Planning commission continues review of proposed five‑story mass‑timber office at 1430 Chapin after neighbors raise height and shadow concerns

The Burlingame Planning Commission on March 24 continued review of a proposal to demolish an existing building at 1430 Chapin Avenue and replace it with an 18,267‑square‑foot, five‑story mass‑timber office after commissioners and neighbors raised concerns about height, massing, shadows and the project’s effect on adjacent residences.

Develop Urban managing principal Neil Young told the commission the project is intended to “create a workspace that attracts the best employers and employees to the project site and ultimately to downtown,” highlighting a ground‑floor retail anchor and amenity spaces for tenants. The applicant’s presentation said the proposal includes two levels of below‑grade parking and a fully mass‑timber structural system intended to reduce embodied carbon while delivering generous floor‑to‑ceiling heights.

Staff noted the project as proposed would exceed current downtown limits and thus requests amendments to the downtown specific plan and commercial zoning for maximum heights in the Chapin Avenue commercial district. The presentation quantified the building as roughly five stories with a stated building height of about 74 feet 6 inches and two levels of below‑grade parking, and listed a proposed zoning change to allow 60 feet by right and 75 feet with a special permit for the district.

Neighbors and nearby condominium residents urged caution. Russ Miller, president of the Redwood Crest Homeowners Association, said the proposal is “totally inappropriate for Chapin” and argued a five‑story, 75‑foot building would be out of proportion with two‑story homes along parts of the block. Pam Waddington, a resident of nearby Redwood Crest, said a structure that tall and that close would “drastically reduce our privacy,” reduce sunlight and could harm property values. Jim Belex said he admired the architecture but remained concerned about shadowing and the effects on neighboring streets.

The project team said they proposed tiered setbacks, a green spine and landscape features intended to reduce apparent mass at the pedestrian level and mitigate impacts; architect Haley Coughlin described strategies to make the building “feel closer to a three‑story building” from the street through massing and setbacks. The applicant also explained that a 55‑foot limit would make meeting tenant clearance and retail clear heights difficult; they said 60 feet would allow four office floors with acceptable clearances, and 75 feet would permit a fifth pavilion level and larger retail clearances needed by an identified bank tenant.

Commissioners repeatedly praised the design ambition and the use of mass timber but asked for revisions and additional technical work. Several commissioners said the proposed expanses of floor‑to‑ceiling glass needed stronger architectural subdivision or shading to prevent excessive daytime heat gain, interior shades becoming visually dominant, and night‑time light spill to neighbors. Commissioners requested a more detailed shadow study, wider‑angle renderings or photo montages showing the building in context along Chapin, and exploration of variable massing/average‑height approaches to avoid creating an effective up‑zoning across the entire district without broader study.

After extended deliberation the commission voted unanimously (5‑0, with two commissioners absent) to continue the item to a future study hearing and asked the applicant to return with: a detailed shadow analysis and sun‑comparison graphics; additional color elevations and photo montages showing the building in the Chapin streetscape; refined massing that better respects adjacent residences (including consideration of variable massing or stepped setbacks); and clearer pedestrian‑level treatments and public‑benefit elements.

The commission’s action was procedural only; the continuation was scheduled so commissioners could consider the requested materials at a noticed public hearing. The item will be re‑noticed on a future agenda when materials are complete.

What’s next: the applicant will provide the requested shadow study, additional renderings and revised massing options. The commission will review the updated materials at a future noticed study hearing and may then decide whether to recommend zoning amendments to the City Council.