Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.08.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, August 28, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planning Catherine Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and ShoresPresent6 - TseAbsent1 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft August 14, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft August 14, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores6 - Absent:Tse1 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Page 1City of Burlingame August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Consideration of a Recommendation to Adoption of the North Rollins Specific Plan, and Addendum to The Burlingame General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Staff Report North Rollins Specific Plan EIR Addendum with Appendices November 14, 2022 Meeting Minutes Resolution - EIR Addendum Resolution - Specific Plan Public Notice - August 18, 2023 Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner introduced the Specific Plan consultant team, including representatives from KTGY, Gates + Associates, Kimley -Horn, and Rincon Consultants. The consultant team presented an overview of the Specific Plan. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. John Moreland, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Heather (last name not provided): Did the design group consider the neighborhood? I heard that they solicited input from the neighborhood to make sure that this is something that will be welcomed. >Steve Peterson, 950 Paloma Avenue: I am a member of Prime Time and I go by Rollins Road at least three times a week to the gym. I had some observations of the area. I am supportive of the redevelopment, but I do have two concerns. In the open areas, I hope they address the climate in the area. It is typically very windy and cold just about all through the year. So, it is a miserable climate in that area of Burlingame in my opinion. Big open areas with no wind protection, I suspect you ’re not going to have too many people using those public areas. The other concern is that I frequently smell kerosene. It is very close to the airport, so the air quality is not very good much of the year. You are putting a high-density residential area in a location that has questionable air quality. Was that considered? I know this is probably late in the process, but I hope the consultant considers the less -than-ideal air quality due to the proximity to the airport and Highway 101 and what impact that would have on small children and the elderly. Is this the ideal place for families with such poor air quality? Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >There were no suggested changes recommended by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Addendum to the General Plan EIR. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores Absent: 1 - Tse Page 2City of Burlingame August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to recommend to the City Council adoption of the North Rollins Specific Plan. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores6 - Absent:Tse1 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1312 Mills Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for second story balcony and attached garage for a new, two story single -unit dwelling and attached garage. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., applicant and designer; Mohith and Ruchika Julapalli, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1312 Mills Ave - Staff Report 1312 Mills Ave - Attachments 1312 Mills Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Concerned about the impact on privacy of the proposed removal of the redwood tree at the back. >Please clean up drafting errors on the landscape plan. >It is a nice-looking project and captures the Burlingame charm with the design. Based on the neighborhood, it is going to fit well with the massing. There are several houses on Mills Avenue with attached garages, so I can find support for that. The second story balcony does not bother me. I certainly understand the privacy concerns, but it will be no different if there were windows there. It looks like it will conform with all the reforestation that is required. The Parks Division will take care of the redwood tree, I do not know if that is in our purview. I would hate to see a redwood tree go away, but I do not know if it is within our control. I can find support moving this project forward. >As it relates to the redwood tree, I have a property with a next door neighbor that has five redwood trees on a 6,000 square foot lot. The droppings are horrible and the roots have uplifted the concrete in my backyard; it is unfortunate. I truly do not believe that these trees belong on a 6,000 square foot lot; they belong more in a park. I would like to see a more robust landscape plan and more trees by the back fence to create some privacy if you are going to remove the redwood tree. >I agree, it is a good looking project. Personally, I do not like attached garages, but at least it is one car and it does not overwhelm the fa çade. I do not like second floor balconies. Right now, it is an open lattice railing. Consider using a more solid balcony railing to provide privacy. The front porch is great but Page 3City of Burlingame August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes with the bulky columns it makes the porch less than 4’ deep. Recommend looking at a deeper front porch so you can put some furniture out there. >I like the idea of increasing the depth of the porch. >It is our responsibility to comment on the redwood tree. I agree that the front porch needs to be deeper. I really like the house. There is plenty of room for an ADU because the garage is in the front. I do not like that this very important tree is being removed. Look into accommodating the redwood tree and see if it can be cleaned up because it will be a very vast change if it is removed. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, and Shores5 - Nay:Pfaff1 - Absent:Tse1 - b.1812 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Yury Kogan, applicant and designer; Marat Diner, property owner) (34 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1812 Castenada Dr - Staff Report 1812 Castenada Dr - Attachments 1812 Castenada Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Yury Kogan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Madhi Padwal, 1808 Castenada Drive: I live right next to the proposed property undergoing construction. We have pictures taken from our master bedroom window which opens to the backyard and faces the neighboring property. We totally support the second floor addition. We are happy that they can do that. However, the second floor deck is what is concerning us because it will completely overlook our backyard and into our master bedroom window. We will have absolutely no privacy in our backyard. There are no trees and nothing in between. I have two little kids who play in the backyard and I would want them to have privacy when they are out there because we are both working parents. When we are in our meeting and the kids are out there, we want them to have their privacy. Right now, what I am seeing is that there is a 3’ fence on the deck but I don ’t think that is tall enough to give us that privacy on our side of the property. We request to have that deck wall higher, about 6’ tall, then they cannot overlook into our backyard on that side. Privacy is a concern especially in the future when they decide to sell the property, we never know what kind of neighbors we will have. As of now, we have very good neighbors. We are also concerned that if we decide to sell our property down the line, no one will be interested in buying because of the same privacy concerns. These are our concerns and we are hoping that they be addressed. >Sachin Padwal, 1808 Castenada Drive: I want to highlight one thing which is that the natural slope of the lot is already on an elevated height, and this will all add more. 1812 Castenada Drive is higher and 1808 Castenada Drive is slightly below. We are worried about the privacy of the bedroom; the backyard and windows will be closed all the time if that happens. Page 4City of Burlingame August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The location of street trees in the Mill Estate area is in the City's right -of-way located adjacent to the sidewalk, since there is no planter strip between the sidewalk and street. Please work with the Parks Division and provide a street tree within the City's right -of-way at the front of the property based on their requirements. >Please correct drafting errors. >With the comments from the neighbors down the hill, think that story poles are necessary before this goes forward. I had the same concern with the neighbor next door regarding the balcony. This is one example of those balconies that does what we don ’t want it to do, and that is overlooking another yard that does not have any protection whatsoever. Unless there is going to be some significant landscape addition to try and mitigate that, I don ’t see approving that. The second story addition does not integrate with the home because it just pops up; it is not attractive. There is a house closer to Millbrae with the same kind of pop up and it looks terrible. I am sorry that we allowed that to happen in the past. It’s not that I am totally against any second story in this area, it just needs to integrate better and work with the profile. It will look sorely out of place. This needs story poles and some significant modifications. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I think that this should go to a design review consultant. With the story poles and guidance from the design review consultant, this project will be much improved. It feels like this is a box on top of an existing home and I’d like to see some symmetry. > Suggest that the project be reviewed by the design review consultant first and then erect the story poles. >On one hand, I am not opposed to the form because it is a bit boxy and asymmetrical, but that is also what the existing house is; a little bit boxy and asymmetrical. Like another project we ’ve seen recently there are some small things that need to be changed to accent the horizontality of this addition as opposed to verticality. In this case, using horizontal siding on the first and second floors; the windows are also horizontally oriented. >When it goes to the design review consultant, I ’d like to see some details on the garage door because what they have on the plans are a little bit different than the renderings. Would like to understand what the garage doors will look like. Also provide more details around the windows. > It is a modest addition. The design can be improved. Consider using a hip roof instead of a gable roof, it would help to match the existing house. The privacy from the second floor balcony should be addressed. It really is going to come down to the views and whether the story poles can confirm that. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores6 - Absent:Tse1 - c.900 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage on a lot that contains an existing single -unit dwelling (to remain). (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; 900 Paloma, LLC, property owner) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 900 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 900 Paloma Ave - Attachments 900 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item due to business reasons. Commissioner Pfaff noted that she had contact with a neighbor. Planning Manager Page 5City of Burlingame August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Heather Pineda, 907 Paloma Avenue: I live right across the street from this proposed design . Regarding the design, I ’ve seen several designs tonight and I appreciate all your comments on that. I’ve heard "Burlingame charm", "doesn’t integrate with the neighborhood ", and "use evergreens for screening ". I think we all know that this is not a good design. It does not fit the neighborhood. I’ve been building for three years now I can tell you that what I saw on these designs is nothing to what I ’ve been held to account for. My place is pretty. People come by daily. They come in to look at my landscape, the green face, and the design in my house. It is personal. I own it and this is the first home I ’ve ever owned. I absolutely support ADUs, low -income housing and even modest low -income housing because I ’ve been a renter my whole life until I got to Burlingame. We want to work with the applicant, but the spirit of this so far has been horrendous. Please protect the character of our neighborhood; it really is important. I don ’t know where the owners are tonight. When I started my project, which is a repair, I went to every single neighbor. I showed them pictures of what I had in mind and I asked for their input and feedback. I heard the applicant’s offer to meet with the neighbors, I ’d take it and put him accountable for that. I’d certainly like to meet the owners because we ’ve heard a lot of different stories about their intentions for this place . It’s shifted every single time I ’ve spoken to them, about them or seeing designs. I’m not too happy and I think it shows. Redwoods are a protected species. I understand that the applicant has designed around trees, but he is not building. It matters to me that these trees are kept safe. We’ve had at least a few fall down. This one is healthy, let ’s keep it so. The last comment I ’d like to make is about the liability. The owner insisted to me that she fully intends to live on this property with her extended family. I have no say in that. That’s the State’s mandate how many people we want to cram into a tiny lot. But I can tell you that there is an LLC set up. It is owned now by 900 Paloma, LLC, which means it is a limited liability company. Several of the neighbors, myself included, are asked to be mindful when we ask for conditions of approval with consequences that somebody will have to pay when some of these things go wrong. If it is a limited liability company, are they not trying to be accountable for what is going on in this lot? I don ’t really come in with an untrustworthy approach, but like I said, every time I have been faced with this design something has changed. So, there is a little bit of a trust issue here. I appreciate the chance to come up and talk to you today. >Jay Veach, 904-906 Paloma Avenue: We are the property owners just to the north of this project. We also were caretakers for 900 Paloma Avenue for nine years and are very familiar and intimate with this project. I hope that some of the commissioners have gone and looked at this proposed site. My biggest concern is water. I know that this is a review board for design, but it goes hand -in-hand with the Public Works in this particular project. The City of Burlingame has seven major creeks: El Portal /Trousdale, Mills, Easton, Sanchez, Terrace, Burlingame, and Ralston. These creeks have been in existence long before Burlingame ever was. According to the city ’s website, these creeks are a critical stormwater conveyance system that protects homes, businesses, and transportation networks. It also states that these creeks are above ground west of El Camino Real but east of El Camino Real, the creeks have been diverted to underground man -made drainpipes and culverts. These structures were built to facilitate landfill for construction of properties east of El Camino Real, which this project is on. According to the City ’s website, a degraded creek can cause serious property damage and can decrease its value. Now, as you can see from the map that I have handed you from the City ’s website, these properties around Laguna Avenue, Paloma Avenue and Hillcrest that are between Broadway and Burlingame Avenue lie in a natural flood zone created by the confluence of the Sanchez and Terrace creeks, along with the numerable tributaries that branch off these two natural stormwater drainages. Sanchez Creek is a major drainage, and its major tributaries start from Skyline and an elevation of over 500 feet. They march their way down through the creeks and empty out into the Laguna area of question. It is a 480 foot drop; a lot of water Page 6City of Burlingame August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes comes down there. Our properties sit at 11 feet of elevation. In a good normal storm weather window that we have, as you can see from the pictures I have presented, 900 Paloma Avenue floods very deeply. That extends all the way through the easement. To answer the commissioner ’s question about that easement, it completely floods and it goes into the properties on the opposite side which is the Laguna Avenue side of the easement. Looking at the Public Works map, it clearly outlines the lagoon. In a historical record, Laguna Avenue was aptly named as it borders the eastern side of a natural lagoon. Our concern is that as you change the grade level of 900 Paloma Avenue and flatten it out, all you do is spread the watershed area out to alternate surrounding properties which are already flooded to an even deeper amount of water on both Edgehill Drive, Laguna Avenue and Paloma Avenue properties. So, I ’d like to have this commission work with the Public Works Department to review these plans. Any change in the topography, which obviously will be done if they were to add three to four feet of dirt to make the same level, will compromise the rest of the properties around us. Causing us soil erosions and high probability of damage to our foundations. >Jesse Chiu, 909 Laguna Avenue: We live on the opposite side of the proposed project. I want to emphasize the severity of the flooding that happens in the easement, in our backyard and the streets. I have requested petitions to work with Public Works for solutions. I have flooding photos of our backyard that looks like a swimming pool and some showing the front at Laguna Avenue. This happened during the start of the year. I know the applicant emphasized that they would address the drainage issue with the Public Works Department, and we expect them to address the drainage issue. We understand that it does not happen overnight. I really want to highlight the water issues we have in the neighborhood. I saw that the proposed plan is to elevate the floor to five feet. How is that going to affect the neighbors that have lower properties? The water will spread out to the neighboring backyards and the easement. We are really concerned. Besides the water issues, I just cannot picture that lot having two ADUs, one two -story unit, and the existing unit. I also know that they have proposed three parking spaces, but if you can imagine how many people will live on the property, parking will be a nightmare on the streets. Regarding privacy, we live on the opposite side of their backyard. They are proposing a two -story and that will overlook our backyard and our house. > Rosemary Macleod, 1316 Edgehill Drive: I really want to thank the Planning staff, we ’ve been down here and calling, everybody has been very kind and transparent. Our number one concern is flooding. We have a new graded driveway, a commercial grade pump, and four additional sump pumps. We’ve battled flooding since my husband ’s family moved here in 1950. We flood up to six inches every year. In the past, we've had to call the Fire Department to pump water out from under our house, but it did not impact our gas furnace. We have not had to call in years because our neighbors have pumps. As I ’ve mentioned, we have five pumps and a backup generator; we just often have to be patient while the pumps catch up. I cannot stress that it is impossible for us to deal with the water from 900 Paloma Avenue. The current plan calls for bringing in five feet of soil and a five -foot retaining wall, so essentially a moat that will push all their water back into the surrounding properties. 900 Paloma Avenue will be an island above the adjacent parcels and will push water into the surrounding homes. All the homes on Edgehill Drive that back up to 900 Paloma Avenue have flooding problems. Our water is not going to them, they ’re going to turn it around, so their water comes into our property. We all have pumps and flood insurance. With the cooperation of every single home on Edgehill Drive, we were able to handle last year ’s atmospheric rivers, but I cannot express it enough that we cannot take on any additional water. Looking at the property map, ten homes are expected to absorb this additional water, yet all of us are currently at maximum capacity. In addition, the slanted roof is very close to our property. Now the building that was originally at 14 feet, after putting in five feet of soil will be at 19 feet. We need assurance that the water will not flow off the roof into our backyard. I want to know what the plan is for the displaced water. We need an engineering report. I know this is part of the Public Works Department, but I want to put this on record because it is very serious. Also, I want to talk about our backyard garden. We use it every day, garden most days, have parties, and community meetings. Our fence is seven feet tall. Under the proposed plan, the 14-foot tall building will be built on five feet of additional soil so the structure will be 19 feet tall, 12 feet above the top of our fence. So, our seven foot fence will have dirt on the first five feet. We will have what appears to be a floating structure in our backyard and our deck will have this huge house looking down on us. This will Page 7City of Burlingame August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes completely block our afternoon sun, possibly killing many of our beloved plants and trees. We request that a height and daylight plane study and an environmental report be included to determine how these buildings will block our sunlight. The plan does not include trees that border our property line, there are none, and the landscaping is not in proportion to the mass and bulk of the structure. Burlingame is known as the City of Trees. The proposed plan should be required to follow the City motto. We also request that the permeable surface ratio be included in the environmental impact report because this will also affect our flooding problems. Regarding parking, we ’ve got one covered carport, one -car garage in the front and one in the back, a total of three cars. We can assume that a six -bedroom house will have at least three cars, each back unit will have two cars, and the front unit will have two cars for a total of nine cars. That would mean six cars would be parked on the street. If you look at the plans, two of the parking spots are right in the middle of the driveway. If somebody is parked there, nobody from the back units can get out. I think that is a real serious safety concern in the event of an emergency like an earthquake or a flood. The front of the property is only 20.5-feet wide and that also adds to serious safety concerns when 16-20 people can occupy the lot. They won ’t be able to get out if cars are parked in these parking spaces . Regarding the neighborhood, most of the homes in the neighborhood are over 100 years old. As someone mentioned, they have Burlingame charm. A six -bedroom rectangular box house does not adhere to the architecture of the neighborhood. All the homes that have been recently built in our neighborhood have a lot of character and conform to the neighborhood standards. Regarding construction times, already in the front unit, the one that is currently being worked on, they were working before 9 am on Saturday. We need to know who we contact when they continue breaking the rules. For the record, these points should be a condition of approval with consequences. Last Tuesday, I called the Planning Department for the first time just to see what these two structures are. None of us had any idea that there were going to be five structures in the property. We have no knowledge, so immediately we contacted neighbors and got together and asked how we did not even know about this. My husband ’s family have lived here for generations, and I’ve been in Burlingame for 45 years. I hope we can make this work. >Jonathan Freidman: Thank you to all the staff for being so welcoming and accommodating in explaining things to us. I also want to thank the architect for his remarks. If anyone does not know it, we are in a period of climate change. The weather is getting more extreme. We have wildfires, we have rising seas and of course we have floods. When we learned that this property behind us is going to be lifted five feet above our property, all of us asked if this is going to be a dam that stops all the water coming down Edgehill Drive, which comes down our driveways and into our backyard, is going to be blocked by this wall. We also have sump pumps, and we have a drainage tank at the back of our property which goes right into the alley. I am very concerned that this moat or wall is going to cause harm and damage to all of us. I am a writer, I have my studio in the back of our property, I have had privacy there, and I have a basement which is full of my 30-40 years of writing. I am very concerned that this new project is going to endanger all those things. We are talking about the redwood tree, which is right behind my house and on my property and its roots extend into the other property. Also, there is a beautiful palm tree which is inextricably connected to the roots of the redwood tree. We really do not want the grading or foundations for this process to harm the roots of our tree. I have pictures here to share of this beautiful tree; it is historic because the house is 100 years old and so is the tree I imagine. We have this very healthy tree trimmed and it would be terrible if this tree is weakened or damaged. It might fall on our house or the other adjacent houses; it might kill people. The palm tree provides screening and shade. What they are proposing is to build a patio there and cut out the palm tree. Why not keep the palm tree and have shading and screening for both the new ADU and us. We are also concerned about the parking which my neighbor had gone into. In case of an earthquake, flood, and fire, how are people going to get out? One car could stop those people from escaping in an emergency. We’ve all seen what happened in Lahaina . The way the architectural plans look, we don ’t think it has any of the qualities that reflect our neighborhood and the new homes built there. This is a historic neighborhood and we would like to keep it that way. We want ADUs and we want people moving into our communities so our children and grandchildren will be able to live there. But we don’t want this fortress -like compound to be the way the future is in Burlingame . Finally, I just want to stipulate that the flood, tree, and other issues which were raised should be designated as a condition of approval with consequences. Since none of us in this room really know what the impacts of the new kinds of rain will be on this property, I too request an environmental impact report Page 8City of Burlingame August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes be done on this area, which we call the Laguna Basin of Burlingame. I am proposing it here and want it to be part of the record. Thank you very much. >Linda Noeske, 913 Laguna Avenue: I live diagonally from the property in question. Flooding has always been a concern on Laguna Avenue and Paloma Avenue which got it worse than Laguna Avenue . What really concerns me, looking at the proposed plan and the footprint of the buildings, is that you ’ve got four buildings on an irregularly shaped lot. It looks like a complex. It is not at all consistent with the character of the neighborhood at all. Most of us in that area have single family homes and the ones that do have an addition were put there a long time ago. This looks like a new complex coming into that street . As far as the easement that runs behind Paloma Avenue and Laguna Avenue to the pathway, a while a go they installed a new catch basin to deal with the water. The water definitely runs down the easement. I am not a hydrologist, but in my opinion, the easement is lower. So the water that hits the retaining wall, which essentially is a hill, must go somewhere. There are now four structures on the property and a little patch of grass. I don’t know where the permeable surfaces will be. Flooding is a real concern. The other concerns that I have are parking and traffic safety. It is next to a children ’s playground and this is a little children’s playground. As someone mentioned before, you will have cars trapped within and people need to back out from the property. There is a lot of foot traffic and the strollers go by from the local day care center. I would request, if you have the chance to walk through the easement, please take a look at what we are talking about because they are going to raise that property and the water has to go somewhere. I don’t think that has been considered with flood gates, what will that do on one piece of property? It would be helpful to see story poles for some of the neighbors as well as a scaled model. I couldn ’t tell much of anything from these 3D photographs except that everything is crammed in there. I don ’t see a single family living there. >Steve Peterson, 950 Paloma Avenue: I don’t have anything to add to the comments that have already been provided by my fellow neighbors, but I do want to emphasize that Paloma Park is a very popular park in the neighborhood. There is a day care center that uses it routinely. They walk by my house regularly. I want to emphasize the concerns that you ’ve already heard about and the consequences that this development, I call this a development because it is a four -building idea, to put on an R -2 lot. I’m not going to talk about or question what is legal because I am going to rely on the Planning Commission to make sure that they comply with R -2 regulations. My concerns are ingress /egress to the property and public access to the park. Sure, they will have access, but I don ’t know about public parking, and of course, the flooding. That is very real. I hope you take that into consideration when you review the plans for this development. >Isabelle Rooney, 1312 Edgehill Drive: I’ve been listening and I would like to make everyone here aware of the misrepresentation of the applicant during his project presentation when he stated that he believes he can address almost all of our bullet pointed concerns and then proceeded not to address a single one of them because all of the possible solutions were qualified by words and phrases “maybe”, “I might be able to”, “probably get away with”, and “I think I can”. These are not mechanisms to address concerns because they are hypothetical; hypotheticals can easily evaporate. Therefore, I want to make everyone cognizant of that and hope that everyone will consider that. When you look at the plans, please consider these possible suggestions and solutions on the merits that they deserve. To the applicant, I would enormously appreciate it if you do not insult us by attempting to obfuscate reality in this way again. >Public comment sent via email by Carol Borba, 905 Paloma Avenue: There are a number of neighbors that cannot attend the meeting tonight, but they wanted to share their concerns about the proposed design for 900 Paloma Avenue. I will drop the original signed documents off at your office this morning but wanted to make sure you had electronic copies of the letters. (Hurin: Those are the letters submitted by 15 neighbors.) The letters are from neighbors in a one to two -block radius of the proposed structure. There are a significant number of families that use Paloma Park who are also very concerned about the development, but I have not included their responses at this time. If you would like input from the neighbors that use the park, I would be happy to gather their input and share it with the city. I look forward to meeting with you this evening during the design review meeting. Page 9City of Burlingame August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Public comment sent via email by John Pineda, 907 Paloma Avenue: Good afternoon, I am writing to provide comments on the proposed development at 900 Paloma Avenue in Burlingame that is on the agenda for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. I oppose the development as currently designed. I am attaching a letter that lays out the concerns that I and some of our neighbors have about the current design. (Hurin: Referring to the same letter submitted by 15 neighbors.) >Public comment sent via email by Nancy Kerns, 941 Paloma Avenue and 1339 Sanchez Avenue: I have not prepared a statement that I want read at tonight ’s meeting, however as the property owner at 941 Paloma Avenue, I just wanted to state my opinion and opposition to the proposed buildings on the 900 Paloma Avenue lot. Not only is the proposal unsightly and a ridiculous amount of units and building footprint for the land area, parking is already overcrowded on the block. I realize there are some parking on the plans, but it is an untenable plan that will depend on incredible logistics among the tenants . Parking is even more compromised at this particular location because of Paloma Park being next door. I have lived here for over 40 years and I see the usage of that park has gone way up since the nice remodeling of it the City did not long ago. Many families come by car to share the space and let their children play on the equipment with other children or to have celebration parties. Most families or tenants have multiple cars and especially with the addition of ADUs (many of which are on the footprint of what would have been a garage ), parking has become outrageous and dangerous by blocking visibility and making these narrow streets even more treacherous. So many “near misses” either experienced or observed every day. At least please consider adding more stop signs at corners in this neighborhood and/or extending the one-way streets another block or two south of Broadway to help mitigate this. Having grown up here in Burlingame, I am profoundly saddened by what is becoming of it - an overcrowded, congested “city” that looks more like a big urban center than the lovely town I spent my wonderful childhood in. Please reconsider approving all these oversized projects. >Public comment sent via email by Robin Allison Cavanagh, 860 Paloma Avenue: I have serious concerns about this development effort. I join my neighbors citing these concerns. I’ve attached a letter from our neighbors with these concerns. This email serves as my signed consent objecting to this development - citing these concerns. I completely support the neighborhood request to make the adjustments outlined in the attached letter. I’ve noted an additional concern - the added burden of curb parking that will make it more difficult for the neighbors (and their guests) to park in front of their homes . This doesn’t seem very fair to the homeowners and neighbors who live nearby. As someone who has lived here for 20 years, I can attest to how much the curb parking has increased. Add this proposed development and it will cause lots of pain and suffering to the neighbors. It’s just not fair to the homeowners here. We are single family owners here. What’s being proposed is a hybrid single family home-apartment complex. While I support an ADU on a single family home unit, I do not support this proposed project. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > I appreciate all the neighbors that have expressed their concerns. It is a tough one because there are a lot of restrictions on what the Planning Commission is legally allowed to review. It is just the house and not the ADUs, not even the elevations and certainly not the flooding. I appreciate all those concerns; it is just not the purview of this commission to have a vote one way or another regarding those issues. It is an R-2 zoned lot surrounded by other R -2 properties except for the south side. We see submissions all the time requesting special permits. This fully complies with the law as submitted so it makes it difficult for us to hear your concerns, but they do not violate the law. I do hope that the designer is able to work on the elevation, it is just an oddity to have five feet of fill, it will look odd. I am not sure if the flooding will get worse, there are ways they can mitigate that. But aesthetically, to the neighbors surrounding a five -foot jump in the backyard is going to look strange. As my fellow commissioner has alluded to, right now from the topographic map, this looks like a property that gets flooded by everybody else because it is lower . Page 10City of Burlingame August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes We’ll let the civil engineer decide that it is two feet lower than the surrounding fences. The photos of a lake suggest that there is a water problem not only in this property but the neighboring properties as well . That is another challenge, all the other properties are in a flood zone, so it is not this property ’s fault that there is flooding in the neighborhood. The aesthetics of the house can be modified to fit better in the neighborhood. I’d love to see it come back with a creative elevation solution where you don ’t have to put five feet of fill in. >It is unfortunate that most of the issues raised are things that we don ’t have the ability to review as a commission. The flooding sounds bad, but it is not something that will be useful for us to discuss. Other than that, I am thankful that they are keeping the house in the front. I always want to see that. It is a nice and unusual design. I am also happy that it is what the vast majority of the site is going to present on the street. >I definitely hear all the concerns and like my other fellow commissioner said, a lot of these concerns need to be worked out with the Building and Public Works Divisions to make this work better. As part of it, I hope that they can come up with solutions to bring the stormwater out to an appropriate location and not make the situation worst for the adjacent neighbors. Overall, this is a 12,000 square foot lot which is double the size of most of the lots in the area. Therefore, having two homes on it is not really any denser than any of the other lots. It just happens to be a triangle. Even with the ADUs, the lot coverage is below what we would otherwise expect for a property like this. The ADUs are not oversized, they are smaller than a lot of the ones we see. Overall, I don ’t have an issue with the density of this lot. I agree that they don ’t have a whole lot of street frontage to deal with parking that other people have, that is why I see a lot of paving in the interior so they can try and make the parking work on their own property. It is going to be a challenge to get the permeability, the parking, and the stormwater to work. I can sympathize with the flood zone because they are trying to solve the issue for this lot too since they are within the flood zone and they must follow the regulations. I hope all that can get settled out. The thing that we do have purview on is the design. There are still opportunities here. I recognize that it is an efficient design right now and it is leveraging being a two -story home. There are opportunities to have some stagger between materials. I don’t find the stucco part heavy, but consider a design feature and maybe a 6-inch setback which then allows the wood portion to evolve out of the base and provide more style to it and allows the overhangs to be a little deeper. Suggests doing some push and pull to it and some depth, it can turn into a nice-looking design. Given the nature of this lot, there are a lot of people looking at it from the back. It is important that we try to make a good -looking project and I am looking forward to the next generation of 3D renderings. >I’ll echo my fellow commissioners with what has been said. As a builder, I understand that there is going to be quite an expense in civil engineering for this project. There will probably be a soils report required. The water can’t simply touch the foundations, it is against the law. You can rest assured that the civil engineers on this job will be held to their licenses and to the city review that they will be able to mitigate the water. If you are concerned about your own property, consider looking into civil engineering and maybe consider hiring your own to counter it for a second opinion. You have that built into the city . The Public Works Department is very capable, and they will look at this with all your concerns. Know that this will not just fly through and somehow get approved with the Building Division without a very significant civil engineering review. It is important on the applicant ’s side to move forward with the civil engineer so they can present that to the neighborhood so they can see exactly how the water is going to be mitigated and they can take into their own hands how the engineers plan on getting the water away from this property. It is illegal to shed it onto neighboring properties. Obviously, this area floods and that kind of water is very challenging. The property itself cannot shed into your properties. To echo my fellow commissioner, there are opportunities on the design. Unfortunately, we cannot talk more about the property as many of you have concerns because we are only limited to the new two -story behind the existing house. With a few added details, that can look like a very nice property. It is going to be dense and there are going to be parking issues. We deal with that in every street of Burlingame that gets a new home and a new ADU. That is a State mandate. I do appreciate everybody ’s thoughtfulness on this. I certainly look forward to it coming back. >It can be made better with some details. I do appreciate that the applicant is working on the existing house because it has a charm to it. My concern is with the elevation changes as far as potentially rotting the fences. It certainly is not good for adjacent trees to have so much soil put up against them. Applicant Page 11City of Burlingame August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes will need to provide an arborist report to investigate protecting surrounding properties that have nice trees for potential creating another problem. Also coordinate with the city engineers to help direct this forward in a good manner. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to bring the item back as a Design Review Study Item when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores5 - Absent:Tse1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no reportable actions from the last City Council meeting regarding Planning matters. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m. Page 12City of Burlingame