HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.06.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 12, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent6 -
SargentAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.945 and 1001 California Drive, zoned C -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit and
Parking Variance to combine a proposed daycare use on one lot with an existing
daycare on a separate lot (Alan Coon, architect; Palcare, applicant; California Drive
LLC, property owner) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
945, 1001 California Dr - Staff Report
945, 1001 California Dr - Attachments 1
945, 1001 California Dr - Attachments 2
945, 1001 California Dr - Attachments 3
945, 1001 California Dr - Plans - 06.12.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbor located behind 945
California Drive.
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.
Paul Proett, PalCare, represented the applicant, with Alan Coon, architect.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Concern with amount of life on the street, with the change from commercial use to infant care. Any
other activity other than drop offs? (Proett: Staff parking or taking public transportation. Staff is
encouraged to park in the far lot or receive Caltrain passes. Most of the foot traffic and movement
throughout the day is parents dropping off. The hours are variable so drop -offs are staggered - not all
arriving at the same time.)
>Is there any data on how many clients are Burlingame versus coming from outside? (Proett: Will
need to check. There are a lot living and working in Burlingame .)(Coon: 30-40% of the users of the
daycare have infants as well, so only one drop-off each time.)
>Will the glazing be obscured, or any changes to exterior? (Coon: No changes to the outside.)
>Any history of complaints from neighbors regarding parking? (Proett: When the center opened 20
years ago sent letters to the neighbors and invited them to visit or contact, but none did. Have not
received complaints since.)
>Will the new staff be specific to the infant care, or does the staff go back and forth? (Proett: No, staff
are assigned to a particular group of kids. The additional staff would be in the new building.)
>Have other sites been considered? (Proett: No. This site came up serendipitously because of its
location. Was not on a site exploration.)
>Would it be feasible to have the infant facility in another location? (Proett: There are a number of
families with children in both programs. One location is attractive for these families; two drop -offs would
take more time.)
>How many of the parking spaces would be taken in the middle of the day? (Proett: 4-5 in the front
lot, since parents are not typically dropping off or picking up in the middle of the day. The side lot would
probably be full.)
>Is the side lot full all the time? (20-30 staff on site at any one time. At the middle of the day the side
lot would be full with staff since that is peak period. The front lot would have spaces since drop -offs
have finished for the day.)
>Experience is that parents like to park and walk their kids in. (Proett: The front lot for drop off
parking, with signs posted with a 20-minute limit. The front lot is kept open for drop-offs.)
>Concern with people walking across California Drive? (Proett: Staff parks across the street, but have
not seen parents park across the street. At peak times parents will line up to get a space at the front.)
>The application indicates there are not plans to install a sprinkler and alarm system, but the Fire
Division comments indicate a sprinkler and alarm system will be required to be installed. (Proett: Has to
be worked out through the building permit process. Had initially understood it would not be necessary.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Would like to know how much traffic is local, but given that parents typically drop off might not make
much difference unless living within walking distance.
>With operative ties to SFO and Mills Peninisula, indicates there will be traffic incoming to the site so
would be interested in the statistics.
>There have been discussions of a "road diet" for California Drive to make it more pedestrian -friendly,
however currently it is a heavily trafficked main thoroughfare.
>This use would not add any pedestrian life to California Drive. It is inward-looking.
>There is a need for toddler /infant care in the community, but not sure this is a good use for the
corner if California Drive is going to evolve into something more pedestrian-oriented.
>Variance application mentions the burden that the parking requirement creates a hardship since no
parking exists on the site, but that language indicates a presumed right to develop the property and
intensify the property as proposed. (Kane: By definition a Conditional Use Permit is not had by right. The
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
applicant may wish to revisit the justification section of the application and look again at the criteria for
the variance.)
>Sees increased need for parking. Concern with infant care, since the youngest ones has lots of stuff
- bags and personal things that an older child would not have. Another site in the vicinity with parking
could work better.
>Will the green zone spaces further help with the drop -offs? (Gardiner: On-street parking and green
zones is meant for that type of activity. The green zones are for short-term parking and drop-offs.)
>Concern with parking in the Caltrain lot since the crossing is far away, at Carmelita Avenue .
Concern with people crossing elsewhere where it is not as safe.
>Can Caltrain lot be used if not using Caltrain? Can the use be mandated? Have approved uses that
have leased spaces from private lots, but not sure about a public facility. Needs to be answered.
>Concern if lots are full, employees will park in the neighborhood.
As a Study Item, there is no action from the Planning Commission. The application will return as an
Action Item at a later date.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1308 Castillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for One-Year Extension of a previosly
approved application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling with
a detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a).
(Chu Design Associates, James Chu, applicant and designer; Brian Roche, property
owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1308 Castillo Ave Staff Report
1308 Castillo Ave - Plans - 05.09.16
Attachments:
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
b.12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for One-Year Extension of a previously
approved application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and
Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new,
two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage. This project is Categorically
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc, applicant and
architect; Jiangnang Zhang, property owner) (33 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
12 Vista Ln - Staff Report
12 Vista Ln - Attachments
12 Vista Ln - Plans
Attachments:
Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the Consent Item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Kelly, and Comaroto4 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Recused:Terrones, and Gaul2 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1624 Skyline Boulevard, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1) .(Geurse
Conceptual Designs, Inc., Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Dan Weinseimer,
property owner) (26 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
1624 Skyline Blvd - Staff Report
1624 Skyline Blvd - Attachments
1624 Skyline Dr - Plans - 06.12.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Kelley was not at the study meeting but watched
the video. Commissioner Gum visited the neighbors below the project location at 1611 and 1619
Escalante Way. Commissioner Terrones visited the property and was given access to rear yard by the
nanny of the children.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Concern with size of the deck, especially with the fireplace. Lends itself to gatherings. There is a
family room and living room downstairs, so why a rumpus room upstairs? (Geurse: Wanted two separate
spaces, one for adult usage downstairs and the upper for the kids.)
>The railing would not be to code as shown on plans, since it is just a couple of cross braces .
(Geurse: Will have wood railing with wire mesh.)
>Does the 238 square feet include the area of the planter? (Geurse: Yes, includes the planter.)
>Any idea how quickly privet grows? (Geurse: Quickly.)
>If the house is sold in the future not sure how the upstairs room could be used. Could become a
party room and party deck. With the fireplace it does not look like a kid space, looks like an adult space .
(Geurse: It is a use of the space the owners would enjoy. The deck has been reduced, set back, and
screened with the hedges.)
>Hedge is on two sides? (Geurse: Correct. The third side opens to the yard.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes how the project has been revised.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Even though lot is large, the back yard feels small because of the large footprint of the first floor of
the house. Trying to supplement back yard by additional space of the deck.
>The deck will be shrouded by roof on the rear, and tucked behind a planter. The open side looks into
its own yard.
>Had been asked to reduce the size of deck by half - it's been reduced by more than that.
>Downhill side is heavily wooded - hard to see houses through the trees.
>Lots of houses in the hillside area have large decks.
>The properties downhill are really deep, so there will be some distance and separation.
>Design of the house is handsome. Has addressed the chimney details and the other issues that had
been asked for.
>Appreciates the reduced size of the deck and the planters. Not going to have too many people on a
250 square foot deck.
>Had been concerned with the noise to the side, not the rear, but the houses are at least 20-25 feet
apart. Likes the screening on the neighbor's side.
>No hillside view blockage to be concerned with.
Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
b.1212 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and demolition of an existing
detached garage and construction of a new detached one car garage and carport .
The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 Class 1, (e). (InSite Design -
Audrey Tse, applicant and project architect; Greg and Roseate Wagner, property
owners) (51 noticed) Staff Contract: Catherine Keylon
1212 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report
1212 Vancouver Ave - Attachments
1212 Vancouver - Rendering - 06.12.17
1212 Vancouver - Plans - 06.12.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Lauren Lee, InSite Design, represented the applicant, with property owners Greg and Roseate Wagner.
Commission Questions/Comments:
There were no Commission Questions/Comments.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Very nice project, quite a transformation. The front facade is remarkably improved. The stair bay on
the side has given the facade an organizational focus, and the window is well-suited to the project.
>Had previously had concerns with the symmetry, but the features are unique enough that the
symmetry is no longer a problem.
>The second floor has a good scale in terms of the front face.
>The rendering helps.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Loftis, to approve the Action Item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1332 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to and existing two -story dwelling. (Geurse Conceptual Design,
Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Brian Kearney, property owner) (57 noticed)
Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1332 Balboa Ave - Staff report and attachments
1332 Balboa - Plans - 06.12.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, represented the applicant with property owner Brian
Kearney.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Some of the first floor windows on the left -side elevation are missing from the plans. Also the
window on Bathroom #2 is smaller than the other three windows.
>Are all the windows being replaced throughout the house? (Kearney: All except for the front picture
window.)
>What is the purpose of the material change? (Geurse: Property owner wants a contemporary look
for the residence, with a mixture between the two .)(Kearney: Likes the warmth of the wood. It would be
in the back yard, surrounded by the deck area. Clean lines and a railing with no sight lines.)
>Would the siding be painted or stained? (Kearney: Not yet determined, but thinking a solid body
stain rather than a paint.)
>Maybe find a way to mix some stucco and some siding so it blends better and does not look so
much like an addition. Maybe some of the siding on the existing house, and some stucco on the addition.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Looks more like two buildings rather than an addition - like a duplex.
>Good job creating a contemporary massing. Just doesn't fit very well with the existing house.
>Needs to knit the two together better.
>The main issue is the left side. Consider a way to integrate another piece or something to help tie it
together.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
b.134 Channing Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a major remodel
and a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached
garage (Jerry Deal, JD Associates, applicant and designer; Sinhad and Asmir Bejic,
property owners) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
134 Channing Rd - Staff Report
134 Channing Rd - Attachments
134 Channing Rd - Plans - 06.12.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor at 132 Channing
Road.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Are all of the windows being replaced? (Deal: All except on right hand side where two windows are
being eliminated. There is one existing window to be replaced but may need to be removed depending
on Building Division direction.)
>When the fence is rebuilt will it be built on property line? (Deal: Yes.)
>The massing is handled nicely. It is fairly typical with a second floor.
>Can the front porch have a treatment to give it more detail? There is a lot of stucco. Column
cladding, or bases on the column. (Deal: Could do that.)
>Windows are plain. Could some simple muntins be added? (Deal: Yes.)
>On the side, can the chimney be brought out a bit so it can be expressed past the eave? (Deal: Yes.
It can be brought out to create a shadow line along the side.)
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Some additional detail would help the design.
>The massing is good, the shape is right, just needs a bit more gingerbread.
>The existing house has a cute round window in the front porch. (Deal: Could retain that, and can
also add a round gable vent to the upper floor.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>The foundation should be scrutinized, given how close it is to the property line. If the wall has to be
removed it would impact the setbacks.
>The property is not being well maintained currently.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
c.1548 Balboa Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story to an existing single family dwelling (Xie Guan, architect; Edward Y. Li and Zhi
Hui Liu, property owners) (42 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
1548 Balboa Way - Staff report and attachments
1548 Balboa - Plans - 06.12.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum met the applicant, and the neighbors at 1552
Balboa Way.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Xie Guan represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Will existing planter underneath the big front window remain? (Guan: Yes.) The planter is not shown
on the landscape plan; it helps the front elevation if the plants are replaced, softens the facade.
>The front stoop is not shown correctly on the landscape plan; it is tucked back and steps out where
the planter is.
>The front porch needs some attention and detail.
>Why is the plate height on the second floor 9 feet? (Guan: Client wants high ceilings.)
>Will the ceilings on the second floor be vaulted or flat? (Guan: Flat, but could consider vaulted as an
option.)
>9-foot plate height makes the second floor look tall. The second floor windows are oversized, and
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
they come down too close to the edge of the roof.
>The detail and charm of the wood siding and shutters is being removed. Needs more charm and
detail.
>Columns seem smashed into the facade of the house. Should stand out differently and would have
expected them to be wood.
>Massing is OK if the height is brought down.
>Deck and rail need to be shown on first floor plan.
>Gutters and downspouts are the only things breaking up the side elevations. There is a lot of stucco.
>Should have a complete roof plan.
>Should further emphasize porch and make it more siginificant /larger, more common with the rest of
block.
>What are the existing windows made of, and will the new windows match existing? (Guan: Existing
windows are mixed, aluminum and wood. Is flexible, can use wood or aluminum clad wood.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Address the front porch. They are taking an existing front porch and making it smaller, and taking
away from the charm. Give it more detail. With the porch floor area exemption could consider extending
the porch, possibly across the front of the house.
>Address the second floor plate height and large windows.
>Add charm and detail. The only set of shutters is being removed, but shutters can help with charm
and detail.
>Revisit the guard rail around the large deck on the first floor. Feels like an apartment building. If the
deck is close enough to grade, does not need a guard rail; can just have landscaping around it and flow
into the back yard.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Sargent1 -
d.619-625 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) -
Environmental Scoping for Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for
building height, and Condominium Permit for construction of a new, four -story, 26-Unit
live/work development (Ellis A. Schoichet, AIA, applicant and architect; Ed 1005 BM
LLC, property owner) (101 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
619-615 California Dr - Staff Report
619-625 California Dr - Attachments
619-625 California Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>Was this application seen by the Planning Commission prior to the addition of the corner lot?
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
(Gardiner: Initially the applicant had met with some commissioners individually, and at that time the
project did not include the corner lot.)
>Would the ground floor spaces be able to be used as office space as opposed to retail space?
(Gardiner: Live/Work spans across uses, so the space could be used for office or retail. The definition is
not prescriptive; it allows either but does not say whether one should be used rather than the other. The
intent is to provide flexibility for different uses.)
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
Ellis Schoichet represented the applicant, with property owner Ed Duffy.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Why is the third floor the tallest floor? (Schoichet: It is not supposed to be different. The first floor is
taller because of the parking and storefronts, and the second and third floors are supposed to be the
same. The fourth floor has the plate height set at the back, then slopes up to a larger expanse. However
the fourth floor is surrounded with flat roof, and is sloped for drainage, the the floor thickness between
third and fourth floors is thicker.)
>Would prefer greater ceiling height on the first floor. Is 10'-7" for the first floor ceiling acceptable for a
commercial space? (Schoichet: Would have preferred to have these as lofts with 20-foot ceilings, but
factored the number of stories and the height. Wanted to keep to as close to 35 feet around the
perimeter as possible before going up to the fourth floor. The parapet at the streetfront permits is 37
feet.) Would encourage revisiting the first floor to get it taller, since already applying for CUP for height .
Wants the ground floor spaces to be as usable and generous as possible.
>Do the work spaces on California Drive have direct access into the living spaces above? (Schoichet:
Yes, they are two-story units with internal stairs between the floors and a door between the two levels .)
Can the living spaces be accessed other than going through the business? (Schoichet: Yes, they have
an entrance through the residential portion of the building, like the rest of the units.)
>Stipulations if a business doesn't work out, what would go in the work space? (Schoichet: CC&Rs
and planning conditions should treat what the allowable uses are for the spaces. However can't force
people to have businesses in the spaces - conceivably they could live in the space for a period of time
as well.)
>Concern with the large windows, if someone moves in and lives or uses the space for storage there
is no control in how it looks. (Duffy: The intent is for the work spaces is to enliven the street, rather than
having a broad wall. However can't control what happens. Uses will be deed restricted.)
>Are the agreements to occupy the spaces attached? I .e.., different parties occupying each level of
the unit. (Duffy: Could be deed-restricted to prevent that from happening .)(Kane: Opposite may also be
desirable - if a space is not being occupied, may want to allow a commercial lease for the ground floor to
keep it active.)
>Doesn't Downtown have restrictions on what uses can be accommodated on the ground floor?
(Gardiner: In the commercial districts yes, but live /work is its own land use. It is more flexible because
this is not a primary pedestrian area. There could be office on the ground floor, or residential. Would
need to anticipate that some of the units will be used as living space, since that is part of the live /work
model.)(Kane: There is an economic interest on the part of the project for these spaces to not appear
dead.)(Duffy: The units are typically rented by tech -related occupants. Doesn't anticipate welding,
jewelry making or similar operations. Expects tech entrepreneurs.)
>Wants to see how this can enliven the street. Doesn't want to have someone sitting on the ground
floor working at their desk. Would be OK on the second floor. Also needs to have parking for clients and
customers.
>Is across from the high school, could have retail on ground floor. Professionals can be on the upper
floors, which do not need street frontage. It's a good idea but does not want it to fail.
>Should have a traffic study, since it is a busy intersection.
>Has there been a market study? (Duffy: Has done projects like this in San Francisco. This is what
the young tech kids want. This is on a transit corridor, and a lot of these kids do not have cars .)
(Schoichet: Retail space would need parking. An earlier version of the project had retail on the ground
floor with parking provided. Desire is to have uses on the ground floor other than parking.)
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Tech companies have a need for collaboration, and while some will come on transit others will drive .
Need to figure out where they will park.
>With the big large windows on first floor, if it is an office it might be disorganized and not look good
from the street. (Duffy: Provides window coverings on every building they build.)
>What geography is the demographic drawn from? (Duffy: Projects built in San Francisco.)
>Where did the 1 parking space per unit number come from? (Schoichet: The Downtown Specific
Plan.) Where do the guests, vendors, employees, customers park? (Duffy: Last two buildings completed
in San Francisco did not provide any parking, and have had no issues. A lot of people take public
transportation.)
>How does this fit into the neighborhood architecturally? (Schoichet: This is leading into a different
direction on this strip. This originates with the Downtown Specific Plan, and the heights and densities
that may come to this street over time. Vision of the plan is to move California Drive to something a little
bit more dense and urban. The commercial guidelines have stipulations for gateway sites, allowing for a
bit more height and architectural focus.)
>Expected live/work to be something similar to what is shown on the lower floors, with high ceilings
and open space like the lofts South of Market. The units above seem more like apartments. (Duffy:
Live/Work from years before was trying to copy industrial buildings - had gigantic spaces but bad
efficiencies. These units are more like New York -style lofts, more efficient without the wasted space of
the 20-foot ceilings. The days of the 18- 20-foot loft is not coming back.)
>Had there been consideration of underground parking, and where the water table is located?
(Schoichet: Have had a geotechnical report and have studied the flood maps for the area. The site is not
within a flood zone but is adjacent to flood zones on both sides. The geotechnical report suggested the
water table could be as high as 6 or 7 feet based on experience with the area.)
>Has there been consideration of podium parking? (Schoichet: If did a podium would lose the glass
fronts because there would be a step up. Given the location on the corner and that it gets wet,
above-grade drainage makes most sense .)(Schoichet: There is a stipulation that permanent dewatering
is not allowed. Intent has been to enliven the streetfront, so design brief has been to get parking off the
street, make it look like it does not have parking there.)
>The floors are all equal stacks, like a pancake. Ordinarily there would be a ground floor of about 16
-feet, then 13'-6 to 13'-9" for each floor above for office, or lower if residential. An option would be to
have a higher first floor of 14- to 16-feet, and also consider parking stackers with the higher ceiling. If the
intended users are graphic artists, architects and designers, a 10-foot ceiling would be an extravagance .
Working through the vertical section would improve the facade; currently it appears blocky. OK with the
modern design, but it could be made more elegant. While there is glazing on California, the rest of the
project is mostly blank wall on the other three sides. (Duffy: Does not typically build 16-foot ceilings.
Typically builds 13-feet floor-to-floor, 12-foot clear. Typically not dropping ceilings. Since there are small
units on the ground it would not look right to have high ceilings.)
>Would mixed use with commercial below and live /work above be allowed? (Gardiner: Commercial is
allowed, but parking would need to be provided.)
Public Comments:
Cynthia Cornell, Homes for All Burlingame - Curious if a decision has been made if these will be condos
or rentals? Renters would be subject to evictions and rent increases after their first lease. Marie Hatch
lived at 619 California Drive and was served with eviction and died, roommate Georgia has since moved
to assisted living. 1128-32 Douglas Avenue was approved with developer offering two units at 110% of
Area Median Income. Would like similar consideration with this project, with units for extremely -low
income seniors. For a single senior would be income of $27,000/year, $31,000/year for a couple. Would
show goodwill to the City and seniors.
Diane Shonwald - Lives in 1209 Oak Grove condominiums behind. Has met with architect and owners .
Main concern is the loss of views for the the units facing California Drive. At present look out at trees,
but four of five windows will be blocked. Main concern is traffic and congestion, with schools on both
ends of Oak Grove Avenue. Frequently the road is backed up. Has discussed possibility of moving
driveway onto California Drive? Building will blocking out light, and is boxy. Was originally going to be
three floors, now it's four floors. The ground water creates a huge puddle at the corner when it rains.
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Alex Tobin, 609 California Drive - Concern with traffic impact. Also wants info on the emergency exit in
back of the building, will open to nothing. There is a bus stop on the corner at 625 California Drive, plus
Uber drivers pulling over, so there is no parking. Live/work will generate visitor traffic. There will be
backups on Oak Grove, there already are. Traffic study would be appropriate. Wants to know how
construction will effect business and customers coming in and out of the garage.
Carrie Bonner, 1222 Oak Grove Avenue - Concern with parking, already very bad. Difficult to find
parking on the street at night. Assumes there would be two professionals living in each unit, and each
would have a car. Even if they take transit they may drive to the train, such as driving to Millbrae to take
BART. Should have two parking spaces per unit so they are not parking on the street. Concern with
people driving fast down Oak Grove.
(Unidentified Speaker) - Friend of Marie Hatch. Concern with kids walking from the high school, it is
already dangerous with the train. People are driving too fast.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the creative thinking, and bringing in different ideas for housing, but thinks the building is too
big. Concerned with the uses on the first floor.
>Needs a traffic study. Concern with the garage being on Oak Grove, but not sure if California Drive
would be any better. Traffic study could help determine this.
>Would like more landscaping, and for planters to be more flush to the ground so people could be out
front.
>Would like consideration of a different aesthetic. Likes contemporary design but with classic
influences. Examples of a house on Paloma in Burlingame, and the garden center on Chapin.
>Bringing energy to the street with office or work space on California Drive is a great idea. Currently
the surroundings area 1- and 2-story shops and utilitarian spaces on California Drive, but could be
enhanced.
>It is a gateway corner - would be great to see something with some presence to it, enliven the street
and provide a bit of intensification.
>1 bedroom/studio sizes would be a great addition to the community.
>Architecture needs a bit of work. OK with contemporary style. Neighborhood does not have a lot of
existing style cues. This is an opportunity to create some energy and pedestrian activity, particularly with
the existing pedestrian activity from the high school.
>Live/Work is already allowed in the location, has a bit of a mixed use feel. Provides additional
residential units and enlivens the street. Could imagine living units above stores elsewhere along
California Drive.
>Would like to see some work put into the CC&Rs to see how to control /encourage the energy being
proposed and ensure it is going to work. There are five work spaces, not huge but large enough for
things to be able to happen, 400-500 square feet. Can have some great spaces that don't necessarily
have a huge impact but create some energy and life along the street.
>Does not like the contemporary architecture, not pleasing to look at especially if views are going
away. Would at least like the building to be more aesthetically pleasing to look at.
>Needs to consider impacts on existing businesses.
>Wants to figure out how to generate foot traffic along California Drive. If the spaces on the ground
floor are developed properly it could work, much as the block to the north has a lot of retail spaces.
>Should have a parking and traffic study. Concern with buildings in area being underparked and not
compliant with city parking requirements. Traffic with visitors and deliveries.
>Likes live/work concept but expects occupants will have cars and there needs to be adequate
parking.
>Not sure the project is appropriate in this location. It is a choke spot, not a gateway spot. Traffic from
McKinley and the high school is heavy in the morning and at 2:00 when school lets out. Elsewhere on
California Drive could be suitable, but not on this corner.
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017
June 12, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Design guidelines emphasize compatibility with surroundings, but does not believe the design as
presented fits into a neighborhood where all the other buildings are 1 and 2 story.
>California Drive is characterized by trees, with the large trees on the east mirrored with smaller trees
on the west to create a sense of trees. This building will disrupt that visual aesthetic.
>Supportive of live/work, but concerned it will look out of place in this location.
As a Design Review Study/Environmental Scoping item, there is no action from the Planning
Commission. The application will return as an Action Item with the environmental review at a later date.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
No commissioner's reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
June 5, 2017 City Council meeting:
>Study session to review Lot F & N housing /parking structure project. Council provided direction to
move forward with the applications. The Planning Commission will evaluate the designs through a
regular application process.
>1128-32 Douglas Avenue application was approved by a 3-2 vote.
>Mechanical equipment ordinance was introduced and will be re -introduced with minor edits to
address landscape screening and definition of mechanical equipment.
>Commercial linkage fees will be re-introduced with revisions to proposed fees.
a.988 Howard Avenue- FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved application
for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for
building height, and Rear Setback Variance for a new 3-story commercial building.
988 Howard - FYI
988 Howard Ave - plans - 06.12.17
Attachments:
Called up for further discussion because of the requested change to the varied size of the upstairs deck.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:54 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 June 12, 2017. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 22, 2017, 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 13City of Burlingame Printed on 7/12/2017