Burlingame Planning Commission advances three housing projects; neighbors raise construction concerns

At its June meeting the Burlingame Planning Commission voted to advance three residential projects—1633 Westmore Road, 340 Dwight Road and 1115 Paloma—after staff presentations, applicant responses and public comment. Each action was recorded by roll call as passing 5–0 with the items proceeding either to action or consent as noted.

1633 Westmore Road (study item) — Staff described a first‑floor addition and a new second story that would yield about 2,705 sq ft of floor area (the 2,780 sq ft maximum remains). The applicant asked for special permits for an uncovered rear balcony and for plate‑height exceptions. Commissioners raised design concerns about two shallow flat roofs, inconsistent window trim and a second floor set back well to the rear. The project’s architect said the second story was pulled back to preserve the front roofline and reduce bulk and offered to reduce plate heights by about 6 inches, add left‑side windows and unify window trim. Commissioner Lowenthal moved to bring the project back for action with conditions to align plate heights with code where feasible, add window detailing, study moving the second floor forward and examine roof waterproofing; the motion passed 5–0.

340 Dwight Road (action on consent) — Staff described a demolition and full rebuild with a proposed two‑story home of about 2,726 sq ft and a requested 10‑ft plate height at an attached garage where the 9‑ft limit applies. Designer Maria Bridal said she lowered plate heights to 9 ft on the first floor and 8 ft on the second after planner comment and confirmed the double‑height living area was counted twice in FAR. Neighbors Richard and Mike Gillily testified they worried that micropiles and close construction could crack their nearby 60‑year‑old building and disturb tenants who work from home. Architect Simon Cohen told the commission that the structural design is schematic, that the anticipated approach is drilled piers (not driven piles), and that final locations and depths will be set by engineers. Commissioners said many construction‑method issues are handled by the Building Department (geotechnical reports, shoring plans and insurance) and voted 5–0 to place the project on consent with staff recommendations.

1115 Paloma (consent) — Staff described a three‑story, three‑unit condominium building designed to fit existing density allowances; the architect noted the driveway was sited to protect a large tree with surface roots. Richard and Mike Gillily again raised concerns about construction methods, potential damage and insurance. Commissioners indicated that many of those concerns are addressed during building‑department permitting, not the planning entitlement, and voted 5–0 to place the item on consent with minor façade suggestions.

Each action included conditions or staff directions to return with clarified details (plate heights, window details, roof waterproofing, pier/special‑permit specifics). No appeals were noted at the time of the meeting.

What neighbors said — Richard Gillily (public commenter) told the commission he and his brother have owned an adjacent building for decades and said: "They're gonna put piles, micropiles next to my building about 15 feet ... I don't know how they're gonna put it in. They're gonna hammer them in or drill ... the noise will drive them crazy." Architect Simon Cohen responded that pier drilling—not pile driving—was anticipated and final design would be set by an engineer.

Next steps — Projects moved to action or consent with staff conditions; formal design or construction details (geotechnical reports, shoring plans and insurance requirements) were identified as matters for subsequent building permits and inspections rather than the current entitlement.