Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2020.10.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineTuesday, October 13, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the above date online at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent4 - Comaroto, Terrones, and TseAbsent3 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft September 14, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft September 14, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid4 - Absent:Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse3 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Planning Manager Hurin noted that Item 8c - 30 Ingold Road has been moved to the last item on the agenda (after Item 9b); Item 9a - 29 Humboldt Road has been continued to the October 26, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020 October 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.100 Costa Rica Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permits for a new accessory structure. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Gleason & Gleason Design Partners, applicant and designer; Kristine Furrer, property owner) (114 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 100 Costa Rica Ave - Staff Report 100 Costa Rica Ave - Attachments 100 Costa Rica Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 100 Costa Rica Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Rela and Don Gleason, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Have you selected the windows you're going to be using on the project yet? (Gleason: No, we'll put that out to bid. We have used these windows before on other projects. They're very cost effective, extremely good looking and have very high energy qualifications. They are a dark anodized bronze aluminum with divided lights.) Typically, what we look for in a project like this are simulated true divided lite windows, is that what you had in mind? (Gleason: Yes, absolutely.) Maybe you could note that on the plans, that would be great.) >Wanted to follow up on the comment that a licensed architect and structural engineer will be preparing the permit drawings. Sometimes what happens when an architect or structural engineer gets involved, is that what has been proposed as a design is found to be infeasible for some reason. What that would mean from our point of view is it might come back to us with changes that are potentially significant. Are you confident that what you have drawn here can be built? (Gleason: Absolutely. We've already worked with the architect and structural engineer and they're involved with the drawings.) That's great. Just wanted to make sure, thank you. >Is the chimney going to be stucco? (Gleason: Yes.) Did you consider continuing that in brick as opposed to stucco? (Gleason: No, because we felt it would chop up the element of the elevation.) Don't you think that the vertical element of the chimney would do the same thing? (Gleason: No, we don't. We really like this design and we feel it's very clean and works with the structure.) > Do you have the roofing material as a concrete tile? Do you have a sample of that? (Gleason: Correct. Yes.) Was the sample provided? (Gleason: No, we didn't. We weren't asked to, but it's going to be Eagle Roofing tile. It's a very common roof tile that's used on a lot of houses that are already in the neighborhood. It's nothing terribly unique. We liked the texture and the fire proofing. We like the coloration which is very neutral.) Is it a flat tile? (Gleason: It's a flat tile. It looks like big shingles.) Can you show or provide an address where that tile has been used as an FYI if this gets approved? (Gleason: Can we send you a photograph of where it has been used?) That would be fine if you can provide the address. (Gleason: Sure.) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020 October 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Would like to thank the applicant for working with the design review consultant and addressing all the concerns. It's an interesting design. I'm much more comfortable with it this time than the last time. The drawings are more consistent and the design is more coherent. It's a very interesting project. It will fit well into the neighborhood. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application with the following condition: >That prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI noting on the plans that the project will include simulated true divided lite windows; the FYI shall also include a sample or photographs of the proposed concrete tile roofing material and an address of a house in Burlingame where the proposed concrete tile roofing has been installed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid4 - Absent:Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse3 - b.3 Cananea Place, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new deck and addition on the main level along the left side and rear of an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Panko Architects, applicant and architect; Proeast Properties, property owner) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 3 Cananea Pl - Staff Report 3 Cananea Pl - Attachments 3 Cananea Pl - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Stan Panko, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no commission questions or comments. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020 October 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >Martha Laboissiere, 1 Cananea Place: I sent an email which I believe has been added on record. I would just highlight that the house is now moving much closer to my property. I understand it is within the limits proposed by the commissioners, so I understand there's nothing wrong with it. I would like to request that as part of the plan, if the architect /owner could put a green fence on their side of the property . Unfortunately, it cannot be done on my side because it's concrete, but a green fence that would provide privacy to both properties. Particularly because one of their windows is facing right into my house, which means that it's decreasing privacy for both of us. So I would request that they plant a hedge on their side with a few asks: that this hedge be green year round, that it doesn't make a mess, that it should not be ivy because we have a wooden fence, that it gets maintained in such a way that it preserves the greenery around all of us, and that it preserves the view towards the southeast of the properties. Thank you. Acting Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the project. They've made the changes that we requested of them in the last meeting and it is approvable. Would also ask the applicants to work with the neighbor to come up with a solution on that left side that works for both of them. >Agree with my fellow commissioner. The changes to the project are a big improvement. Not really enamored by the four-square windows, they seem cartoonish, but that's fine. They are simulated true divided lights. The request by the neighbor is a reasonable one and it seems like they ought to be able to work that out. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. Discussion of motion: >I didn't look at the landscape plan closely until I read the applicant's letter and heard her speak. The landscape plan doesn't seem very developed, so it's a reasonable request to have that hedge. Perhaps we could have a landscape plan to address the issue come back as an FYI. >Agree with my fellow commissioners, the project looks great. If the site is developed as the landscape plan shows, it seems like it could be developed at least at that hedge area. >The project certainly needs some landscaping. Commissioner Loftis amended the motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application with the following condition: >That prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI to include a landscape plan for the project which shows an evergreen privacy hedge to be planted along the left side property between the subject property and 1 Cananea Place. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid4 - Absent:Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse3 - d.Proposed Amendments to Chapter 25.39 RRMU (North Rollins Road Mixed Use) District Regulations and Chapter 25.40 NBMU (North Burlingame Mixed Use) District Regulations of the Burlingame Municipal Code. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Burlingame Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020 October 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes General Plan, and are exempt from further review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines. Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Staff Report Exhibits - Drafts Showing Tracked Changes Map Exhibits Resolution - Zoning Chapters Resolution - CEQA Notice of Public Hearing Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >It is my understanding that no changes have been made to the interim plan except for the modifications required by or in compliance with the other two agencies, correct? (Gardiner: That's correct. In the staff report, there's one version of the zoning which shows the track changes, and you'll see most of the changes are in the right hand column at the tables where it gets into things that are mostly related to assemblies and uses that are sensitive within these zones. There's another section that has disclosure information and verbiage that the Airport Land Use Commission wanted to have included in the zoning .) So the only thing that keeps this from being ministerial, is that we have this procedural requirement to go through Planning Commission, other than that it would be ministerial, right? (Gardiner: That's correct. We're attempting to open the whole thing up and say let's make all the changes. But in this case, we're saying yes, it's something that does need to go through the Planning Commission as it is zoning. These are talking more about the Airport Land Use Commission requirements and just having something on the books.) The Airport Land Use Commission requirements are not in our purview, so we can't change them . (Gardiner: Yes. Ideally we like to have more for you to talk about. They'll be other opportunities to get into the fun design stuff. In this case, it's really a housekeeping exercise.) We have to have a public hearing? (Gardiner: We do.) >In Exhibit 2 on Chapter 25.4, public and quasi -public uses are noted. Public assembly facilities are not allowed. What would be considered a public assembly facility? Not sure how that differs from some of the other public and quasi -public uses. (Gardiner: Maybe like a concert hall or even a City Council chamber. Basically, anywhere where there's large numbers of people congregating, assembling.) That's not to say someone couldn't have an art in the park at one of the public parks or something, right? (Gardiner: No. If it's a special event, that's a little different. What they're concerned about are more of long term assemblies of people whether it would be schools, theaters, all of those things seem to have in common, just large numbers of people. Would not include special events, but they don't want to have something every day where it's a permanent use.) Acting Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020 October 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Based on the questions and my understanding of Director Gardiner ’s answers, it doesn't feel like we have a whole lot to do, and it wouldn't feel like a productive use of our time to dig into something we don't have no business digging into something. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend approval of the Ordinance to City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid4 - Absent:Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse3 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.29 Humboldt Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Daryl Buckingham, applicant and designer; Arjun Dutt, property owner) (140 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Acting Chair Schmid noted that Item 9a - 29 Humboldt Road has been continued to the October 26, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. b.1523 Chapin Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Megan Leung, property owner) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1523 Chapin Ave - Staff Report 1523 Chapin Ave - Attachments 1523 Chapin Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. James Chu, represented the applicant with property owners Johnson Quan and Megan Leung. Commission Questions/Comments: >Many times we see trees and they're in the middle of a lot, so it becomes obvious that to develop a site you need to remove them. These two trees seem to be in perfect spots on the edges of the property . Looking at the site plan, it's almost a perfect opportunity to create a rear yard for the ADU if it or the garage was pulled forward. Maybe not both trees, maybe just the oak tree if the redwood tree is dangerously damaged. But have you thought about trying to salvage the tree? (Chu: We actually discussed that. If you look at the site plan, our patio space is very limited between the house and the ADU. To redesign the ADU to avoid the oak tree, we'll probably lose about ten feet from the left and have Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020 October 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes to push forward about 10 or 15 feet which will make the outdoor space very limited. We had discussions and the owners felt very strongly that the tree perhaps should be removed. We can always plant new trees at the rear of the ADU and along the left side if needed.) >On the landscape plan behind the ADU, you've got some planting obviously to provide more of a view than just a fence. That's why it might be a good opportunity to create a small enclosed yard back there . (Chu: There's no door if you look at the ADU floor plan. There are kitchen windows and bathroom windows, there's no access through the garage to that area.) It would mean reconfiguring both of those buildings most likely. Don’t like cutting down an old oak tree like that, but will wait for other input from other commissioners. (Quan: I just want to say, yes, we talked about maybe preserving that tree. I thought maybe we can just move and shift the main house forward so we can still maintain somewhat of a distance between the ADU and the main house itself. But I was informed that there are certain setback rules, so we cannot push the house anymore forward. And hence it would then prevent us from preserving the tree and maintaining that distance between the ADU and the main house. I would have loved if we could have moved the main house and the whole project several feet into the front property line itself, but that's not going to be allowed by the codes.) On the staff report, it looks as if you could move the house two feet forward. Again, I will wait to hear from the other commissioners if they have any strong feelings. >Are the columns on the pediment at the entry on the right elevation flush with the wall? (Chu: Correct.) On the right hand side, they are sticking out about eight inches or less and the opening behind doesn't fill the space between the two columns. Are you using some classical proportioning system that would lead you not to make the columns skinny, reduce the pediment and clarify that opening somehow? It's an odd thing to do. (Chu: We can definitely look into it and modify it.) In the end, it doesn't matter, but everything else is exquisitely ordered. (Chu: I agree and the door isn't centered and that looks odd too.) I wasn't sure if you were setting rules that you decided to break, which is a very architectural thing to do, or you haven't sorted it through yet. (Chu: No, it's probably a drawing error.) >The notes indicated that the windows will be wood, is that correct? (Chu: We typically use aluminum clad wood.) >Upon visiting the site, I noticed some rather tall trees on the left side between your house and the neighbor's house. Not sure if they are trees or tall shrubs, but it seems to provide nice privacy because your neighbor on the left has a fairly tall two -story home and you're going to be building a fairly sizable two-story surface there too. Looking at the landscape plan, there are more low bushes and shrubs. Are they on your property or your neighbor ’s? Is there an opportunity to save that to help provide screening from each other? (Chu: Yes, definitely.) >Picking up on my fellow commissioner's question, understanding the configuration at the rear and also in between the concrete driveway and then the stone patio, I am seeing a lot of hard surface back there . Is there an opportunity for a design in the middle that has a bit more permeability that incorporates a tree to enable you to get more shade in there? With all of that stone surface, it could get really hot back there . (Chu: Yes, we'll look into it. I agree.) Public Comments: >Bob Gilligan, 1518 Burlingame Avenue: It was clear to me, in looking at these plans, that the construction itself would require the removal of the existing trees. The very tall redwood tree in the rear corner and the large heritage oak in the rear third of the lot to the left side are pretty close to the property line. I'm not a tree specialist, but I think everybody knows that redwood and oak trees are native to the area and to the Peninsula. These are huge trees, they're very old. I would imagine these trees are at least 100 years old and likely growing before Burlingame Park, which is Burlingame's oldest neighborhood . These are original trees that predate any property. I want to point out, these are pretty much the largest trees on the block. The redwood tree is very tall. There aren't a lot of redwood trees in the neighborhood, we have some and they're nice to have. These trees are providing a significant amount of greenery to the neighborhood. If we remove them and replace it with what's mostly hardscape, this would be a loss for the neighborhood and Burlingame. Also, we did get a notification from the arborist that there was an application to have these removed, but it is not yet approved. Since these trees are on the property, there must be a way to design them into the project. This would improve the project to have these beautiful trees included, not detract from it. It will be in keeping with the design of the Burlingame Park Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020 October 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes neighborhood and also keeping up with Burlingame's identity as the City of Trees. We should try to avoid cutting down these beautiful trees. Thank you. >(Quan: I totally understand the beauty of a redwood tree and it's a gorgeous tree. Apparently there was an e-mail that was supposed to be sent to the Planning Division by the neighbor, John Vega, regarding the tree. Living in Hillsborough, we had our property damaged as one of these beautiful oak trees fell and crushed our den during a storm two years ago. Having gone through that experience, we were talking to the neighbors and reviewing our policies to figure out who was going to be responsible for this. I was very taken aback when the insurance company said this is an act of God and is not covered in the insurance policy. I bring this up only because when they built the foundation for the ADU on the property to the left of us, where it abuts the redwood tree, they dug down far enough that the owner told me they had to remove all the roots that are present on that side of the property line. The neighbor who did the ADU had brought up to the previous owner of this property that they were willing to remove the redwood tree for concerns of it being a potential hazard, but the previous owners declined and the tree currently remains. I would love to have a beautiful tree present, it offers wonderful shade. But I'm concerned that with any future storms, big winds and a lot of rain, the soil saturation and the lack of the stability, I build this brand new house and five years into it I get smashed by this redwood tree, or it smashes on other properties in the area .) (Leung: It’s a concern of ours and the next door neighbor, Mr. Vega.) (Quan: So that's why we had petitioned for that. In regards to the previous petition for the removal of the tree, we didn't know much about the process itself. We had barely gone to the architect, we were still talking with certain people and we didn't have the plan completed. Somebody advised us to start with the tree removal permit so we can get the process going. Not knowing that this would be a hurdle. I think the permit that was requested for the removal of the tree before the plan was set in motion is premature and it was my fault.) >(Hurin: Just to provide clarification, we did receive an email from Mr. Vega, it was received after 6:00 pm this evening. It was forwarded to the commissioners’ emails, but I'm not sure if you had a chance to review it. We'll include that as an attachment when it comes back for action.) >Bob Gilligan: I wasn't aware of the damage to that tree. It looks healthy, but obviously I do not want that on anybody. This question is probably something that a professional arborist could answer regarding the damage that Mr. Vega did to the roots, is it likely to be fatal or is it still safe? I ’m sure the arborist gets this kind of question all the time. It might be worth having a professional arborist determine whether that tree is safe or not. We could have incorporated it into the design. It's the closest to the property line as I recall. So between the two trees, I would imagine that's easier to incorporate because it's consuming a small percentage of the property. Acting Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Sheet A.2.a in the set and the summary from Kielty Arborist states that “all the tree roots were cut at the property line three feet from the trunk of the tree, the root cutting caused the tree to be susceptible to wound and future failure is expected .” So the arborist thinks there's future failure expected on this tree. I spent a year and a half helping entitle a large project in the Bay Area where arborist after arborist say that these Coast redwood trees are not native to this area, specifically, they're native to high fog areas. This is not one of those high fog areas. They get their water from the air and they have been transplanted into neighborhoods all across the state. They have a very shallow root structure. They're really not meant to do what we do with them, they belong on the coast with heavy fog and that's their natural habitat. The arborist seems to think it's going to fail. >This style of project is not my cup of tea. This sort of heavily period stylistic project can get cheesy, but this is a really well done project. As mentioned earlier, it feels exquisitely ordered and the attention to detail is impressive. It's hard to argue with this kind of project. It fits into the neighborhood and it feels like it will be a nice piece of work. It’s really well done with the exception of the challenge on the pediment at the right side of the house. >I would echo my fellow commissioner's comment on the house, it's very well done. Although this style of house is going to have a big face to it, the neighborhood can handle that. I like the design of the house. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020 October 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There is a lot of paving between the garage, the ADU and the house. It goes back to my comment about maybe making a yard area or using the oak tree specifically. I agree with my fellow commissioner that redwood trees are a mess, and we've had them cut down on some projects because they created a ton of problems with gutters, roofs and build -up on the ground. If the oak tree could be salvaged, that would be great. But the redwood tree in the arborist report is the one that says future failures are expected and the oak tree doesn't say that. If you can look at that backyard and landscape plan and give it another pass maybe we can get a good resolution to that. Overall, the design of the house is approvable. >I like this project as well and would agree with the comment about the hardscape in the back, that's worth a second look. >Applicant is asking for a CUP for the declining height envelope on the left side and would agree with their findings in the application. It's a CUP that we see for this design and we typically approve it because it's very hard to do this design without the CUP. I find it supportable as well. >I only agree halfway with that. If there ’s going to be some salvaging of the landscaping and a reworking of the hardscape at the back, that could mean moving the ADU and/or the garage. >I agree with my fellow commissioner, there ’s some opportunity in the back that the applicant and the architect can work on a little bit. >Given that ADUs are outside of our purview, we ’re asked to look at the site and not the ADU, would that be the request? (Hurin: That’s correct. Whether it was an ADU or detached garage, you can look at it as a concern about the site and not a concern of that particular structure.) >To be honest, I was satisfied with the applicant's explanation about moving it forward and what that would do to the program that they're proposing. They can move the house two feet forward, but that's not really going to do anything for the tree. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid4 - Absent:Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse3 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS (CONTINUED) c.30 Ingold Road, zoned RRMU - Application for Design Review, Density Bonus, Approval of Community Bonuses, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a new 7-story, 298-unit mixed use residential development. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant and property owner; Chris Lee, Studio T Square, architect) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 30 Ingold Rd - Staff Report 30 Ingold Rd - Attachments 30 Ingold Rd - CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 30 Ingold Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent noted that he met with the applicant via video to get a presentation on the revisions to the project. Commissioner Loftis noted that while he did not meet with the applicant, he confirmed via text with the applicant that he had no questions that required such a meeting. Acting Chair Schmid noted that he had a text exchange with the applicant. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020 October 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: >I want to get clarification regarding the determination that this project is categorically exempt. On page 2-1 of the report by ICF, there's a comment that says all exemptions for these classes, as this one is, are inapplicable when a cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type, in the same place over time is significant. I want to understand what cumulative impact means. Is there an area EIR? How is a cumulative impact determined which is important for this and all other projects in the area? (Hurin: We have representative from ICF, Ms. Efner, who can respond to that question.) (Efner: CEQA requires that we consider the cumulative impact, and the way we measure a cumulative impact is when we consider all of the development happening in an area. CEQA requires that we consider how this project contributes to an overall cumulative impact. In this case, due to the fact that the General Plan EIR is so fresh, did a very comprehensive cumulative analysis, and this project is consistent with the General Plan, we therefore were able to conclude that this project was not contributing to an overall cumulative impact relying primarily on the analysis done in the General Plan.) That's perfect, I hoped that was the case. I just wanted to be clear how that was being addressed for this and all future projects. Acting Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Elaine Breeze and Chek Tang, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >I'm really happy that you're upgrading the lighting to the Millbrae border, which is Murchison Drive. You don't quite make it to Millbrae Avenue and at that point the City of Millbrae has it, right? (Breeze: Yes, up to Adrian Road where the creek channel is. Adrian Road is where it transitions to Millbrae.) Not much can be done about that, but glad to see the lighting will be upgraded. It will be a little bit funny or maybe it won't be noticeable. >I want to make sure I'm right about my understanding of the materials. The vinyl window sample that was provided was in white, but the proposed color of the window is black, right? (Breeze: The window is black, the window sample that was provided was black, so I wonder if you were looking at someone else's window?) It was in the same box and assumed the vinyl window sample itself was for this project. (Tang: There’s a possibility you may be looking at the inside of that window.) (Breeze: It's white on the inside and black on the outside.) That's good, so it's black on the outside. Then the storefront obviously is not vinyl . It's an aluminum storefront and it's also black, right? (Breeze: Correct.) >What was the intent of the three colored ribbon elements in the glazing above the parking entry on the Ingold Road elevation? (Breeze: That was to illustrate that those will be corridors in the building that our interior designers will have some fun with. It's a good placeholder.) Wasn't sure if it was something special going on that needed to be called out. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I really liked this project the first time around. It establishes some important urban design standards and characteristics for a future neighborhood. The architecture sets up those urban design standards well . It's a really well-crafted project. Thank you for addressing the issues that were raised. The project has improved in every way, although it didn’t need a lot of improvement. >I would agree with my fellow commissioner. This is a great project especially for this area and getting a kick start into our Northern Rollins Road redevelopment and establishing a newer neighborhood in Burlingame. I'm really excited about a new park for the City of Burlingame, and hoping the residents of the Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020 October 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes city know about it and are able to use it. It's a great project. Very well designed and am looking forward to getting this thing off the ground. >I would agree, this is a great project. It's really exciting for this area of town. Looking forward to seeing it built and what follows on after it. >It's a really good project. I liked it the last time it was presented and you did a nice job of addressing the requests. The presentation really speaks highly of the quality of the work that we're going to get from this project. You did a really great job of orchestrating this presentation for us, so thank you very much. >Can we approve all of this or do we have to recommend the parcel map to the City Council? (Hurin: The approval would be for the design review, density bonus and community benefits and the recommendation would be for the parcel map because it has to go to City Council for approval. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid4 - Absent:Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse3 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin noted that at the October 5, 2020 City Council meeting, the Council approved the project at 1214 Donnelly Avenue, as well adopting the associated amendment to the zoning code and Downtown Specific Plan. The City Council also reviewed an ordinance to modify the construction hours in the North Rollins Road Mixed-Use District, Innovation Industrial and Bayfront Commercial Districts to allow construction start times at 7:00 a.m. rather than 8:00 a.m. This change would only apply to these districts, as they don't currently have new residents. It also includes provisions to request exceptions for construction hours for exceptional circumstances in other districts, and allowance to do work in fully enclosed buildings at any time. An ordinance was introduced and councilmembers wanted additional changes, so it will be reintroduced on October 19th. The other item they discussed was whether or not to allow cannabis sales and delivery operations in response to a proposal from an operator. The proposal is to allow the use in an industrial area with no public retail component. This will return to the Council in the future once staff has gathered research. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 13, 2020. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 23, 2020, 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 $1,075.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/27/2020