HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.12.09BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 9, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior
Planner Catherine Keylon, City Attorney Kathleen Kane, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and LoftisPresent6 -
SargentAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft October 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft October 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
b.Draft November 12, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft November 12, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
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
a.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2020 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2020 Planning Commission Memorandum
2020 Planning Commission Schedule
2020 Draft City Council Calendar
Attachments:
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the Consent
Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.812 Linden Avenue (vacant lot adjacent to 816 Linden Avenue), zoned R-1 - Application
for a Conditional Use Permit for re -emerging lots, Design Review for one new, two -story
single family dwelling with a detached garage at 812 Linden Avenue (vacant parcel next
to 816 Linden Ave). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), per Section 15301(a) (Tim Raduenz, Form
+ One Design, applicant and designer; 812 Linden LLC and 816 Linden LLC, property
owners) (149 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
812 and 816 Linden Ave - Staff Report
812 and 816 Linden Ave - Attachments
812 and 816 Linden Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Chair Comaroto was recused from this item for statutory reasons involving a financial interest in the
property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
>There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Comment was really more on the massing of the whole building. Seems like there is approximately
385 square feet of flat roof. Couple that with the section, will end up with approximately 8 feet of height in
the attic. Going for 10:12 pitch will have close to 600 to 800 square feet of what would be considered floor
area. Was looking for something that reduced the massing and the reasoning of the little dormer on the
front is almost a token reduction. (Raduenz: It's the dormer and also doing the hip roof. We got rid of a
whole gable end.)
>The point last time was the flat roof is contributing to the bulk of the mass. (Raduenz: Think building
a two story and putting a 4:12 pitch is not architecture.)
> All four elevations looked like they filled the page, looking for more aesthetically. (Raduenz: We're
within all the regulations. I'm sorry to object but it's an english style, modern, clean line house. Normally, I
don't reduce the pitches. I try to do something with a little bit of a larger roof mass just because I think it's
a more classic look.)
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Some of the massing has been broken down with the roof lines that were added along the first floor.
>Not fair to say it's a traditional english style house and therefore should be acceptable with this
massive flat roof on it. Appreciate some of the revisions made. Like the front elevation, the way you have
revised it with the smaller gable that's a secondary gable on that front side. (Raduenz: Understand
concern about flat roof. Flat roof hides all the mechanicals and roof vents, you don't see these elements
as much. Normally a lot of the projects that I've been doing have solar panels, which the flat roof also
helps to hide.)
>Mechanical elements can be located in attics, basements or crawl spaces.
>Struggled to understand the changes that were made, didn't see the reduction in mass. It still seems
to be a very massive house, and the reason for that is that there's not a lot of articulation of the box itself .
It's a box that fills the site, and if you choose to do a boxy building, and you have a certain roof height,
you have to lop that off at some point. Understand how it functions in hiding the solar panels, but it feels
massive.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>There are many single story homes and some split level homes in this neighborhood, but not a lot of
two story homes. Greater effort needs to be given to reducing the bulk of the house by working the roof
line. We get applications all the time that have conventional roofs, whether they have solar panels or not,
they still go on the roof. There's nothing we can do, as a Commission, to reduce those or negate those
because that's State law we have to allow. The solar panels are becoming the norm. It is not a good
argument that to hide the solar panels you need to have a flat roof. Seeing this as filling it up too much .
There's a lot of what could be considered floor area in the attic and can't say it won't be accessible. There
are many ways this house could be reduced in mass and bulk. Can't support the project at this point.
> Although the house falls within the declining height envelope, and it's not asking for other special
considerations, it does seem oversized for the neighborhood. There could be another approach to this to
meet all of the program requirements for the home and not feel so big and heavy. Can't support it in its
present state.
>Struggling with the mass of the building. The front looks better, but then you look at the right -hand
side and it looks massive because the roof is rising up behind the front. The same is true to the left -hand
side and then the rear elevation, which is effectively just like the front elevation. It's a massive roof right in
the middle of the project. Finding it hard to support the project until the mass is addressed somehow.
>There are some expressions, some details that are occurring on the project that help mitigate the
massing. However, believe that what's causing some of the concern is that at the second floor there is a
consistent eave line that follows all the way around on every elevation. If we didn't have some of the first
floor roofs engaging this structure, you have a consistent second floor roof, that when you put a roof on
top of that, your only solution is to cut it off and create flat roofs. Otherwise, you're applying for what
probably would be a variance, not even a special permit for height because it's now only a few inches
below the maximum allowable height of 30 feet. So with this particular roof slope, and the roof structure,
the way it has been designed with a consistent plate height around the top of the second floor, only
solution is to cut it off with a flat roof. Therefore, we get these roof plains on the elevation and we don't
have the relief encouraged by our design guidelines, that specifically encourage second floor areas to be
tucked under roofs that spring from a first floor plate height. There are some good things happening in
terms of the overall design. If there were some reworking and articulation of that second floor plate height
so it is not dogmatically consistent all around, that might help with some of the concerns.
>Agree, this house is going to dominate everything around it; the massing needs to be readdressed.
>City Attorney Kane: If the Commission is leaning towards making a motion for a continuance, we may
want to reopen the public hearing for the purpose of finding out from the applicant if that's something they
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
want and if not, would they rather have thCommissionon vote to deny the application.
Acting Chair Kelly re-opened the public hearing.
>Raduenz: I'll completely rework the second floor and all the elevations.
Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to continue the
application.
Comment on the motion:
>Good solution to concerns is to spring the second floor roof from the first floor plate height.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Kelly, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
b.2711 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, Variances for Front Setback, Side Setback and Parking, and
Special Permit for an addition to the main level of an existing single family dwelling, to
convert the existing garage to living space, and for a new lower level attached garage .
This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Robert
Wehmeyer, Weymeyer Design, applicant and designer; Charles and Diana Williams,
property owners) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
2711 Burlingview Dr - Staff Report
2711 Burlingview Dr - Attachments
2711 Burlingview Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Comaroto and Tse noted that they spoke
to the neighbor to the right and met with the applicant when the project was initially reviewed.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Thank you for getting the lighting consultant involved.
>Did you have a specific conversation with the consultant about translucent versus transparent glass?
My experience has been that unless you're looking at a bulb, you're looking at the surface that the bulb
lights. In this case, you wouldn't be looking at a bulb. Here's what I would expect and would ask you to
confirm with your lighting consultant. I would expect that translucent glass, which is frosted glass, is
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
going to act like a diffuser. What you would see through the transparent glass is the lit surface inside .
Depending on what the color of those surfaces are, you may not see them at all. (Wehmeyer: That's what
lighting consultant said. They wanted to see how the lighting was spaced. There will be recessed can
lighting with LED bulbs, not hanging fixtures, and will minimize the number of lights in that area because
they're bright to begin with. The glass is going to be shiner, but we could mitigate that with tinted film.)
Public Comments:
Mark Hudak, representing the Zaarour Family: Concerned about verifying the existing roof ridge elevations
and then confirming them during construction because of the impact on views. An FYI at the end of the
project isn't going to be good enough if there's a deviation on the elevation. Ask that there be a condition
of approval that the existing roof ridge height be verified at the start, that it be reverified when the framing
is done, and finally verified at the end of the project. Second, the skylight does remain an issue. It's
interesting to hear about the lighting consultant, we haven't seen a report from him or her. We'd like to so
we could show it to a lighting consultant of our own, so everybody ends up on the same page. Ideally that
skylight wouldn't be there at all. To the extent that we eliminate light coming up and through by making it
translucent or with film, it decreases the amount of light that's coming into this foyer, which is the purpose
of the skylight supposedly, anyway. Can't have both of those things together effectively. The best thing
to do would be to eliminate the skylight because there's plenty of natural light from the windows
surrounding that foyer. But if that skylight is going to remain, then we've got to be very precise about what
we mean by translucent or this film that's now being presented, or what this lighting is going to look like,
otherwise, we're going to get down to the point where we're pulling permits, and staff is not going to know
what's permitted and what's not. We need to do more on that skylight, either eliminate it or really drill
down on what those parameters will be so that we're not guessing once we get started on this project .
This seems like a small detail in a large project, but it's probably the difference between having a project
that's good and satisfies everybody, and having one that is a lasting source of contention for the parties
because nobody is satisfied. Hoping that we can get some clear direction on the skylight, even if we have
to come back one more time after we've seen a report from the lighting consultant and we've had a chance
to verify it.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Appreciate the changes that the designer has made to the project, think they make it a better project .
Would like to receive report from the lighting consultant as an FYI.
>Like the changes made to the project.
>Am convinced there is a solution to the skylight issue. Know that in the case of exterior lighting, there
are regulations that limit lighting to the property line. Are there regulations with regard to lighting emitting
from skylights? (Hurin: Only regulations we have regarding exterior lighting would be the one you spoke of
which restricts it to property line. There is no ordinance which addresses nighttime glow or light omitted
from skylights.)
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the
application with the following amended condition:
>Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall have a report prepared by a
lighting consultant that analyzes and recommends which type of glazing most effectively
minimizes nighttime light pollution from the skylight; Planning Commission review of the revised
plans are not required if the project is modified to accommodate the recommendations in the
lighting report.
Comment on the motion:
>This does raise the question, who are we trying to satisfy? Because there is no regulation
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
and arguably the neighbor could never be satisfied with the solution. In my opinion, suspect
there will be minimal impact.
>Think the information will be helpful. One could argue that a vertical glass in someone's
room is having too much light and bothering a neighbor.
>Wouldn't presume to want to modify the motion, but report that comes back in FYI should
clarify what is the best solution in terms of the glazing and the lighting in order to minimize light
pollution at night. What we have in the plans before us specifies translucent glazing and as has
been discussed, that's the wrong solution for what is trying to be achieved. Would like to know
that from the lighting consultant and if the conclusion is no, then transparent glazing would be
better.
>City Attorney Kane: Want to make sure the direction that emerges from this action is clear to
the applicant. My understanding is that if the lighting consultant report concludes that there is
less impact from a different glazing solution, then the applicant is free to substitute that solution
without coming back for another round of action. So that would mean the motion is to approve
with an FYI from the lighting consultant and to minimize impact.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
c.139 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family 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. (Patrick Burger, applicant and architect; Wu Fang,
property owner) (76 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
139 Loma Vista Dr - Staff Report
139 Loma Vista Dr - Attachments
139 Loma Vista Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Leong (last name not provided), represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Per the colored rendering provided, is the plan to paint the siding on the second story a dark brown
color or to stain the color that's presented? (Leong: I could ask my designer about it.)
>Are there any changes proposed to the landscaping or hardscaping on the site? (Leong: No.)
>It looks like the architectural details of the front steps might be a little bit off from the artist rendition .
Perhaps the designer can put those front steps into balance and make it look slightly more symmetrical .
(Leong: okay.)
Public Comments:
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Project benefited by going through the design review consultant process.
>Like reorganizing of windows, achieving some alignments and symmetry.
>Massing is handled nicely.
>Renderings we've received represent the house nicely in terms of the application of the two different
materials, the stucco and the wood siding.
>Think the project is better, it has improved and agree with the design review consultant that the
project is approvable.
> At first thought that the porch seemed out of balance, but if you were to extend that wall across to
the right side, it would be too much of a blank face there.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
d.757 Farringdon Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached
garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Elaine Lee, Elaine Lee Design, applicant and designer; Beth Taylor property owner )(127
noticed) Staff Contact: Fahteen Khan
757 Farringdon Ln - Staff Report
757 Farringdon Ln - Attachments
757 Farringdon Ln - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had a brief
conversation with the project architect regarding the information that was being resubmitted.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>For the declining height envelope encroachment, is that made up of the stairwell and the area in the
back of the house on the right? (Keylon: Yes, that's correct.)
>Because there are windows around three sides of the stairwell projection, wouldn't they qualify for the
window enclosure exception? (Keylon: No, because the portion of the stairwell which extends beyond the
declining height envelope exceeds 35 square feet in floor area.)
>Do we need to discuss the condition of approval regarding the storm drain pipe now or when we close
public hearing? (Kane: If the Commission is prepared to take action on this item tonight, we will need
some form of condition acted on or the Commission could direct that it be brought back as an FYI. It
was drafted with the intent of allowing relocation in some form acceptable to the Public Works Division
and not contingent on the action of the other property owner. There is an existing circumstance on site
that has to be dealt with in one way or another.)
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Elaine Lee, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Commission had expressed an interest in seeing you look at reducing the first floor height to nine
feet. Did you look at that at all? (Lee: We did, but it didn't eliminate our request for a special permit. I
didn't draft a comparison, but in combination with our setting of the first floor and subfloor lower, we
accomplished the equivalent of having a lower first floor plate.) Wouldn't have expected that, but it does
reduce the overall sense of massing of the building.
Public Comments:
Ron Biggs, neighbor to right of project house: Our house fits into the declining envelope, we did a remodel
specifically with the same footprint, so all we did was add upwards. We're requesting for them to comply
with the declining height envelope regulation. Designer noted that the foundation was lowered in order to
maintain the height of the interior plate for the first floor. Know the Commission asked for between an 8
and 9 foot plate on the interior to help make it fit in better with the rest of the neighborhood that we
commonly see. Don't see any changes on the plans that has affected the declining height envelope at all .
Felt like the recommendations that the Commission had suggested didn't really go anywhere.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>My understanding of the declining height envelope is that it doesn't rise to the level of a variance. Staff
report notes that a special permit can be granted as long as the architecture is consistent in massing with
the neighborhood. There's no requirement that it must have a special condition, such as the lot is
narrower than normal. Would support the intrusion into the declining height envelope because the
architecture is consistent and it seem like it fits.
>Think the project doesn't fit. Asked applicant to strongly consider reducing the plate heights because
most of the houses in the neighborhood are single story. Think that it's probably something that should
happen to reduce the overall scale of the project. But as far as the declining height envelope, don't see
any objection to that.
>Like the changes that have been made. Was supportive of the project when it previously came before
us and am supportive of the project now.
>Can't say that the recommendations and requests of the Commission didn't go anywhere. They went
somewhere, but perhaps they didn't go as far as some of the Commission requested. Will say that the
applicant has made some concessions that has helped with the impacts of the special permit for the
declining height envelope. A special permit for declining height envelope is being described here as we
applied it in past projects. We have special circumstances with the architecture and the massing, and this
lot which is 40 foot wide versus a 50 foot wide. Can support the project the way it's proposed.
>Don't think that we have a hard and fast rule that 9 foot and 8 foot plates are required for two -story
houses. We apply what we think is best in a given situation. We have some modern houses, for example,
where a ten foot plate and an eight foot plate on the second floor with a flat roof is appropriate, and we
have others with steeper pitched roofs, so we look at projects on a case -by-case basis. We have
Commissioners that are strongly suggesting a different plate height, but the applicant has decided to
make a concession, but not a concession that went as far as some Commissioners may have wanted or a
neighbor may have wanted. Can make the findings for the special permit and design review, think it's a
well-designed, well-crafted house. Can support the project the way it has been submitted and revised.
>Think that the applicant has made concessions to bring the house more into conformity of what we
were looking for, so can support the project and the design.
>In the past drainage, roof drainage and drainage of the sites have been brought to the curb, but that
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
changed a few years ago. Am curious why pipe at this point is going through the property, because it's my
understanding that we're now letting the water percolate back into the ground. Think issue should be
referred to the Public Works Division. (Kane: It's an existing condition going back 90 years and we didn't
want to create a situation where the applicant felt this entitlement took care of the drainage issue, which
also has to be addressed. If we were to merely have it be cut off and create a flooding situation because
it hasn't been dealt with, that becomes a public hazard for this property and the other affected properties .
So that's why the condition we suggested was drafted to basically allow a solution acceptable to Public
Works. What we were trying to avoid was making this entitlement contingent on another neighbor who is
not before you. If the Commission is going to approve this project, we would ask that there be room for us
to workout the wording of that condition so we don't create a flooding hazard for the immediate
neighborhood.)
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application with the following condition:
>Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall ensure that plans have been
submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works for either the protection or
relocation of existing storm drainage facilities on the subject property in a manner acceptable to
the City Attorney and Department of Public Works.
Comment on the motion:
>Think it's a good looking house. However, am concerned with leaving the plate height at 9'-
6" instead of bringing it down to 9'-0". Doesn't seem like they're doing everything they can on
their end to work with us. Don't find the argument compelling that applicant was going to need
the special permit anyway, so they didn't feel that reducing the impact would make any
difference.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul4 -
Nay:Kelly, and Loftis2 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
e.1801 Adrian Road, zoned RRMU - Application for Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit, and Parking Variance for a two -story addition to an existing
one-story commercial building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA
Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Bryan Miranda, Public Storage Inc ., applicant and property
owner; Shab Vakili, KSP Studio, architect) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
1801 Adrian Rd - Staff Report
1801 Adrian Rd - Attachments
1801 Adrian Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>If the parking variance is granted, it goes with the tenant and not with the property, right? (Hurin: It
goes with the use.) (Kane: If an office development were to be built in the same space, they would not be
able to take advantage of this parking variance.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Bryan Miranda, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There were no questions for the applicant.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Appreciate the information and supplemental information that has been provided. Can agree with the
findings for the CEQA exemption and can make the findings for the conditional use permit. Accept the
parking study and analysis to make the findings for the variance based on this use relative to this
property. Think the project is supportable and should move forward.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
f.Application for Conditional Use Permits to install new small cell wireless facilities
(antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility poles located within the right -of-way
at the locations listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an
existing utility pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole .
These projects are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303. (Abby Reed, Modus LLC,
applicant; Joint Pole Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group, architect) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
1.In right-of-way adjacent to 1505 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1(119 noticed)
2.In right-of-way adjacent to 1480 Broadway, zoned C-1 (165 noticed)
3.In right-of-way adjacent to 977 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 (158 noticed)
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Review of Proposed Applications - CTC Technology & Energy
1505 Bernal Ave - Staff Report
1505 Bernal Ave - Attachments
1505 Bernal Ave - Alternative Site Analysis
1505 Bernal Ave - Plans
1480 Broadway - Staff Report
1480 Broadway - Attachments
1480 Broadway - Alternative Site Analysis
1480 Broadway - Plans
977 El Camino Real - Staff Report
977 El Camino Real - Attachments
977 El Camino Real - Alternative Site Analysis
977 El Camino Real - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Am compelled by the letter that was written by Jennifer Pfaff regarding the potential future
undergrounding of utilities along El Camino Real. Is it possible to add a condition of approval that if in the
future utilities related to these poles are undergrounded, then this installation either has to be removed or
similarly undergrounded? Would hate for the community to be hamstrung in the future by having to keep
these poles for no other reason than an approval was granted for these antennas and the antenna were
installed. (Kane: Part of this relates to the various rights that telecommunication carriers assert in building
out these installations. So in this case, AT&T and other companies are talking about affixing these
facilities to existing PG&E franchise poles so if the pole goes away, then that particular invocation or that
particularity iteration goes away with it. If it's an undergrounding effort, which is some years off because of
the number of utilities located underground along El Camino Real, the pole will go away with it. It's a
self-terminating issue. Am reluctant in real time to draft an ordinance that would have to comply with
various portions of federal and state laws. They're actively being interpreted now. Certainly something
that relates to making sure that AT&T is on notice, that this may be undergrounded in the future and that
they will cooperate with undergrounding efforts, is something we can do tonight. Otherwise, think it's
something we would want to review in detail and negotiate with AT&T’s counsel.
The City retained Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC), an independent telecommunications
consulting firm, to review the technical aspects and information associated with these applications. CTC,
represented by Mr. Lee Afflerbach, summarized the technical review and analysis of the application with
respect to AT&T’s communications engineering materials, its justification for the site, and the overall
functionality of this site in relation to other existing and proposed AT&T transmission facilities.
Questions of Mr. Lee:
>Am I correct in understanding that these antennas are being installed in areas of high vehicular traffic,
in other words, demand for cellular service in vehicles and perhaps also in neighborhoods where there's
that high demand? Or are they're being installed in areas where the signal is not adequate to provide road
coverage or that there's not in -building coverage? (Afflerbach: It’s the signal level required to provide
service to customers in buildings.)
>If I’m at home or in my car or specifically when my kids are in their car or even in my car, they want to
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
plug their phone into my car and they want to get service through their cell phone to play music over the
radio on my car, that is part of what this demand is, correct? (Afflerbach: Correct, this is accommodating
that. It’s also for the smartphone application.)
>So it's not just for phone use, but because there are many other features like streaming, videos,
social media which require a lot of data, that's causing some of this need, is that correct? (Afflerbach:
Right, these are all the high data speed applications. One is more data and the other is there for a quick
response, the time it takes to access the network and do that. The older systems that were just voice
only, that wasn't a problem, this is strictly for high speed devices which are video, the kinds of things you
mentioned, and also mapping applications.)
>Am I correct in understanding that partly what's driving this is the desire to get to 5G service?
(Afflerbach: This is to make 4G work as fast as it can until we get 5G, current applications are all 4G.
They're trying to supplement them. Placing more signal or more locations out there is to make 4G the
product it really is.)
>Have experienced losing a signal from one block to the next. Would placing these small cell sites
help with this issue? How many cell sites would it take? (Afflerbach: These small cell sites provide
signals for a 500 foot radius. Typically, you probably need these things repeated, somewhere between
700 feet and 1500 feet depending on the trees and terrain just to throw a number out. You may need 20 or
so of these per square mile, so there's going to be more of these coming out and there are multiple
carriers, that's what it takes, that's what the technology is.)
>If we have multiple carriers, each carrier is going to want to put a cell tower on each pole. (Afflerbach:
Generally not on the same pole. A cell tower to most people means a macro tower, which are affixed to
other poles, everybody calls them that. A better description for these applications would be access
points. You need that many access points, so it ’s going to be a macro tower on a building or these
access points because you've got two things working against you. One is the fact that the signal
attenuates and you need a stronger signal, otherwise it would interfere with a site.)
>Did the City Council at one time ask for an understanding of where we needed these access points?
(Hurin: Yes, think it did come up during their conversation of the possibility of looking at a master plan .
However, many of the carriers don't know exactly where they need to go with these access points or
facilities, so it's difficult to come up with a plan that says you need to have them only located in a specific
area.) (Kane: It's a long term work plan item for Public Works staff to look at the City's own facilities to
determine which ones might be appropriate, primarily in the commercial areas for light poles. In our
residential areas we don't have light poles that are City poles, so we're looking at City facilities in the
industrial areas.)
>Each of the applications looked at alternative poles and noted why they were not feasible. As this
demand increases, and if so many are rejected for the different reasons, how will this service meet
demand? There might be a street that has many poles and then many streets that don't have any. So how
would that be dissipated? (Afflerbach: There are other options. These particular applications are using the
PG&E poles, but they could use other poles install their own poles. Other cities have chosen to permit
self-supporting poles to minimize the wiring, or they're modifying existing street lights. There are a number
of ways that this can be done. We're dealing here with specific applications from the vendor, but think
that one of the things you want to do is look at the policy of what's available. Each one of these carriers
have different needs and these coverage areas are small relative to what the macro sites did before .
You've got these applications to deal with right now where the applicant identified problem areas and a
solution that's consistent with the other two sites that you approved. Should also consider what will you
allow as an alternative because the federal law is pretty specific that access is available, and the question
is how do you do it from an ascetic point of view. These applications are quite small, they've limited the
number of radios, and the antennas they have are small.) (Kane: Staff will review design standards for
wireless facilities in 2020. These particular applications, fall under the rubric that was deemed acceptable
to the City Council at the beginning of the year in terms of the size and style of the implementation, but
the broader question of whether there are other facilities where we can channel some of these other
applications is something being worked on at the staff level. There are various rights that can be
asserted by the carriers of where they claim they can install these facilities as of right and one is on
existing utility poles subject to the regulations highlighted in the staff report. So even if we want them to
go somewhere else, such as smart poles or something else that the Council may prefer, ultimately, we
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
can't constrain the carriers to making those applications. But the key thing for tonight is to look at the
applications before you and see how they relate to their location and aesthetics and what's permissible
under the precedent we have here.)
>Can the antennas be underground? (Afflerbach: Since coverage area is based on the height of the
antenna, the size of the antenna and the frequency, the antennas cannot be located underground.)
>We don't have to have them on a pole, they can go on a building or permanent structure, right?
(Afflerbach: Generally those were macro sites. They are sites where there are multiple providers and
contain large antennas. These small cells typically have antennas that are somewhere between two and
four foot high and generally blend into the poles that they're mounted on.)
>That's what we find in a residential area because all we have is the utility pole to work with, right?
(Afflerbach: Yes, right now the most common approach is to use a standard pole, and the poles are
subject to availability because there may be other utilities on the pole, that's why some of these are not
accepted by the utility.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Ellen Kamei and Abigail Reed represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Fiber optic cable will be used to connect these sites. Where is that capable going to go? (Reed: The
cable is existing at all three locations, which was permitted by a separate permit processed through the
City. It’s a coil or black box that's at the power pole.)
>So is there a fiber optic running from this pole to others? (Reed: Yes, generally the cable is pulled
from a backbone fiber optic cable, which has already been completed for these three sites.)
>Can you tell us why property owners of commercial buildings were not interested in allowing you to
install the equipment and antennas on their buildings? (Reed: It can be for a multitude of reasons. For
two of the sites, the case was just that they weren't responsive to us, so we called them multiple times
and left voicemails and never got a call back. The smog shop told us they weren't interested in
negotiating with us.)
>Do you know what could be their reasons for lack of interest, a concern for radiation, or what typically
would be the reasons? (Reed: Some of them are health concerns, it's hard to say exactly what their
reasons are. Sometimes people don't want to enter into negotiations, it's a lot of time and effort on their
behalf to show us around, and we also need to enter into their buildings with notice, so it requires more
effort on their behalf.)
>Shrouds are an improvement over past versions we have seen, but they're big dumb boxes. You said
that the side of the shroud will have small holes in it for ventilation. Could the holes be put into a pattern?
Reason I ask this is because there are a lot of decorative perforated boxes and surfaces around these
days, you see it a lot in modern architecture. (Reed: That can be included in our conditions of approval,
we'd be happy to do that. The bottom and top of the shroud are open to provide ventilation.)
Public Comments:
Steve Lamont, Burlingame resident: Have been in the wireless industry since 1985. We have an ordinance
in place. Believe it's vital that we get the master plan from the carriers of the number of sites they plan to
have. Have talked with other industry experts that would say that we are going to end up with upwards of
1,000 small cells in Burlingame when this whole thing settles out, think there are a couple of good reasons
for us to have that number in mind. Concerned that we ’ll start to get applications like this that is looking
at the first two as if they've set a precedent. Multiply that by 500 or 1,000 and we see what the total impact
is going to be. That's why we believe it's important we have that big picture of how many are going to be in
our neighborhoods. Enjoyed listening to your discussion of the other applications for homes tonight and
the consideration for the laws and the aesthetics, believe we need to be putting these cell sites through
the same review, there are more aesthetically pleasing solutions that other cities push for. Should look at
small cells on Google images and you'll start to see a lot of innovative designs. Every month there are new
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
technologies coming. There are ways for the equipment, at least, to be undergrounded and there are ways
for the equipment to be put within poles. If we push back and work with the industry to help them find
good designs, and say if you can design within these parameters you're going to get fast approval going
forward, we might find a good win-win solution. Think we should push this back for more consideration.
Jennifer Bertetta, 1012 Drake Avenue: Here tonight on behalf of my family and my neighbors to express
strong opposition to the small cell wireless facility applications in addition to the pending application at
1100 Drake Avenue which is less than 250 feet from my residence. Small cell wireless sites are
unattractive, lower our property values, and most importantly have unknown health effects. Science shows
we're affected by these RF emissions whether we can feel it or not, and research is starting to show links
to infertility, DNA damage, leukemia and cancer. These small cell sites do not belong in our
communities. The cumulative effect of these RF emissions and the continued exposure to them can
change one's health, particularly young children whose cells are still dividing. Children deserve a safe
place to sleep. There are better places for these small cell sites and we need to be smart and sensible
on how many we place and where we place them. Fully realize in today's society, customers are
demanding faster service and companies like AT&T and Verizon want to meet the needs of their
customers. This may come at a price to Burlingame residents and wireless companies will tell us that
under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, that they have the right to install cell towers wherever
they may choose to. However, cities such as Palo Alto and areas of San Francisco have already pushed
back. Jeremy Johnson, an expert in EMF exposure said the following in 2016: “The FCC is not protecting
the public and the public is not being properly informed on this issue. The FCC is supposed to be
regulating this industry, but its regulations are over 20 years old. Our most advanced technology is using
science that is also at least 20 years old and is based on a 50-year-old concept that said if microwave
radiation can't heat us, it can't possiblly hurt us. Hundreds of studies have shown this is false. The
industry is influencing the regulatory body. There appears to be a revolving door between the wireless
lobby and the FCC Commission, plus the science is heavily influenced by industry funding." Industry
funded studies show these small cell sites are safe whereas independent studies show effects saying
these are not safe. We already saw this play out in the smoking industry. The smoking industry studies
told the public that their product was safe when we all know now that it was not and many of us lost loved
ones to lung cancer. We urge you to please vote no on these applications. As a long time Burlingame
resident, it is my expectation that our elected representatives’ primary concern is to do whatever it takes to
keep their community safe. Burlingame should continue to fight any FCC orders and remain a part of the
coalition with places like Los Altos, Palo Alto, Mill Valley and parts of San Francisco.
Annette Doherty, Burlingame resident: Not going to be immediately affected by one of the locations,
however have done a lot of research on this issue. Am not an engineer, but am in the health field. Would
say that as the last person who spoke said, much of the funding on scientific studies has been done by
telecommunications companies showing that there is no provable data. Other scientist from around the
world found that there is scientific data that RF communication waves are harmful to our health. We know
that you can smoke a cigarette and you're not going to get cancer, but your risk if you smoke 12 packs in
a year gets higher. Each time you do something, each time you're around something, it gets worse. Mill
Valley has not moved forward with micro cell antennas as the other areas such as Palo Alto, parts of San
Francisco, Encinitas, Carmel, and Carmel, Indiana. There are 23 other states suing their legislatures to
find better scientific data to protect themselves. Also think blight is a huge issue. We're talking about
three small cell sites now. Have read they're looking to put 1,000 because they're not super effective at
this point. Think a thousand poles handling more boxes is going to be a huge blight for our city. We pride
ourselves on trees and beauty. We spent hours on our design review project and it was challenging to get
something passed through because Burlingame cares how something looks and for us to say it ’s okay,
it's not. It's going to be ugly and they're going to keep coming and setting the precedent. The last time
the FCC did studies was in 1996 and they tested from the base of the pole. Gentleman who spoke earlier
said it's minimal at the base of the pole, there is much less radiation at the base of the pole and that's
where the FCC has been testing. Concerned more about second stories, most people have their
bedrooms on the second story, so if you have a cell tower 50 feet, you're going to be sleeping and getting
RF wave emissions. Our phones are downstairs and they're in airplane mode at night, so I think it's the
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
responsibility of the City Council to protect us and would urge you to oppose this and look for a bigger
review and plan for City.
Danielle (last name not provided): Concerned with application at 1505 Bernal Avenue. Live on Vancouver
Avenue and am within the 300 feet of the planned cell access point. Am a nurse by trade and the FCC
does not allow us to consider health concerns, but think Burlingame is being short -sided in allowing these
to go forward. My child walks to Lincoln school and will walk to school at BIS, don't know if you want your
kids walking under that cell tower every day. Speaker said 100 of those would be exceeding the frequency,
my child will walk under that more than 100 times because we care about the environment, we walk to
school, we don't drive. Have many friends who have been to this Commission who asked for modifications
to their house, and you’ve said no. Seems like Burlingame is scared of the lawsuits, but Hillsborough and
Palo Alto, places that are similar to us and have similar values, who care about the environment, those
cities have taken the necessary steps to protect its inhabitants. When I saw this application, considered
moving to Hillsborough because they don't have these. You're going to lose community members and a
thousand of these is horrific. Can't imagine these all over the place, and you know AT&T is going to file a
lawsuit when you take down the pole to put utilities underground, you're going to fight a lawsuit now or later .
Am a nurse practitioner and care about this because I work with adults and kids with cancer. We don't
have all the data and we should consider this. At the very least, they should not impact the beauty of our
City. Concerned about how it may affect the wildlife. There was the recent New York Times article about
the loss of a billion birds. How is this going to affect them?
Danielle Reynolds, 1400 block Bernal Avenue: Concerned with application at 1505 Bernal Avenue. We
walk to school every day. Use AT&T as carrier and have never had an issue with dropping cell coverage .
How do they get their information pertaining to this location? Why did they choose this location on Bernal
Avenue? Can you convey that to us who live in the area? Seems like that wasn't discussed. Would like
to know why this this location was chosen when none of my neighbors have complained about AT&T or
Verizon or any of the carriers for that matter. Specifically to that site, in looking at different options, this
one was chosen because it said it was between two houses and not specifically in front of one of the other
houses like the others. Seems like it was affecting two houses instead of one. In terms of blight it's very
ugly. Concerned with impacts on health with so many kids walking to school in the area.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>They don't seem to be very intrusive.
>Appreciate the input from the consultant.
>For the installation that's being proposed that has been designed for these locations, not considering
other alternatives, they're simple and they're as streamed line as possible.
>Considering the issues of time place and manner for these particular applications, have a hard time
rejecting them for what they are.
>Need a master plan to see how many of these things are going to be because there are several
carriers. Was surprised by the fact that these small cell sites cover about three to six hundred feet. How
many are we going to have and how many poles do we have to consider? Don't know exactly how to
commission a master plan. Who does that and how? How do we tell all the various carriers you have to
get together and provide a master plan for our City and anticipate everything?
>Maybe there is some other module or something smaller, something better.
City Attorney Kane: Carriers assert rights to utility poles that are different than other forms of master
planning that we may do. So they assert state law rights to the utility poles that are independent of the City
saying, for example, we would rather have smart poles that are both a light pole and an antenna and have
wifi. So City staff is engaged in trying to work with our neighboring jurisdictions and on our own Public
Works basis in determining City infrastructure preferences that will be brought to City Council. There's the
question of having streamlined design preferences for the things that go on utility poles, saying this model
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
is the kind that would be acceptable and this model wouldn't. Some cities prefer to have the antennas
lowered down, but sticking out from the poles as opposed to be vertically aligned. Those are the kinds of
questions the City can express questions for and the carriers are generally responsive to, provided that it
works for the engineering. The City can't impose any standards that have the effective of preventing the
build out of cellular structure. What we're looking at is channeling the requests rather than out right
preventing them. The City is engaged and has been for a number of years in litigation at the federal level
to challenge the FCC's preemption of state and local action on this. We're part of a national coalition that's
doing that right now, it's in the court of appeals being litigated. We also have a 5-year history of litigation
here in this City challenging and winning the rights to regulate some of the aesthetics we're talking about
tonight. So it's not a question that the City isn't protective, the problem is where is the fight, the fight right
now is at the federal level on the question of how much preemption is appropriate. I'm sure the applicant is
not happy to hear about our role in the federal litigation, but that is Council ’s direction and that is where
the City and others are pressing their efforts. Some other cities have taken other approaches in the
immediate near term, some of those yielded litigation for them. We do try where possible to coordinate,
especially in the border areas, to make sure we don't have unnecessary replication or unnecessary
inconsistency with infrastructure across the border so we don't end up with redundancy or mismatching
with our contiguous agencies. Ultimately, this is a policy call because the way the politics breakdown .
This is a policy call for each City Council on how they want to approach these issues. What we're trying to
work towards here is making sure that we exercise the maximum local control we have today on the
question of the aesthetic appropriateness that we're allowed to talk about and that we push the issue at
the federal level to make sure there's as much local input as possible on these issues. The important
thing here is that it's good feedback for staff and the Council about both the public and the Commission
wanting to get our arms around where this buildout is coming and that's something we are working
towards. But in the meantime, we do have the applications before us that are subject to timelines for our
review, and so we have to take an action on the ones that we have now.
>There is a letter in our packet from an attorney providing guidance to the City Council. It's very clear
we can't consider RF emissions. However, what is very clear in here is that we have significant flexibility
with respect to aesthetics and there's a particular statement in here I found really interesting. The letter
suggest to the City Council that we can require the provider during the application process to demonstrate
that a gap exists, and I haven't seen that evidence. We can ask that the solution to fill that significant
gap in service is made by the least intrusive means possible, and I don't see that happening. I'm hearing
that there are other solutions that are less intrusive, but I haven't seen those. Is the solution put in front of
us less intrusive than the last version? Maybe, but it's still a big, dumb box. The question has to be
asked, is there a better solution? If there is, show me what the options are. It's not unreasonable of us to
ask.
>Am concerned that I don't know there will be thousands of them, but it's not unreasonable to expect
they're going to come, and we can't prevent them from happening.
>Would like to see a better solution than this. It’s in our own best interest and the best interest of the
community to press as hard on every one of them that comes in front of us, not to prevent them, but to
ask if there is a better solution.
>We're not going to get a master plan, so we need to require the providers to show us the absolute
best, prove it to us and show us the best solution. Don't show us one thing, show us why this is the best
solution. If other communities are getting better solutions, why not us?
>Our purview here is design review. Have this inevitable feeling we're getting crushed down from these
horrible looking steel boxes. See the need to maintain what this City is known for and its dedication to
aesthetically pleasing designs.
>We should go back to the drawing board to look at options that will provide a uniform approach for the
entire City, not every neighborhood in our City has tall, 30-foot telephone poles.
>There are other options. Know that in San Francisco, there were some specific examples where they
were mounted to street signs, and they're much smaller and much more compact. Would be interested to
know if this equipment can be mounted underground. Don't think the entire package needs to be on the
pole, but maybe if that can be explored by the applicant. There have to be some other options.
>We don't have to necessarily accept what is being put before us, think we can ask for other options of
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
how these can be mounted. We're not saying don't do it, we're saying let's see if we can find a better,
more aesthetically pleasing way to do it and a more efficient way to do it in Burlingame.
>Probably a bit much to ask for a uniformed approach, but it seems that we can require a thorough
study. Should be doing our due diligence. Show me that you need it and show me different options. We
should take this very seriously if we're going to see thousands, don't know if that number is right.
>Can we put a cap on the number of cell sites? (Kane: No, we can't do anything that effects the
provision of the cell coverage per the FCC. We can try to channel, as we have talked about in certain
locations or certain kinds of aesthetic packages. We can express a preference for certain kinds of, for
example, like some cities do with smart poles. However, some cities find smart poles unattractive
because they're bigger than the slim line pole. We are constrained in what we can do, and that's why the
City is involved in moving the needle on that law to allow more local control, but for now, we cannot put a
limit, and nor can our aesthetic regulation have the effective of preventing build out. We can't have
aesthetic standards that no one can feasibly meet and still provide the coverage.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the application.
Comment on the motion:
>Would there be consideration to continue the application so we can get different or better
information? If we're interested in seeing what other options are available, would like to know if
it's possible for CTC to assist the City in understanding what other types of installations are
possible. They're familiar with other locations and other types of installations. Find it hard to
say to AT&T or to other carriers, show us the other installations that are possible because I don't
know what the right technology is. They also may not be interested in looking at other options
because they may not be cost effective or not viable for these particular poles that they've
identified. Would be interested in knowing in an objective fashion, what other options are
possible.
City Attorney Kane: CTC and staff have explored what alternative are available. It has to be
engineering first, so you look at what would achieve the objectives and then you look at which
kinds of installations can do that. Don't think it has been analyzed for this, how many different
alternative configurations are possible on these particular installations, but it is something we
can explore with our consultant and the applicant. Denying something on aesthetic grounds
without having explored alternatives that address the aesthetic concerns is not something that
makes a lot of sense from a record perspective.
>Would like to retract my previous motion and motion to continue the application with the
direction to see alternative designs from the applicant. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Loftis.
Comment on the motion:
>Would like input from the independent consultant on alternative designs. (Kane: One thing to
remember, like an applicant's design review for a house, we can't ask an applicant to build a
tutor if they want a bungalow. AT&T may decide that they don’t want to submit something that
the Commission likes and that is within their purview to amend or not amend their application.
We can at least have the time to explore the question about whether alternatives are possible.)
>My concern is that I don't know what the other options are.
>Would argue that we don't need the independent consultant, we need the applicant to show
us the other options. (Kane: Not all options are engineering feasible for the location.)
>Would like the applicant to provide a layman's presentation in understanding what the issues
with coverage and gaps, may help us in understanding the needs in the given locations.
>Two of the three applications are on El Camino Real, which runs north and south through
many cities along the peninsula. Would be good to see what other applications have been
used. (Kane: Understanding that most of El Camino Real doesn't have the tree cover that
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Burlingame has, so that may change the nature of the feasibility analysis.)
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1548 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Hector Estipona, J Deal Associates,
applicant and designer; Hugo Girol, property owner) (111 noticed) Staff Contact: Fahteen
Khan
1548 Howard Ave - Staff Report
1548 Howard Ave - Attachments
1548 Howard Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>For the addition at the rear of the house, are you working with existing plate height, and that's what is
springing up the gable at the rear and causing the peak to extend above the existing roof ridge? (Deal:
Yes, that is correct.)
>It appears that the existing front porch windows along the right side of the house are being removed .
What is the reason for removing the windows? (Deal: To make the porch more open, not sure if they'e
even the original windows.)
>Would it be possible to make the gable end vents a little more substantial? (Deal: Yes, we can do
that.)
>Did the original house contain wood shingle siding and is that what your are proposing to install?
Worried about the required engineering for the project given how much of the existing siding is being
removed. (Deal: Yes, an engineer is working on the plans now.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Love the old flavor of Burlingame and the history this house represents, so in support of preserving
what you can. Think it's an ambitious project and am happy you're willing to undertake it.
Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Think it's really well designed, addition fits in well with the existing architecture.
>Noticed the roof peak extending above the house as well, not a huge deal, but would be happier if it
didn't happen. Would need to adjust the width of the spring point of the second floor gable at the rear of
the house. Would encourage the applicant to look at reducing the width so the roof didn't extend above the
original roof ridge.
Chair Comaroto reopened the public hearing.
Deal: One thing we could look at doing is reducing the plate heights on the sides of the gable, that would
be a pretty simple solution.
>Would be terrific if you can make the peak that rises above the original ridge go away so it really is
the same old house, seems like it can be done. (Deal: Yes, we can do it.)
>Might be a little fussy and too small, but another solution could be to make the roof extension a gable
that sits on the original roof. (Deal: Agree. We could also slightly reduce the pitch, which would bring it
down.). If you reduce the roof pitch, then you should also do that on that lower floor gable on the back so
they match.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Consent Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
b.228 Stanley Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single
family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant
and designer; 228 Stanley Road LLC, property owner) (142 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
228 Stanley Rd - Staff Report
228 Stanley Rd - Attachments
228 Stanley Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
James Chu represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Concerned about broad face on right side elevation near front of house. Could you consider breaking
up the broad face by extending the porch eave onto the right side of the house? Would add texture to the
right side elevation. (Chu: Yes, we can do that.)
>It's an okay design, feels a little sleepy to me. Doesn't have as much going on as many of your other
designs which struck me as a little odd. Think some added detail like what was suggested will help.
Page 19City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Project needs some additional details as previously noted.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed.
Comment on the motion:
>There could be details and knee braces on the gable ends, or something of that sort to add
some texture, don't think it needs a lot. The massing is handled nicely, but project needs more
detail.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
c.3016 Arguello Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling. (Kim Yee Lee and Seow Hui Yeoh, applicant and property owners; Ha Nguyen,
HN+Designs, designer) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
3016 Arguello Dr - Staff Report
3016 Arguello Dr - Attachments
3016 Arguello Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Ha Nguyen, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>What is the second floor plate height? (Nguyen: Second story plate height is 9 feet.)
>Looks like your roof plan is not matching up to your elevations, roof plan indicates that the slope of
the roof is 8:12 and elevations are reflecting 6:12. (Nguyen: Originally we proposed 8:12, but we changed it
to 6:12 based on discussions with the design review consultant.)
>What is the dimension of your vertical siding? (Nguyen: Siding is 1x6.)
>It appears that the windows in the music room don't comply with egress requirements. (Nguyen:
Owners don't anticipate using the music room as a bedroom; owner requested that windows be placed
Page 20City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
high on the wall to accommodate music equipment). If music room qualifies as a bedroom, then windows
will need to comply with egress requirements.
>There is a large window over the tub in the master bathroom overlooking the street. Is it your intention
to have a large window there or is it going to be glazed with obscured glass? (Nguyen: Yes, that was our
intention, think bottom portion of the window will contain obscured glass.)
>Make sure plans clearly show the existing and proposed first and second floor plate heights.
>Consider bringing down the second floor plate height.
>Think it's a nice design, but there are a couple of places that are a little odd. Front and rear
elevations are nice and seem inviting, but the two side elevations are not quite as nice, they seem very
utilitarian. Second floor seems top heavy...maybe it's the way it's drawn, not sure.
>Did you consider adding a window along the left side of the house in the garage or kitchen, or both? It
seems like a blank brick wall there.
>Right side elevation seems very orderly until you get to the front of the building where the windows just
stop and there are two floors of blank wall, seems as though there's nothing going on inside. (Nguyen:
This is because these rooms have windows at the front of the house, owner would like a place to display
artwork along this wall.) Need to think about the composition of the outside, it's a balance between what's
happening on the inside of the room and how that affects the outside, seems very utilitarian.
>Would be helpful to have a color rendering included when the project returns. Think it can be a really
handsome house based on the fact you're proposing gray brick, gray siding and ebony colored windows.
>The other element that's leading to it being vertical and top heavy are the windows on the second floor
being the same size as the windows on the first floor. Window are large on the first floor, which is great,
however the windows on the second floor are too large. Should provide hierarchy by making second floor
windows smaller, would also help the second floor to settle down a bit more
>There are a number of skylights proposed and they appear to be flat. Will the skylights be flat glass
as opposed to acrylic? (Nguyen: Yes, that's correct.)
>Will the exterior siding be 1x6 with a v-groove? (Nguyen: Will be either tongue-and-groove or shiplap.)
Will it have a v-groove detail? (Nguyen: Yes, it will have a groove.)
>There is a fireplace shown in the living room, but the elevations don't shown a chimney or venting .
(Nguyen: It is a direct vent fireplace, so there will be a vent on the exterior wall).
>Noticed on your plan that the proposed windows are fiberglass. Do you have a manufacturer? (Nguyen:
It will be a Marvin Fibrex window.)
Public Comments:
Howard Joe, 3024 Arguello Drive: Have concerns with the proposed project. Would like views preserved,
especially from the second story room facing the street and adjoining the subject property. Also
concerned about impacts on natural light from the proposed project. Expect some impact, but don't want it
done in such a way that it changes my living style. Is there any possibility to have story poles installed so
we can have an idea of what it would look like? Concerned with impacts on privacy, second story will be
looking in my dining room and living room, what kind of provisions can be put in place in order to protect
my privacy? Lastly, not sure the proposed house fits into the neighborhood given its size. My two -story
house is 2,600 square feet and there are similar two -story houses in the neighborhood, but nothing as
large as what is being proposed.
Bill (last name not provided), 3008 Arguello Drive: Have many concerns with the proposed project .
Proposed footprint is way larger than any other houses in neighborhood. My house steps down
approximately four feet from them. Have my two daughters and their windows face towards the proposed
house. Most of the houses that are two story in the neighborhood have windows only on one side. In my
house, we have windwos facing up the hill, on our downhill side we have no windows. The neighbors next
to us have windows facing up, but none facing down. This is common throughout the neighborhood .
Daughters' room will have no sunlight or privacy because the proposed windows are probably five or six
feet above the only window in her room, that's the only view they'll have. Concerned with loss of privacy and
sunlight in the winter time, proposed house will block everything. We haven't seen any artist rendering of
what the house is going to look like. Concerned with metal fence and gate proposed along the front of the
Page 21City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
property, would not be consistent with what's in the neighborhood. Also concerned with the number of the
rooms proposed in the house, seven seems a bit excessive, wonder how honest they are about what the
house is going to be used for. From what I understand, it's going to be husband and wife and two kids .
However, we've had neighbors who were renting out bedrooms, they had ten people living in the house with
many cars parked on the street. Concern about the size of the house, impacts on sunlight and views .
Would like to know if they are going to soundproof the music room, don't want to hear music in the middle
of the night. Concerned that it's going to be a short term rental house or a house wih multiple families .
Am happy to have a similar house to the those currently in neighborhood, a two story would be more than
welcome, but not something that is this large and incosistent with the neigborhood.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>In walking the neighborhood, this house doesn't appear to be larger than any of the others. Think the
design is relatively cohesive, think it needs a few tweaks as we've already discussed, but think the style
matches the neighborhood.
>Oddly enough, there are a number of metal roofs in the neighborhood, they're not just standing steam
metal. Think the project can move forward, it just needs a little refinement.
>Once the plate height is brought down on the upper floor and the building is slightly shorter, it will fit
into the neighborhood pretty well.
>Understand neighbor's concerns with regards to privacy, however there's no right to privacy, so all we
can do is suggest good neighborly consideration. Doesn't matter if this is an owner occupied or
speculative house, we don't have the right to ask that, nor can we project what might happen in the house.
>Should reconsider the fence and gate at the front of the property, shouldn't be a project that feels
walled off because none of the other houses in the neighborhood feel walled off.
>Think the second floor plate heights need to be reconsidered, think it would help if the height came
down to 8 feet. You could still get volume on the second floor with vaulted ceilings.
>Story poles should be installed because we need to fully understand what the massing impacts could
be on both side neighbors and the neighborhood in general.
>Need a better landscape plan, can't understand what some of the big blocks are trying to represent.
>Should consider meeting with your neighbors to discuss location of proposed windows in relation to
the neighbors' daughter's bedroom, perhaps something can be adjusted to resolve that issue.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed and story poles have
been installed and certified. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
d.601 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) -
Environmental Scoping for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height,
and Condominium Permit for construction of a new, five -story, 26-Unit live/work
development. (Ian Birchall. Ian Birchall and Associates, applicant and architect; Edward
Duffy, property owner) (102 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
601 California Dr - Staff Report
601 California Dr - Attachments
601 California Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Page 22City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>In the section under development and impact fees, we usually get an initial assessment or calculation
of what we think those impact fees are going to be. Is there a reason we can't get that this time? (Keylon:
Because this is a study meeting, we may not have received the data for the existing building, for which
they get a credit, and therefore can't calculate the fees. But it's putting it out there that these are the fees
that the project would be subject to; calculations will be determined at a later date.)
>They're not exempt from fees, but they haven't been calculated yet? (Keylon: Correct.)
>If the project is defined as live -work, they are not required to provide an on -site delivery and service
vehicle parking space, correct? (Keylon: That is correct.)
>If it's condominium project, they are required to provide this space, correct?. (Keylon: We have waived
those requirements in the downtown district.)
>When we say live-work, we mean that potentially they can have customers or clients come in their
condominium? Define live -work. (Keylon: The definition is very broad. It talks about a commercial /office
space as well as the residential component. You couldn't have an auto repair business, but if somebody
is an artist, a financial planner, or accountant, you would have to assume that some clients are coming to
and from the site throughout the day.)
>Staff report says you have off street parking. The area for delivery service vehicles is not required or
provided with this project and it's only required for residential condominium. The next paragraph, it says the
residential regulations are most appropriate for live -work projects. Please clarify. (Keylon: Because
live-work is very limited in where it is allowed in the City of Burlingame, there are no specific regulations
that apply just to live-work. We are dealing with a use that's commercial and residential. We looked in the
past live-work projects we have done and applied those criteria. In some cases it's residential and in some
cases it's commercial. We had to adapt, if you will.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Ian Birchall represented the applicant.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The work portion that you have is approximately 8 feet by 9 feet in area. Help me understand how this
is live-work? (Birchall: We were asked to identify a work area on the plans for submission. There's no
requirement that we have found and confirmed with Planning Division for designated area of a certain size,
shape, percentage section of the apartment. So we drew in an indicator of work area which probably will
be customized for each of the occupants.)
>Otherwise, this is a condominium project and condominiums are not allowed in this area, but live -work
is allowed, is that correct? (Hurin: Under current code, that's correct.)
>We have a relatively dead street. Other than the lobby that comes in, you have the electrical room
and the bike storage, and then access to the stair. Otherwise there's no life, there's no commercial space
along there that we can latch onto to help call this live -work. Is there a way to consider finding another
place for the electrical room and the meter room and incorporate another type of use on ground floor to
activate it? Perhaps a conference or work room that's rentable that might help with this live -work concept.
In other words, the people living in the upstairs units have access to a conference room they can rent to
meet with clients. If there were a space like that on that ground floor on that street frontage, think that
would push it closer towards that live-work concept.
>Clearly show height of screens between patios on building elevations and renderings.
>Something about this project feels a little more work than live, feels a little too much like an office
building. It might be the rendering and the apparent gray glass. Biggest problem is achieving respect and
promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize street frontage.
>Need to find a way to address the pedestrian issue. It is a design criteria that's stated very explicitly in
the commercial design review guidelines and the project fails without answering that question.
Page 23City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020
December 9, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Like the architecture the way it's working. Like how you've taken the four floors and have a finish and
massing on that. Like what we're doing on the fifth floor in terms of architecture and different color palette .
Would ask that if there was a way to have that come down for that central lobby to help. It appears you're
changing colors on some of the window framing and curtain wall framing at that second floor. Is there a
reason that lighter color doesn't continue down?
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
There was no action, as the application will return on the Regular Action Calendar once the
environmental review has been completed.
10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
Commissioner Comaroto noted that she attended a meeting with the City Manager and staff regarding
discussion of proposed improvements along El Camino Real as they relate to trees, sidewalks and bus
routes.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
>City Attorney Kane notified the Commission and public that there have been a number of state law
changes to accessory dwelling units, some of which are inconsistent with each other and some
inconsistent with our existing ordinance. Staff's intention is to where there's an inconsistency to comply
with state law which means some provisions of our ordinances may not be applied until such time to bring
forward a coordinated zoning code amendment to reflect the state law updates. You can anticipate seeing
that in the first quarter of 2020. There's the likelihood there will be legislation at the state level to try to
reconcile some of the statutes, but because the mandates go into effect January 1, 2020, that can't
happen.
>Planning Manager Hurin noted that the Commission approved the 2020 Planning Commission
Schedule this evening. However, if you would like to cancel a meeting during the summer, we can bring
an amended schedule for your consideration in the future.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:42 p.m.
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on December 9, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not
been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 19, 2019, 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 $1,045, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 24City of Burlingame Printed on 2/11/2020