HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2018.02.26BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council Chambers Monday, February 26, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior
Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Present 6 -
Sargent Absent 1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Draft Minutes - December 11, 2017
December 11, 2017 Minutes (Draft) Attachments:
Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes as
amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 6 -
Absent: Sargent 1 -
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. 833 Mahler Road, #10, zoned IB- Application for a Conditional Use Permit to add the sale
of alcoholic beverages to an existing food establishment and to allow weekend hours of
operation. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301. (Jorge Sebastiani, applicant;
Racola Investments LLC, property owner) (22 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keyl on
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
833 Mahler Rd #10 - Staff Report
833 Mahler Rd #10 - Application
833 Mahler Rd #10 - Attachments
833 Mahler Rd #10 - Photos and Plan
Attachments:
Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Item. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 6 -
Absent: Sargent 1 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a. 900 Carolan Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for side setback, front setback, and lot
coverage variances for a single 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. (Jerry Deal, JD
Associates, applicant and designer; Kris and Premilia Reddy Trust, property owner) (49
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
900 Carolan Ave - Staff Report & Attachments
900 Carolan Ave - Plans - 02.26.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
> How are the setbacks calculated on wedge-shaped lots? (Hurin: Take the midpoint on each property line
and measure across.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal, JD Associates, represented the applicant, with property owner Kris Reddy.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Although it is an irregularly-shaped lot, the code provides provisions for odd-shaped lots. The
calculations are based on the midpoints of the property lines. The argument that the code does not make
provisions for irregularly-shaped lots is not accurate. (Deal: It is a much better project single-story. This is the
only way there can be a two-car garage.)
> There is a metal garage to the left of garage. Consider parking a car there? It's not allowed currently but
would be allowed if the garage was expanded. (Deal: Owner is aware the area cannot be used for parking
currently but would be if the garage is expanded. However the space will still be nonconforming because it is
too short.)
> Why the dining room being pushed out on the side, but there is leftover space between Bedroom 1 and
Living Room? Maybe there is a way to reconfigure so there is not a lot coverage variance. (Deal: Considered
part of the Living Room.)
> Would prefer there not be the 4% lot coverage exception. Can't find the exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances, concerned about setting a precedent. (Deal: There is no such thing as a precedence when
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
granting a variance).
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Hard time finding justification for the variances. Smaller lots have smaller homes. Existing house is nicely
crafted and fits nicely on the lot. Expanding the garage with a single door will have a big face make it look
overbuilt.
> Can't support variance for being over the lot coverage just because it is a smaller lot. The numbers work
well for all the lots regardless of shape.
> The intentions are understandable, but has a hard time with the variances. The house already extends
close to the extent of the allowable lot coverage. While the justification for the variance has been with the
garage, there are also the master bathroom, walk-in closet, and dining room addition. Understands wanting
these items, but does not see the logic that exceptional circumstances for small and odd -shaped lots are not
addressed in the ordinances.
> Understands the garage setback variance but not the lot coverage.
> Had been generous on triangular lots in other circumstances. Can make the findings for the variance on
the front and side setback variance, but not the lot coverage variance. Seems the additional 200 square feet
can be omitted from the lot coverage to comply.
> Can't support the lot coverage variance. Would get away from the proportionality that this lot is already
struggling with.
Vice Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the Action Item. The
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 6 -
Absent: Sargent 1 -
b. 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story
single-family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a).
(Danny Meredith, applicant; Helen Cook, property owner; Jaime Rapadas, A R Design
Group, designer) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
305 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report
305 Burlingame Ave - Attachments
305 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 02.26.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto had communications with the
applicant.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Danny Meredith and Jaime Rapadas represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Landscape plan calls for an 8-foot fence along the right side? (Meredith: It is an existing fence.)
> There are gravel beds along the driveway side between the driveway and the house. Could this be a
landscape bed? (Rapadas: It is gravel, and a drainage solution.)(Meredith: Can be used as runoff or a planter
box. Can't allow runoff into the street. Landscaping is somewhat negotiable.) Landscaping will help soften the
area along the building wall.
> Rear area is shown as all lawn. Will there be planter beds around the edges? (Meredith: Lawn does not
go all the way to the edge. Will have planter beds.)
> Scale has been nicely redone.
> Will there be trim around the front door? (Meredith: Yes,lights and trim.)
> Could replicate the tudor detail that is on the garage.
Public Comments:
Property owner from the house directly west: Concerned with the garage, it is right on the property line.
Whomever built our garage is almost on the property line. There is a little less than a foot between their
garage and the other garage, and can't paint the side of the garage because there is not enough space. The
back of the garage is against the fence as well. Would prefer the garage be moved to the east a bit so there
is room to get in between to allow painting.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Likes the changes that have been made. Previously unclear how the roof worked.
> Odd thing with the entrance, moves between tudor and mission. Can come back as an FYI, to bring the
entry into line with the detailing of the rest of the house.
> Supports landscaping between the driveway and house.
> Prudent to move the garage to allow access.
> Would be beneficial to have the garage offset to the side to allow for maintenance since the garages are
side by side. Back is more flexible, could take the fence down to maintain the back if necessary.
> Previously the neighbor to the rear described an accumulation of leaves and debris behind the garage.
Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve with the following
condition:
> that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted showing 1) trim
around the front entry door consistent with the Tudor style to match the rest of the house, 2) Tudor
trim detailing on the gable above the front entry similar to what is shown on the detached garage
gable, 3) planter beds along the edges of the landscape areas in the front and rear yards, 4)
landscaping in the strips between the house and driveway, and 5) the detached garage moved 1-2 feet
away from the side property line with consideration to move it away from the rear property line.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto 6 -
Absent: Sargent 1 -
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a. 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F), zoned HMU & R-4: Application for Design Review and
Density Bonus Incentives for construction of a new 132-unit affordable workforce and
senior apartment development (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of
Burlingame, property owner; Pacific West Architecture, architect) (246 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
150 Park Rd (Parking Lot F) - Staff Report
150 Park Rd (Parking Lot F) - Attachments
150 Park Rd (Parking Lot F) - Plans - 02.26.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had met with the applicant to get a
preview of the project. Commissioner Comaroto also met with the applicant.
Planning Manager Gardiner and Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
> Land close to the train is precious, wants to encourage growth around transit hubs. Could car ownership
be a consideration in residency? Perhaps preference to someone who does not have a car.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Douglas Gibson, project architect, represented the applicant, with Caleb Roope of Pacific Companies.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> What is driving the ground floor community room height? That's not atypical if that was retail space. Or is
the floor height of level 2 derived from contaminated soil, that it is not possible to go any further down?
(Gibson: Yes, the floor height is derived from the height needed for the parking lifts. For seismic there will be
steel in the structure, which will allow the community space to be opened up.)
> Is the 15 feet driven also by a requirement in the Specific Plan for retail space, but even if the 15 feet
weren't required since there would not be retail space, can't push the garage further down without going
deeper underground. (Gibson: Needs an extra 2 feet for SUVs. Should be closer to 17 feet to accommodate
SUVs.)
> Request that resubmittal shows what size cars can be accommodated with the lifts.
> Is there a possibility to revisit the colors? The gray on the ground floor looks drab. The rendering does
not look vibrant.
> Why does garage entry need to be so high in height? It looks like a loading dock. (Gibson: Could bring it
down 3 feet.)
> Could the entry to the apartments be further highlighted? (Gibson: Yes.)
> There are blank spots on the facade, but some have wire mesh with planting. Could that be added to
other portions where there are blank areas? (Gibson: Yes, it can be done. The project in Richmond has
examples of this.)
> Is there a particular manufacturer of the vinyl windows being considered? (Gibson: Typically uses Alside.
They can do different profiles. Richmond project has a higher grade and more articulation on the extrusion.
From 20 feet away it looks like an aluminum window.) Would like to see a sample or reference.
> Paloma Park is an example of a vibrant pocket park, heavily used. Is there a reason why the entrance
couldn't be marked as a park? Maybe bollards with lanterns, so it feels more than just coming off the
sidewalk. Will also provide a sense of security and enclosure.
> Could the play structure have a small enclosure? Just a low fence, or something to give a sense of
Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
security. (Gibson: Yes, can program this.)
> What is the "viewing area" in the park? (Gibson: A place for parents to hang out and watch their kids).
Would encourage benches around the edge of that.
> Rear corner has close proximity to the adjacent multifamily property. Could that be followed up? It i s the
one area where the proximity to the adjacent buildings needs to be revisited and carefully considered. As
shown there will be windows against balconies. Would like some relief, further study of that facade.
> Podium level just has three trees in planter boxes. Could there be consideration to other things
happening on the podium? Perhaps the units could have access to that outdoor area? (Gibson: There is not a
code reason that would prevent it.)
> Computer room is in the corner, but instead maybe have it viewable to the courtyard. (Gibson: For the
State of California there will be a computer workspace, will probably have five or six workstations and
printers. If seniors do not have computers in their apartments they can use them here. Also available fo r
tutoring. It is programmed, lockable, and has controlled access times.) Could that work off of the outdoor
area? It would make the room more than a windowless space, would be a better amenity. (Gibson: Can look
at it.)
> Any program for the community room? Could it also operate as an exercise room? (Gibson: Yes, can
consider exercise equipment in the room. Has not yet determined what the program will be.) Should be
programmed.
> Is the proposed material real stucco, not EIFS? (Gibson: Yes, 2-coat based on the energy requirements.)
Will want to see color samples. (Gibson: Will have a color board with multiple samples, including the glazing
and windows.)
> Regarding pedestrian vibrancy on Park Road, would be nice if it looked more open to the public.
> Small park on Primrose between Burlingame Avenue and Howard is well used. Has a fence and a gate,
and is great for the kinds. Would like some more trees and maybe some grass if possible. A place for pets if
they are allowed.
> Would like to see more trees on Park Road, and in the park area. Perhaps a water feature or water
fountain for the kids and pets - kids up top and pets below.
> Concern with the patio area on top, seeing bikes and laundry. Will there be codes and regulations for the
apartments? (Gibson: All residents will be required to go through background check and sign lease
agreements. Each facility has its various requirements. Can make specific requirements within the limits and
statutes of the law.)
> Has there been a shadow study? (Gibson: Can provide a shadow study showing the dates and times
requested.)(Gardiner: The Downtown Specific Plan provides guidance on the dates and times to be
evaluated for a shadow study. Should model both existing conditions as well as with the proposed project so
they can be compared.)
> Likes the East side with the Park. Would like improvement on the West side. Although tall, the building to
the south has less impact with the curved and angular side and the landscaping. Perhaps borrow some ideas
from the adjacent building such as cutting the sides to add more open space and landscaping.
> Concern with the park not having enough sunlight, will be in shadow most of the time. Perhaps step the
building down to allow some light into the park during the bulk of the day.
> Architecture in the neighborhood is characterized by the Masonic Temple, and romanesque and
mediterranean styles to the south. Consider keeping with the essence of Burlingame traditional styles.
(Gibson: Did look at a "Narragansett" shingled style with gray shingles and white trim. It looked really big and
didn't look like it would fit in, seemed like an aberration. Can look at the massing and the skin of the
structure.)
> Eaves on the corners but no eaves in between. (Gibson: Tried to work on a tripartite elevation with a
strong base and mid plane. As the structure steps back, loses some of the tripartite feeling at the top of the
structure.)
> Why is the commercial aspect on the ground floor not being taken advantage of? (Gibson: Lacks synergy
of retail uses, nothing to the north or south. Needs spontaneity of people walking by to be viable. Would not
want to have a commercial space that would always be for lease if it can't be operated. Would prefer that it be
a space the community could use.) How about commercial uses the residents would take advantage of?
Lacks pedestrian experience on the Park Road side.
Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
> There are back of house elements located at front of house, such as electrical and mechanical rooms. If
they were moved to the back would that allow enhancement of the pedestrian experience on the front?
(Gibson: Yes in theory, but there are considerations with PG&E and Fire such as the length and size of
service, electrical transformer feed, PG&E access. Has tried to minimize the exposure in the front and split it.)
Creates a blank spot before reaching the entrance coming down Howard.
> Back corner is close to the the adjacent residential, would like to see if it could be stepped back.
> Neighbor has expressed concern with the shared tree at the edge of the park; perhaps step the building
back at that spot or the entire back. Would also lessen shadows on the park.
> Not convinced by the architecture. Seems bulky, appears massive. Building next door might not be the
right one for comparison. Height and mass may not be consistent with the design guidelines of the Specific
Plan.
Public Comments:
Dennis Gale, 110 Park Road: 110 Park Road has been in place for 44 years. Has concern with the use of the
public parking lot. Enthused about the City stepping forward to take a proactive role bringing affordable
housing. Was initially concerned with garage access, thought it would be at the southwest corner but it will be
at the northwest corner, which will be good. Lot F is not a scenic treasure, hopes this will provide something
more scenic. Subsurface conditions with environmental remediation, concern with toxic or h azardous waste
being exposed to the air during construction, wants a better understanding of what will be done to protect
those living close by. Question about raising the floor plates higher, which will raise the height of the building,
and further cut off sunlight since the sun sets to the west.
Anna Franco: Shadow design impact has been mentioned. These are two massive projects on a narrow
street, the 100 block of Lorton Avenue. Asks to consider impacts of the structures in their current size and
design. More front, side and rear setbacks on both projects will alleviate the bulkiness, keep the area
pedestrian friendly, and continue to allow light and space for the existing residents. Light studies and shadow
impact testing should be required to determine potential impacts. Concern with losing the Monterey cypress
tree at 137 Lorton Avenue - will not agree to its removal, encourage the developer to work around the tree
and incorporate it into the park as a way to transition the old and the new.
David Mendell, 214-216 Lorton Avenue. Lots of construction going on, parking is imperative. Important that
the parking structure should be a priority to finish first so there is adequate parking for the construction
people, as well as for the clients and workers of the businesses.
Marina Franco: Submitted an e-mail previously, has since reviewed the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan
and sees the codification of concerns. Disingenuous to compare to 110 Park Road as complementary
because it is the tallest building. There are at least two apartment buildings on Park Road that will face this
project which are significantly smaller. There are three apartments on Lorton Avenue that are two or three
stories. The Park Road tower has significant setbacks and is on a corner. Downtown Specific Plan mentions
land use transitions with care to respect scale and privacy of adjacent properties, stepping back upper
stories, reducing mass by compositions of solids and voids, maintain privacy of neighboring structures - all
concerns to the three residential buildings along Lorton, forming the back side of the housing portion. The
parklet is fantastic, but it is right up against the properties. Lights, shadows, privacy are concerns. Happy to
hear there is concern with the tree. Project should not be at the expense of existing residents and neighbors.
Heather Sirk: Agent for the owners of the buildings at 125 and 129 Lorton Avenue. Concerns are the same as
others. Concern for the the households in the existing apartments. 20 hous eholds in the two buildings, 6 will
be close enough to borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor across the way if the building gets built as is.
Likes that the city is proactive with the affordable housing, but doesn't want the 20 households in the existing
building to lose their light and air. It is disingenuous to show the proposed building next to 110 Park Road; if
there was a cross-section showing the side of the proposed building and the buildings back up against it, it
would be dwarfed with loss of light and space for those buildings. There are a lot of things
Page 7 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
to like about the proposal, but people have been feeling invisible.
Tom Hatfield, 110 Park Road: Views on the screen don't make clear how the new building will sit next to
theirs. Worried about the excavation for the underground garage construction affecting the structural integrity
of the wall on the boundary and the drainage. The side of the lot along the project has a swimming pool and
jacuzzi and recreation area with shuffleboard and gazebo, had initially asked that the side of the building not
be a looming wall of apartments overlooking the swimming pool and community area. Will block light, air, and
privacy. Would prefer the building step back wedding cake-fashion on that side.
Drew Dara-Abrams, 128 Lorton: Supports affordable housing, understands in the financing how the nip and
tucks can make the project fall apart. Understands the physical concerns on the street, and that there will
need to be compromises to make this kind of affordable housing work. Questions whether the size of the
parking garage has been evaluated for use and cost benefit analysis, or if it's jus t seeking to replace spots.
Curious how the spots will be used, given expense of constructing them at $30 -40,000 each. Requests the
projects included improvements to the sidewalks and crosswalks, also improve the Bayswater/Lorton
intersection to make it easier to cross. Requests during construction the contractors realize the site abuts a
residential zone, take that into account when setting construction hours. Hopes the project will be seen to
completion and trusts it will be done well.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Unique project to have the City offer the property to get something built.
> Enthused to be getting more housing into the downtown area - goal of the Downtown Specific Plan.
> Make the project as good as can be. Color and detail, and aspects of charm and delight so it is not just
typical, but delightful and loved in the neighborhood because it is a good project.
> Cedar tree in the back would provide some great advantage to the park. Will need to do something at the
back corner so it survives.
> Surface lots in downtown reek of underutilization.
> Although it's not strictly a residential neighborhood, there are edges the project backs up to that are
residential. Commercial buildings along Howard are likely to evolve over time, and there are other surface
parking lots. Needs more attention to the rear of the project, reworking of the facade and massing on that
side, needs some relief with the adjacent residential buildings.
> Would like to see a bike area in the complex, by the front door, with room for Lime bikes.
> Consideration for parking for delivery drop offs.
> Excited by the project. In general the project is extremely well articulated - a sophisticated modern
building. Does a good job of breaking down the larger mass into an articulated, well-scaled building for a
building of this size. It is a transitional site between some smaller buildings moving towards a changing
downtown.
> Looks forward to seeing sample boards and more information.
> Tripartite suggests a strong base, but here it is a base created by a negative as opposed to having a
strong base. The apparent base is from the horizontal line at the bottom of the white boxes above; could use
some more work. Maybe the trellis treatment from the back of the building should also be on the front, or a
material change.
> Garage opening undemines the apparent base of the building by lifting up higher than the adjacent
floating boxes.
> Fitting in has to do with the articulation of the massing, not the style. This architecture does a good job of
finding its place in the surrounding area.
> There are issues with privacy, challenges with tight boundaries. Relief around the edges will be
necessary, maybe some screening.
> Ground floor needs the most work. If it fit in well with the pedestrian scale, the upper floors could mesh
together better. Needs human scale at the ground level.
> Likes that the exterior elements have depth, will add to the feel of the street. Landscapi ng is
Page 8 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
inadequate, no buffering elements to make it inviting for people walking by. Normally would ask for
decreasing units or reworking the building, but would be at odds with the program of more units at an
affordable rate. Needs to come up with some ideas to approach in a non-traditional way. Park Road elevation
is too bland, no buffering elements to make people want to walk through the area.
> Building will be prominent because of its mass and size. Most photographed building in the City is the
train station, would like this building to be just as photographed as a representation of Burlingame. Needs to
step down the corners or massing to accommodate neighborhood fit.
> Likes the style and look of the building. Has a nice rhythym and vocabulary, but details need to work.
Other traditional styles would look heavy, and would need to go the distance with detail and refinement to be
successful.
> Can't see why the block of back of house functions at front can't be pushed back to the parking garage
demising wall, then continue the glazing along the front, with a mural or something along the back wall behind
the glazing.
The item will return as an action item upon completion of the environmental review.
b. 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N), zoned R-4: Application for Design Review and Lot
Merger for construction of a new five level parking garage (Chris Grant, The Pacific
Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Watry Design, Inc., designer)
(246 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
160 Lorton Ave (Parking Lot N) - Staff Report
160 Lorton Ave (Parking Lot N) - Attachments
160 Lorton Ave (Parking Lot N) - Plans - 02.26.18
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones and Camoroto had met with the
applicant.
Planning Manager Gardiner and Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Caleb Roope represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> How will it work with the back of the garage built up against the adjacent buildings on Howard Street? Will
they have access to the backs of their buildings? (Roope: Many of the buildings are already built to the lot
lines, and do not have windows or penetrations on those sides. The intention is that there will not be access
between or from those properties to the garage. Otherwise there would be issues with penetrations with the
Fire Code. The structure will be built from the inside out to the edge.)
> Should overlay the adjacent buildings onto the elevations.
> Would like to see a shadow study. (Roope: Yes, it can be done. It's already been done for the residential
structure.)
Public Comments:
Thomas Katy, 128 Lorton, directly adjacent to the structure: Three rentals in the front, cottage in the back.
Speaking as a property owner, is also a civil engineer and general contractor. Length of time for
Page 9 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
construction, noise, shadowing, being engulfed and closed off, mass and density directly adjacent. Was not
sure whether the property would be sold or leased to Pacific. Wants to know how long the construction will
last, and how much noise. With 388 spaces, wants to see how traffic flow will be going in and out. Will lose
view and sunlight. Wants to know what the building will look like, will it be an institutional design?
Marina Franco: Has property across from Lot N. Concern with enormous structures on small narrow block of
Lorton Avenue. Highland is abutted by industrial car shops, would expect that side to remain commercial and
not have housing on that side. Suggests putting more mass on the Highland side since commercial will be
less impacted than the residential on Lorton.
Nick Delis: Resident and landlord. Was involved in Burlingame Avenue streetscape project; same concerns at
that time with what was going to happen. Streetscape was the foundation for expanding onto Howard and the
whole downtown area. Both of these projects need to go through - through compromise, the community will
win. Already beautiful with the streetscape, and now bring in the parking lot, housing. It's a win-win, but all
have to compromise. Tenants are in support, parking is needed.
Tom Hatfield, 110 Park Road: Concern with the traffic flow with the narrow width of streets, and short blocks.
There is not a lot of room for cars to stack up on the streets. There will be a lot more cars. 110 Park is already
the largest multifamily building in the neighborhood, but the new building will have three times as many units.
Adding the parking garage with 388 spaces will add traffic. Not comparable to anything in Burlingame except
the apartments on Carolan Avenue, and California Drive.
Commission question to applicant: Can the parking structure be built first? (Roope: It's a challenge. Desire is
to build them at the same time. When the financing for the apartments is closed, it provides financing for the
parking garage. Although the City is providing land, Pacific is providing resources to the City so the parking
garage can be built. Could do the residential first, but not in reverse order. Garage will be built faster since it
is less a complex structure. There will be short-term pain from a parking perspective, but at the end there will
be 178 new parking spaces. Has concern with the residential building next door to the parking garage, pulled
the building back on those sides and pushed it up against the north property line, but knows they are
impacted. Trying to reduce the impacts from the construction and from the long-term.
David Mendell, 214-16 Lorton: Wants to find some creative ways to have the parking happen first. Perhaps
the City can provide a loan from its reserve. Imperative that the parking is done first - hard to retain business
when parking is difficult. Needs space for the trucks, find creative ways to make it work to reduce the
hardship on businesses.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Will the land be sold or leased? (Kane: Garage will remain City land and will be an asset owned and
controlled by the City. Terms for the housing on Lot F are still being worked out.)
> Should look at how it abuts the properties on Howard Avenue.
> Parking structure in downtown San Mateo has brought a lot of life to B Street.
> Traffic and parking with affordable and senior housing will not be the same as other developments.
> Does not think the parking structure facade is right yet. Comment letter mentioned metal fins, concern
they need to be maintained. They're just applied things.
> Suggests something lighter and simpler and airy, that doesn't try to be something more than it is. Doesn't
add a lot of bulk and mass. Landcaping relief to the building walls, and trees along the one side, could be a
nice paseo from Lorton to Highland.
> Downtown San Mateo garage has some retail space, creates some pedestrian liveliness. Maybe more on
the Lorton side, something for pedestrians.
> Should be a fusion of utilitarian and environmental themes. Maybe appropriately-sized trees on the
Page 10 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018
February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
upper level visible from the street and surrounding buildings.
> Looks plain, utilitarian.
> Would modifying the aisle widths allow it to be stepped back more, to provide plantings?
> Simplify, make it clean and airy.
> Would hope there will not need to have as many parking structures in the future.
> Soften the sides a bit.
> Perspective drawings showing the neighboring buildings, to show the scale.
> Wants relief on the sides facing the residences.
> Bar has been set too low. Doesn't hang together; building does not have a clear thought on how it should
address the street. There are good examples of new parking garages in Mission Bay, Palo Alto. A new one
being built in West Sacramento right now. Should provide samples of good-looking garages.
> Designed a garage at St. Lukes in San Francisco with a glass box with bike storage on the ground floor.
Bikes were on the ground level hanging in the glass box.
> Designer needs to take a stand on how the building fits urbanistically into the city.
The item will return as an action item upon completion of the environmental review.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no commissioner's reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a. 1354 Columbus Avenue - FYI for review of revisions requested by the Planning
Commission to a previously approved Design Review project.
1354 Columbus Ave - FYI
1354 Columbus Ave - plans - 02.26.18
Attachments:
Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:03 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 February 26, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 8, 2018, 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 $533, 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 11 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/13/2018