Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.05.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineTuesday, May 28, 2024 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: Interim Community Development Director Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, Tse, and PfaffPresent6 - HoranAbsent1 - a.Rotation of Officers Interim Community Development Director Hurin announced the following rotation of officers: Chair: Sean Lowenthal Vice Chair: Chris Horan Secretary: Walker Shores 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft May 13, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft May 13, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, Tse, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Horan1 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 7. STUDY ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.Update of Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11 (Trees and Vegetation) Staff Contact : Richard Holtz and Scott Spansail Staff Report Attachments Attachments: Parks Superintendent and City Arborist Richard Holtz and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Public Comments: >Public comment by Michael Read, 721 Walnut Avenue: I love trees, however the idea of an urban forest is kind of an oxymoron when you get a hundred -foot tree that is robbing us of the sun, and it is on the south side of your lot. Our recent occurrence this spring with a tree was there are co -dominant stems from a previous bad trimming job where one of them broke out and went through our garage roof. We had that removed which also broke some branches of an oak tree that is nearby. This is getting to be a problem and we want to know how far we can go with this trimming business. The other thing is that the insurance companies are now doing aerial inspections of roofs. If they see a limb that is hanging over, they have the treat of non -renewal of the policy. That will probably be the situation for us next year because there’s still a very large limb that is hanging out over the top of our garage and we are not sure what we can do about it. The insurance companies that I have contacted: Farmers, State Farm, Allstate, Nationwide, SafeCo, and Liberty Mutual all do aerial inspections. Travelers Insurance said they are pulling out from 94010 which is Hillsborough and Burlingame. The insurance companies seem like they are using every excuse to eliminate coverage because of the way things are in the insurance industry. They were exposed in the last few years with fires and floods. The increasing windstorms caused a street tree, an oak tree, in Hillsborough to fall on a power line on Walnut Avenue and for three days we were without power. When trees get big like this and they take out a power line, you are at the mercy of the tree and mother nature. On a recent experience when our neighbor went through our roof, as I mentioned earlier, they don’t have any liability. He has three of these trees that have been all topped which makes them all have co-dominant stems that are weak structural parts of the tree. One of them got through our roof . When insurance companies see this, it will be a problem with our future insurance coverage because our insurance company pays for it, not the owner of the trees. The neighbor who owns the tree does not have any liability for this. The insurance companies are scrutinizing their risks to provide future coverage. >Public comment by Jennifer Dirking, 123 Brook Street, San Carlos, CA: I represent the local Native California Plant Society and the Native Plant Resource teams that are more regional. Arborist Holtz made some really great points tonight. I love the in -depth coverage that we have of these issues. I am looking at things more holistically in terms of the selection of the trees themselves. As we think progressively about changing some of the policies in the ways we have done things in the past, we give consideration to the environmental factors of the trees that we plant. California is a biodiversity hotspot with over 8,000 native plants. Many are not found anywhere else in the world, and many are going extinct. These plants co -evolve with our local insects, bees, butterflies and birds. They are interdependent on each other. As we plant invasive trees and trees from other places, we rob them of food sources and as a result their population declines rapidly, many towards extinction. Due to development, the paving of our region and the imported plants, many of these creatures are starving. But we have an opportunity to bring these back. One way to do that, in a recent study Doug Tallamy, an anthropologist from the University of Delaware, author of Natures Best Hope said that by planting 75% natives in our home gardens and other public areas we can bring back many of these species. Many of these native plants that develop here are also drought resilient, it is the way they have grown over the years. They are lower maintenance and tend not to disrupt sidewalks. There is an exception with the redwoods that are very disruptive and belong up in the mountains or wild places. The California native trees are generally more disease -resistant, Page 2City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes water-conserving, and fire -resistant. There are many selections like oaks, mahogany, and native cherries that make wonderful street trees or urban trees. Once they are established after a few years, they require little or no water maintenance. Above all, we are the only ones that can bring back our native threatened species. SO, I recommend that the Planning Commission and the City of Burlingame consider establishing some minimum standards for these native trees, include them in your plans and I ’ve also emailed a list of street trees that are recommended regionally by arborists who have worked on these particular areas and can serve as a useful guide. >Public comment (no name provided): We are seniors and retired. We are dealing with the extra cost of a tree, when we moved in it was tiny and now it is 90 inches round, it is lifting up our concrete and impacting the garage. If we look at all of the fees that we would have to pay, not including the cost of tree removal, it is really a lot. When you are putting together whatever policy you decide, I am hoping that you consider those factors too. >Public comment sent via email by Tracy Ferea, PhD: I am writing to urge you to update the ordinance to plant native trees and shrubs. We have long abused the environment by planting nonnative trees (plants) that are ecological deserts, not providing habitat for our wildlife, resulting in drastic declines in our butterfly and bird populations. We have to put a stop to this behavior now in order to save our planet, and for our grandchildren to know the sweet sound of birds singing and the gentle flutter of butterflies. The old ornamental trees of the past should be in the past and our future trees should be planted with regard to our region, regenerating a viable habitat for the future of our citizens. I implore you to take action to make substantial change. >Public comment sent via email by Jean Struthers: I understand that the City of Burlingame is undergoing a tree planting program. It is important to the entire environment that native plants including trees, be incorporated for biodiversity. The birds and insects depend on natives for sustenance. Please update that ordinance to require native trees/plants in the street tree plant list. >Public comment sent via email by Alvin Begun, 1230 Vancouver Avenue: I may not be able to attend the meeting tonight in person (but will at least attend via Zoom) so I am submitting these comments by email. They are actually the comments submitted to you by Mr. Brian Benn on May 19th. They echo my thoughts and feelings exactly so I am including them verbatim from his email to you, which he shared with me. Thank you for your consideration of these very important matters for our city. >Public comment sent via email from Anita Pereira: I am submitting a public comment to ask please that Burlingame's vegetation plan include native plants and trees. Native plants are critical to maintaining biodiversity in our world. Insects can reproduce only on plants that they have evolved with . If we plant native plants, we can get insects to reproduce. If we do not plant natives, we don't allow to insects to produce, and thereby contribute to their extinction, as well as to the extinction of all the other species that depend on insects for food, our precious songbirds for instance. It also affects all the other species that are further along the food chain. We are facing The Great Insect Apocalypse— occurring now. The Insect Apocalypse Is Here - The New York Times (nytimes.com) It is a preventable tragedy . Burlingame can help alleviate this travesty by planting to support life on Earth, rather than helping destroy it. Please your power to do good --Please plant natives. Humans need insects to pollinate food crops . Also, as you know, life on Earth is a complex web. Affect one part of the we, and it unravels the rest of the web. Our beloved Earth is also facing the 6th Great Mass Extinction. It is human -caused. Planting natives will also help teach citizens to help our pollinators (and other species that depend on them) survive extinction. Please to the right thing and help solve problems in our world rather than contributing to them . Please do everything in your esteemed power to plant plants that belong in our ecosystem rather than planting exotic plants that only serve to destroy our (life-supporting) ecosystem.s >Public comment sent via email by Denise Louie: I strongly urge you to update your tree policies and ordinances with the considerations below in mind. Invasive trees and other plants should be avoided for planting. Property owners should be allowed to remove invasive species. The California Invasive Plant Page 3City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Council identifies plants that are invasive in California, including eucalyptus. Wildfires are occurring around the world in unexpected places due to climate change. Look to the future and take action to mitigate wildfire risk. Berkeley, for example, characterizes their current wildfire risk as imminent and catastrophic . Tall, un-irrigated eucalyptus are arguably the most dangerous trees. Their leaves and peeling bark are large enough to remain burning when they land after flying on the wind for miles. Cal Fire firesafe landscape guidelines for defensible space have recently been updated to say that a 5' perimeter around a building should be cement or gravel. Within the 100' perimeter, smart vegetation choices would preclude tall trees that threaten the building, including particularly flammable choices like eucalyptus. Mitigating fire risk mitigates the city's liability risk for failure to keep people safe from known harms. Keep pace with insurers. Across the state, insurers are withdrawing from the homeowner insurance market due to fire risk . State Farm has stopped renewing and writing policies even in parts of San Francisco, which has not experienced a wildfire, and which has no very high wildfire hazard severity zones per Cal Fire. Take action to mitigate fire risk, even with heritage trees. >Public comment sent via email by Kathy Kramer, Bringing Back the Natives Garden Tour Coordinator : I’m writing on behalf of the Bringing Back the Natives Garden Tour to encourage the Commissioners to include primarily native trees and shrubs on its street tree list. The more than 20,000 people in the Tour’s database know about the importance of native trees and shrubs to wildlife, and also to people —as living in more natural areas is conducive to better mental and physical health. But nature doesn ’t have to be a place that we go to - like a park: if native plants are included in our urban areas, nature can exist right outside our front doors. I hope you will read this brief, charming NYT Op Ed piece by Doug Tallamy, “The Chickadees Guide to Gardening ”: it explains why non-native plants provide little to no ecological value to our local wildlife. What it doesn ’t say is that almost all birds - 96% of them - must have caterpillars to feed their young. Baby birds do not eat berries, seeds, or sugar water. Chicks must have large, protein-filled caterpillars. If birds don ’t have caterpillars, we won ’t have baby birds. In order to have caterpillars, we have to provide the plants that butterflies and moths can lay their eggs on, and those are California native trees and shrubs. You can see the relative value of native vs. non-native plants here : Look at the green bars to see the commonly available native plants that are of high ecological value, and compare that to the red bars showing the ecological value of acacia, cotoneaster, eucalyptus, tree of heaven, tea trees, Crape myrtles, and gingko. Doug Tallamy ’s research shows that birds need 70% or more native plants by biomass in order to have enough food to give their chicks. University of Delaware and Smithsonian researchers found that, "To promote sustainable food webs and support wildlife, urban planners and private landowners must prioritize native plant species,” because, " If the yard has more than 70 percent native plants biomass, chickadees have a chance to reproduce and sustain their local population. As soon as the number of native drops under 70 percent, that probability of sustaining the species plummets to zero .” The importance of including native plants in urban areas cannot be overstated, as 30% of all breeding birds have disappeared in the last fifty years. This trajectory must be changed if we, as a species, are to continue living happily on this planet. The Bringing Back the Natives Garden Tour urges you to add a robust selection of local and California native plants to your tree list. Here is a list of suggested native tree species, developed by an arborist, for inclusion on your list. The City has the opportunity to make the world a better place for its residents merely by making better choices in the species of trees it plants in parks, on other city -owned properties (such as in front of city offices and libraries), in medians, and along streets. I hope you make the best decision for your children, for mine, and for their as-yet unborn children. >Public comment sent via email by Bob Hall, Conservation Chair, California Native Plant Society, Yerba Buena chapter: I’m writing on behalf of the Yerba Buena Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. We have over 600 members in San Francisco and Northern San Mateo County and are committed to protecting and expanding biodiversity, even in highly degraded urbanized areas. Our organization urges you to add a robust selection of local and California native plants to your tree list. Here i s a l i s t o f s u g g e s t e d n a t i v e t r e e s p e c i e s f o r i n c l u s i o n : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mHiIHBfxLw8mNI6_AWIHn83ISf2TKZ61XwVva6a1APg/edit? usp=sharing You may have read the San Francisco Chronicle article titled, The Bay Area ’s natural habitats have vanished. We're a microcosm of a global die -off. Or, perhaps you watched the January 1st, Page 4City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2023 60 Minutes segment called, Earth ’s wildlife running out of places to live. The message is dire . Human activity is driving plant and animal species to extinction at a rate not seen since the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago. However, the City of Burlingame can make some simple no -added-costs additions to the tree list that could have a big impact. Why native? The term does have meaning. It means that the plant has been part of an intricate and complex web of animals, plants, pathogens, fungi, bacteria and microorganisms for a very long time – one in which the rules of coexistence have been thoroughly worked out. Such communities are stable, orderly and diverse. Introduce a novel organism, and you may be asking for problems. The natural controls in its native ecosystem do not exist in this new place. The critters that depend on the indigenous plants are unable to handle the chemical defenses of the new plant and leave it alone. The plant has no predators, nothing sucking its energy and passing that energy up the food chain, as native organisms do. The energy the new plant captures from the sun goes instead into proliferation, overwhelming indigenous plants and destabilizing the system. It is not just a matter of aesthetic preference. While the time for action is now, nature is resilient, notes the San Francisco Chronicle article above, and if given an opportunity, it can bounce back. The good news is you can directly make a difference. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Thank you for the presentation and all your hard work on this. >Has the city investigated and checked locations where people have taken some city trees out? That is an easy fix, if we can put some trees on these locations, correct? A lot of people don ’t know about it. How can we educate people about requesting the city for a tree to be planted on the empty planter strip in the public right of way adjacent to the sidewalk and in front of their properties? (Holtz: Yes, we do have a list and know where vacancies are. We have been requiring trees in front of some homes. By and large, our community has embraced it, but there are also some property owners who are very adamant that they do not have a tree in front of their homes. We do our best to educate people about the importance of having those trees. It is a little unrelated just because we do not count city -owned trees towards that total for development on the property. When we talk about a 3,000 sf home that needs three trees and has two city trees in front, those do not count. The three trees need to be on private property. However, the commissioner’s point is very well taken. It is something that our Beautification Commission has talked about. Our Public Works Division is ready to open up some concrete spaces for us, especially in the Downtown-Howard Avenue area. We struggle with bandwidth. It seems crazy, but people get a free tree, but they will not water it. We have a full -time staff member for six months who is tasked to just water trees every day to try to keep them alive. It is something that we are very interested in. We plan on picking up speed this fall so we can take advantage of natural rainfall.) >There is a property at Hillside Circle which had a ton of trees and had cut down a number of those trees that probably held up most of the ground and water in that area. How do you see those type of projects or homeowners getting impacted by some of the proposed Tree Ordinance fees? They took down many trees that it is so bare now. It is across the street from Hoover Elementary School. (Holtz: This is something we spoke about at the Beautification Commission. There was an appeal for a tree removal that I have approved. To be honest, it was a very reluctant approval. It was one of those circumstances where I had an arborist report in front of me that was clearly an arborist -shopping situation. We are trying to correct some of that through this process. Most of the trees removed on that property were not of protected size. If we look back on 2008 in Google Earth, we can see over the years how it has become barren. Through the help of our City Attorney ’s office, we were able to re -institute, go back and see how many protected trees were removed and died. We told them that we will not approve the new permit until they re-plant. They did re-plant all the required trees that have previously died. The commissioner ’s point is very well taken. Going forward, it will serve as a deterrent to remove trees because there is going to be a significantly greater cost associated with this. It is not just removing one tree and replacing it with another tree.) Page 5City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >That project will most likely come back for redevelopment and some of those trees will end up going away. (Holtz: It depends on what the development is. In this situation, it was a non -development approval . They were approved because of the condition of the trees themselves and not related to any development . There definitely will be fees associated with that. When it comes to the development side of things, it is a large property. If they just put a 3,000 sf home then they would only need to have three trees, but they would have all these areas to plant. It is a very valid point. This is where we need to ask our City Council how much authority you want to give us to make these requirements; either to increase or decrease planting requirements in certain situations?) >What are the impacts these large redwood trees have, not only on the properties they are on but also the nearby surrounding properties? Are the root systems impeding other neighbors’ homes? What are the financial impacts for the neighbors for uplifting concrete, fences or getting into basements, crawlspaces or garage subfloors? What do you see out there as far as impacts are concerned? (Holtz: The redwood trees have fibrous invasive roots system that can travel very far, not as disrupting as an Oak tree that causes big buckling, but yes, they do get into small cracks very easily. A lot of these things come down to good communication with neighbors to work out the challenges. We have seen situations where root intrusions occurred two homes over, about a hundred feet away. Could there be alternative root -pruning that is far away from the tree? As an arborist, I would absolutely say yes, that is far enough. But when that tree was planted as a little tree in the backyard and now it is impacting foundations, that is a little more challenging. In those situations, we do require an arborist report and a structural engineer ’s report if we are going to approve due to impacts to the foundation. What we see out there is that redwood trees are very tolerant of root pruning. In situations where a homeowner loves their tree and a neighbor who ’s impacted by the roots doesn ’t, usually they just prune the roots and hopefully they have good communication. We are looking at including root pruning as part of the permit process; you are not allowed to remove more than 15% of the root structure and cannot do anything that would be detrimental to the tree that would cause it to fall or die. A good arborist will be able to identify what would be appropriate root pruning and other measures. It is a challenge. For the example given by the commissioner, that tree while being detrimental to the neighbor who doesn ’t own the tree, is benefiting the whole neighborhood from how big this tree is. We’ve heard from our community members significantly so, as we have approved some of these tree removal applications for the same tree intrusion the commissioner has mentioned.) >We have a lot of elderly people in our community where some are on fixed income who can ’t afford to do these root pruning but are impacted in their own properties. When they sell their properties, they won ’t be able to get the price they wanted, the sale is impacted because somebody else needs to take care of that. I’m trying to figure out how we can save these trees as a community while protecting the surrounding neighbors. (Holtz: I believe you are thinking along the same lines as our mayor does where a tree is beneficial to the community and can stay but is impacting the surrounding neighbors, if there is an opportunity to use public funds available. That is really far down the road. We are just trying to get the framework here, but that is one of the concepts. That is forward and progressive thinking. I don ’t know if we are aware of any community that does that. There certainly are some legal parameters to it but we ’ll have our city attorney’s office handle those.) >There is a lot of discussion about fees throughout this report, but we don ’t see any quantification of the fees. There was also a mention of the $1,000 maximum fee as limited by state law. How are we going to establish the fee guidelines? (Spansail: The fine maximum is $1,000 as defined by California law. Any amount that is fined to an individual is going to be capped at $1,000 not including the potential restitution of the tree where we’ve lost trees and are going after the individual for that amount of money for the loss to the community. But if we are saying a police officer gives a traffic ticket, California has capped that to a maximum amount of $1,000. The actual amount for harming or removing a tree can be charged, just for that act, a thousand dollars. Incidentally, that is also the cap for a misdemeanor. In terms of fees, they are a little bit different. We can ’t give an exact quantification of it because we must do a fee study to determine exactly what the losses are to the community and that is what we will charge the individual for the loss of the tree. For example, as the city arborist mentioned, what is the quantification of a 1-inch Page 6City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes DSH replacement for an in-lieu fee? In the City of Sacramento, it may just be slightly different than the city of Burlingame. We have to do a study on that before we are allowed to charge that fee. We would probably have a similar amount that is currently being charged.) (Holtz: We can’t specify any fees because we do need to have a fee study. However, I can tell you what fees exist. At present, if somebody does not want to plant a tree here in Burlingame it is a $1,500 fee. A lot of people think it ’s not a problem and they just pay the fees. Other places look at what the valuation of the tree that is being removed would be. As mentioned, if you are looking at Sacramento DHS, the per inch that needs to be replaced, that fee is $350 per inch. I’ve also seen formulas in other places that are prorated. We do not have a specific proposal of what those fees would be. We really need to delve into that. Again, the ordinance is to get the framework in that whatever fees would be that goes into this fund and be utilized for our urban forest and for City Council to decide later for other purposes.) >Going back to the statement that a 3,000 sf house requires three trees. We very often see in the Planning Commission applicants who come before us with maybe 12 trees on the property and they knock out all of them, build a new house and plant three new trees. Is there any way that we can have a tree-for-a-tree kind of requirement? If you remove a tree, you plant a tree especially if it is a certain species. I understand that fruit trees or nut trees do now count towards those, but any substantive trees, size or species that we go beyond the one tree per 1,000 square feet of house? (Holtz: We can do anything that is legal. You bring up a good point and we can certainly use that as input. One thing to remember is that our community has largely looked at trees as just the 48-inch protected size circumference. Anything that is small can be removed and there is no consequence to that, that is not covered in our ordinance. If we want to look at different definitions, whether it be overall, I can tell you that Palo Alto and Menlo Park have oak trees that are smaller size than 48 inches, each species has its designation. We looked at that and the reason that I, as a staff member, recommend against that is because our typical property owner doesn ’t know exactly what species is there. There are instances where the application form lists a different species than what is actually on site. I would hate to get someone on the cusp because they were off an inch or something like that. This is why we stuck with one solid size . But it is something that we can entertain, whether it is species specific or development specific. A lot of there current plantings where we see 12 trees planted in a row is not really meant what a tree is supposed to be. We want the broad canopy trees, not the tree that is just going to be a hedge row for privacy, that does not count. When we are going through the development process in the planning phase, myself or the contract arborist working for the Community Development will reach out and inform the applicant that these types of trees do not qualify because we know that they will not grow into a full form, just like a tree in a container. These may come to you in the future where we see roof top gardens. Does a tree in a container count? Is it a partial credit? These are questions that came to us just in the last year and we are wrestling how to adjust to it. That is a fair point. I am taking your feedback to see if you have a property that had tons of trees but a lot of them were unprotected, we should have a way to capture that. I don ’t know if the mechanism is there in our current ordinance, but with some of the concepts that we are considering here perhaps it could be captured as well.) >Speaking of the 48-inch tree circumference, is there a way that an arborist be included in the team, same as how our design review consultants help our applicants, to establish all the landscape need and trees that need to be removed on the property before they come to us? Is there a way that we can prepare for it, to have some foresight on how to accommodate the trees on a property? There was some discussion about addressing setback variances to allow for the maintenance of these trees. (Holtz: For plan check phase before the project goes to the Planning Commission, I believe we have a contact employee who provides a significant amount of input for our planners. Whether that person is qualified depends on the Community Development Director and /or Planning Manger ’s designation if another person needs to weigh in on that.) (Hurin: The contract person that is helping us review plans going through Planning Commission review and building permits is very thorough. She can certainly review a proposed plan when it comes through for Design Review and provide a recommendation. Of course, she has to review an arborist report that was submitted along a tree removal, but we can look further to see if she can provide additional input and guidance for Planning Commission review.) Page 7City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Maybe even just as a public service, another means to protect the tree when someone comes to the Planning Department and asks for guidance on how to build if they have a huge tree in the middle of their property. These are valuable trees. If there is any way that we can help retain them earlier than when the proposed design is already done, and all the trees have already been proposed to be removed. (Hurin: It is certainly a good idea. One of the issues is at the time projects get submitted to us, they are already designed. It is just a matter of getting the word out, it is something that might be offered by the city.) >On my fellow commissioner ’s point, can we come up with a plan like we do with Design Review of homes, where we designate locations where the applicants can plant the three trees if they are building a brand-new house? Maybe provide a layout where trees can go. (Holtz: In the last year, we have seen a lot of improvements to the process and really raising the bar when it comes to trees. The contract arborist that Community Development has engaged with is very thorough and she does a great job early on. I know our planning staff would welcome a process. Once we get this framework done, we need to work internally on how to solve these issues that come to us and how we can educate the public. We do our best to reach out where we can. We have heard that from our community members. We need to do more outreach and we will continue to do so.) >People usually know if they have a big or special tree on their property. Is there some mechanism that any city has done to sort of memorialize and stipulate, when a property changes ownership, that there is a tree in the parcel and that it is possible for the new owner to have some trouble getting this tree removed so that it is out there? Same as if I live near the train tracks or the airport, it is possible that I will hear noise associated with those. (Spansail: It is something that we can investigate, but I don ’t think we have done the research on that at this point. Deed restrictions are very severe so that is something that would be possible. But as far as a notification system, the city arborist has talked about how we have certain software now where we can input GIS data about the location and size of the tree. There may be some things to explore, but I want to let you know that we haven’t looked into that specific issue as of yet.) > Please explain how a non -biased arborist can work. (Holtz: Again, this is the framework. We want to make sure we can do it. It wouldn ’t say in our ordinance that “you are going to hire an independent arborist retained by the city.” We just want to make sure that we have the mechanism through our own policy or the urban forest management programs we can do these other things. The idea is that the city can do several things; it can have an establish list of city -approved arborists where you can select from, the city of Menlo Park has that, or we can do an RFP similar to what the Planning Department does where we have one or few arborists on retainer and they rotate. The applicant just pays the fees, and the city is actually the one employing the independent arborist.) > Has there been a thought to giving direction as far as deciduous and evergreen mixes because we get a lot of light pollution now. I don ’t know if people think in advance before putting in a large window and a deciduous tree that ends up with a lot of light pollution throughout the year. Is that something our resource arborist is currently looking at or is it something that we need to look into from our end? It would be really good if we had some solid stuff, so we are not all over the map. (Holtz: That is an excellent point . That is not something I am aware of, and we can research with other communities. Typically, when you see trees being put in, in terms of energy saving, we see the deciduous trees; shade in the summer and the sunlight comes through the wintertime for our northern hemisphere residences. The point about light pollution is well taken. We do not plant as many evergreens as we do deciduous trees, so we can look pretty naked in some of these streets during the wintertime. It is something we can research further.) > You mentioned that you possibly can track trees through GIS, is it accurate? How would you see if someone had removed those trees, or do the neighbors have to inform you? (Holtz: We do not have bandwidth to go into each property. It is in effect complaint -based just like code enforcement. The entry will happen once the plans are approved, either on the development side or when the permits have been approved on the removal side. We would require a re -planting plan. Rather than say you can plant anywhere within your property, before we approve the permit, we want to see the location where you plan to put the tree, what species they are and then we are able to put it in our system to verify at the permit final . Page 8City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes If we need to adjust it, at that point we can do the adjustment.) > I understand that the required trees are now protected in this framework, I just don ’t know how you will enforce that logistically. (Holtz: The ordinance would give us the mechanism to do enforcement. For example, we find that a tree was supposed to be planted on a property and there was nothing there, we can either ask them to re -plant or pay the fine. It still needs to be massaged out. Our city attorney ’s office is still working on the language. These are concepts. What happens if a tree dies on its own? You have to keep it alive and water the tree to keep it from dying. The alternative is we stay with what we are at right now and people can take the trees out. At least this gives us some sort of enforcement mechanism.) >I like the idea, it just never worked before. You are saying that it is basically the same except now you will have the tools to enforce. (Holtz: Correct.) (Spansail: I believe before this, there is nothing wrong with removing those trees. Those trees could come out and there are no permits required because they were not the protected size. Now, since they have been deemed protected even though they are not of that size yet, there is a penalty to it; they are either going to replant or pay the in -lieu fee. That’s the difference, now they are protected. Or as what City Arborist Holtz was saying earlier, you plant them to get your approval at this level but then a couple of years later you can remove them, since they were so small they did not count.) >You mentioned having a larger radius. Now it is a hundred feet, do you have a specific number in mind? (Holtz: Three hundred feet, it is the definition of a neighborhood.) >This might be a zoning code issue, but there are some zoning districts that do not have landscaping requirements. Even though that is beyond what is being discussed right now, I feel that there will be a multi-pronged approach to this if we are going to be more involved. To be able to tweak some of these maximum parcel sizes and the amount of landscape, if any, that goes around there. They need to be looked at and cleaned up on the planning level which can help bolster. Your proposed ordinance is only limited to what you can do. I feel that there is a lot of clean up needed on our end or on the planning side . There are a lot of structure and less planting areas. (Spansail: As you have mentioned, this is more of a zoning code issue. It can be something we can have a study item at a future date. It is not something that the city arborist will be able to take care of in the ordinance.) >Do we have any language in our code that talks about trees that are too big for the lots that we have? Some of the oak tree canopies cover two lots. (Holtz: We do not have language specifically about trees being too big. In the current ordinance, it does have a language about taking into effect the growing space, the general area that is around. A lot of times that is related to overhead utilities. It could be interpreted as proximity to a structure as well. Specifically, it says “likelihood and consequences of failure on impact proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways or other trees, infrastructure and growing constraints, utility improvement conflicts, species desirability and age of the relative tree that average urban lifespan typical of the species .” I don’t know if you would interpret that to encompass your question, but I would.) >All these redwood trees are huge, and they have huge impacts on a lot of people besides the person who owns the tree. The oak trees are worse because they can cover 3 to 4 lots. Especially, if it is planted on the last foot of the lot, it will span over the easement into somebody else ’s yard and the two side yards . There’s not a lot that can be done about that. When they are of protected size, you are threatened with legal action. (Holtz: Under the California code, a neighbor can cut up to 20% of the tree that is encroaching upon their property as long as it does not cause the tree to fail or anything like that. There are some things that can occur if you have a neighbor ’s tree growing into your property. We are trying to capture the root portion of it because that is something that has been vacant. Your point is well taken. If you drive through our neighbors to the south or to the north; Millbrae and San Mateo, not to pick on anyone here if they are from those communities, it is visually different. Our city has had a very special relationship with trees. In June 1908 we were incorporated and by September we had our first tree ordinance protecting trees. It is very profound back then. Our community has long been centered around Page 9City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes trees. To your point, these trees were planted in someone else ’s backyard, they’ve got a free tree, that was great and now it is pretty impactful. It is difficult for me as a city arborist to make decisions to support those trees when I don ’t see anything related to the health of the tree other than these growing constraints. Trying to engage property owners by having conversations, are there other mitigation options other than removal? In some cases, not. I have reluctantly approved because I believe they have met the criteria that we have listed here.) >For me, I love the trees on El Camino Real, but I think we have let them go way too long. Now they are destroying El Camino Real. If we had a proactive approach 20 or 30 years ago before they got bigger and bigger, we may be able to manage that and reduce the damage. Some of these trees are in the neighborhood, the same thing, they don ’t get managed. (Holtz: Going forward, our culture is becoming much more on the forefront. I can tell you that on the city side, we are making sustainable decisions that will not saddle future generations with some of the challenging decisions that we ’ve had to make. We’re a largely built out community. These things were planted before we had sidewalks, asphalt and overhead utilities. We are doing our best to retain them for the benefits they provide our community, but also manage what the potential risk and liability could be. On the private side, that is very challenging. The commission has brought up a lot of good points about the private owner who can ’t manage the tree or the neighbor who is affected by the tree two houses down. What say do they have in the matter? Those are challenging decisions, and these are things we are bringing to the City Council that they are wrestling with . Just like the example of the tree that died of natural causes, why will be saddle a person with the cost of that when they did their best? In the research that we have done, I have not seen in any other ordinance something about a tree being too tall or too big specifically. It is more generalized. One of the factors to consider is the benefits of the tree versus the challenges associated with it.) >I do think that a proactive management strategy needs to include something in this area too because we are becoming more solar oriented, and we have small lots. There is only so much space that we can deal with and some of these trees wipe out the sun. (Holtz: The California Solar Shade Act is pretty clear on that. If the tree was there first, then the tree wins. If the solar goes first and the tree grows up, then the tree needs to be trimmed. If our city takes a different stance, that is upon us.) >Is there any consideration that relates to homeowners’ insurance in the ordinance? I know somebody who recently bought a house who can ’t get their home insured because of the trees that are in their yard . They had two options: go with the fair housing which is 10 times more than the private insurance or chop the trees down. (Holtz: It is really unfortunate with what happened to our insurance industry in California. I am one of those people who are in the California Fair Plan, so I know very well how much more expensive it is because I chose to have a tree on my property. But to answer your question, that has not been considered when we are looking at the ordinance. Again, it is a great point to bring up. How do we move forward with the valuation of our trees, will that become a factor if somebody has been rejected by the insurance company? There are a lot of factors there. That is a fair point. I have heard that before from some of our residents.) >In response to some of the public comments, we do encourage native plants. We are not draconian . We don’t make people plant native. It is a nice mix. If you look at every city, we are similar to every city because the natives in this urban environment have their limits. Bushes and stuff may be different, but the trees, as was discussed tonight about redwoods and oaks, they do have their limits as well. I also urge the people who sent comments regarding the plants to actually read our ordinance because our city ’s Parks Department and arborists have worked really hard, particularly recently, to beef up our trees, stick a few natives in there when it works. They don ’t always work. I just wanted to defend the work that we have done so far. It is better than what was implied in those comments. >As far as the report and the draft, given that it is a long process, you have done a stellar job of trying to capture what has been suggested, trying to balance things out when people are feeling unsafe, and how to work with sizes that are difficult on lots. I love the idea of an independent arborist so things can feel fairer. I definitely feel that we could use guidance for landscaping upfront. It may also generate ideas as Page 10City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes far as bushes and small things. We tend to look at the trees, but I understand the wish for bush -style plants and hedges where insects and all kinds of birds live. That would be important as well, not just thinking about the trees. I am very disturbed about the stripping of entire hillsides of all kinds of trees and bushes, native and non -native that house a lot of animals and insects and that their replacements are just limited to trees. That is very serious, we need to look more at all levels of plants; trees, bushes and down-to-ground cover, everything where creatures can hide and keep the hillside intact. >I wanted to read something from Pasadena as a guiding principle, “Landscaping shall be planned as an integral part of the overall project design and not simply be located in excess space after parking areas and structures have been planned .” To me, that says it all. It is not an extra. I feel that we can do much more to make it part of the plan that we have done, working together rather than doing things in sequence that have been out of default. I appreciate all the work done and the legal issues that you are going through. >I am very much in favor of looking into things like alternative designs and exceptions to make the reality of what we want to see more likely. A lot of interesting designs have come about because of interesting or unique constraints, including, sometimes, trees that they want to save. I am also in favor of looking into incentives, perhaps waving an administrative fee for doing what we would consider as the best outcome of the design. That might reduce the overall financial burden on people and gel towards the actual result that we are trying to get. >Thank you for the report. I support a lot of it. A few things that I was thinking about, particularly with the example of the hillside being 12,000 to 15,000 sf lots and yet only three trees are required. It seems to me that the one tree per thousand square feet of buildout may be too simplistic by way of looking into that requirement. Maybe we need to be a little bit broader with that to cover the various sizes of lots that we have, to encourage those larger lots to take advantage of their ability to add to the trees versus the smaller lots that don ’t have the room. The one tree per one thousand does not seem to be pushing that agenda much and there is an opportunity there. As I ’ve mentioned earlier, I am a big proponent of more proactively managing trees so they are not out of control so we can have better neighbor relations and can encourage these things to happen. A lot of these trees get planted right on the property line and that is what the neighbors’ consent and then they are stuck with it. That goes back to my fellow commissioner ’s suggestion of more proactive design opportunities. If you are going to say that we typically have a 6,000sf lot, it would be good to see a tree in several locations, giving them zone opportunities that help encourage better design because often, they just get stuck on the back fence. It would also help the fact that the ADUs are mostly located by the back fence and are going to strip out more ways of putting in trees. As much as we have an FAR to try and minimize overbuilding on small lots, the state has gone in the other direction. Now we are not even in control of half of that. Some reach out and giving more tools will result in a better outcome and that goes in line with what you are trying to develop in your report. That will be a great way. >I just met with the Fire Chief at a property in Hillsborough and had a one -hour lesson with her about how to keep trees away from the house and all that other stuff. When we are looking at these plans, because of the insurance issues that we are seeing on the residential side on the sales of these homes, this has become a huge problem for us realtors and homeowners in our community. Suggests looking at what these insurance companies are trying to mandate and how do we program that in the landscape plans. People need to be able to get insurance coverage and we are having a big challenge now. I’d like to keep that in mind if we are going to have somebody help us with the plans. >Thank you so much for all the great work. I second everything that my fellow commissioners have stated so well. It will be exciting to be integrating our role as Planning Commissioners more in tree preservation and landscape design. We often see landscape design as a secondary requirement as part of the design review submission. This can be exciting for us to be thinking more proactively. If we are given some tools and guidelines from a tree perspective, that could really help us to create better properties and reforest our city. Page 11City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >As a homeowner and a resident of Burlingame, I love trees. As a builder we must be careful of how much our restrictions put undue burden on our homeowners. Obviously, we have a high demand area, but we don’t want to go on a negative flow of value because people are limited in what they can do on their lots. It is a balancing act to make sure that we are making proper restrictions that benefit the city but also doesn’t shoot us at the foot at the same time. >We have become much more limited in the space that remains on the lot. Part of it is because we have been generous with garages and things that we don ’t count toward lot coverage or square footage since we want the garages to be located at the back. Then came the whole ADU issue where they don ’t count. I feel that it would behoove us later, if we are going to work together, to really look at how we can work on the zoning; where can we pull things in, can we start counting garages because that was a freebie. People end up doing attached garages now anyway. We can ’t control anymore the things that were meant as goodwill to encourage development because this whole umbrella has come on top of it and supersedes everything. We reduce the buildable area and every habitable space for any tree. There needs to be a clean up with the policies. I would love to see that happen in some form with staff who deal with these every day and maybe some of us on a subcommittee in the future. That will be worthwhile to see where we can get some space back. >Spansail: There will be a meeting in front of the City Council with a very similar presentation to get their feedback next month on June 17th. If you are interested, please look out for that. Since this was an informational item only, no action was taken by the Planning Commission. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a.124 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., designer; Paul De Zan and Rita Cai, property owners) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao (66 noticed) 124 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 124 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 124 Bloomfield Rd - Renderings 124 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Pfaff was recused from this item as she lives within 500’ from this property. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, and Tse5 - Absent:Horan1 - Recused:Pfaff1 - 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.14 Channing Road, zoned R -1 – Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition (major renovation) to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Page 12City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, designer; Arjun Dutt and Ritu Vohra, property owners ) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao 14 Channing Rd - Staff Report 14 Channing Rd - Attachments 14 Channing Rd - Renderings 14 Channing Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Mary Kalbhenn: What’s going on at 14 Channing Road with the squatters and junk in front of the house? Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider extending the length of the two windows next to the front door to floor level making it full length. Right now, they feel like they are free floating. (Raduenz: I may have to check with Planning staff as additional window space may be considered a new wall.) >Suggests adding a trim panel with the intent of bringing the window down but maintaining the wall; will look less like a T. >Consider adding a step to the stoop so the entry level at the front door is at the stoop level. >Having only one roof bracket by the front door seems out of place. Either eliminate it completely or add brackets on the entire house. >I was very disturbed with the Variance requests before, but I appreciate you sticking by the rules, and we are just now dealing with the second story setback Variance. The project looks pretty good. You are limited at the front. You will need to be creative in providing a distance from the sidewalk with the plantings visually. I appreciate the changes, but you must work on the knee braces. >I like the adaptive re -use of the previous design, yet I appreciate the changes and sacrifices made in this version. You’ve pushed and re-worked things around to give us the few feet of push back on the second floor which improved that elevation quite a bit. Thank you because it makes that front elevation much better. I like the project. >I agree. Driving around the neighborhood today, the new design is like most of the neighborhood . Some of the massing is more similar even though you still have the second -floor Variance, which I can support at this time. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that the following design elements shall be incorporated into the project and reviewed by Planning Division staff; if any of the design elements are not incorporated, then an application for Amendment to Design Review shall be required: - that trim paneling be added below the sidelites adjacent to the front door so that the sidelites appear to extend to the floor Page 13City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - that additional roof eave brackets be added around the house to balance out the one roof eave bracket at the front of the house - that an additional step be added to the stoop at the front of the house so that the entry level at the front door is similar to the that of the front stoop The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, Tse, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Horan1 - b.1602 Forest View Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Edward Collantes, applicant, designer, and property owner) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1602 Forest View Ave - Staff Report 1602 Forest View Ave - Attachments 1602 Forest View Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Edward Collantes, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Please provide information regarding the design and materials of the garage door. >I share my fellow commissioner ’s concern over the garage door because that leaves us exposed without a decision. I don ’t know if we can add a condition of approval to require that the garage door be wood with glass lites and reviewable by Planning staff. Should it not be the case, then it goes back to the Commission for review. (Staff: Yes, you can do that.) >Yes, I agree with that. >The reason why it is coming to the forefront is because it is at the front of the house. It is not a detached garage at the back. It is fairly large. There was nothing there today when I drove by. We don ’t know what it will look like and the drawings are not consistent. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that the material of the vehicle garage door shall be wood with glass lites; compliance with this requirement shall be verified by Planning Division staff; if a different material is proposed for Page 14City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the vehicle garage door, then an application for Amendment to Design Review shall be required. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, Tse, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Horan1 - c.475 1/2 Rollins Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for as-built changes to a previously approved new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a). (Brad Gunkel, Gunkel Architecture, architect; Amy Chung and Francis Kim, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Attachments 475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Brad Gunkel, designer and Amy Chung and Francis Kim, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the wood siding better, but I actually like the material chosen as a substitute. That works pretty well. The stucco was not an issue, it looked good as a whole and made the elevations work. My biggest concern was the removal of the siding on the lower portion of the elevation. This would look a lot better with the siding finished off the way it was originally proposed in the approved design. When I walked by the property, that was the elevation I saw first. I didn ’t walk around the back to see the other side. I just saw the front door and the elevation that goes along the fence. I could see it from the street too as I looked over the other properties. The siding should be included as part of the design that we approved. >The detail of the top windows on the south elevation looks flushed, no relief and have no dimensions . There is a disconnect on the windows. It is boring compared to what we had previously approved. >I went to look at the house today and didn ’t quite know how to approach which side. I went by the flag driveway and saw the most prominent elevation which is what you see at the garage and front door. I went towards the left side and saw the back with the siding. I am satisfied with those two views. I do feel disappointed that the areas the homeowners were enjoying do not have siding. From the public perspective, I don ’t think anyone can see it. It is mostly a loss for the homeowner in terms of the enjoyment of the view of the siding on the side yard. I also think that the windows are a little bit flat. They look a little bit of a commercial building. This is a modern minimalist style home and the architect just described how the original extended fins were not part of the approved design, I don ’t recall that they Page 15City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes weren’t. >I wasn't on the commission when this was approved. I agree with my fellow commissioners’ comments about the lack of siding in the areas where they were originally approved. This looks like a trailer, a temporary building while another building is being built because something is missing. I don ’t know what can be done at this point to build that back in. It had a warmth to it that I find lacking on the sides that don’t have the wood siding. I like the current garage door compared to what was approved. With the flatness of this current design, I would have trouble approving this if it came to us as a new application today. >There was a lot of discussion about the material and where the materials should be applied when it first came to the commission; I do recall that. That’s why I said I was disappointed. It is really a loss for the homeowner because nobody else can see these views. >The question is, if this project came before us the way it is now, would we have approved it? I don ’t think we would have. Now, we are in a situation that is financially hard for the property owners because they must go back and re -do the things that we required them to do. Then the question becomes at what impact does that have on the neighborhood and where do we draw the line? I am not so worried about the paneling; I don’t like the flatness. How do you solve that without breaking the stucco and windows? I ’m not a builder or an architect, but I would suspect that it would be a financial hardship and it may not be an easy construction. It will look worse if you try to fix it. I’m disappointed because I know this went through a couple of rounds of review with the commission. I also know that there were a couple of commissioners that did not approve this project when it came in front of us because they did not think this will be built correctly and that ’s what we got. The front door is very flat. It feels like it was just slapped on. I would like to have some of that wood paneling installed. It will tie the whole house together and it will be less impactful on the property owners financially. I don ’t think breaking up the wall and putting in structural beams to do the cantilever over the door is worth it. One of the biggest concerns when this came to the commission the first time around was how the cantilever will be built and we were guaranteed it will work . Then it did not get built. >I am not very happy with what has happened to this house. It is a dangerous precedent because there are so many things that were glossed over and it was not a unanimous decision when passing this back in 2019. This is a house that is very hard to see from the street. It is not obvious in any direction. That matters to me because at the end of the day, we are making these decisions for our fellow Burlingame residents and these decisions affect the community as a benefit. The right thing to do in context is to compel them to do some of the things that were previously approved, but it will be a large bill. I don ’t get the sense that this was malicious, but I do feel that there is some ignorance here. I absolutely blame the contractor; they should be held accountable. It was abhorrent that it was allowed without any sort of risk assessment, unless there was a risk assessment but was ignored, we don ’t know. I, as a contractor, take responsibility for following a set of plans, especially when it has been approved. I don ’t disagree with my fellow commissioner’s comments. I would be on board with anything we want them to do, but I want to note that adding wood cladding does mess with the waterproofing, it is not minimal and something that is just glued on. It is invasive and expensive. As would be changing out the windows and adding cantilevers . Normally, I would say “Sorry, tough luck. You must do all these things .” Because of the location of this home, I am not concerned of the impact to the neighborhood. Quite frankly, it ’s the best home in that area. It is modern, brought up to code and does all those things that are good. I am on the fence of doing whatever we come up as a group or just letting it go through and move on. >It is very challenging; this is a very complicated one. In the owner ’s or contractor’s defense, the time of construction for this home came through the pandemic where we all know that there were resource and supply chain issues. I don ’t know how much of it has something to do with the lack of siding once they have found the faux siding. Also, this predated our current system of applicants acknowledging that any changes to be made to approved plans should be brought forth sooner than later. I also agree that it is the best-looking house in that area. Because of its location, with limited visibility of it, the lack of details is more of a disappointment for the enjoyment of the homeowners than anybody else in the neighborhood. >When it gets sold, maybe this owner is not as worried about it. It does not meet the spirit of what we intended. Maybe this particular siding can ’t be put in an effective way without messing it up, but before we approve the changes as -is, I would like to see an effort to come up with a solution for the siding on that elevation. It’s not the back of the house. Page 16City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Suggests painting the wall a different color. >Currently, it looks like the back of the house that was forgotten, yet it ’s not. I’m not saying it must be siding. There needs to be a solution that offers us a little bit more warmth and closer to the original design intent. >I agree. The lack of wood siding is the single most outstanding issue in the as -builts. I like the ideas of finding similar siding solution or paint to bring more cohesiveness and thought to the facades. The few studies presented to us this evening show that you can see the first story depending on where you are standing. The second story is a lot more obvious. Comparatively, it is a smaller thing but the aluminum fins along the side of the windows, if they are not invasive and can be bolted afterwards, that is a reasonable ask because the second story will be the most visible part of this building to Rollins Road and any neighboring lot. Chair Lowenthal re-opened the public hearing. >Gunkel: In lieu of coming back, we are open to amended Conditions of Approval. I think we can all agree that using paint that matches the wood color for the remainder of the lower floor would help tie this whole thing together. >We want you to come back to us with some ideas on how to remedy the lack of wood siding having heard what the commission has expressed. We understand that we don ’t want to be too invasive, but if you can come to us with some renditions and ideas that will help us move in some direction. >Suggests coming back with a paint color that will match the wood siding. It cannot look like the back of a white stucco building. We are giving you the opportunity to propose a cost and style -effective solution. >Hurin: While you can encourage the applicant to come back and look at options to repaint the lower section with a different color, Design Review does not look at colors so it can ’t be conditioned that it be painted a certain color. In addition, the future owners can also repaint the house any color they want. >It must be a cost-effective compromise that gets us closer to what we want and gets it finished for the applicant. >We are looking for paint colors or other alternative solutions for the wood siding that are economical and welcoming. >I am very bothered by the flatness of it. >Chung: We went through a lot; we did not mean to not follow the process. I want to acknowledge and own that. We are happy to talk through different ideas. We do want to be economical since it has already been a long process for us. We love living in the house and it has been great for the kids. We are open to the idea of painting as an option to bring it all together. >Kim: For the windows, the direction we were given is we should source aluminum windows and we found options within that range. As far as the trim is concerned, we ’ll do what we can to find good options . I am unfamiliar with the product lines that are out there, hopefully we can find something that is within our budget. >Just to give you an idea, someone who specializes in paint colors may help you tie the whole house together. Don’t think you have to do it on your own. It does not cost that much to hire professionals who can help you choose the right colors to make the house look warmer than it is. >A lot of us are sympathetic of attempting to build a house during the pandemic. It is just unfortunate that we have come to this situation at this place and time. >Recommend reviewing the comments by the commission, see what is feasible, and do what you can and come back with a proposal. If you feel like painting is all you can do, then do it and let us see it. You should look at these different items from the fa çade to the windows to a potential color change and then come back to us. >We feel that these suggested changes add value to the home. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 17City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, Tse, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Horan1 - d.1915 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for as-built changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc, applicant and architect; Anthony and Gail Mosse, property owners) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1915 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report 1915 Carmelita Ave - Attachments 1915 Carmelita Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item because she is the project designer. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Lauren Lee, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I don’t have any concerns about the proposed changes. They seem very reasonable and within the style that was already approved. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, Tse, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Horan1 - e.1375 Burlingame Avenue, Suite 202A, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use (small scale) within an existing commercial building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tian Shao, applicant; Landmark Generations LP, property owner) (35 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1375 Burlingame Ave, Suite 202A - Staff Report 1375 Burlingame Ave, Suite 202A - Attachments 1375 Burlingame Ave, Suite 202A - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff Page 18City of Burlingame May 28, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Ray Young, applicant, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The proposed use is very innocuous. Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Schmid, Shores, Tse, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Horan1 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no Design Review Study Items. 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair Lowenthal noted that he and Commissioner Pfaff attended the press conference on May 28, 2024 regarding the loss of funding from the State for the Broadway Grade Separation Project due to budget shortfalls. Commissioner Tse noted that she will be attending the Planning Commissioner's training on May 30, 2024. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Interim Community Development Director Hurin noted that at the May 20, 2024 City Council meeting there was a presentation and update provided regarding the Caltrain Electrification Project; a soft launch of the use of electric trains is anticipated in August 2024 and full passenger service will begin in September 2024. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. Page 19City of Burlingame