Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.05.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 13, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and LoftisPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis7 - a.Draft April 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft April 8, 2019 Planning Commission MinutesAttachments: b.Draft April 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft April 22, 2019 Planning Commission MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Terrones was recused from Item 7a - 2208 Summit Drive, as he has a business relationship with the Burlingame School District which owns the adjacent property, and from Item 7c - 1244 Laguna Avenue, as he owns a business within 500 feet of the subject property. a.2208 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved permit for a Hillside Area Construction Permit and Design Review for a new, Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes two-story single family dwelling and Special Permits for height, an attached garage, and basement. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a).(Warren Donald, property owner and applicant; Kevin O'Brien, architect) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2208 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2208 Summit Dr - Attachments 2208 Summit Dr - Plans Attachments: b.860 Walnut Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits for window location and rear yard coverage for a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an accessory dwelling unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Daniel and Jonna Dollosso, property owners ) (152 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 860 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 860 Walnut Ave - Attachments 860 Walnut Ave - Plans Attachments: c.1244 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling (existing detached garage to remain). The project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; James and Lisa Hong, property owners ) (144 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1244 Laguna Ave - Staff Report 1244 Laguna Ave - Attachments 1244 Laguna Ave - Plans Attachments: d.2305 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Elizabeth Watson and Alex Para, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2305 Poppy Dr - Staff Report 2305 Poppy Dr - Attachments 2305 Poppy Dr - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve Items 7a and 7c on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis Recused: 1 - Terrones Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve Items 7b and 7d on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 - Recused:Terrones1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.475 1/2 Rollins Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a). (Brad Gunkel, Gunkel Architecture, Architect; Amy Chung and Francis Kim, property owners) (98 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Attachments 475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the neighbor at 475 Rollins Road. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Brad Gunkel, represented the applicant. Public Comments: David Zigal, manager of property at 477 Rollins Road: Have had no discussions with the developer regarding the property at rear. Don't know how an easement can be created that only exists on 473 Rollins Road, when driveway serves both 473 and 477 Rollins Road. Will need to work with the architect and property owner to clarify easement. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Like changes made to project in terms of material. Feels warmer and more residential than it did before. >Don't quite fully understand the front entry atrium area with sloped roof, but get that architect was trying to decrease its' large profile and bring down height and massing. >Given the complications of the lot configuration, am in support of front setback variance; solution for determining setbacks on this irregular shaped lot helps mitigate the issue because it gives them yard space and space for extensive landscaping. >Architecture is contemporary in a neighborhood that doesn't have a lot of that, but there are a number of apartment buildings and other types of eclectic styles. >Revised design is less bulky, especially at front of house. >Like softness of wood paneling. >Helps to have renderings with the Cypress trees and trees to be planted. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Easement is for access and can be used for staging and parking during construction, but residents of buildings on either side rely on this area to get in and out of their living spaces; encourage applicant to speak with tenants in all buildings prior to construction. >The design has improved and like material palette better, but still doesn't feel like it reaches the bar in terms of residential massing we see in this neighborhood. Architecture should stand on its own and not rely on landscape screening so that it is hidden from everything around it. >In support of front setback variance based on uniqueness of lot. >Modern style is good solution for an odd -shaped lot, but doesn't meet the threshold in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood. >Addition of natural wood material helps a lot. >Doesn't hang together very well, but it may be due to the shape of the building. Worry about some of the detailing, not sure how some of it works. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis5 - Nay:Sargent, and Kelly2 - b.251 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review Amendment to a previously approved project for facade changes to a storefront and Conditional Use Permit for a new food establishment. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Fated Brands, LLC, applicant; TRG Architects, architect; Anne -Marie Mausser White, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 251 California Dr - Staff Report 251 California Dr - Attachments 251 California Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak and Randy Grange, architect, represented the applicant. Public Comments: Ron Karp, owner of building at 1100 Howard Avenue: In support of application; love hearing about the applicant's vision for Hatch Lane; there have been some good projects built and improvements made to the buildings that have improved Hatch Lane. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Consider reducing width of window to right of larger bay to match the width of the three -paneled window Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes in the larger bay; looks like it's out of rhythm. >Like revisions proposed, they are relatively minor. >Solution is appropriate. >New added pier should be pushed back from facade to let the original architecture of the building read through. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following condition: >That the project shall return to the Planning Commission for review of an FYI prior to building permit issuance for revisions to address the treatment of the right side of the front facade. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1316 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; 1316 Capuchino Avenue, LLC, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1316 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1316 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1316 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he has a financial interest in the subject property. Commissioner Comaroto was recused because she owns a property within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he had a discussion with the neighbors at 1312 and 1315 Capuchino Avenue, as well as with the previous owner of the subject property. Commission Tse noted that she also had a discussion with the previous owner and with the neighbor to the right of the subject property. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. James Chu, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Proposed style of house seems out of place for neighborhood of bungalow and craftsman style homes. Struggling with this house fitting in with the houses on this block. >Site plan shows new fence along right side property line. Encourage the builder and property owner to Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes coordinate with neighbor to work out details of fence, whether fence will turn into front corner of garage or continue past garage to rear property line. >Reduce size of clay tube gable vents from six to three or four inches in diameter. >Neighborhood is eclectic, design could fit in nicely and be a nice change for neighborhood. Project is nicely scaled, details are important. >Second floor balcony is off a master bedroom and is less than 100 square feet, therefore see no issue. >Project is so well articulated that the scale is brought way down and fit in with neighborhood. >Appreciate consideration of the neighbor to the right regarding alignment of windows as they relate to maintaining privacy. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis4 - Nay:Gaul1 - Recused:Sargent, and Comaroto2 - b.853 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Van Voorhis Architecture Inc, Andrea Van Voorhis, applicant and architect; William and Tara Cilmartin, property owners) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 853 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 853 Paloma Ave - Attachments 853 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Andrea Van Voorhis, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Lot is narrow, so the house appears tall and skinny; consider lowering the ridge. Concerned with height of the structure. Applicant noted that house is in a flood plain, finished floor is one foot above the minimum required, so starting higher because of the floor plain. Finished first floor elevation could come down six inches, would need to discuss with homeowner. >Concerned with blank wall on north elevation, almost void of windows altogether except for two awning windows. Consider adding more windows or other articulation along north elevation. This side of the house is very sheer and so unlike the rest of the house, turns its back on the neighborhood. The north elevation needs work. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Reconsider floor plan layout to be able add windows or articulate the north facade better. For example, along right side of house leading to kitchen there is a lot of storage space, including a very large pantry, mud room and coat room. Could narrow width of pantry and provide another return of countertop on right side of kitchen, creating a u -shaped arrangement. This would allow additional cabinetry so that you could give up some cabinet space for additional kitchen windows. >Might be an opportunity to add some windows in the stairwell, could bring in additional light to the foyer area. >Provide sample of proposed Hardie siding and address of house where this siding has been used. >Encourage you to revisit saving as much of the existing front yard landscaping as possible. >On South Elevation, look at extending shed roofs on left and right of second floor bay projection so that it hugs the bay. >Concerned with height at rear of house, seems tall due to absence of a first floor roof line. Could consider adding an awning roof or trellis over the French doors at rear of house to help break up the massing. >This is a charming design and like the direction that it's headed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. Discussion of Motion: >Height of house is still troubling, stems from houses across the street that we've approved. Concerned about ending up with a lot of tall, skinny houses on the block. Don't think it's good development for the neighborhood. Applicant should look at reducing the height in some way. Could reduce plate heights and coffer ceilings. >Dropping the spring point down to the second floor might work to reduce the height. >One of the drawbacks of front facing gable design is that to get a second floor, you end up with some kind of dormer on the side the house that is hard to mass properly. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis7 - c.2711 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special Permits for building height and declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Robert Wehmeyer, Weymeyer Design, applicant and designer; Charles and Diana Williams, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2711 Burlingview Dr - Staff Report 2711 Burlingview Dr - Attachments 2711 Burlingview Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Comaroto, Sargent, Terrones, and Tse noted that they individually had met with the applicants and neighbors at 2717 Burlingview Drive. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer and Mark Haesloop, represented the applicant. Public Comments: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Mark Hudak, representing Peter and Ferial Zaarour, 2717 Burlingview Drive: Unlike some cities along the Peninsula, Burlingame has a Hillside Ordinance that protects distant views and every view is unique . Some years ago the Commission denied a second story addition because it had determined that a row of Eucalyptus trees in the distance was worthy of protection. View enjoyed from the Zaarour residence is spectacular, have views of the airport, San Bruno Mountain, Bay Bridge and top of San Francisco skyline; is particularly beautiful at night. These are the views the Zaarours' are trying to protect. Don't agree that the Hillside Ordinance is one that is based on compromise, balancing and mitigation. When you're going to lose views, that is what the Hillside Ordinance is designed to protect. Had an architect use the plans and superimpose two of the designs over the view from the windows in the Zaarour residence, which shows that the view will be completely blocked, they'll lose it all together. Even if the roof height is dropped by a foot or two or the addition slightly reconfigured, it won't make a difference because that view will be lost . Requested Variance will have a significant impact on downhill neighbor because second floor addition would be looming over them. This is a challenging lot, but don't think the proposed project could possibly be approved under the Hilllside Ordinance and there just may not be a right project for this lot, but certainly not a second story addition. Vera Zaarour, daughter of Peter and Ferial Zaarour: Live part time in California only to visit family and in Oregon; member of an architectural review committee in Oregon where we oversee 784 hillside homes, so am aware of these situations. Provided photographs and described views from house. All options that were shown on the plans would block views from the house, their roofline in any of the options would line up with the bottom of our roof eave and therefore block our views. Parents spend all of their time in the living areas, have three panoramic windows that provide long distant views. Houses are actually 12 feet apart, not 16 feet as shown on the building elevations. Hired architect to superimpose all three addition options onto photographs, all show 100% view blockage. Second story addition just doesn't work here . Parents have owned house for over 40 years. Jeannie Zaarour, daughter of Peter and Ferial Zaarour: Grew up in house at 2717 Burlingview Drive, along with parents, three sisters and brother; moved to Burlingame from San Francisco over 41 years ago. Parents chose Burlingame because they wanted a better life for their family and a wonderful community to raise their children in. Chose this house because it was situated on a hill with breathtaking views . Windows along east side of house bring in natural light and picturesque backdrop of nature and life into kitchen, dining area and family room, rooms that we spend all of our time as a family. Views are part of the home, parents enjoy views, spend most of their time in the family and living rooms and kitchen . Anyone who visits house immediately compliments beautiful views. View never gets old, still enjoy views every time I visit my parents. Provide family with peace, happiness and gratitude. Views bring serenity and satisfaction to parents, would be a detriment to there health and well -being if views are blocked . Parents are concerned that the home and atmosphere they've created for their family and generations to come will disappear along with their view. Richard Murphy, 2625 Summit Drive: Moved into house 26 years ago, moved to area for views and privacy . Concerned with integrity of hillsides based on slides that have occurred in the past in the area; concerned that project has grown from an additional bedroom to a game room, second family room, office, bar and bathroom on the second floor; hillside is very fragile, any construction could result in a major problem. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Not seeing exceptional or extraordinary circumstances being asked to consider in the Variance application. Justification in revised Variance application could include the fact that this lot, zoning code most commonly contemplates, is subject to the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance. Have at times considered, because of the view issue, some variances in order to find an achievable project that doesn't violate the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance. If moving forward with this design, should revisit Variance application to include proper findings for what the exceptional or extraordinary Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes circumstances are for this project. Should also revisit findings in Special Permit application for declining height envelope to include exceptional or extraordinary circumstances based on lot slope and design that doesn't violate the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance. >Consider a single story floor plan to meet the program requirements. There may be an opportunity at the front of the property to expand the garage and first floor forward and also incorporating the courtyard into the house. Consider expanding on the lower levels to achieve space without adding a new upper floor. >Single story addition could be proposed in large level area in rear yard; useable yard could then be moved to the front of the building above a depressed garage. >Need to have story poles installed to analyze the project. Hard to imagine that there wouldn't be a significant view blockage. Can't remember of an application where we approved a project that resulted in the kind of view blockage that I would imagine story poles would show us; can't see application moving forward under the current program. >Regardless of miscommunications that may have occurred and letter writing from neighbors, real story will be told by the story poles. Clear that story poles are required for this project to move forward. >Based on past interpretations by this Commission for projects of this sort, it's not a question of whether or not the view is blocked to a minor degree, if there is view blockage we've typically denied the application and have required revisions. Applicant will need to decide once going through the story pole process if they want to move forward with this particular application. They have the opportunity to revise the project and return for additional study and input. >Encourage applicant to coordinate with neighbors. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar and to require installation of story poles for the proposed design. Discussion of Motion: >If applicant returns with same program, then story poles would be required. But if significant changes are made, not sure if story poles should be installed prior to the meeting. >If significant changes are made, project would likely need to come back to the Commission for additional study because it would then be a different project. >Find it hard to believe they can't determine without story poles that as currently proposed there will be view impacts. City Attorney Kane noted that the applicant can withdraw the current plans and submit revised plans; applicant can then assess the question of installing story poles if the plans are substantially different; project may return as a design review study item without having to install story poles at that time. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis7 - d.1 & 45 Adrian Court, zoned RRMU - Application for Environmental Review, Design Review, Density Bonus and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a new 265-unit mixed use residential development. (SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant; Seidel Architects, architect; Helf Investments and Nicolet Family Partners, property owners) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Staff Report 1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Attachments 1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Comaroto, Gaul, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Tse noted that they individually had met with the applicant to preview the proposed plans. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Elaine Breeze and Alex Seidel, represented the applicant. Public Comments: Raymond Pistalozia, 305 Adrian Road, Millbrae and representing neighbor at 365 Adrian Road, Millbrae : Concerned with congestion at corner of Adrian Road and Rollins Road, there have been many accidents at this location, in some cases included fatalities. Also concerned about the projects' proximity to high power voltage lines. Feel this type of project should be located closer to the train and BART station, not in the middle of an industrial area. Project would be feasible if it included townhomes and live/work units. James Kendle, representing Carpenters Union Local 217: Developer should be held to a higher standard in serving the needs of the community. SummerHill has no commitment to labor; carpenters seek to earn a fair wage with medical and retirement benefits that allows workers and families a chance to live in the communities they work in. Wages can be reinvested back into the local economic community; out of town workers take their earning back home with them. Please consider potential impact to community that is a direct result of choices made after project is entitled. Also stress importance of apprenticeship programs. Hope responsible labor practices will be considered before the project is approved. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Very excited for this project; to see the evolution of the General Plan and the creation of specific plan for this area to start to come to fruition is exciting; having SummerHill engaged on the project is a great opportunity to move forward in this area. >Project is a pioneer in an area we are trying to get developed as one of the first projects; it's a transitional area. Based on the General Plan Update, this is a good project to start as that pioneer. >This is a mixed use project, proposed architecture works in an area that is transitioning; fits in with the existing context but also paves the way for future potential residential developments in this area. >Like transition from commercial corner to the public residential spaces, then to the residential walk -in units, and then to the paseo and park area. >Public entry plaza will evolve over time, and because it fronts on Adrian Court provides SummerHill an opportunity to work with the residents to create events in the plaza and cul -de-sac, perhaps close the street for some periods and start to develop some sense of community. >Nice to see tiered development process working. >Have chosen a good palette of materials. >Good public spaces provided in project. >Did you consider any other commercial space along Adrian Court? Wondering if there could be an opportunity for more mixed use, is an attractive building and you may get a lot of interest. >When project returns, provide solution for blank concrete wall at the rear of the building facing the dog park. >Bridge looks out of place, but not a deal-breaker. There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. e.250 Anza Boulevard, zoned unclassified - Application for Environmental Review, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new commercial recreation use (Topgolf) with associated restaurant and bar uses. (Topgolf, applicant; Aria Group /Arco Murray, Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes architects-engineers; City of Burlingame, owner) (430 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 250 Anza Blvd - Staff Report 250 Anza Blvd - Application 250 Anza Blvd - Attachments 250 Anza Blvd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Tanner Micheli, Topgolf, and Eric Uebelhor, Arco Murrary, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >With regard to design of the facility, recommend taking into consideration the prevailing winds in this area, winds get up to 20-30 miles per hour, especially in the afternoons. >Confirmed that the environmental document will analyze impacts from lighting from the outdoor screens. >Provide details of park patio area when project comes back for action meeting. >Confirmed that secondary access road leading to Airport Boulevard is still under consideration, trying to get geometry correct with Public Works Division given the challenges with the topography. >Confirmed that target pods will be built above the refuse layers by using a foam fill in the outfield, would not add a lot of weight to the landfill itself. >Concerned with lighting impacts on neighboring hotel. >Great opportunity to improve area of site along second access road by adding trees for screening as viewed from Bayside Park. >Great partnership to revitalize the facility and area and to bring some additional opportunities for Burlingame residents to enjoy Bayfront area. >Important for environmental review to study lighting pollution to make sure we have a good analysis of that. >Good symbiotic relationship in terms of parking and traffic with the office buildings and hotels in area. There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1433 Floribunda Avenue - FYI for requested changes by the Planning Commisison to a previously approved Design Review project for a new 8-unit residential condominium. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1433 Floribunda Ave - Memorandum & Attachments 1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - Proposed 1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - Original Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:54 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 May 13, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on May 23, 2019, 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 $551, 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019