Burlingame OKs 128-unit housing plan

Commissioners lauded the conciliations offered by the developer amidst the extensive planning process while also noting the significant transformation the neighborhood will undergo through construction.

“I think the project will include a substantial change to the area and that neighborhood, but I think the additional housing units ought to be welcomed in our community and I think the project is approvable,” said Commissioner Richard Terrones, according to video of the Monday, Aug. 13, meeting.

Commissioner Chair Michael Gaul too said he appreciated the project’s potential capacity to absorb some of the demand to live in Burlingame generated by the city’s recent job growth, and noted 13 units will be set aside at an affordable rate.

“It is in an area that is ripe for development like this because we do have downtown office space coming in and those people are going to need a place to live,” he said.

The commission’s decision makes the Bayswater site the second largest approved residential development in Burlingame over recent years, behind only the SummerHill project on Carolan Avenue where 288 units are being built. The Village at Burlingame project on a downtown parking lot where 132 units have been offered is the only other solely residential development proposal of a comparable size.

Not everyone was so enthusiastic about the vision though, as two residents feared the potential threat to their quality of life posed by the development.

Mary Tsao, who lives nearby on Bayswater Avenue, criticized the density of the development and raised concerns that the influx of new residents would further congest nearby street parking.

Nearby resident Kent Lauder shared similar concerns, and suggested the traffic congestion in the area could grow worse by raising questions over whether new residents would use the train for transportation.

“Residents along the rail corridor will own and use cars as much as everyone else,” he said, while also suggesting the project would significantly increase enrollment at nearby Washington Elementary School.

Not all residents who spoke were critical of the project, as neighbor Jennifer Pfaff said she admired the extensive outreach effort committed by the developer, who showed a willingness to amend the project according to residential concerns.

“I really do appreciate all they have done,” said Pfaff.

Most notable among the design amendments was an overhaul of the architecture, from a modern approach to a craftsman-style look which developer Mark Pilarczyk said was borne from community feedback. Input also encouraged the developer to reduce the amount of units from an initial proposal of 140 and increased the amount of parking spaces to 183, which will be held in a two-story underground parking garage.

Most officials praised the developer’s willingness to revise the design, while Commissioner Will Loftis held a different perspective.

“What we are faced with is a very large project that is going to look cheap,” he said.

Loftis suggested the craftsman approach missed its mark, and instead the project appears more like a failed approach to capture nostalgia.

“We are going to look back on this and the world will have changed this is looking the opposite direction,” said Loftis, who ultimately voted in favor of the project because it met the criteria for approval, despite his design concerns.

Other commissioners were also critical of the project elements, most specifically the window designs which they asked to be revised before construction documents are issued.

But generally, most were laudatory and shared their appreciation for a project which the believe was improved significantly from its initial proposal.

“I can approve this project. I very much like how the project has moved along,” said Commissioner Audrey Tse.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105