The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMin - PC- 2020.11.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 23, 2020 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting followed by Planning Commission Meeting 1. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING (Planning Commission acting as the Historic Preservation Commission) 1.1 Call to Order 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Approval of Agenda 1.4 Public Comments, Non-Agenda 1.5 Action Items a.220 Park Road (Post Office), zoned HMU (220 Park - Burlingame LLC, applicant; KSH Architects, architect; Burlingame Park Square LLC, property owners) (222 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1.Review of a Historical Resource Application to Consider a Historic Resource (Portions of Post Office Building at 220 Park Road) for Inclusion in the Burlingame Historic Resources Register. 2.Review of Application to Conduct Exterior Alterations of Same Building pursuant to BMC 21.04.100, Including Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation of a Historic Resource. 220 Park Rd - Staff Report 220 Park Rd - Attachments 220 Park Rd - Plans Attachments: 1. Historical Resource Application 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: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Andrew Turco, Sares Regis with Ruth Todd and Barrett Reiter, Page & Turnbull represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Could you tell us a little bit about how you're going to move, store and return this building to its place? (Turco: It's not your everyday activity for a construction project, but we have worked with Page & Turnbull and a special contracting firm that specializes in historic building preservation and relocations. The proposal is to slide the main post office lobby, separate it from its foundation, put rails underneath and slide it northwest into Lot E temporarily. We want to de -construct and preserve the roof tiles, the steps leading up to the entrance, all of the Park Road fa çade’s features, and de -construct the postmaster wing literally separating the walls and restoring those off -site while a parking garage is built. Once we are back up to grade at the top deck of the underground garage, everything gets slid back in place and reassembled in the same location that it was previously.) Public Comments: >Comment sent via email by Thomas Payne and Suzanne Castro Payne: Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, we write to express our opposition to any actions or approvals concerning the current six story office building proposal on tonight's agenda. For unknown reasons, our notification preferences have been changed so that we no longer receive timely notice of pending projects or proposals that will affect the future of our town. Our first notice of the post office development had shifted from a mixed -use primarily residential project with substantial public access features to six -story office building with an e -mail agenda that arrived late Friday afternoon. In this time of pandemic isolation, we cannot say that we read every issue of the Daily Journal, but we pay attention to what's going on in Burlingame and neither of us have heard about this fundamental shift of the scope and direction of this project. This transformation is hard to understand when we already have two office buildings on Lorton Avenue and Highland. The combined traffic impacts of these three buildings will overwhelm our streets and drive our struggling retailers out of our town and the character of our town is precious and shouldn't be without adequate notices to all Burlingame residents and we ask you to postpone until proper notice and discussion have occurred. >Comment sent via email by Jennifer Pfaff: Dear Historical Commission, I'm thrilled to learn this application for the former US Post Office at 220 Park Road to be considered for inclusion in Burlingame ’s Historic Register. I am hopeful that the ability to be listed will inspire other eligible property owners to pursue this path as it can be a vehicle for creative, out -of-the-box design approach resulting to truly unique projects. Best regards and Happy Thanksgiving. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >A little surprised at the first letter. The project has been talked about for quite some time. We had an extensive presentation at the joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting a while back, so it's disappointing to have that. But with that said, we have a letter of support from Jennifer Pfaff speaking for herself, setting aside the fact that she's the current president of the Historic Preservation Society. It’s exciting to move forward with the application. It’s a great project to have as the first project that would be placed on the new Burlingame Historic Registry. So it would be rather difficult to oppose this in any way since a covenant was written requiring that something of this sort be done for the project in order for some development to happen. Can't see any reason not to accept this application and move it forward. >Agreed. This seems rather straightforward because all we're being asked to do is to certify in some way the Page & Turnbull report that this is a historic property worthy of inclusion on the local registry. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application . The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid Absent: 1 - Sargent Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2. Exterior Alterations Application 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: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Andrew Turco, Sares Regis with Ruth Todd and Barrett Reiter, Page & Turnbull represented the appli-cant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Can you comment a little bit on the historic preservation standard #10, being that we're only substantially complying with that rather than fully complying. Does that have to do with the fact that if the office building went away, we would lose exterior walls or something of that sort? (Reitter: We found that the project would be substantially compliant with standard #10 because there's some demolition, the lobby on the Lorton Avenue side will disappear. If that office building were to be torn down in the future, the building itself will not be the same volume once that building were to be gone. So that was why we found it substantially compliant since you can still read the original volume and purpose of the building when viewed from the Park Road facade, which is where the character of finding features of the building are and the historic integrity of the building is.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It seems that the proposed project is extremely well differentiated from the existing. There's no chance that it could be confused with the post office and Page & Turnbull ’s report makes the assessment that the project complies with elements or items #1 through #9 and substantially complies with #10. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application . The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid Absent: 1 - Sargent 2. ADJOURNMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3. CALL TO ORDER Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent6 - SargentAbsent1 - 4. ROLL CALL Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft October 26, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft October 26, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA 8. STUDY ITEMS a.822 Walnut Avenue - Application for Conditional Use Permits for a new, two -story accessory structure to be used as a detached garage and accessory living quarters (Leslie Jones, Jones Street Design, applicant and architect; Jordan and Chris Chavez, property owners) (228 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 822 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 822 Walnut Ave - Attachments 822 Walnut Ave - Plans Attachments: This item was continued to the December 14, 2020 meeting. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR 10. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.29 Humboldt Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Daryl Buckingham, applicant and designer; Arjun Dutt, property owner) (140 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 29 Humboldt Rd - Staff Report 29 Humboldt Rd - Attachments 29 Humboldt Rd - Plans 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: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Daryl Buckingham, represented the applicant with property owners Arjun Dutt and Ritu Vohra. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions or comments. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a great project. Appreciate changing the facade and the columns. It's not a deal -breaker, but wondering if you would consider possibly adding some frosted glass or something in the stairwell window, so it's not overwhelming to the neighbors. Appreciate all the changes you've made. >We're seeing so many of these projects now that have stairwells on the sides of buildings with large glass looking down on to the neighbors. It's out of sync with the pattern of Burlingame homes and lot sizes. We've stopped supporting side courtyards because it was out of sync with the pattern of the neighborhoods . This is a fundamental error that we're propagating so can't support it. Can support it if the applicant uses patterned glass, frosted glass or something that lets in light but obscures the view towards the neighbor's windows or their yards. Can't support it with vision glass in the stairwell. >Appreciate that the changes made were consistent with the comments we had in our last meeting . Don't necessarily disagree with my fellow commissioner regarding the windows. Some sort of obstruction in the glass would be a benefit. Leaving it with just the blinds doesn ’t necessarily mean it will happen. Do agree there could be something done with the windows in the stairwell. Can support the project and can see it move forward. >Looking at this side elevation, it appears that the sill of the stairwell window is very near the landing of the stairs. Can understand why you would want to have some glazing at the stairwell, but wondering if you can remove half of that lower section so it becomes four windows together near the upper portion of the wall, versus having the sill come nearly to the landing. Also appreciate the fact that you took our comments to heart and made the edits that were suggested or discussed at the last meeting. >Also like the changes that have been made, they've generally responded to the comments . Understand my fellow commissioner ’s point of view and argument regarding the detail of the window at the stairs, but can ’t deny a project because of that. There are a number of projects with windows on second floors that are view windows that look out into neighbors' yards just as easily as stairwell windows. The issue we have here perhaps is just the size of the window. It’s going to be at a second floor height for a stairwell that's detached from that window. Don’t want to see a composition of wall that is either windowless or is de minimis in terms of windows. Can approve or accept the application the way it stands based on the revisions that have been made and that we asked them to look at. >Totally understand my fellow commissioner ’s point and to a certain extent agree. Like the idea of bringing a lot of light into the house and that's a great spot to do it because it can bring light into the first and second floors. But would like to point out to the applicant and to future applicants that glass works two ways. Not only will these homeowners be looking out into the neighbors, the neighbors will be looking into the home also. Would hope that the view is blocked by the landscaping that appears to be between the fence and the driveway. Can't tell exactly what it is, but hoping it's going to be tall enough that when you are looking out those windows, you're not looking at your neighbor's house, but instead you're looking at some vegetation that would grow tall enough to screen your view of the neighbor and the neighbor's view into your house as well. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There's a major difference between a stairwell and most every other window in the house because there’s constant passage back and forth, up and down the stair and you're looking out coming both directions. Very seldom do people stand in their window and look out into neighbor's yards, but you do it naturally while walking on the stairs. We regularly ask applicants to move windows, talk to their neighbors about windows or put frosted glass or pattern glass in. This is a common thing. Fundamentally, this is a mistake to propagate in the design guidelines and understand the design guidelines don't call this out precisely, nor do they call out side courtyards which we have denied several times or forced to be redesigned. There are some things that don't make common sense. What we are trying to do is get the patterns of the neighborhoods to be consistent in massing, scale, size, and style. There are some patterns like garage patterns, driveway patterns, side courtyard patterns, and this is another pattern that is just a mistake. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. >Vohra: We can make a compromise. We’re willing to take the recommendation about doing four windows so when you're going down the stairs, for someone at my height at 5'-3", you can’t look over the fence into the neighborhood's house. It will still bring in light through the upper units. The distance between being at the landing at the stair coming down and looking across is substantial. Also in our last meeting, we had mentioned that we're not looking into someone's house. It's the neighbor's courtyard, so we have 12 feet of the driveway on our side and then the neighbor's courtyard on the other side, so I respect the comment about privacy going both ways. We have that and we're happy to make that accommodation as recommended, to make it four windows and reduce the window sizes if that's acceptable to the commission. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. >Appreciate the applicant's offer to make that change. Although without evidence of sight lines using a sight line study, can't know if that will solve the problem. It sounds like it might, but it very well might not . The fact that it's a courtyard of an adjacent property doesn't mean it will always be such. The project, it appears is going to succeed tonight and be moved along, and that's fine. Just want to register my objection. In the future we need to study this carefully and the right drawings need to be drawn if we're going to approve. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application with the following condition: >Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI which includes reducing the size of the stairwell window along the left side of the house; The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid5 - Nay:Loftis1 - Absent:Sargent1 - b.1515 Los Altos Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit, and Variances for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling . The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture applicant and architect; Stefanie and Peter Wise, property owners) (90 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1515 Los Altos Dr - Staff Report 1515 Los Altos Dr - Attachments 1515 Los Altos Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was not present at the November 12, 2019 meeting when this project was presented, but she reported that she had read the minutes and visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture, represented the applicant with property owners Peter Wise and Stefani Nguyen. Commission Questions/Comments: >Was the contractor given the list of the conditions of approval? Is he familiar with the practices of the Planning Commission in Burlingame? (Morris: I’m not sure about his familiarity with the Burlingame practices. The conditions of approval are included in the cover sheet of the drawing set on the building permit, so he was aware of those.) >What is the height of the fascia at the various roof forms, or the thickness of the roof? (Morris: The roof rafters are 2” x 6” so the fascia is about 7” - 8”, accounting for the thickness.) Does that account for the slope for drainage purposes? (Morris: Yes. The roof rafters are thicker than 2” x 6", but at the eaves we have notched them to make them thinner.) >In comparing your first set of drawings to your proposed set of drawings, there's an eave extension on both the left and the right sides of the garage roof. In the current set, it seems to be missing on the right side, is there's any reason for that? (Morris: It's a building code requirement, because the right side of the garage is less than three feet from the property line and so for fire rated over -hangs, you're not allowed to have that so close to the property line.) So did you want to modify the eave extension on the left side then? (Morris: We did look at that, but then we felt that only having the eave extension on the front of the garage and not the sides was funny, like a baseball cap. So rather than having no eave extensions, we opted to keep the one on the left and the front.) >Did you look at plan modifications to the upper floor so that the setback variance and the declining height envelope could be avoided? You're cutting into the declining height envelope, which can be avoided if the second floor is stepped in a little bit. The master bedroom seems to be fairly large, so it seems like something you could accommodate. (Morris: That's true, it may be possible. We did not explore those kind of extensive changes. We tried to keep everything more or less in the same placements that they already were.) >This was probably already approved before, but can't find the rear deck on the floor plans, yet they show up on your elevations. Has it changed in size? Do you know how many square feet that rear deck is? (Morris: It has not changed. It's 267 square feet.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Can sympathize getting into the construction and finding there is dry rot and existing conditions . Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Appreciate the fact that they're bringing this before us at this point. In visiting the construction site, if not halted it is at least at the point where this would need to be reviewed. It's very frustrating often times to see projects move forward and ask for permission after the fact, so appreciate you coming forward now. >Can make the findings for the special permit and the variances. We've made similar findings in the past for existing construction in its current location and for a project that was previously approved and not changing very much relative to what was approved then. We're just allowing them to not have to move the first floor, move the foundation, et cetera. So can make those findings and support the project moving forward. >Would agree. Don’t see anything here that is substantial change to what was previously approved, so therefore it seems supportable. We don't have objections from the neighbors for these items, so we should move it forward. >Would also add for the record that the location of this property is at the crest of the hill. There doesn't seem to be any neighbors that were affected with any views previously, so we can make those same findings with the project the way it has been revised. 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, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Sargent1 - c.220 Park Road (Post Office), zoned HMU - Application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Historic Variance for Height (Title 21) and Parking, and Request for a Parking Easement (below grade under Lot E) for the redevelopment and restoration of portions of the existing Post Office building and construction of a New 6-story Office Project with Ground Floor Retail and two Levels of Underground Parking . The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. (220 Park - Burlingame LLC, applicant; KSH Architects, architect; Burlingame Park Square LLC, property owners) (222 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 220 Park Rd - Staff Report 220 Park Rd - Attachments 220 Park Rd - CEQA Checklist Appendix A - Air Quality Appendix B - Post Office Building Preservation Covenant Appendix C - Secretary Interior Standards Analysis Appendix D - Transportation Impact Analysis Appendix E - Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist 220 Park Rd - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) 220 Park Rd - Plans 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: >There were no questions of staff. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Andrew Turco, Molly Ricker, and Ted Corth represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Can you tell us a little bit what kind of retail you expect to have in the existing lobby, seeing that it is adjacent to what's called a dining terrace? (Turco: We've been engaging with a restaurant design consultant to do some preliminary layouts for a bar and restaurant dining. We have incorporated capacity for two restaurants at the property based on ventilation and kitchen requirements. The hope would be that one would be in that former post office space finding a tenant that could take advantage and wants that sense of place, wants that unique history and can run with it. This would not be a tenant looking for a light box, but a tenant that would embrace it. Obviously, the retail market and restaurant market is challenged right now. We're very hopeful that it will not remain that way forever. This will provide such an attractive space that it will bring someone down here. To add one other thing, the three red dots at the terrace out front, it's to replace those windows with glass doors that open to the terrace to create a connection and provide that flow of activity that goes out to the edge of our site and ideally continues into the future town square. We believe that's such an important element of activating the square is active surroundings and the reason people come to this area to do a combination of different things. They build off vibrancy.) >Will there be stairs leading down from the dining terrace to the town square? It would seem like that's a real opportunity to activate the town square and activate that retail by providing some extensive stairs there, but guessing you can't design those if you don't know what's in the town square yet? (Turco: We have the same interest and we've had this comment from a number of people. We are going to the City Council hopefully, relatively soon, and we are going to be proposing in the development agreement that if we can get to an agreed upon design between the city and the project that we would offer to construct that extended patio and the stairs down to the plaza as part of our project, with complete deference to the city .) It certainly feels like a natural thing. In an ideal world, it would be facing south, but the building is so low you'll probably get sun a great deal of the year. It would be a wonderful place to sit at the town square. >It looks like the office lobby is treated in a very similar way to the public access lobby off the town square. (Turco: The idea would be to glass it up to create that look -in on either side of the post office building so it really differentiates and distinguishes.) >It looks like on sheet A 3.1 there may be changes to the lower floor area around the garage entry on Lorton Avenue. Was there anything substantive there that changed or minor details around the store front? (Turco: It was more a detailing variety. We wanted to incorporate all necessary intake and exhaust louvers and made sure we had that locked in so there's no surprises down the road. We integrated the louvers into one of the bays and dropped it and made it consistent. We wanted to work out those details beforehand so we can say we're going to build what's shown in our renderings.) >Per the landscape plans, the existing magnolia trees along Lorton Avenue are not going to be saved and you have new trees, is that correct? They're beautiful and huge, but they're huge. (Turco: That’s correct. They actually sit on the inner side of the sidewalk rather than the outer side. They're on the property side rather than the street side which is not how the rest of downtown Burlingame streetscape is oriented, and creates complications in building a store front and interact with the street. Yes, they will be removed and replaced.) >Did the Park Road lobby get moved forward ten feet on that side? (Turco: That’s correct.) >Given the current environment of what's happening with the workforce in the bay area, a lot of people are leaving the area and working remotely. How confident are you that you're going to get tenants? Do you have a tenant or what's your plan? Are you looking for a single tenant? (Turco: We have designed the building so it can take multiple or single tenants and we are doing preliminary previews at least to generate interest with tenants. In terms of the overall office market right now, there's some uncertainty and some of the same firms that are offering work from home are still renting or purchasing new office space. It says something about their confidence that there's a value to bring people together. We've been successful in transitioning and sustaining existing relationships and working groups, but as people continue to grow or companies continue to onboard people, how do companies maintain their culture? There's been an increasing value in that, so we feel confident there is a strong market for this site. What we always say is, you will never find another site in a downtown like this with a historic resource, with retail and restaurants Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes underneath that is within 0.10 miles of the Caltrain station. We're confident at the end of the day, a company would appreciate how important and unique that is.) > The proposal includes the option that allows 275 of the parking spaces to be made available for public use in the evenings and weekends when the office would likely not be in operation. Does that mean that for the entire weekend, those spaces would be available to the public, and when in the evenings are you anticipating and for how long? Would that start at 3:00 in the afternoon or 8:00 at night? (Turco: For weekends, it will be available throughout the day until 10:00 p.m. On weekdays, from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. We have an agreement that's moving in parallel with the development agreement that would codify that parking share.) So the parking garage would close at 10:00 p.m. and people would need to vacate? (Turco: That’s correct.) What time would it open in the morning then? (Ricker: We have modeled this after Redwood City which has done this with a number of office projects where we own another building where this is operating. On the weekend, it opens from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. But to be frank, we figure out a way to allow after hours access if someone does get their car stuck in the garage and we understand that it happens.) Is there going to be a way for the public to know the lot is full? We're getting a parking structure built a couple of blocks away, but can guarantee the first choice is going to be this versus the structure on Highland Avenue. (Ricker: There will be electronic signage at the entrance that says how many spaces are available at any given time.) >In one of the renderings that was on Park Road there appears to be some backlit numbers for the address, the 220. Is that proposed to be potential signage for the office building or a directional signage for the office? (Turco: The idea was these are sculptural address for the entrance to the office building as helpful way-finding. These aren't necessarily the official design that we're proposing, but some kind of signage here that will go through the appropriate review and process to get approved that would highlight where the office entry is.) >The drawings call out for integral colored cast stone. Is that your terminology for GFRC? What is the material? (Corth: It would either be GFRC or pre-cast concrete. Yes, it would be integral color with aggregate fine grained and high quality pre-cast system.) >You had the opportunity to manipulate the texture and the reveals. Appreciate that you have gone back and looked at that southeast facade and you're doing something to imply the continuation of the window and the frame structure of the building that's so successful. Wonder if you looked at any other possible solutions than mimicking the windows themselves? Did you look at any other options for the texture of those inset panels? (Corth: At the top floor it would be a shadow box, so it would be windows but there's no panel at the back of the mullion. And there are windows going down the middle. That pattern would be the same column and spandrel as the rest of the building. Then the inset that was shown in a medium gray color would be the same material pre -cast. Then we have a screed line going through and not literally tries to match them in concrete. It's an extracted recessed panel that's an alternating color.) >The spandrel column frame is very successful, was going to save that for comments, but wanted to ask the questions whether you looked at other potential treatments of the insert panel? They're quite large, it must be ten by ten or something like that, correct? (Corth: That’s correct.) It's a five -foot planning module, they run the risk of becoming awfully plain, so just wanted to understand what you were thinking and we can come back to it in the comments. Public Comments: >Sent via e-mail by Mariana Franco: Dear honorable commissioners, I'm writing to express my concerns over the proposed height variance being sought for this project, allowing this project to be double the height over all other Burlingame buildings. It's a terrible idea. One need only to look at downtown Palo Alto and University Street to see how what was once a charming downtown has turned into a cluster of domineering suburban high rises. It is out of character for downtown Burlingame. Moreover is it advisable to allow more commercial space when this pandemic has clearly shown the way of the future leaning towards working from home. Please reconsider granting a height variance. Thank you. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Like the revisions that have been made. We've been looking at this project for quite some time now . Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Still really like the way that the project offers a backdrop to the historic post office and appreciate the preservation of that historic element. Fully expect and understand that it's going to be a major impact on our downtown area. For this project to work, it ought to be a major impact but at the same time it has to be thoughtful and well -planned and advantageous impact and this project will be. Understand the developers need to apply for some special considerations, but what we get from that is the preservation of this historic element, that takes up a major portion of the site in terms of potential development. So accepting of the findings for the variance, the initial study and the mitigation measures that are going to be put in place. It's a well -crafted project at this point. It has a good urban feel to it and it's going to create a lot of energy for the downtown area. The project should move forward at this point. >This is a great project and the improvements keep improving, so appreciate the dialogue and the ongoing efforts to make the project even better. To say that we're not going to need office space anymore because everyone is going to work remotely is not a truthful statement. A lot of our businesses are finding that yes, we can survive remotely, but don't think we thrive. So we are going to continue to need office space and places to collaborate and this is a great location given its proximity to Caltrain and to our downtown. It's a great opportunity to bring more energy into our downtown area and be able to support our businesses. It's a great project and would like to see it move forward too. >Agree with my fellow commissioners. You have done a great job in making incredible changes to some of the side elevations, the southeast elevation especially. You've encompassed a lot of the different areas and have invigorated all the different areas, really appreciate all your hard work. Also have to agree with what my fellow commissioner just mentioned. A lot of my friends and professionals that right now are only on zoom meetings, have said that they're looking to go back and bring the younger generation and start mentoring them again. We shouldn't lose sight that these young kids getting out of college need help and mentoring and the only way to do it is bringing them in the offices. We saw this a long time ago and saw people working from home and seeing they weren't being efficient, they started bringing them back into the office. That's what we ’ll see, it will take time. We appreciate your hard work for invigorating the whole post office. >Agree with all of my fellow commissioners on all the points made. Really appreciate the changes you've made. You've made some real significant improvements on the project and as mentioned before, you've taken the job of urban design seriously and it's going to make for a great urban space in downtown . As you can tell from the line of questioning of the south facade, you need to study and get more textures on the panels. They are large undifferentiated panels. Reveals are pretty cheap when casting material like that because you're doing it over and over again, would like to see you look at the texture on those insert panels more. It's not an insignificant facade and undifferentiated flat surface with color may not be enough, but pretty sure you'll find some balance to strike. Like the project very much. >To be clear on the line of questioning about the office space, am not opposed to office space in downtown. It's probably a very good thing for Burlingame. The main concern is the size of the building and that the building owner will be able to fill it with a viable tenant that's long -term or sustainable. It's just a lot of square footage. Not opposed to the project, but it raises a little concern because there's empty office space in town. There's going to be some objection from the public as we've seen in some of our letters, but if you really imagine it, it's because that site has been empty for so long. Grew up here in Burlingame and used to seeing that empty. That’s the lawn we used to sit on and have lunch and things like that, but it needs to be filled in. It's a big cavity in the center of Burlingame, so looking forward to the project moving forward. >Appreciative of all the thoughtful care that you've taken in listening to our community and listening to our comments on the commission, taking it to heart and really taking a challenging project that has so many elements to address and for putting together a very thoughtful project that's sensitive to the needs of so many aspects of our city. Grateful for the commitment you have taken to make this a very special space for the core of our downtown. Appreciate moving the office entrance forward, making that a little bit more approachable or visible from Park Road. Still a little concerned that people coming to the building may not really know where to go and are going to see the bulk of the space on the other side of the property and feel like the entrance should be over by the parking garage. But appreciate the efforts that have been made and the additional signage that we talked about earlier would help there as well. Thank you for the preservation of the historical elements of the post office and would really look forward to seeing this be built and move forward. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Gardiner: Madam chair, before we entertain a motion, I would like to do a quick housekeeping to share the edits that staff suggested to the resolution to make clarifications on the environmental review and on the parking easement, which was sent to the commission fairly late. For public record, we tried to clarify that the environmental review included a checklist and a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP). There was some clarification in section two to clarify that the parking easement is a recommendation for the city council, not an action but just to make sure the public record is clear on this application. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 11. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.120 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Natalie Hyland, Hyland Design Group, applicant and designer; Gary J. Bechthold Trust and Virginia J. Bechthold Trust, property owners ) (146 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 120 Dwight Rd - Staff Report 120 Dwight Rd - Attachments 120 Dwight Rd - Plans 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: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Natalie Highland, Highland Design Group, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >It was noted that the siding is cement board lap siding on the first floor, they come in different textures and widths. Do you have anything in mind for that? (Highland: I usually like to use six inches or less. I like to keep it narrow. I would rather them do a rustic or a butt groove type, smooth and painted.) >Are the owners more acceptable of the hardy siding as opposed to wood? (Highland: I know this family is very practical, however, they have a lot of style, so we can talk about using natural wood. When it's painted white, it's a little bit harder to differentiate, but we're open to it.) Understand that, but with the corner boards, it doesn't have that older look or even the farm house look that you might be looking for. It might fit your design better rather than the corner boards. >On your west elevation, on your floor plan you have three fireplaces and one has a chimney. The other two, there's no indication of a flue. Have you thought about additional chimneys? Or if not, you should show some type of mechanical termination on the walls because that's going to affect the look of the house. Would encourage a chimney look, something to include in the next go around. (Highland: Ok.) They are nice architectural elements that define the home. >Is it your intention that the siding between the batten is going to be a v -groove, so you'll see more texture than the lines you're showing? (Highland: No, the board and batten was supposed to be a board on top of the back.) So it's going to be solid between the battens, right? It's not a siding with a groove? Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Highland: Correct.) > On the garage, is that going to be on a zero lot line in the back? Didn't see any dimensions where it sits in the back corner? (Highland: Yes, the intent is to park a boat in this garage, so we're pushing the limits on it to do so.) >One of the things with the gable roof on it and the zero lot lines is where will the water going to go? Are you integrating drainage on the one side or both sides? (Highland: It will probably behoove us to keep it off a few inches to fit a gutter and anything practical.) >A lot of the garages are held back a foot off of the property line for the verification reasons. What you might do to the other fence and your drainage in all of that. Before the next go around, have a good conversation with planning staff on what you're going to have to do to the property line solution. >Only seeing the one street tree staying and then one tree in the back corner on the landscape plan . Are some of these others going to be tree size or shrubs? (Highland: I believe we only have two trees and the rest are screening and shrubs for privacy. There's not a lot of trees.) Really appreciate the screening effort. That's something we are trying to deal with in these smaller lots and the fact that we're close to our neighbors, but maybe before the next round, you may want to confirm that three non -fruit bearing trees as part of our landscape requirement. >Going back to the issue of the garage and the placement on the property, have you had a chance to talk to the neighbors on that side of the property? (Highland: No, not about the garage.) There's going to be the issue of how the fence resolves itself. Often times, for various different reasons, there are a number of garages placed on a property line like this and the fence stops at the garage and that garage wall becomes the fence to the neighbors, if the neighbors are accepting of that, and it also gives access for upkeep, if the relations are good between neighbors. That's another thing you should visit and talk to the neighbors for how that detail resolves itself. >Looking at the site plan, it's hard to read, what are the dimensions where the house is setback on the left side and on the right side? (Highland: It’s 4’-0” on the left side and the right side is 12’-10”.) So on that driveway side at the east elevation, it's rather flat. Did you look at any other alternatives for giving some articulation to that driveway facade? (Highland: Sorry to keep having to bring this up, but because of the boat and trying to get this boat through the driveway, it's important not to have an eave, otherwise, I could have looked at ways to wrap the front porch all the way around with an eave and tie it into the back. I can do belly bands and change the materials.) >One of the other difficulties is you are one square feet below the maximum FAR. You're maximizing the FAR and you're pushing at the setback on the left -hand side. You're keeping an 11 foot setback on the driveway side and now it's causing a facade that honestly, can't find approvable from a design review standpoint, so that's something that you'll need to revisit. (Highland: Ok.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Appreciate that the applicant was around for the earlier discussion on the window at the side and understand that the adjacent structure may be 25 feet away, but the property line appears to be very close. Since you can't know what's going to happen on the adjacent property, the 25 feet can't be a driving factor. Again, would find it difficult to support that. >Personally do not believe that standing metal roofs fit well in Burlingame, but have softened on that over time. However, there's something about this one that's much different than most of the ones we see and that's it's a steep pitch. That makes it a very, very primary facade feature and that is concerning . Many of the standing seam metal roofs we have approved recently are low slope, you don't see them and they recede into the background. But this is very steep. It's almost a vertical surface which shows in the elevation. It’s an issue of materials but in general doesn't fit. Its call out as matte black. We approved a project on De Soto Avenue that has a matte black roof and it's not successful. It looks wrong and it feels Darth Vader like somehow. Giving that some consideration, that vertical standing seam metal roof or 8 Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and 12 metal roof is hidden behind the tree, otherwise, we would see it's a primary facade element. Other than that, the house is nice. There are things that need to be tweaked, but in general, the farm house style is okay and we're seeing a lot of those these days. It's well articulated and well scaled. >Don’t always agree with the concern with the standing seam metal roof but as mentioned we typically see them on low pitched roofs, shed roofs, porch roofs, as some articulation. They're often used on low pitches when other roofing can't be used. But agree that it's going to be a really strong element. You've got nine feet of plate height on both of first and second floors and essentially another floor, nine feet of roof structure above that second floor and on a number of facades, it's going to be roof. Share similar concerns especially when that's proposed to be a matte black finish. >Have concerns about that east elevation, it's math versus design review. In other words, the math being driven by the maximum square footage and the need for a large setback on that driveway side, which drives that facade and lack of articulation. It's going to be visible from the driveway side and street elevation. Otherwise, the house is well-crafted. >Also see a lot of promise in this design. As much as we're giving you a lot of feedback, it's moving in a good direction. With choosing the white color on almost everything else it is going to be very bright and then the matte black roof is going to be a huge contrast. There's nothing subtle going on. It would be good to see for the next time around your eave and window details, with the standing seam metal roof and understanding how you're going to integrate the gutters and where those are going to hit. Some of these roof plans, there's going to be challenging downspouts on the nice columns you have designed, so something to be considered as early as possible because they're not going to be hidden with the roof plans. It's going in a good direction and hopefully you've gotten some good feedback. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as instructed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Sargent1 - b.141 Victoria Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Audrey Tse, inSite Design, applicant and designer; Yunfeng Cai, property owner) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 141 Victoria Rd - Staff Report 141 Victoria Rd - Attachments 141 Victoria Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Chair Tse was recused because she is the project designer for the subject property. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Lauren Lee, inSite Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >What is the approximate square footage of the roof terrace? (Lee: 81 square feet. We can take a look and work with the landscape designer on adding more screening along the rear property line.) Public Comments: >Oliver Zee, 132 Bancroft Road: I'm the neighbor directly behind this property and I'm interested in what is being proposed. I wanted to voice my concerns. I noticed that they're proposing a two -story house where there's an existing one story house. Our back bedroom has a large sliding door and we have blinds and shutters. I do feel that the balcony and all of the large windows especially at the rear of the house, are going to be a significant privacy concern for our family. I was curious, does the Planning Commission take into account whether the owners are going to be living there or developing and selling the property to someone else? (Acting Chair Terrones: Mr. Zee, thank you for your comments and I appreciate you being here. First of all, no. We really can't consider whether or not it's a speculative development, developer for an owner/builder, or anything of that sort. We have to take every application on its own merits. We can encourage applicants to reach out to their neighbors and communicate, coordinate, so there are certain things we can encourage and ask, and hopefully the applicant can get in touch with you following this meeting before they move forward.) I would note that we did speak to the other neighbors around this property and they had similar concerns. I think some of them said they would be sending emails. I was hoping to hear from the developer and what the solutions are for privacy, I know there are some trees that could help. The windows seem really large and the master bedroom has a large sliding door. I can already see some of the other two-story windows at 139 Victoria Road, they can see into our bedroom window, so it's already an existing concern. (Lee: The first floor windows are on the ground level. The second floor windows are on the private areas of the master bedroom.) I was going to say the fact it's in a private area, it still affects our privacy. Acting Chair Terrones closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Like the project, they've done a nice job. Agree that perhaps the applicant can look at screening at the rear. Decks off the rear of the house can sometimes get a little bit of noise out there. It's pretty small, but just take another look at that if you don't mind. It's not a deal -breaker, but it would be nice not to have a roof deck. If you're going to have a roof deck, maybe put planters there to cause some screening around the deck area. Other than that, the project is pretty nice and can move forward. >Can completely appreciate the neighbor's concern with the second floor deck. Most of us have dealt with either a new second story home next door to us or have a second story home next to a one story . That's the nature of our small neighborhoods and our changing neighborhoods. There are some good points that have been brought up with ways to try and mitigate that. In looking at the landscape plan at the rear, just helping your neighbor understand how tall some of that will be and ways to mitigate so you're not just looking straight into their window. That's something that neighbors need to work together on and be helpful to each other. Like the project and don't have any concerns other than that. >Agree with my fellow commissioners that spoke before me. It's a generally well -designed project and well-articulated. The windows don't seem particularly large. A commissioner has reminded us all several times recently that the residential design guidelines are extremely specific about roof decks looking into neighbors' yards, it specifically calls that out. That should be looked at given the neighbor's concerns and a discussion probably should be had. In general, the project is pretty good. >Didn't scale it out, but it seems that the rear deck is pretty far from the rear property line. If that garage is 20 feet, you're probably close to 50 feet from the property line. So you probably have a pretty good argument for having a second floor deck there and not disturbing the neighbor especially with landscaping. >Agree with my fellow commissioners. It's a well -crafted design. We often look at where second floor decks are placed relative to other more active, semi -public spaces in the house, this is off a master bedroom. We often use a 100 square feet limiter, this being 81 square feet falls below that. Would note for the record and for the public that we don't have specific privacy ordinances. We can encourage, we can Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ask, we can suggest on various issues regarding neighbor coordination and cooperation. The landscaping can and should get revisited to help in that regard, but there's nothing specific that protects privacy so-to-speak other than as my fellow commissioner has said, the mentioning of the second floor deck guidelines in our review design guidelines. It should move forward to action. Commissioner Scmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, 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:Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:Tse1 - c.1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Patrick Donato, Levy Art + Architecture, applicant and architect; Sandhya and Sohan Talwalker, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Plans Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >The garage location is in the middle to front half of the property versus what we've considerably looked for in a variance in this neighborhood for an attached garage that's in this same spot. (Gardiner: In this case, it's physically detached. Normally the detached garage is found at the rear corner of most sites. In this case, this is a different approach. So that's something the Planning Commission can look at as part of the design review in terms of neighborhood compatibility, pattern and relationship to the street, but it's detached and there's a breezeway that goes through there. In this rendering, it looks connected because you can see the plane projecting from the house on the upper floor, but it is physically detached.) >Is it just a building front setback of 15 feet that the detached garage needs to meet? (Gardiner: If there's going to be a parking space in front of it you would need an additional space in the driveway. Most houses require one covered space. If it's a four bedroom house or fewer, you need one covered spot and one uncovered, and you would need at least 20 feet between the garage door and the property line in order to accommodate a second parking spot.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Ross Levy and Patrick Donato, Levy Art + Architecture, represented the applicant with property owner Sandhya and Sohan Talwalker. Commission Questions/Comments: >(Levy: To the question that was posed earlier, the garage is setback 25 feet which is the code as we understand it. It is detached and then we're showing you images of the front and back to show you the whole architecture, a consistent architecture.) >What are the plate heights on the first and second floors? (Donato: Ten foot plate height. The house stacks, so you go up to a level that's 1’-6” above grade. Then part of the rest of the house on the first floor steps down to grade level after that. The plate height at the stepped up area is 10’-2” at the lower level, and the upper floor plate height is 10’ 2-3/4” as measured from the level that's 1’-6” above the grade. You can see this information on sheet A3.1.) Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Looking at the staff report, specifically at the design review criteria, can you explain how you see this architectural style compatible with that of the existing character of the neighborhood? (Levy: We see it as compatible in its mass, in its deference to its neighbors and materials which is wood and plaster and in some of the vernacular in its front porch, in its overhangs that cover the front porch and the notion of a front stoop. In all those ways, we see it being fairly compatible. I know it's not the norm. We heard your earlier comments on a different project in the agenda regarding windows and stair -wells on the side property lines. This house includes one of those as well. That window only exist from the second floor up so it does create a lot of privacy on the lower levels, but we're open to your comments about that . We understand the notion.) >Did you get a chance to talk with the neighbor to the left or show them the landscape plan and the location of the swimming pool and how it relates to them? (Talwalker: We have spoken to our neighbors to the left and the right and the three across. We had a lengthy discussion with the neighbor to the left. They are aware there's going to be a swimming pool. So one of the things that we did is we addressed the tree on their property with an arborist report to make sure the tree is supported appropriately as we put a pole in place. They're aware of the project and we have known them for the last five years.) > Is the front guest room at slab level? So if you come into the entrance a few steps up do you then go down to that bedroom? (Levy: No. That is 1’-8” above grade, so you step up about four steps to come in . That room, the bathroom that serves it and the stair landing that go upstairs are all on that plane. Then you step back down and you reach the kitchen and dining area.) That's what is shown on the plan. So there may be a drafting error on the front elevation. That front window comes below the floor level? (Donato: It does not. That front window is a bay window, so it projects from the facade.) It looks like it's below the floor level. (Donato: That’s just a detailing thing that we could provide, but the intent is that the glass hides the thickness of the walls and floor. So you're mostly right, you would see the shadow of the floor thickness behind the glass.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Will start by saying that I'm a modernist architect. The images that you showed of the abstract barn-like structures standing in the landscape resonated with me, perhaps they're in a wine country and couldn't tell exactly where they are, they ’re very nice. But this is a much different situation. Unlike the designing of barn-like structure where you create your own context and this dialogue with nature, this is a small town residential street. Don't find this project to be very compatible with the street, and that's why the question about compatible ability with architecture style was asked. Understand the conceptual response and it's true that the massing and some of the geometry is similar, but would be hard -pressed as an architect to see that this project fits in this neighborhood. If this were standing in the landscape in wine country, yes could see that. It's not quite aggressively incompatible like some stuff we have seen recently – it appears to be trying to be compatible, but it's so conceptual in its compatibility that finding it hard to believe that anyone walking down the street who has not been trained as a modernist architect could look at this and say yeah, that fits. Having problems with this project as much as I like the things that I'm seeing. >Have no issues with modern architecture in the Easton Addition in general. We have seen some projects that have been somewhat successful in that regard. But here can't make four out of the five basic findings for the design review criteria. Don't see this as being compatible with the architecture style of the existing neighborhood. For the parking, a rough count along that side of the block shows there were maybe three houses that had garages towards the front of the property. Still see it as a front forward garage even if it is detached. It's not addressing the design review criteria that we typically encourage particularly on blocks like this. >Can't make the finding for the architectural style, mass, structure and bulk within this context and the interface of the proposed structure on adjacent properties it's entirely out of character. Don't have a Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes problem with a design style having a different character, but it has to fit within the given context. Can find support in terms of the landscape and its proportion to the mass and bulk. It seems nicely landscaped and the landscaping is articulating itself relative to the design of the structure. Can't make the other findings at this point, having an issue with this project of this style and character moving forward . >Appreciate your presentation, the work and the craft that has gone into this. Appreciate the schematic design that went into trying to figure out a solution with the pool and all of the space and the back area will be a really nice place to be. But also struggling with the compatibility aspect. Can squint and can see the roof lines similar to other roof lines in the area, but it's a big stretch for that neighborhood. Also can accept a den in that front room with a big picture window on the street, but a guest bedroom is not so good unless you have a window treatment as well. It's a lot of exposure out on the street. Agree seeing the photos of the other examples out in nature, in a larger lot or out in the country, those are excellent places and it works for the context. But here in our neighborhood, it's a rough one to see that this design is compatible. >Will echo a lot of the comments that have been made. This is a really big house. It's kind of a long stretched out rambling house and it's screaming for about three or four more acres around it with rolling hills as was previously indicated. The garage may technically be detached, but if not mistaken, the code says something about a four foot separation and assuming that's not just horizontal separation, but vertical separation as well. Staff and applicant might want to look closely into it. Not seeing this fit in and not sure which direction to send it. >Agree with fellow commissioners. The architects have great ability to look at what we're saying and possibly come back with a new rendition of this home. Initially thinking we might need to send it to design review, but not sure that's the direction we need for this project. But would like to hear from my fellow commissioners and see what they think about that. >I feel some sympathy for the left and the right neighbors though. From the right side, that large plane of glass on the second floor, realized you mentioned earlier that you may address that in a future submission, but certainly that wall of glass for such a close proximity to a neighbor on the right looking into their home wouldn’t be very welcoming and neighborly. As well as on top of those windows, all the skylights that are immediately below those in the standing seam roof. Would ask you to take a look at that and a little bit more consideration for the proximity to the neighbor to the left and right. >A larger lot would help out a lot, but we're not in that situation. Feel for the neighbor on the left even though the homeowner may have spoken to that neighbor and they're aware of the project. Not sold that it's acceptable to have a swimming pool a few feet away from one's bedroom and all that activity at the back of the property is all oriented around that left side. Don't see this being compatible with the neighborhood. >On the one hand, don't know if it's entirely fair to the design consultant to put this much on them, but on the other hand, can see some potential benefit to some advice from the design review consultant just in terms of the design criteria and the knowledge of that criteria. >Wasn't planning to go to design consultant because we've got very capable designers. Don't think that sending this project to design review is going to get us there because if these designers chose to design a house as opposed to a fully conceived object, which was the term that was used at the beginning of the presentation which implies a sort of a sculptural quality to the project, if you thought of it less of a sculpture and more as a house, this could get there. But it's such a highly conceptual project that what ’s happening in design review, there will be a philosophical argument about this house. We don't want a sculptural object in this neighborhood of houses. We want a house in this neighborhood of houses so don't think design review personally is the right thing. >Was a little bit skeptical of the figure ground presentation. It's a long rambling house, but as a figure ground, it worked. What doesn't work is the translation from the figure ground to the sculptural object that wants to be a house instead of a sculptural object. >Given the product in front of us, they seem like capable architects and would trust they have to have that conversation with the client and come up with what that vision is going to look like. Don't think it's going to come back as simply as it has to fit in Burlingame and they're going to copy some of the other styles and houses that we've done. A design review consultant is available should they desire that help, but don't know if it's something we need to dictate in the same way that we've had others where it's crystal clear that their design team is not understanding what it is going to take to get through. The drawings are Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes great, and everything is very thought through. It's just the context that we're struggling with and that's something that they're very capable of solving. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. >(Levy: Thank you commissioners for your comments and of course, we're not really surprised. We're aware of the design guidelines. Appropriate is a subjective word and there's the wear of time and the growth of landscape and things that make things fit in, but I'm not surprised that you find this challenging as an image. I believe that we can dial it back and make it to be more appropriate in the context of Burlingame, how everyone perceives Burlingame and what is right for Burlingame which you know more than we will. This test run was an opportunity for us to get feedback from you, to listen to you, not only what you say, but what you don't say about what is appropriate in this suburban neighborhood that has always been a suburban neighborhood and what is going too far. We believe in a design that's consistent and relevant on all four sides and not pasting something on the front to please the commission and leaving things otherwise unchanged. We’ll come back to you with another well -considered entire scheme that is more subdued. With that said, the comments about figure ground or ground figure and in particularly in regards to the location of the garage and the general scheme, those are very important comments and if this next feels that it ignores the pattern into dramatic way, then that is a more profound piece of information for us to digest.) >Appreciate that the applicants came back. Personally like modern architecture. As originally intended, we can leave it up to you to make the decision whether to engage with the design review consultant. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. >Because of the comment that the applicant made a minute ago about the figure ground and that was useful information, it generally worked. Not sure what my fellow commissioners think about the location of the garage. Got the sense from the earlier discussion that it felt like the right location for an attached garage, but not for a detached garage. Wasn’t thinking that when commenting about the figure ground work. Just thought that the ever widening space in the back worked as a figure ground for a rambling house on a lot in Burlingame. Despite the use of the terms, not seeing Burlingame as a suburban environment. Grew up in a small town in the middle of nowhere of 500 people and this is a small town. It's wise to think of it as a small town as opposed to a suburban area. >There are a few examples on that street where the garages are attached and forward. In most cases when we review those, there's a variance involved and it usually goes through when there are examples in the area and it doesn't do any harm. Don't know this is the wrong place for the garage and especially for what they're trying to use the lot for as a whole. They need to be considerate of what that overhanging mass is doing and whether they're going to get the separation they need for the building code and for fire and all of that being that it's a garage. It’s not the forwardness of the garage that is bothersome, just never seen a detached garage this far forward. It is a little odd though that it's a completely blind wall. >Raised the issue of the neighborhood pattern and a rough count of how many properties have garage forward. Can be swayed by the idea that the benefit that the community is gaining is the ADU that's in the rear and so that causes the figure ground diagram to have to be evaluated especially relative to the swimming pool that's desired, et cetera. Can understand the idea of having that as garage. It's a small one-car garage. But to then say that it's acting as fence, then we have the equivalent of an eight or nine foot fence along that front and the whole house plasters itself across the whole front. If it's going to be a garage, make it a garage and have it look and be scaled like other elements so it feels residential. >You can make the argument for having an attached garage brought forward, but the concern really is it being counted as a detached garage? It doesn't count towards the floor area ratio of the house because you get that as additional square footage if it's a detached garage. There needs to be a four foot separation whether it's horizontal or vertical. There needs to be enough separation that it's a detached garage by definition and not trying to skirt around some of the floor area calculations. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as instructed. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 19City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Absent:Sargent1 - d.567 Airport Boulevard, zoned AA - Application for Environmental Scoping, Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for floor area ratio and building height for a new, eight-story office/research and development building and parking garage. (EW-PG Airport Owner, LLC, applicant and property owner; DES Architects, architect) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 567 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 567 Airport Blvd - Attachments 567 Airport Blvd - Graphics 567 Airport Blvd - Plans 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: >In terms of the entitlements there's a 0.6 FAR allowed by right, is that correct? And a 0.9 FAR that's proposed, but this area allows for up to a 3.0 maximum with a CUP. (Gardiner: This is an instance where our General Plan is ahead of our zoning. The General Plan does allow a 3.0 FAR in this land use district . However, our zoning that's still in place has the old 0.9 FAR in there. If they wanted to do a 3.0, that can be discussed, but that's where the 0.9 comes from.) That's why there's a huge gap between what ’s allowed by right versus what’s allowed with the CUP it’s because of the new General Plan? (Gardiner: Yes.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Tom Gilman and Kenny Hung, DES Architects and Chris Kenzel from KZN, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Will the buildings at 577, 555 and the new building be under the same ownership? (Gilman: That’s correct.) The other two buildings closer to Airport Boulevard, will those have separate owner -ship? (Gilman: Separate parcels, yes.) >There's an existing 260,000 square feet of office space, you're adding a new 241,000 or so, do you or the property owners have any statistics of the vacancies for office in this area or is there confidence in adding this additional office space? (Gilman: That's one of the reasons why we've been asked to look at this building from a design point of view and as either tech office, R&D or life science. We have developer clients who are now interested in doing life science because based on our experience right now that market is red hot.) So regardless of vacancies, this may open it up to a greater amount of leasing profile? (Gilman: Absolutely. Yes. That's why we designed it in terms of the floor heights and designed it for the outdoor area for service and those kinds of things.) >Can you talk more about the employee amenities? Specifically there was mention of lawn games . Where would that occur? Is that in the area facing toward the lagoon? (Gilman: That area just on the lagoon side of the building, we've got about 40 feet of width from the building to parking. The parking is down about four feet from this whole landscaped area. So that was the concept there, being able to have a variety of recreational activity so there could be both some passive landscaped area as well as more active. I'm not talking about tennis, but maybe ping pong, those kinds of things.) >There was mention of some existing shore access parking spots. Are there 15 parking spots to get relocated temporarily? Are those spots currently along the lagoon somewhere or where are they? (Gilman: They are along the lagoon and I believe we're moving them to the left behind the 577 Airport Boulevard Page 20City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes building temporarily. The area between the building and the lagoon will be fenced for the contractors, just staging and construction activity. That's one of the things that we've had preliminary discussions with BCDC, they are requesting that we do an administrative application. In the initial meetings they feel like there's probably little that they will be asking for since our work is outside of the BCDC area. However, they were interested in knowing and wanted to follow where the temporary spaces will be during construction.) Will they have close proximity to that bay trail? (Gilman: Yes. We'll make sure there's the maintenance. The bay trail swings off the edge.) It looks like the edge of the existing parking along the lagoon is going to be the same both in the new and the existing plan, is that correct? (Gilman: That's correct.) >It may sound trivial in the context of the overall program, your rendering and drawings for the trash enclosure. Looking at the rendering of the pump room it is not quite the same as what is shown on the sheet for the trash enclosure. Not trying to point out a mistake, just want to make sure that ’s what is going to happen because that's much nicer. Your landscape screen wraps around it on three sides and hugs it versus in the other renderings, it looks like they're applied panels. (Hung: We have two trash room locations. One is between 577 Airport Boulevard and the new building which is a shared surface lot and there's another one on the east side of 555 Airport Boulevard which is the smaller trash enclosure just to serve that building.) That's the one that has the landscape screens that hug it on three sides? (Hung: That's right.) Like what's happening there because the other one is more applied panels and maybe that's intended, but they look like mosaics hung on the wall. (Gilman: Those were modern panels we were floating from the wall, is that right, Kenny?) (Hung: Right, and planting screen as well. Down that area, on sheet A11, we have quite a lot of landscaping around that area.) Then this is a different trash enclosure that's over here? (Hung: Right. And if you look at the right -hand side and the top of the north side enclosure, we have a lot of landscape and we have trees and vegetation. They have to screen the trash enclosure.) They're going to be in front regardless of the panels you have attached to the building? (Gilman: Seeing your point in terms of the reference to the other trash enclosure.) It was a pretty nice detail. >Are you hugging the property line at the parking structure? It looks like there's a small walkway or paved for fire access. About how wide is that? (Gilman: Yes. We are ten feet from property line. We had meetings with the fire and public works departments and have worked out a fire fighting recommendations . I believe we have wet stand pipes and a walkway that the firefighters would use to pull hoses and so on.) If not mistaken, there's a drop down to the parking structures behind you at the 533 and 433? (Gilman: Yes. We will have a retaining wall right at our property line and there's a 3’-6” drop to the lower level of their parking structure.) Pretty familiar with this parcel. One of the thoughts was, there was a lot of water that would accumulate in that parking area. So you guys are obviously going to do a good job on that parking structure, correct? (Gilman: Yes, absolutely.) You did a really nice job on the building. It looks like it's respectful to the other two buildings, so thank you for that. >The area behind 555 Airport Boulevard, perhaps part of that could belong to the State Lands Commission, not sure if that's right or wrong. There's an opportunity to create some new landscaping that can help with being respective of what you're already creating inside the complex. Have you looked at doing additional work? There were older trees and grass that may have needed some work. (Gilman: It is interesting. Somewhat recently, there had been some work done in that landscaped area you're talking about. One of the reasons we tried to create this promenade space behind on the south side of the new building was to give, not just people from that building but all three buildings, a place for people to be outside that was wind protected and it was sunny where you can be warm because of all of the tree growth behind the 555 building. I have such a hard time cutting down trees, but that it was an intentional move to create some useable areas onsite that weren't shaded constantly. Clearly on a hot summer day, it would be great to be in those areas and be under those very matured trees in those areas, but they'll be two options or two types of things to deal with. Certainly not opposed to taking a look at how we can create some more usability in that area.) >There's a little bridge right there that takes you over to the Burlingame Point project, correct? Is that open and useable? (Gilman: I believe it is open, but it turns out, it drops down to private property on the east side of the channel. I think Burlingame Point starts about here. There's a project that occurs down that has a parking lot which extends out to a cul -de-sac that extends on to Airport Boulevard. It's private property. At one time, we were working with the previous owners of Burlingame Point and there was a Page 21City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes missing link to get to that bridge from the Burlingame Point property because it's a different land owner in that area.) >Will BCDC make you work on that little parcel on your side? (Gilman: I don't know. The pathway goes this way as well as going across.) >Have you looked at creating some sort of a water feature or something in the front part of the landscape like the entry in front of 555? It seems to have a good frontage area. (Gilman: As we worked with our landscape architect, this was one of the earlier concepts we had studied was a combination of seating area as well as water. Working with our civil engineer, a bio detention area finally won out. We have a pretty hefty need for creating spaces where we can have bio detention from the runoff from different surface areas and so on. Part of the issue is the site has never had that before, but because of the areas that we are working on, we have needed to create more of those new spaces even in areas like near both 577 and 555.) >It looks like your floor to floor height is 16 foot, correct? (Gilman: Yes.) What are the heights from floor to floor of the other two buildings, 555 and 577? (Hung: For 555 it is 13’ floor to floor and the other building is 11’.) Did you considerate a lower height to be able to have as many levels as you have, the 8 stories, but to have a lower massing to be closer to the two neighbors buildings? (Gilman: When we first started design, we weren't sure we were going to be considering life science, we were considering tech office, R&D. In that setting, typically we have done 14’ to 15’ floor to floor heights. When you get into a life science scenario and in particular, what would be built as a speculative building, there may not be a tenant when it's built. We have some clients in life science that want 17 feet floor to floor because there's so much exhaust requirements, so much HVAC, and so much chemistry that have to occur above the ceiling that it requires that additional height. Sixteen feet is about the minimum that most developers will consider for the life science use. Just so that a tenant may come along and say, I'm sorry, we will lease your building, but you don't have enough height. You don't know what a life science user may want to put into their lab spaces.) Interesting to know there's a functional reason for the consideration on the height, not just trying to be the tallest building. >On the rear of the new building, there are some designations per your landscape plan for different types of dining or seating. Wasn't sure where the dining space was. There was some seating areas called out, but some are noted as dining. How are they different? (Gilman: It is at the lower right-hand corner area where there's that light tan color. There are trees that are set into a hard surfaced paved area. It will be sidewalk cafe dining under trees which we're showing light autumn colored trees. Just left of that and then further to the left, we have a couple of smaller areas where we would have seating which is more casual, just an area for a couple of people who want to go outside and have a quick outdoor meeting or something of that nature. We're finding people want to be able to have that opportunity to take a break or a small team of two to four people working on a project, might be able to go outside and clear their heads and talk about their project or something.) That's great. In that sense, it seems that all of these areas can benefit from a similar tables and chairs kind of situation whether it's for dining or meetings or gatherings. Not just seating without some surface. Is that what your thought process is as well? (Gilman: Yes. Absolutely.) > People are commenting on the potential for traffic along this corridor both the north and southern entrances off Airport Boulevard. Are there plans to coordinate a TDM plan? (Gilman: We have submitted our draft TDM plan for the project. Our goal is to have a 20% reduction essentially alternative transportation rather than just automobile traffic. Our plan includes shuttle connectivity to Caltrain and BART. We would have a TDM coordinator. There would be subsidized transit passes as part of that. Part of that process, we would have employee surveys that would also determine where people live, how many miles do they travel and so on with the new VMT regulations, with traffic. During CEQA you have to do a survey to determine that and then encourage through these different measures, encourage people to use different kinds of transit to cut down the miles traveled.) >You mentioned there's bike storage at the parking structure, is that correct? (Hung: Correct. It will be on the first floor of the parking garage that we'll have electrical vehicle chargers, EV parking and a bike parking facility. Right outside the entrance of the building, we'll have a couple of bike racks for visitors to use as well.) (Gilman: In the buildings, we'll have showers and changing facilities.) Do you feel you are meeting code on the number of biking and parking spots? For bikes, is there a code requirement for the number of spaces to provide? (Gilman: Yes, there is and we're providing those. That’s a variable as well, depending upon what LEED certification we end up having. As we get more involved in the final lead Page 22City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes checklist and so on.) Aware that you've proposed what meets code, but as that market grows, can you plan the garage to be even more EV ready to take on more and more EV charging stations? (Gilman: Yes. That's something we're finding as tenants are starting to lease projects, we're starting to see that a developer may provide a certain amount of EV stalls and so on. We're seeing that need to add more, and parking structures are a great place to be able to do that.) >Because of the sensitivity about the piles required out there, got the impression from some document that you are getting some pre -construction guidance from the same contractor as building Burlingame Point, right? (Gilman: Correct.) Because of their experience, are they confident about the other cast pile technical solution and the cost as well? Are you pretty confident you can pull that off out there? (Gilman: Yes, as we've had initial discussions with them and not only this project, but other projects as well, we have a number of projects that just happen to occur in low -lying areas near the bay. We're finding that a few years ago, it seemed like the auger cast piles were a more expensive approach. They have changed their methodology, but we've found those things have come into conformance. Both processes are similar in terms of cost. There is consideration for auger casts and it's a realistic consideration here.) That's good because that became a sensitive topic at Burlingame Point as everybody knows. As we move forward, just wanted to make sure that it doesn't get flipped around. Understand that lots of things can happen . (Gilman: It came up in our community meeting also.) >Are the offset vertical fins on the building simple mullion caps or double mullions with a deep cap? What’s the thinking behind those? On some of the facades, they're shown as a grid. It looks like we're looking at vertical mullion caps stacked for several floors. Some of the curve facade, they're off -set, right? (Hung: Those are vertical caps and they're 12 inches deep. We’re still working on the details.) (Gilman: The offset helps to reinforce the horizontality as well.) Drove through Burlingame Point, and it ’s got a more insistent pattern and liked how the two projects are talking to each other. These feel like they need some more design thinking on them, but wanted to make sure to understand what was being proposed. You have horizontal fins that are probably not mullion caps, they ’re probably more like sun shade features or something, right? (Hung: Right.) In the facade renderings versus the perspective renderings, those things are casting a shadow and it makes it look like they are stripes of blue glass, but that's the shadow of the fins, right? (Gilman: Yes. Those shadows from the sun shades or beauty caps.) It's not patterned glass but just shadows, can see the spandrel glass clearly but wasn ’t sure what the stripes were. (Gilman: Yes.) That means the rendering on the paper copies show blue glass in the facade renderings, but this appears to be more clear with a green tint. Is this low e -glass or something? (Gilman: Toward the end of presentation, there's a photograph of the material board.) >Are the exterior terraces at the two ends of the building serving the building or the floors? Do all the tenants have access to them or if it's a multi -tenant building, they're serving the floors and not all the tenants, right? (Gilman: If they were multi-tenants, this occurs on the seventh floor and depending on how existing occurs as we have done the studies, those could be a multi -tenant and could be a connection to circulation.) >Is there an amenity center in 577 Airport Boulevard? Is there going to be another gym in this new building or will people be able to access 577 if they want to work out? (Gillman: That decision is out there depending upon tenant leasing. Not only for this building, but for the other two buildings as well. One way or another, they would maintain a fitness function. All of our projects, one form or an -other, no matter how small or whatever, they have some form of fitness capability. It's something that tenants are asking for. It can be that maybe a tenant takes this new building and a fitness function would occur within the new building.) Public Comments: >James Ruigomez: I’m representing the San Mateo Building and the Construction Trade Council which represents 24 construction unions and 16,000 highly skilled men and women, many of which live in Burlingame and in the county of San Mateo. This is quite a project in front of you. As they were explaining with the auger cast piles and the glazing and the glass. The building trade council is based off of a working platform of earning a wage you can live here, healthcare for you and your family, something to retire on and funding our education. It's the largest private education system in the United States to make sure facilities like this and the post office you heard before this earlier on in the agenda are built right the first time, on time and on budget. Any skilled craftsman and women that take the time in their education, Page 23City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes they record from 5,000 to 7,000 hours on the job and in the classroom to ensure they build it right the first time and on time and budget. I appreciate a lot of the commissioners detailed questions about building materials as well as finishes and facades and fits. Very, very intelligent questions being in construction for 30 years, I'm impressed and hope this developer and contractor could commit through a letter of intent or a community workforce agreement with the building trades to ensure you'll hire a local contractor that will receive those local benefits and fund their own education to make sure they build it correctly. Thank you for the consideration tonight and thank you for allowing me to speak. >Eugene Vlahos, 533 Airport Boulevard: I'm very interested in what's going on here. Do the owners have a tenant yet for this building? (Gilman: Not that I know of.) So they're building hoping to get someone? Do you have a traffic impact analysis? Do you have a grade on that, a score on that? (Gilman: There has been a traffic study that has been prepared and that will of course be turned over to the city to be part of the CEQA environmental document.) One of my problems with this project is the impact on traffic. Did you get a traffic impact analysis? What were the results? (Kenzel: I’m with PG Transportation Consultants. We were retained to do a traffic impact analysis. We did a comprehensive one in conformance with the city requirement for the traffic study. We looked at 12 different intersections along Airport Boulevard, Broadway and Old Bayshore Highway. We did all in conformance with the city. We looked at short -term and long-term conditions and build out to make sure the intersections were in conformance with the level service requirements of the city and they were. In addition, we looked at the newer standard for vehicle miles traveled and analysis of that in order to make sure that this project is consistent with the new city and state requirements . There were concerns at the neighborhood meeting about the traffic to and from this project that's using the San Mateo bridge. They want to find short cuts in Highway 101 and 92 than traveling through the neighborhoods and there's a lot of that going on now. Our project, we think of the 250 or so peak hour trips leaving the site, between 20 and 30 of those might be bound for the bridge. Those are ones that would be candidates to do cut -through in that neighborhood. There's not a lot we can do about the cut-through. There are conversations held with the City of San Mateo on the Bayshore connection which is how these people would avoid the freeway and travel through that neighborhood. That's an issue we have dealt with. The only thing we can say is it's a reasonably small number from this new development.) (Does that answer your question?) No, it doesn't. It does bring up a huge red flag. To Tom Gilman, you showed a lot of nice angles of pictures. I wish you would show a picture from my building because I'm going to be looking at a six story parking lot. I hope you landscape that just as nicely as the other side. (Gilman: Yes. In fact we had a section that shows the relationship from the 533 building.) As one of the only local owners, many of our owners are residents of Burlingame, this is quite interesting and I'm glad I sat through this. Those are my concerns. Looking at a six story parking lot where I had a nice view before and the other is the traffic. Once Facebook comes in July, we're going to have your buildings and who knows what it's going to be like. Airport Boulevard is four lanes and funnels down to two lanes as it passes Facebook. Five o’ clock in the afternoon is going to be gridlock there. (Gillman: I wanted to show the relationship of the 533 building at Airport Boulevard. Our parking structure is about 115 feet setback from the 533 building. You can see a little step down on the top of the parking structure, that is the ramp area. We purposefully positioned the ramp on this side of the building in relationship to that 533 building, so the building is a little bit lower here. When you look at the drawing and the little plan view, that area of the top floor is the area where the ramp occurs and we tried to position that so it was across from your building. So we're trying to reduce the apparent height of the building.) (Chair Tse: Mr. Vlahos, can we take this offline and you can have this discussion with the applicant separately? This isn't supposed to be a discussion.) I'm being filled in on this project and this is the first I've seen all these. I appreciate your time. It was very important and informative. >Jeffrey Philiber: Thanks very much for holding this forum and entertaining my question. I'm a resident of San Mateo North Shoreview and we are very concerned with cut -through traffic from this area of Burlingame. Could you just briefly tell us what the status is of the CEQA documentation, what level of documentation, what’s the anticipated schedule and availability? (Gardiner: We're anticipating it would be an initial study negative declaration and that takes typically 6 to 9 months to prepare. There's generally administrative draft and a public review draft, then there's a comment period of 20 or 30 days, not sure whether the 30 days would apply or if it's 20 days. There would be a public comment period. Then that would be reviewed when it comes back to the Planning Commission. It sounds like the traffic study has been done in advance. Part of this is meeting a scoping for that study, so we're taking input from the Page 24City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes public and the commissioners on items to be studied in the environmental review.) Thank you for that. Is there a chance for us to see the traffic study prior to the issuance of the public draft of the initial study? In other words, can we see it sooner rather than later? (Gardiner: I believe so. As long as it's not considered a draft then it is available for public review. We can work with the applicant to have that made available.) >Sent via e-mail by Gregory Pool, 533 Airport Boulevard: We received notice of the possibility of an eight story building to be constructed at 567 Airport Boulevard. It was seem to be an insane proposal with regard to traffic. We already have over 800,000 square feet of unoccupied campus for Facebook with an unknown solution on how traffic will be mitigated with only two access and egress points. Facebook would occupy the campus in 2021. We already have a bottleneck at Broadway and Peninsula Avenue at the end of business day without knowing the impact Facebook would have with 5,000 plus employees and Airport Boulevard can't afford to fight through covid and a traffic nightmare. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >In terms of architecture, the building itself seems to be well -crafted and thoughtful. It seems to fit in nicely in terms of the context. Don't have too many issues in terms of the commercial design review. Am accepting of the conditional use permit for the floor area ratio, particularly relative to what's been put in place with the general plan and the specific area plan that's a little bit behind in that regard. In terms of the conditional use permit for height, that goes hand in hand with the environmental analysis. So skipping over to the environmental scoping, the critical issue was the noise analysis. Encouraged by the thought of the auger cast piles. Would like to see if that's going to be baked into the project, then that can be analyzed through the environmental initial study and then see what the impacts might be. The traffic needs to be analyzed and thorough review of the traffic demand management plan that's been submitted, so that clearly needs to be a part of the environmental analysis. Would like to see a third party verification from the environmental team in regards to the view corridor. The architects have done a good job of presenting some diagrams in terms of the view corridor calculations. It would be help to have that third party verification by the environmental team. >Would agree, the project looks nice. Understand the height and the density and don't have issues with that so much. Can sympathize with the traffic concerns. We have a challenge there with our highways and you can see it with Highway 92 being backed up most of the way to the Peninsula every evening. So that's something that should be taken seriously and we need to look at how those two access points in and off that area work. Having driven that small road through the Facebook campus yesterday, it's not going to handle a lot of traffic, so a lot of people are going to end up through Anza Boulevard, that ’s the biggest concern with this project. Otherwise, the architecture looks nice and appreciate the effort and the hard work being done on the project. >The architecture is coming along nicely. Thank you for the nice presentation and the thoroughness of your drawings and renderings on helping us to understand the space and relationship of the new building in respect to others in the area. To add to the study, would like to see bird -safe design standards be addressed in that area. As well as control over debris and trash blowing into the waterways during construction and air quality control. The other concerns have already been mentioned by my fellow commissioners. >Looking forward to having the bay side revitalized with Burlingame Bay and Burlingame Point. This will be a nice addition to those buildings having a lab in that area and bringing a different type of tenant . Looking forward to seeing the project move forward. >The project is a good one. It's a really good repositioning of a large surface parking lot. That's not the highest and best use for this project, but look forward to seeing the architecture develop some more. It will bring a nice addition to the waterfront. It helps to bring some spatial structure to the water ’s edge in a positive way. There was no motion from the Planning Commission, as this application is required to return on the Regular Action Calendar. 12. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 25City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021 November 23, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 13. DIRECTOR REPORTS Director Gardiner mentioned that there will be a virtual community meeting for the town square proposal on December 1st. There is a project web page at burlingame .org/townsquare. This is the first of several meetings, with this meeting providing an overview of the project. Future meetings will review input from the public, and present design alternatives. Commissioner Terrones requested that a Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meeting be scheduled in the near future. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:31 p.m. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on November 23, 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 December 3, 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 26City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2021