Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Landscape Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission continues landscape-variance request at Gilbreth Road after debate over unpermitted playground and parking

City of Burlingame Planning Commission · January 12, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission continued a landscape-variance and CUP amendment for 1722 Gilbreth Road after finding an unpermitted 8-foot playground fence and noting landscaping reductions; the applicant apologized and agreed to work with staff on tree plantings, irrigation and parking management.

The Planning Commission on Jan. 12 continued consideration of a landscape‑variance and conditional‑use amendment for 1722 Gilbreth Road after extended discussion about an as-built playground, parking constraints and reduced landscaping.

Staff told the commission the city discovered unpermitted exterior improvements earlier in 2025, including removal of landscape and installation of an 8‑ft chain‑link fence enclosing a playground. Staff noted the site was previously nonconforming for landscaping (about 1.2% where 15% is required) and that the new improvements further reduced landscaped area; parks staff will inspect proposed tree replacements in the public right of way.

Apology and explanation: Isam Hussein, representing the applicant (the YSEN Foundation), apologized to the commission and explained that the organization had been told a contractor had obtained permits and a certificate of compliance. "We hope the playground could remain as it will be beneficial to our children," he said, and offered to work with staff on requested conditions.

Commission reaction and direction: commissioners acknowledged the playground appeared well used but said the lack of permitting deprived the city and neighbors of an opportunity to provide early feedback. Concerns included: - potential parking shortfalls when pool‑service trucks and construction materials occupy spaces; - the chain‑link fence along the sidewalk and the need to soften it with plantings or screening; and - the long‑term loss of landscape area and how to restore plantings without displacing required parking.

Outcome: rather than approving the variance as presented, the commission voted to continue the item and directed staff and the applicant to explore mitigations, including tree wells in the rear parking area, constrained reductions to striped spaces, and irrigation and selection of plant species to provide an evergreen buffer. The applicant indicated willingness to work with staff and return with revised plans; the motion to continue passed by roll call.