our main concerns regarding the new proposed plans are as follows. Number 1, the newly proposed upper
floor layout places a bedroom in front of the house where a bathroom is eliminated and this is the only
room that has access to both balconies. This makes the bedroom essentially a living room or a common
area that has large sliding doors to the deck. Potentially the side deck would be a gathering or
observation area that overlooks our house and our backyard. Number 2, we also question why the side
deck does not require a Special Permit, the proposed deck is 195 square feet. Code 25.10.035 - Special
Permit requirements in the R -1 Zoning Districts - states that a Special Permit is required for “any
second-floor deck or balcony up to a maximum of 75 ft and/or to exceed the maximum required side
setback for a second -floor deck or balcony. Second floor deck and balcony shall not be designed as
viewing platforms and shall consider surrounding context including window location of adjacent properties ”.
The proposed deck will be facing our kitchen window and door. Our understanding is that the second -floor
balcony and deck cannot exceed 75 ft. We respectfully request the Planning Commission to consider the
above items.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Just for clarification for the last member of the public who spoke, this project was approved more than
a year ago, if I'm not mistaken. The code is changed since then regarding second floor balconies /decks,
however these decks were approved with that original approval. That is not in our purview tonight. We are
only looking at the changes to the window locations that the applicant is asking for.
>I don't have any issues with the proposed changes.
>I would like to say thank you to the applicant and the architect for submitting these changes and
giving us the opportunity to have this discussion before it can be built and nothing can be changed .
Thank you for following the process.
Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
Page 7City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
f.1137 Clovelly Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Exterior Side Setback Variance and
Rear Setback Variance for first floor additions 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. (Soe Naing Win,
applicant and designer; Bryce Bewley, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1137 Clovelly Ln - Staff Report
1137 Clovelly Ln - Attachments
1137 Clovelly Ln - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Pfaff noted that she did not visit the
project site but did review the plans. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Soe Naing Win, designer and Bruce Bewley, property owner, 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’m really not in support of this project or legitimizing these changes. The accessory structure should
be an accessory structure. If it is connected to the house, it's a house addition. The encroachment into
the side setback is wrong. It doesn't really go with any of the other houses in the neighborhood along the
street in the way that the setback works. I don't agree that the accessory structure really matches the
house and it doesn't add any value to it. Since the only thing being done here is the interior work, that
wouldn't change because of this approval. The attachment to the accessory structure really makes it part
of the house and if it's going to be part of the house then it should be treated as such. It should follow the
setback rules and it should actually look like the rest of the house. Similarly, the closet doesn't look
good. Again, it's in a setback area that is meant to be there, and you see the rhythm of all the other
houses on the street. I don't see that we should legitimize that either. I'm not really in support of
legitimizing the unpermitted work and it goes without even knowing if any of that work was ever inspected .
If we legitimize and say it's fine as it is, we are also taking the risk of the work that has never been
inspected and we are just pushing this down the stream. I don't think that this is a good thing.
>I don't know if it's even possible or if staff has looked at this. Is there a way to make that addition or
attached room to become a Junior ADU and does it fit the criteria for a Junior ADU? I'm not sure that's
what we want to do, but I’m just trying to think outside the box here because a Junior ADU can be
attached to the house, right? (Spansail: That's good feedback for the applicant for something to
investigate. It's not something that we can really discuss because the discussion is out of our preview, but
that's a great topic to bring up for the applicant to consider.)
>This is a tough one. I hate to handicap a new owner if they may have been misguided during the sales
process. There are obviously legal remedies they can pursue and that's not really our purview. What I ’m
more concerned about is what my fellow commissioner alluded to regarding the building inspection. As a
contractor myself, I ’m concerned that this is even done to any sort of sustainable way considering what it
looks like, it doesn't look that great from the outside. I have a feeling that the foundational support, the
framing, the electrical, and the plumbing is probably not to code. I would be more willing to look at a
Page 8City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
project if there are some building inspections done to see the validity of this existing structure. If they
happened to pour footings and do foundations that match current building codes and it wasn't dangerous,
then maybe I’d be a little bit more willing to accept the planning part of it. We feel bad for the owner, but
then we put them in a dangerous situation where they are remodeling a structure that really isn't safe. I’m
not sure how that actually works. In the building inspection process the inspector would come and say
“unfortunately you have insufficient members or foundations .” I'm assuming a structural engineer would
also find that out as well. But a structural engineer needs to review this before I’d be willing to approve it.
>I agree with what my fellow commissioner said. I understand that the Building Department does not
regularly but has carried out such post -construction inspections of projects or parts of the project that
were not built with a permit, so I don't know if this could be made. If we were to move the project along,
this would be made a condition of approval or might be required anyway by the Building Department. But I
was wondering how much of that do you feel would be applicable to this project if you were moving it
forward because I’m concerned with well for the life safety issues. (Hurin: All the commissioners have
made really good points. Any proposed remodeling or any unpermitted work that has occurred would be
inspected by the building inspector. Sometimes they must uncover and take the sheetrock off to expose
electrical wiring, plumbing, etc. Sometimes they must x -ray foundations to ensure it was installed correctly
or built correctly according to code, if not they have to rebuild it. I just wanted to assure the
commissioners that any unpermitted work that happened here definitely must be inspected and approved
by the building inspector. They could go in there now and look at what's been done. If anything gets
approved moving forward, both the new work and the unpermitted work would have to be inspected by the
inspectors.)
>The removal of the accessory structure component and turning the interior wall into a new exterior wall
looks easy on paper. It looks like just take that wall down and now you've got the exterior wall. But there's
potentially significant foundation work related to that and construction of that wall properly as an exterior
wall, finishes and everything. Obviously, there's roofing work and it almost seemed like it would be easier
just to take that down to meet the setback requirements and build it properly. So, I don't know whether it's
acceptable to say we’re just taking those walls down or we're just going to take this interior wall, that's also
nonconforming and present that as an approved plan.
>I don't disagree with my fellow commissioners. My only concern is that the City kind of dropped the
ball on this. This was a complaint a decade ago and it was never followed up on properly. There is some
kind of accountability on the City's part that maybe we can help with and how we think about this project.
>I would have to agree with most of the comments that have been made already. I'm uncomfortable
with blessing this as a part of the house because it was an accessory structure. Looking at it from the
outside, I agree with the other contractors that are on the commission that the quality of the work doesn't
indicate that this was done properly from the get -go, especially if it was an accessory structure. Usually,
you see that as something of a shed type and then to add it into a house; I ’m not comfortable with that. I
understand my fellow commissioner ’s comments, I think that the City got a little bit duped the by the
illness comments and pretty quickly they decided to sell the house. Maybe there was a little bit of shifty
work by the previous owner and not being forthright with a new buyer. There's a legal channel that could be
pursued there if they decided to. All that being said, I can't support the variances for most of the reasons
that were laid out here already. I don't think it would have been approved if we had seen this as an
application from the beginning. Honestly, having worked on some of these types of things, you're better off
to just tear it down and start over. Then you can get something that's going to be the quality that you want .
That's going to go the way you want and that's going to look like it belongs with the house. So, for this
reason, I can't support the application for the variances.
Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing.
>(Bewley: Just to fully understand your proposed path forward, the suggestion would be to demolish the
entire existing structure or just the unpermitted section and the shed. Just trying to understand what the
permission is looking for as we can look to revise plans. I would assume would be back here for approval,
so that would be helpful to know.)
>In summary, my viewpoint on a personal and professional level is that you should be looking to have
this built to code and engineered. Even a one -story house needs to be engineered. You would be wise to
Page 9City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
have all that checked and then come back with a plan where your engineer thinks it's solid and it can work
then great, but it should be incorporated into addition on the house that would be acceptable and within
the site setback and rear setback lines.
>The good news for you is that, if you do make all the planning guidelines meet properly with a
redesign, you won't have to see as again because this would be just a straightforward permit submission
and you will not be coming to the Planning Commission because it's single story.
>(Bewley: Understood, thank you very much. I believe we did have a structural engineer review the plan,
but I assume the requirement is for a structural engineer to review the existing structure.)
>Regarding the comment about the ADU, I would rip everything off the back of the house, go back to
the main house and then design an appropriate ADU because that back structure is not doing you any
favors. It's square footage that is not well invested and it's not going to improve the value of the house. It's
going to deteriorate. If you really step back and look at your investment, put it into a good structure at the
back and be able to follow the code, it's going to add value to the house. It's not just going to be in
appendage. I agree that it's more expensive and it's a hard thing, but really think about what you're going
to invest in and the amount of time and effort that it takes to go through this remodel process. Try to do it
the right way so that you'll be happy in the long run.
>(Hurin: The solution as Commissioner Tse pointed out may not require the applicant to return to the
Planning Commission. Just keep in mind that some single -story additions still trigger design review .
However, there are also ways to design the addition so that it complies with all the requirements and does
not require design review.)
>If they can come back with an appropriate solution that we can help them with, great. I don't want to
be difficult for the owner, but I also don't want to set a precedent that we are willing to let nonconforming
work be approved like this, especially nonconforming work that is not even close.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to deny the application
without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
g.765 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application for Special Permit for hotel parking
reduction. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Luis
Angelo, LA One Architecture, applicant and architect; Bayside 765, LLC, property owner)
(7 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
765 Airport Blvd - Staff Report
765 Airport Blvd - Attachments
765 Airport Blvd - 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.
Luis Angulo and Brent Lynch represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
>Public comment sent via email by Ethan Rebellos: I was reviewing the plans for converting the Hilton
Garden Inn to a Courtyard Marriott. I welcome the change and believe that it is suitable for Burlingame. I
want to express my hope that the conversation will take full advantage of this location next to the trail and
the lagoon. A few weeks ago, I was in Reno for business and stayed at a Courtyard adjacent to the
Truckee River. They had a wonderful patio with fire pits. It was a nice place for me to get a breath of fresh
air, take calls and later in the day unwind from a busy day. Frankly, someone who works remotely, I would
Page 10City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
appreciate a location like this to have in-person meetings.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>If you guys are re -branding, I would hope that gets you at 20 years of not having to come back to this
site, but then we’re not really ever going to address sea -level rise and anything about the Bay Trail. I know
we may not be requiring it based on this level of remodel, but I would encourage the applicant to make the
whole Bay Trail experience and the sea -level rise meditation work. It is good for all the landowners in this
area. I would hope that even if it ’s not a requirement, there's a voluntary effort to connect with your
neighbors.
>In reviewing the parking study and understanding how these kinds of hotels work, I could totally see
supporting the reduction. This is not one of the roadside hotels were everybody's driving to it. I go to this
kind of hotel all the time using Uber and don't have a car. I don't know that the one -for-one parking rule is
necessary for this location. Given its use, I felt that they've done a good job in the report. I could support
this request.
>The parking study put at rest any issues we may have with the Special Permit request even on their
most busiest day. It's less than half of what the demand would be for the volume. On the sea -level rise, of
course it's concerning but, do we start singling this out? It should be a City -sponsored requirement along
the bayfront if it's going to have any attraction. I’m certainly in favor for this project. I'd like to see it move
forward.
>That's a really good point. It normally is a requirement of the City. Maybe it's not on the site. It's just
that the extent and the scope of this project is not enough to trigger working on that. That's probably what
it is because it's minor, but it is a point well taken.
Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1213 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review and Conditional
Use Permit for building height for a new 4-story, 6-unit multi-unit residential building.
(Antonio M. Brandi, applicant and architect; Maria and Jose Montes, property owners )
(116 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1213 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report
1213 Capuchino Ave - Attachments
1213 Capuchino Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Antonio Brandi, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
>Talian and Ben Tascian, 1205, 1207 and 1209 Capuchino Avenue: We are the adjoining property
owners immediately adjacent to the subject property. We have some serious concerns about the
structural integrity of excavating two floors down. It looks like from what the architect said it will go under
Page 11City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
our property line. It comes immediately to the end of our property, so that's going to compromise the
structural integrity of our building. We ask that there is some setback clearance. I'm not sure what type
of construction would be required but we certainly don't consent to anyone excavating under our property
line and would like for the commission to take into consideration the implications to our building built in
the 1930s. There is a secondary concern. Currently, the subject property has a driveway that abuts our
building. Our building has a little alley behind it, and we have three tenants in our building. Historically,
this alley is where our tenants store their trash bins and on trash days would move it in front for pick up
and then move back to the rear. What is being proposed currently will completely remove the access to
the rear of our building and that presents health and safety issue for us. We are not opposed to working
with them so that they have success with this development. It is important for us that there be some
access to that side and rear of the building. We are highly concerned about the excavation below the
property line and also the height.
>Public comment sent via email by Doug Bojack: I am very pleased to see this small -scale developer
providing critical missing middle housing. As I hope you know, missing middle housing refers to
small-scale multifamily housing that includes smaller apartment buildings compatible with walkable
neighborhoods . These types of development are a key way to increase housing density in a
neighborhood-friendly way. Off-street parking requirements have a tremendous impact on this type of
small-scale residential infill. On most small lots, missing middle housing works well when parking
requirements are reasonable (1 per unit or less). When parking requirements are high, they significantly
increase development costs through required garage construction or reduce the usable portion of the
property through reserving the amount of space needed for parking. Both of these outcomes restrict
housing production and raise rents, exacerbating California's extreme housing problems. Here, there is no
call for the dramatic size of the vehicle storage mandate imposed on this development, which is nearly
double the number of housing units. This location has a Walk Score of 91 out of 100, what is called a
Walker's Paradise score, where daily errands do not require a car. There is a grocery store a block away,
several preschools within 1000 feet, the Easton Branch library and Roosevelt Elementary less than half a
mile away, and the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station within reach of a short bike ride. And yet, Burlingame
zoning requires this developer to construct a car elevator to access underground parking for this small
apartment building. Finally, as a result of prioritizing cars, there does not appear to be any secure bicycle
storage for the apartment residents, which further hampers Burlingame's vision as a walkable town or as a
climate leader. I ask that each of you visit the Strong Towns website, where you'll see that Burlingame
lags behind hundreds of jurisdictions across the US that have eliminated parking minimums requirements,
and I urge the Commission and staff to work on reducing or eliminating parking minimums that restrict
such important neighborhood-level housing production like this.
>Public comment sent via email by Davina Drapkin, 1224 Capuchino Avenue: I have lived at 1224
Capuchino since 1997 and support well planned increases to housing density. As you review this project
and consider a conditional use permit, please ensure that the project provides adequate on -site parking.
The 1200 block of Capuchino is already very crowded with cars parking on the street. In addition to
current residents of the 1200 block, patrons and employees of local businesses regularly park on this
block. There is no capacity for additional parking demand on the street.
>Public comment sent via email by Jake Cosenza: I wanted to share a quick message of support for
the 1213 Capuchino Avenue project. This is a great use of lot currently underutilized and adjacent to
Broadway. Hoping to see this design gets approved.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>There is a very lovely tree way back, almost at the property line. I hope that you'd be able to at least
rescue that one because it's there and it has a presence.
>Some of the drawings don't render all the way and it's not very clear.
Page 12City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>I'm in favor of the project as a concept but I ’m not in love with the design. I tried to get my subjectivity
out of things like this but this building harkens the 1990s to me. I don't even have a big problem with the
shape. My fellow commissioner's points about the structure are absolutely valid. I just feel that the
structural engineers and the Building Department will take care of that. I don't know how much we need to
care but I hear you when you ask why in architecture, they design something that we know can be
structurally flawed? I totally understand that. With that being said, I like the idea of density. I like the idea
of the improvement. I feel that the design needs a little bit of tinkering. I don't know if the design review
consultant is the appropriate avenue here.
>There is something glaring here that wouldn't be that difficult to do. I didn't realize that the lower
podium is a structural element. It would look so much better in a different style of architecture, if it didn't
look like a 90s structure where we see a lot of things exposed. I am really having trouble with a piece in
the front that is covering the stairs. If there is a way to remedy it? Perhaps having nothing or having a nice
rail that goes up and down that almost disappears, and changing the shape of the arched openings. It is
light-colored; maybe we don't get into the color that much, but the light color in this case really make it
stand out as the balcony. We are not nitpicking, our goal is to make it a beautiful project. The scale is
pretty nice. It is a good use of a very small narrow lot, but it is not just the area.
>We need to take this project a little further. I don't see that I could approve it with the current design
that is in front of us today. I feel like it's more of 1990s building and there are so many ways to create
some pretty buildings. That area of Capuchino Avenue has some really beautiful Spanish -style buildings
down the street. I know they are condominiums, but they did a pretty nice job down the street. This needs
another round on the design.
>As my fellow commissioner just stated, on that street there are several examples of buildings that has
a nice class into them. There are some fine traditional details here and there amongst the building. In the
area, it's almost historical looking. I know that the applicant mentioned that they are going for more of a
contemporary style. I don't see this as a contemporary style design. The curve, a turret at the front,
covering the staircase reminds me of the post modernism era. I don't really see it working with the
finishes. The shape of the building is nice, and the floor plans look great. The massing of the structure in
general is really about the finishing touches. We don't generally approve vinyl windows either. The
applicant mentioned that they want the project to look very residential. There are number of other window
types that would be a better solution and would probably provide a better detailing to carry out a more
finesse look for this building. The finishes on that podium level needs a little attention. If it's a structural
element, that is fine. There are many beautiful finishes these days that are structural materials. I would
like to request a finish board to be presented to us to see exactly what materials are being presented for
review and approval. Overall, I definitely support the project. I like the floor plan, it's shape and it's
massing. It's a matter of exterior finishes.
>I am in support of the use of this location. The scale is fine. I’m concerned with the uphill slope of the
property and how that is going to interact with adjoining neighbors. There needs to be more effort put in
upfront to show the impacts to the adjoining neighbors so that it can be a supported project and
addresses their concerns. I am not finding any love with the materials that are being presented. I agree
with my fellow commissioner that a material board is critical because what is being represented doesn't
move me at all. The front entry stair, I understand is intended for an exit, is placed inside in most
buildings. That thing is covering the public entry door to get to this building. I realize that the residents are
going to go into the garage and use the elevator, but this doesn't really have a public sense of arrival. The
proposed design just blocks all of that and distracts from the building itself. I agree with the plan, the size
and the scale of work, but nothing on the outside is working for me right now. I am not getting the
architectural style and I'm not feeling good with the materials. I would like to see this get developed more .
I would hate to push this forward and then be forced into a decision in action meeting and have to deny it .
I would really recommend quite a bit more work on this before we can move this forward.
>I would agree on that last comment. This project does need a lot of work. I agree that having six units
is great. I like the floor plans. All the comments have been really good. The stairway in front absolutely
doesn't work with that covering on it. Consider relocating it inside. The applicant wanted to have a
residential look, and this doesn't have a residential look because of the architectural style and the
materials being proposed. I just want to reiterate that. The vinyl windows will look bad, and you'll be
hard-pressed to find a solid wood window right now unless you had them custom made. Most of them are
Page 13City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
using a fiber or laminated clad with metal. I've used them in apartment buildings and they work great. I
know we don't get into colors, but I don't think a green roof is going to go with just about anything. I don't
know what to do with the project that we ’ve got. It has a long way to go. I don't even know if we have
design review consultant for a multifamily project; it almost feels like it could use that. If we get more of a
traditional look out of it, unless the architect wants to take another stab at it, maybe we can have a
discussion on that. Everyone thinks that it could use some help from a design review consultant.
>Yes, we have the option to a design review consultant, which some have done multifamily projects that
are at least duplexes, and they are all resident architects. I’m sure they are capable of taking direction and
helping the applicant implement the direction.
>Because it's not layout related, I wouldn't want the comment from the adjacent neighbor to get lost
regarding their access. For the record, whatever they come up with, ensure that the folks can still
maneuver back there and consider the whole structural issue with the property line.
>I did notice the little alley too, there is a little table back in there. It looks like a nice little hideaway.
>The adjoining neighbors needs to confirm whether they have an easement to this. There are times
when a commercial building will have an easement on an adjacent property for ingress and egress
purposes. If that's in place, then we have something to talk about. But if that is not in place, I don't know
if we can make the property owner change the way they are going to use their property because the
adjacent owner doesn't have an easement. If it is going to a design review consultant, then it comes back
as a Study item. I don't want this to come back as an Action item and we have no second chance at this .
I want to help them get through this, but at the same time I don't want to be handcuffed if they don't come
back with a solution that we feel is good because it is going to be a substantial change, not just a minor
change here.
>We need this to be helpful to the applicant. Our main reason for this to go to a designer review
consultant is to get them the assistance, for this to hopefully comeback to us approvable and not just
send them out there to go round after round. We must go forward with this in a manner so that they can
get everything necessary to assist them with the design and finishes, that's what the design review
consultant will help with. Most of us have said that the floor plans are fine and that the shaping, massing
and height are fine.
>There were opposing comments on the number of parking spaces. I didn't know if you have any
direction for them. The applicant provided 13 parking spaces for six units. Those seem to be counter to
what we are trying to do about use of public transportation and minimize cars. It might allow some design
freedom if they were able to have some leeway on the number of parking spaces.
>There is some new state law that does allow for reduced parking or not having a minimum parking
requirement for projects that are within one -half mile of transit, that would certainly help with this. I also
would like to note that we must be careful on the number of meetings that we have this project go through
based on the Housing Accountability Act.
>With regards to the parking, I knew there were a few comments on that. I also want to be mindful that
when we listen to the closing down of Broadway for activities and things, all we heard was that side streets
are fully parked and that we have a parking shortage off Broadway. We need to be mindful that we ’re not
flipping this the other way and say “no parking” that we eventually are making that area worse. Does it
need the full 11 parking spaces? Maybe not, but it may not change how they build the building. It is a
structure with two levels of parking.
>Maybe we do consider reducing a little bit of the parking, although I ’m opposed to that. I know how
busy Capuchino Avenue is because I grew up on those streets. Those streets are packed with cars. It is
even hard to get down now. If we are going to reduce the parking requirements, maybe that's where we can
put some bikes so people can have an area to put some bikes down there. That might be a good option.
Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the application to a
design review consultant. 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.
Page 14City of Burlingame
February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Planning Manager Hurin noted that the next Planning Commission meeting on March 13, 2023 will be in
person and via Zoom.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
No Future Agenda Items were suggested.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 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, February 27, 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 February 27, 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 March 9, 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 15City of Burlingame