Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.01.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, January 25, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was held on the above date online at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, and Interim City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent5 - Sargent, and TerronesAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft November 23, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft November 23, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent, and Terrones2 - b.Draft December 14, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft December 14, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Loftis was recused from this item because he was not present at the December 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid4 - Absent:Sargent, and Terrones2 - Recused:Loftis1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Planning Manager Hurin noted that Item 8c - 1509 El Camino Real and Item 8d - 1341 Marsten Road have been continued to the February 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicants. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.108 Channing 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 review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Kevin Peng, property owner and applicant; Joe Ouyang, Yo Consulting Inc., designer) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 108 Channing Rd - Staff Report 108 Channing Rd - Attachments 108 Channing Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis noted that he was absent from the December 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting but was able to watch the video. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >What are the square footage requirements for the landscaping at the front and rear yards? (Hurin: For single family dwellings we don ’t have a square footage requirement for landscaping. We do have a requirement for number of trees, however the landscaping in general will be reviewed as part of the design review application.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Kevin Peng, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Thank you for providing the tile sample. Are you planning to use the tile both on the vertical sections shown on your elevations and on the horizontal porch and treads all the way down? (Peng: That’s correct. We are going to cover those steps along the floor of the porch.) Do you have something in mind for the transition at the corner of the porcelain tile? The edges are not finished and porcelain tiles used in this fashion tend to chip. (Peng: We are going with metal corner pieces; we have used them in other projects . On the previous project we ’ve done, we used these steel corner pieces which turned out pretty nice and protect the edges as well.) >Curious about the metal corner, what sort of steel is it? Metal can mean a lot of different things and can look really bad. Can you tell us anything more about it? We are talking about a 1/4” tile which comes to the edge and one edge will show unless it is closed. Not sure what ’s being talked about. (Peng: Yes, these are similar to a shower where the tile ends above and you don ’t have a matching piece at the edge . What we normally do is put a metal piece to hold the tile and provide a finish.) Is this metal piece an L-shape? (Peng: It is kind of an L -shape.) Do the two thin edges of the tile butt up against this metal and get grouted between the metal and the tile? (Peng: Correct, yes.) Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the changes made; the porcelain tile looked fine. As discussed by my fellow commissioner, perhaps we have something come back as an FYI with a little bit more detail regarding the corners of the tiles. >The project has come along. I can find it approvable in its current state with the conditions as stated in the staff report. As an FYI from the trades' perspective, that metal edge is an L -shaped metal, it has some webbing on the back side that goes behind the tile. It is 1/16” thick on the edge and manufactured by the company named Schluter. They make all kinds of different tile systems, waterproofing, backing and edges specifically for this situation; it comes in different thicknesses and finishes. I'm assuming this is what the applicant is talking about. It is common for residential applications. >I agree that the project has come a long way; I like the changes to the details and scale. I am concerned about whether the applicant picked the right corner piece for that tile; a lot of those were meant for interior use only. I have used them a lot and they usually come out and get damaged. Unless you pick a thick enough gauge, it is really not appropriate for stair nosing. That is not to say that you cannot get a stair nosing that has the appropriate thickness and rigidity for that. It could be a trip hazard, it could be something that falls apart. Take great care in picking that material so it functions the way you want it too . Otherwise can support this project as well. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI which includes a detail of the metal corner transitions for the porcelain tiles on the front porch. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent, and Terrones2 - b.1457 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for as-built changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form + One, applicant and designer; Tim and Megan Baldwin, property owners) (116 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1457 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1457 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1457 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused for non -statutory reasons. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant with property owner Tim Baldwin. Commission Questions/Comments: >I would like to express my frustration. These are not a new architect or builder in Burlingame and the conditions of approval are very clear. We went through a lot of this design to make sure that it was kept in a historical significance which retained the front portion of the house. With that being said, can one of you help us with the changing of the windows? Not just that they were rebuilt, but on both your left and right side elevations they are not what was approved. The discussion was very in depth about retaining them and keeping those so the front of the house or the front portion of the house looks the same, so can you tell us why that got changed? (Raduenz: Yes. The windows that got changed on the left side elevation was done after the letter was submitted saying it was no longer historically significant. So, we decided to ask for the change. We didn't do it retroactively. It has taken this long to get on to the commission meeting .) (Baldwin: I can explain more about why that changed. Just to quickly clarify, on the right elevations, what looks like we're asking for a change actually is not. What is there now reflects what the original approved plans called for. There's just only one window on the right side. On the left side, retaining the old glassed-in porch created a weird dynamic where halfway across the dining room were these glass windows, and then it stopped that way and it was just wall. So it was just done from an aesthetic standpoint to create a centered window in the dining room and not have this very awkward window jutting out into the middle of the room. Given how close that window is to our neighbor's house next door and with hedges going up in between them, you cannot see that from the side of the street from any perspectives. So at least in my opinion, it's not desecrating the view of the structure.) >In your letter dated September 3rd, on the second page, you agreed to maintain the enclosed sun room porch despite its status. This was something that was discussed in -depth. (Raduenz: I understand, yes.) Why it was changed on a whim, it seems like a disregard for the decision that was made. This was part of the design process. If you knew that the window was there, I would think the interior walls would be designed around that. I don't get it. (Raduenz: That's why we're asking you. The house is not completed yet. We're not coming to you after living in it. This is the point of having this discussion. We are not going against you. We are asking you for your approval. In other circumstances, people are already living in the house, the contractor is not done. You understand that, correct?) I see that, but the wall was clearly framed in. (Raduenz: They are.) (Baldwin: When we told him that we wanted to stick to the approved plans he moved beams around. Such that the original sunroom would be in place, and then once we got the notification saying enough has changed in the house that it's no longer historically significant, the contractor felt safe in moving the beams around again so that we could have a centered window and then being able to ask for it after the fact. I understand why but I take umbrage. I think there's a feeling that things were done sneakily, that was not our intent. Our original plan calls to scrape the house and put something very different in place. I have this because we have a painting of the 1908 structure now that's going to hang in our house and this new house will reflect that history. We've done a beautiful job of recreating the structure, and this was not done because we're some new couple. We have lived in Burlingame eight years and we love the history and the neighborhood, and we're not trying to subvert the rules and do something sneaky to our benefit. We're also paying a lot of money to build a house that's safe, that is new and ideally one that is comfortable and doesn't have a weird window, so that's why we're asking. This was not done because we don't care about the rules, and I do think there's that feeling there.) (Raduenz: That was not our intent at all.) >Can you go back to your comment about the right side elevation, the plans that you've provided for us showed a previously approved right elevation and proposed right elevation. Are you saying that what we have are not correct? (Baldwin: Unbeknownst to the designer, when the contractor was putting the structure together he had made the choice to put in two windows, as you see on the bottom there. We Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes freaked out and said no, let ’s make sure we're sticking to what was approved. And so he went and covered up what he had started framing out for that second small window. What is on the house right now, and what will remain there is what you see approved on the top.) (Raduenz: I didn't make the changes, of course, because this would be a binding document.) >I totally understand the point of view of the applicant and the designer and I'd ask that they consider the situation they put us in, which is we approve something and the work gets done. It doesn't matter whether people moved into it or not, the work gets done. We don't want to have to force you to tear something out, but it's within our right. We approved something else, right? In my view, this is an unfair situation to be put into. I'm a volunteer. I understand that the applicant spends a lot of money building what they're building, but I'm in my 7th year of volunteering every other week for the Planning Commission and I'd have to bill a really high hourly rate to be equivalent to what the applicant is spending, but it's unfair to be put in this situation because we can say tear it down, fix it, we approved something else. If it were just this applicant and this instance, it's a lot to deal with, but we see this over and over again. (Baldwin: I totally respect that; I totally get it. I want to point out, when my wife and I saw that the contractor was trying to make stuff better for us in terms of interior aesthetics, we immediately pushed back and said no, we want to be good citizens. This is what was approved and he immediately covered what he had started framing up on the right side, which is the new windows and we said, no, we don ’t want to subvert what was told to us. I would walk the dog and watch them pull timber up and start making the left side elevations exactly as approved too. Then we got this letter from the Planning Division saying all this stuff happened and you're no longer historically significant, and that's when we took it as an okay. In a normal situation, it would be a basic FYI, a quick little aesthetic change we would think would not be a big deal. So I do want to make clear that we're trying to be good citizens. I regret deeply, that we put you in this position. From the very start, this ordeal has been one that has thrown a ton of unknowns and unexpected things our way . We're trying to do right by Burlingame, our neighbors and a whole list of stakeholders and constituents and I regret that we placed you guys in a squeeze or in a way that made you feel taken advantaged of. So for that, I'm sorry.) >Clarification on the right elevation, you said what's framed or built now matches the previously approved plans? (Raduenz: Correct.) When I looked at the house I saw what looks like the bottom drawing but without the left window. I see the door and then the window. I don't see a window immediately attached to the left side of the door and didn't see a window that looked like the one that is existing. What is on site was the bottom elevation without the left window, is that correct? (Baldwin: I have no idea, I'm sorry. All I know is one versus two. I don't know that the shape changed.) I definitely did not see a window attached to the door, so something is different than the approved elevation. (Raduenz: We’ll take a picture of it, and we can make sure it is correctly shown.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Should Commissioner Terrones' letter be read into the record? (Gardiner: We've treated it as a "received after" communication, so it's in the record, but we're not reading it out loud for the record. It's like if someone sent a letter after the staff report being published. It has been provided to the applicant and it's in the public record, but we're not going to read it out loud.) >Was going to ask the same question because I was inclined to read the fifth point in Commissioner Terrones' comments out loud, which is to say that we're stuck in this situation again where we would have to ask ourselves, what are we looking at? Would it have been approvable if it was presented in the beginning? His assessment is correct. The work being done is sound and it replicates the original scale and detail. And he finds the design approvable though the process and loss of historic status are frustrating and highly unfortunate. That's where we are and the quality is good, high and it replicates detail . This is extremely frustrating and we need to make it more painful for people not to follow the approved plan Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes somehow. I don't know if we create a Planning approval bond or something that's given over if people decide they want to change things. Something needs to happen because this is really, really not fun. So a bad situation. >I would agree with that comment, because a lot of time was spent on this. There was a lot of public input on it as well. About the sunroom window, that was something that was discussed and we approved it with that center window. If I was going to be designing the inside of the house, I would work with that as an exterior element and say we need to work around this on the interior because they both work together . Changing it from the outside because the interior didn't work is exactly the same thing except backwards . I am concerned about this proposed versus the previously approved right elevation. I took a quick look at it as well and just saw the one window and it is not next to the door. That, for sure, needs to be cleaned up. To be perfectly honest, I get it that some of the windows were rotten. If that happens, that should be kept so it can be shown to us so we can be assured that they are rotten. The historic mitigation has been thrown out the window by the applicant and builder. I am iInclined to require that it be built as per the approved drawings on both the left and right side elevations. The front is probably workable. I get it that the windows had to be replaced, but am inclined to go back to the original plan as far as the sunroom, right side elevation and window location. >Definitely echo my fellow commissioners’ frustrations with this whole process and where we are now, and especially with this experienced applicant and builder. What has been built is of high quality and as true as possible to the original. I don't believe the right side elevation is reflecting what has been presented this evening, we need some further clarification on that. I do agree that the neighbor to the left is very close to the house and it is difficult to see what the difference between what should have been there and what is there now. We don't have the benefit of the floor plans in this submission to check against the currently proposed windows. I am uncertain about what to do, I’m stuck in the middle here. >Part of the problem is that a lot of the variance and special permits were granted because they were supposed to be keeping this historic house. Would this be approvable from the get go if it was a new house? It probably wouldn't because it's going to be too close to the other house. But the whole point of this was they were keeping the old house, so to change it as much as it's being changed, you're doing an end around on the variance and the setback from the side. Under the same conclusion, I agree that the quality of the work is good and it looks very nice, but I'm frustrated with how this has come about and is leading me to go back to what was approved, at least in the design of it. I understand that some of the materials were rotten and had to be replaced, but that should have been brought forward much sooner than this. >Commissioner Gaul made a motion to deny the application noting that the house should be built as per the original plan. The motion was not seconded. >I don't have a problem with the rear elevation because that's new and that wasn't considered part of the historical part of the house, that was all going to be new anyway. I don't have a problem with what was changed on the front, the material at the newer gables on the second floor, but the windows should be put in as per the originally approved plan. >Gardiner: Through the chair, the issue at least with the motion is with the right and left windows on the first floor that correspond to the historic portion of the house, the original portion. You're okay with the other changes, so the gables, the French door on the back and such. Sorry to be out of line here, but if the real focus is just those windows on the front, right and left side, perhaps the motion could reflect that a little more specifically and then allow the other changes. >I'm confused by the timeline. The staff report notes that there was a complaint, there was no documentation of what had happened, further investigation was done and after receiving the documentation that was done after the fact, Planning staff made the determination that because more than 50% of the character defining features had been removed that the facade was primarily a replication and the structure no longer qualifies as a historic structure. More than 50% was changed. Was that changing out rotten stuff for new stuff? Rather than stop and say, wait a minute we got this approved because it's historic, the builder started replacing historic material with non -historic material and then came back and said, no? I need to understand this timeline because it means something. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Tse re-opened the public hearing. >(Raduenz: Yes. The timeline has been stretched for five months. We did not get a notice that there was some type of meeting. All of a sudden, the project planner emailed me and the owner saying it's not historic anymore. I don't know what happened. No one gave me a straight answer and Tim Baldwin can back me up.) (Baldwin: I can explain. From our perspective, what happened was someone in the historic committee or a neighbor complained and said the house is up, and it looks great, but it doesn't look historic enough as far as materials, it looks nice and new. So, that kicked off a back -and-forth between the Planning Division and us about what was going on. My wife and I are not builders, we don't know how this stuff works, but we explained that the following things had deteriorated and we still have the windows and some pieces of the siding. We can show this was not done for aesthetic reasons, but done because I have three kids under five years old and the windows were single -pane glass, non -tempered and rotting around the core and dangerous among other things. We went forward and kept everything that was salvageable, the original gables and original door, and some of the beams or brackets. Everything that could be kept was kept. We presented that back to the Planning Division and we pointed out that it is not planned this way, but they said, okay, thank you. Based on what has been kept and what hasn't been kept, this house no longer qualifies as historically significant. At that point, we've been dealing with an unbelievable cost and headache for a year and we're not going to get the benefit of a historic register. As some of you might know, it includes a massive tax reduction on the property, among other things. The point remains, we then said, all right. We passed this news on to our builder who said, okay, if this house is no longer historic significant, I can go forward and ask for these changes, which included on the left side elevation, putting in a centered window and not this weird, half sunroom. In his words, it's not changing the overall look and feel of the house relative to the neighborhood and this is not some change that would cause a huge concern especially given, we're near the neighbor's house and we're putting hedges and this isn't something you can see from the street. It means our dining room will have a window in the center and not a half -wall and half-window. That was where we left off. It was based on the fact that it's not historically significant anymore. That wasn't our intention. We didn't think if we change this enough, we can get this reversed. We were planning along with what we had been told to do. So at that point, we decided to come forward and ask you for approval of the changes in the back and there's a little shingle detail on the new part of the house that was asked for. We will certainly go and on the right side of the house, if that window is not next to the door, that's absolutely not something we intended to do. We can get that put back in, if that's important to the Commission. That's the timeline, and I hope it reflects to you that we are not trying to bypass the rules or put you guys in this uncomfortable position. We were very much moving forward, this is nothing like what we envisioned. We've spent a lot of money with Tim developing other plans and we had a different timeline in moving in with our kids and we live up the street . We're not trying to get the designation changed or sneak one by you or put you in a frustrating position . We were trying to do right by this incredible process by which there's no precedent. When we bought the house, there was no you might have to keep part of it or it might be historic significant. I slammed the door on the day we bought it and a piece of siding fell off the door. That's where we are. I hope that makes sense.) >As you worked on it, the only pieces replaced were the ones that were unusable? (Baldwin: Correct.) They couldn't be refurbished? They had to be replaced? (Baldwin: Yes. I'm going off of what the builder showed us and told us. I went and saw it. It's siding from the 50’s and the windows are still there. You look and it's soaked through rotted. I'm not a material's guy, but soaked through rotted wood and glass that shatters if untouched.) (Raduenz: We have a letter from SF Window and Sash who is a reportable company. We have been dealing with this for four and a half months with the Planning Division. We've been working and this has been a contentious project, just because of people writing in anonymously the night before a meeting in December and then getting us pushed back to this meeting. It's not my intent and I have a finished historic house in Calistoga. (Baldwin: All of our neighbors who we have become friends with, wow, it reminds us of the old house while allowing the new in too. This wasn't done because we don't respect your authority. My wife is a lawyer, this is not how we work. And we never once thought this was something that would be viewed as us circumventing the rules or I never envisioned putting you in a position that is uncomfortable. So with that, I'm truly sorry. That's all I have to say. We've tried to work with the process, such there was one in place and definitely mistakes were made on our behalf. I'm not Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes saying we're without fault, only that I don't know how this works. But the contractor would admit, he should have said, “Planning Commission, look at this stuff, it's not useable .” Because this thing has dragged on for almost two years at this point, I think his intent was to put our heads down and work and make this thing a beautiful replica that does justice to the other home, but safe for my wife and kids.) Chair Tse closed the public hearing. >Gardiner: Through the chair, I want to explain the de -listing of the historic status. The reason staff had to come to that conclusion was related to the environmental review status of the project in that, if the historic resource is destroyed, it causes problems for CEQA. The determination that it was no longer eligible for historic status allowed the project to keep moving forward. If the proposal originally had been to tear down the house, that would have been a different environmental review. So the point was to try to clear it so there would be a way to move forward. The other thing I want to mention, and this is related to historic resources, the intent was not to take away property tax abatement possibilities. The Mills Act is a property tax abatement and it is generous. Historic preservation is expensive, so the purpose of having that tax break is to spend the extra money. It's more expensive to restore an old house than to rebuild. So certainly, we can all agree this wasn't the direction we had hoped, but we have been working with the applicant to try to find a way forward and also learn from this. >I have come to a little bit of a better understanding. I'm with my fellow commissioner in his letter at this point. Had we known in advance that the historic materials were unusable, then we wouldn't have asked the owner, the applicant to rebuild those unusable materials in the same way. We've had other historic type resources come in front of us and we've known the fact that we had to lose the pieces of the fabric of the community, but the floors were falling in and all sorts of horrible things were wrong. It made no sense at all to rebuild them. This is a smaller version of the same thing. As you get into a project, if you're working in an old house you find things that don't work and they're not useable, and if piece by piece you discover that and you couldn't have known it in advance, then the story is more palatable to me . Had we known in advance that the material was bad and it would have had to be replaced, we wouldn't have asked him to rebuild in the same historic fashion. We would have put it to the same test that we put every project that comes before us. It is sad, no doubt, as my fellow commissioner says, that we lose this. I am convinced that nothing malicious was intended. We're all frustrated because we find ourselves in a situation over and over again, slightly different situation. But, I would have found what's being put in front of us acceptable had it come to us as a design after we found out that the material was unusable on day one. We might have fussed around about the width of the windows or something, but generally, the project is approvable. >I would just make the point that I'm not objecting to the new materials being used so much as I am to the change of the exterior design on the left and right sides. I get it that things are rotten. I have run into that myself and had to rebuild things that were original that we were trying to hold on to. It's not the idea of the materials being replaced with new materials as so much as the change in the layout of the windows on the left and right side, specifically the sunroom and side door windows, that should go back. That was debated at length when this was originally approved. I still stand by where I was before, that those windows should be put in as the approved plans showed. >I want to thank the applicant and the owners for letting us know what happened and being honest about it. I can appreciate how long this process takes. In going by the house, I've lived here for a long time and always liked that house. You have done a good job at making a nice resource. I'm more of the opinion that the left and right sides were more important when they were historic. I don't know we would have looked at it and say let's do the front facade. You need to go on each side, so I can appreciate my fellow commissioner's comment on that. At this point, since those materials and the front elevation is not going to be historic in nature, I can understand the desire for the changes being made and can support them. Based on our conversation with Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Raduenz, they have made an honest effort and can appreciate the time and money that have gone into a project like this. I'm in support of the changes. >It's unfortunate where we are. What we're discussing tonight is now down to the left and right sides. I empathize with the owner that the dining room would be odd with half -front porch windows coming through half the room and then a blank wall. And because I saw how close the neighboring house is to his home, it's difficult to see the wraparound of those sunroom windows. So it does wrap the corner. With that, I'm Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes okay with the left side. The right side, in theory looks fine as proposed. I don't have a floor plan to reference this evening to understand what's happening inside that could explain why these two windows are being proposed where they are. The originally approved design didn't have a window on the right side and in the immediate front corner. So it's an improvement to add some more glazing there where there is some good exposure to light. That's a driveway side, so that's getting some good light exposure anyway. Can see approving the proposed drawings as presented as we see them tonight. >I thought the right side was being built as approved. (Chair Tse: No. That's what they said, but that's not what I saw.) The owner has asked the builder to put it in as approved. We're talking about the left side. We're talking about the sunroom only, essentially. (Chair Tse: We need to clarify if the right side will be built as per the approved drawings because they currently are not. That was mentioned this evening, but from what Commissioner Gaul and myself saw, that wasn't the case onsite. I don't know if that's an FYI or something that comes back to us. >Gardiner: Should there be commissioners who want to approve the changes as shown on the plan, that can be an action the commission takes and if it turns out that what is in the field is not shown on the plans, then the applicant can come back or show what's on the plans. But what's before the commission tonight is what's shown on the plans, and if what you see on the plans is acceptable, then that is something that could be approved. >Commissioner Gaul withdrew his motion to deny the application. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that prior to the final inspection, the applicant shall submit an FYI which includes plans reflecting the changes approved with this amendment application, with the exception of the right elevation which shall be built as originally approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid4 - Nay:Gaul1 - Absent:Sargent, and Terrones2 - c.1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - This item has been continued to the February 8, 2021 meeting at the request of the applicant. Application for Amendment to Condominium Permit to add common open space on the roof of the building (condominium project is currently under construction). (Pat Fellowes, applicant; 1509 El Camino LLC, property owner) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Item 8c - 1509 El Camino Real was continued to the February 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. d.1341 Marsten Road, zoned RR - This item has been continued to the February 8, 2021 meeting at the request of the applicant. Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a commercial recreation use. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a). (Adna Berryman, applicant; Rob Wehmeyer, RC Wehmeyer Design Build, designer; Ken Merrill, property owner) (35 Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Item 8d - 1341 Marsten Road was continued to the February 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. e.Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding Regulations Governing Commercial Cannabis Activity. Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner (This item was continued from the January 11, 2021 meeting) Staff Report Proposed Resolution Exhibits A and B - Proposed Regulations October 5, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes Innovation Industrial Map California Regulations for Delivery of Cannabis Products – Summary Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Senate Bill SB94 is not a requirement that the City allow cannabis dispensaries, correct? That's up to us if we want to have them or not? (Spansail: I would have to go back and look, there have been a lot of Senate bills that have come out. No, we do not need to require distribution centers and that's something the City is choosing to do. There are financial incentives for it. It varies with the election so it's complicated. Ultimately, cities can generate revenue from doing that, and we now have the permission of the State government to do so. We get to figure out what level the City of Burlingame feels is appropriate and what areas it's appropriate to have it in, which is one of the big questions before you tonight since this is a zoning ordinance change. We want to make sure that the Planning Commission believes this is of an appropriate use in Burlingame, but a good use for these land use districts.) >On page three of the Ordinance, the last sentence of the first paragraph says, “as stated above the draft ordinance, specifically excludes any storefront component where customers purchase a product at the physical premises of the retail establishment .” How is that differentiated from one who purchases the product online and then asks for pickup physically on site? (Gardiner: In this instance, they would not be able to pick up on site. They could order online and most likely that's how the order would occur. The order would be dispatched from a location in Burlingame, but no customer can be allowed to pick it up. It would have to be a home delivery or business delivery to an address.) How is that business monitored if they choose to allow someone who just happens to be down the street to come to the site? I realize they're not advertising their address. If somehow that is discovered through the business application process where an address will be made public, how does that prevent someone from requesting pickup at the site and how is that prevented? (Gardiner: That would be a violation of the zoning code as well as the Conditional Use Permit. Should this occur repeatedly, the Conditional Use Permit could be repealed. The Ordinance is set up so enforcement is through the Code Enforcement Division. It's similar to any other Conditional Use Permit to where they're not abiding by the conditions in the permit. It is revocable or correctable. It wouldn't be allowed and there are no exceptions. That would be a violation of both of the zoning and the Conditional Use Permit.) >Some of the requirements like drop safes, is that something we're requiring in our Ordinance or does that come under the State guidelines that they need to have? (Gardiner: That's something we're requiring . We did look at a number of different ordinances as models and particular ordinances from neighboring communities. We spoke to the staff of those communities to get a sense of best practices. We felt the drop safes was one element that was a best practice in terms of security concerns and that seems to be a good way to deal with the concerns of back door or high amounts of money.) Is there any reason we couldn't put it in the Ordinance to be a cashless transaction, so the purchase occurs online and an online monetary source is used so that the drivers carry no money? (Gardiner: This is where I don't know as Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes much about the world of cannabis, but I think that a cashless system may have some issues; I'm not sure we can do that. We may be able to get some clarification on that from those that know more.) >Are we expecting that drivers will be driving personal vehicles? Or are they driving company cars that then have these other requirements that we are including in the Ordinance? (Spansail: The way we currently have it in the Ordinance is that the vehicles have to be registered for that purpose. If it's a personal vehicle, it has to be registered to the City and the person driving would have to be a part of that operator's license. I don't know if someone would want to use their personal vehicle, but we would have that car registered to that business to track where it's going and run down issues that may come up.) >Is there any language preventing a third party delivery operator from being involved? As in if someone tried to use an Uber or some other ride share? (Spansail: That would go against the operator's license, which is built into the Ordinance to where that person driving has to go through a vetting process before they would be allowed to do that and the company will be responsible for making sure that the driver has the qualifications we have put into code.) Could they contract with a third party driver who does that for several companies and it could be a non -company owned delivery system? (Spansail: That would not in compliance with our code. It couldn't do that the way it's written. If there's a way they built in a third party system to comply with our code and got an operator's license permit for those individuals as well, I suppose they could. All the work would have to have the same safeguards that we have currently.) >There's quite a bit of language about odor reduction. Is there any reason why we're not requiring all products to be sealed at the main point of manufacturing and that this is a distribution only of sealed products? (Spansail: That's our understanding. We're putting more onerous rules to make sure that just in case there's a transfer and it isn't a sealed product, they would be required to do that odor requirement as well.) (Gardiner: That's correct. Some of the products are already sealed to such an extent when they arrive. The odor would not be an issue, but it's a safeguard that we don't want to assume that. This builds in a protection should something not be packaged in that way. The obligation is to ensure that the premises themselves would not allow odors out.) I understand, but I didn't read anything in the Ordinance that would say that they couldn't break apart packaging and repackage on site. (Gardiner: I don't think the Ordinance would necessarily restrict that. To be blunt, we wouldn't want to smell it. The easiest way to comply is to have everything packaged so that's not an issue. You should not, from the outside, have that sense of odors coming from there.) >In one of the sections, Exhibit A, page 2.G, it talks about a greenhouse structure. I can't imagine us having a greenhouse as a secure building for this type of environment and so the term “greenhouse” seems odd as a structure. (Gardiner: Certainly, that could be an amendment. We probably are not going to see greenhouses. We don't have a lot of greenhouses in Burlingame, so that seems like it doesn't fit . That's an amendment that could be suggested; I think that makes sense.) The only point being is if we don't suggest anything with the word greenhouse, maybe people will realize this is retail distribution only and we're having no part of any kind of cultivation processing or even packaging because that just leads us to that ability to have crime. (Gardiner: That's a good point. The greenhouse is probably a provision from a municipality allowing cultivation. I think it should be removed.) >Want to confirm that we are talking about retail distribution only and no storefront? (Gardiner: That is correct.) All of the regulations that I see are about making the facilities highly secure, and I see that in the City Council minutes that Mayor Beach asked our Police Chief if he had thoughts on the topic. The Police Chief had reached out to other cities and they don't report any real problems, and he added he would want to make sure the facility has proper security. All the regulations I see in our proposed changes are focused really on what you can't do and how secure it has to be, correct? (Gardiner: Correct. We did review the Ordinance with Chief Matteucci and the other officers. Based on the feedback, we made changes and this reflects the preferred approach which Chief Matteucci indicated. It’s more of a code enforcement approach, but it has the provisions that the Police Department would want to see.) (Spansail: It requires the Chief of Police to approve the security plan, so that's a portion that was important.) >Really, the benefit to the community is in tax revenue. The minutes from the City Council meeting note the distribution of 11,000 deliveries in Burlingame and we collected no tax. I presume it is tax only point of distribution, wherever it came from. And the person who met with the City Council said they expected to be making 250,000 deliveries a year on the peninsula from Burlingame leading to perhaps a million dollars in revenue. That's really what's driving this? (Gardiner: It's that plus, at least what was proposed or presented to us from the interested party, was also given the numbers of deliveries occurring Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes in Burlingame. It’s a matter of convenience to have the products closer to the market and if the market is in the mid peninsula, this location would allow customers to have faster deliveries as well. But it's the monetary consideration that are important as well.) For the community, there's hardly a more convenient community than Burlingame on the peninsula, frankly. I wanted to make sure I understood what was driving this and what we're really talking about. >On that note that the commissioner just brought up, reading that one paragraph that Mayor Beach discusses the sales tax. She asked if it was correct that the City is currently receiving sales tax from the 11,000 deliveries in Burlingame and Mr. Johnson replied, yes. Is that correct? So we are collecting sales tax, currently, from the 11,000 deliveries coming from elsewhere? (Gardiner: Mr. Johnson is here, so he may want to clarify that in the public comment section. There are various facets to the sales tax versus cannabis tax versus others. So he may be able to provide more insight on that.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Gardiner: This was an inquiry from an interested party. They're not an applicant, per se, and the Ordinance is being written for anyone. To be completely transparent, that was where this originated from, there was an interested party hoping to establish a business in Burlingame. Public Comments: >Rashad Johnson: I want to thank you for bringing this up for discussion. As the commissioner mentioned, Burlingame is a very convenient location in the peninsula and the City is poised to benefit from the large cannabis market that the peninsula serves. I will follow up with your question about sales tax . Currently, Burlingame is only getting the traditional sales tax that a city would have for any kind of transaction. I would imagine a conversation around the specific cannabis sales tax would make sense . There are cities like Redwood City that force you to pay a cannabis tax even if that delivery is leaving to serve another city. But because you have to register as an operator in that city, they are able to tax the transaction as well. >Could you clarify the language, it's not written clearly for me, where it says that the City of Burlingame is currently receiving sales tax from the 11,000 deliveries that are coming into Burlingame from afar? (Johnson: Correct, just the standard Burlingame sales tax, like if you were buying a stick of gum at a gas station.) >Johnson: To answer the questions about people having the opportunity to walk up to a non -storefront dispensary and get product, that's against State law and local law up and down the state. The whole point of non-storefront is for that location to be in an area that's unrecognizable. But more importantly, to mitigate any kind of black market sales or unregulated sales; that type of walk -up function is improper and doesn't happen in our operation. I’m sure it doesn’t happen in most delivery operations as it also poses a potential security risk for folks who want to keep a low profile. The security risk is minimal, the level of comfort for an operation in the city would allow folks to not be exposed so early on. Also to answer the question about odor, based off of non -storefront Type 9 license regulations, the product that you're receiving in that depot that will be dispatched for delivery must be manufactured and packaged by a distributor. There's a difference between distribution and delivery license. Delivery license is cannabis in a vehicle going to a partner. Distribution is product coming from a cultivation, a grow, and then being manufactured and put into bags and packaged and distributed to the depot which is what you're planning on allowing in your city. The depot is everything packaged and it looks like a storeroom at a grocery store . There is no loose product. It's packaged and sealed. >Is the business mainly a cash business? (Johnson: Cannabis has a big barrier which is banking. A lot of these companies don't have access to legit bank accounts because these banks are scared based off of Federal law. Cash is often times one of the only mediums you can use to pay for cannabis products because these stores can't put money in a bank that they can trust and they can't process debits, but for our operation, we allow ACH and debit. As we know, a cash -free process makes things just more comfortable and safer and honestly, people don't want to go out in front of their home and pull out cash and give it to somebody just as an eyesore to whatever community you live in. A lot of vendors have different payment options, but I'll say to limit it to only debit and credit payments would truly impact any Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes operation that isn't at the mature status to develop those long-term bank relationships.) Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Spansail: To clarify on one of the points regarding taxation. I want to clarify, as Mr. Johnson said, the sales tax collected is the sales tax we currently have. But at a general election, there could be a law change where we could establish a cannabis tax, as Mr. Johnson noted earlier, which could be another percentage on top of ordinary sales tax we have. Not only right now are we receiving those sales tax as we would for any business food or anything, if we get to the next general election, we can choose to bring a new law forward where we could have another stream of sales tax on cannabis. That's not something we can do with the way our law is written now because we don't have an ordinance to regulate it. >That also means we're making sales tax on 11,000 deliveries, but not making any tax on the 200,000 that are leaving our community unless we do something with it as well. So, in order for us to manage the use of the roads and everything like that, tax is a necessary piece to make the whole thing work. >Wondering if there could be some clarification of some of the language used, like the word “depot” that Mr. Johnson used. Wasn’t there a list of definitions? I'm wondering, if we can include language used in the cannabis industry to help translate to the general public for better understanding of the Ordinance? (Gardiner: That could be part of your recommendation to the Council, you ’re correct. The definitions are found in Section 25.75.030 of the Ordinance. A suggestion would be in the non -storefront cannabis retail delivery, maybe the word "depot" is used in some way that conveys and how it's functioning, that could be part of the description in that definition.) >I'm a little uncomfortable with this whole thing. It seems like this is a foregone conclusion that this is to become a retail business in Burlingame. When asked if this is mandatory, the City Attorney said it is more a question if it's appropriate? Personally, I don't feel that the marijuana business is something that Burlingame needs to be involved with. I get it, there ’s a carrot dangling in front of us that's tax money. I was on the internet the other day and there's an article dated October 16th of last year where the president of the American Medical Association notes that early data from jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis are concerning, particularly around unintentional pediatric exposures that lead to increased poisoning control and increases to deaths and impaired driving. In the same article, the president of the South Dakota State Medical Association notes that there is evidence linking smoking marijuana and health issues. Marijuana isn't an FDA approved drug and it should be subject to the same rigorous approval process as other prescribed medications. So, I'm not comfortable that we need this here in Burlingame. I get it that there's all the control and vapor control, but believe me, people will know where your cannabis distribution spot is. It's also concerning to me that this is a cash business. I remember reading reports about you can't put the money in the bank because it's not Federally approved. So there are many issues there. On one final note, can someone give me one example of a city where everybody said yes we have legalized it and everything is great. This has turned out so well? All I could hear about is how cities have gone down the tubes, like Denver for example. I know people that live there and they say it has become this mess because there's so many people out there smoking pot. It happens, but I honestly don't believe that most of the people that are getting it are using it for medicinal purposes. I believe it's a recreational drug at this point and I'm not comfortable approving the Ordinance. We can discuss it and talk about how are the other cities doing it, but I don't know I'm in support of it at this point. Chair Tse reopened the public hearing. >Rashad Johnson: Your concerns are well put and definitely understandable. When it comes to the American Medical Association, there's a push and pull and struggle between cannabis and big tobacco . Big tobacco has an established presence. So a lot of that narrative is strictly that and not really based in much data. But on the other end, I would give you an example of a city like Redwood City. Maybe Burlingame would mirror in terms of opening up for non -storefront retail and this year, they opened up for all kinds of cannabis businesses. They have seen good business traction and community goodwill and what the operators can do for the community. They have opened up another set of licenses from storefront Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes all the way down to cultivation. That's a prime example of the city starting small and crawling before they walk, and then walking before they run. It gives your city and you as leaders, a great opportunity to gleam the data and the necessary impacts of these small amount of operations that will be in your city. Another piece that's extremely important is the point raised about the tax. Any applicant that has to go through your city has to pay a fees for zoning, planning and application fees. There will be an immediate glean of resources that the city will get. More importantly, they operate under your behest. So you're in control of what they do, how they do it and when they do it. As you're aware, cannabis sales in the state of California are one legal sale to three illegal sales, 25% of cannabis sales in the state of California are legal. There are black market dealers in the City of Burlingame that no one is aware of and you are definitely not getting any money for that. More importantly, those people are typically selling to minors. So, this gives you an opportunity to put your thumb on the industry to a certain degree and allow that to whittle out the folks that you know who are not official operators in your city. There are ways to use youth outreach, even in the event that a parent or someone is seeing your kid getting an illegal sale from an operation; you can reach out to the city or the Police Department, they can mitigate that and get those folks out of the community. >What is the appeal of Burlingame versus any of the other cities in between? (Johnson: As you are aware, Burlingame is very centrally located in the peninsula. The peninsula has a very large, highly-educated population with a high average income levels. So the market here is huge, on average, easily 250,000 deliveries in the peninsula. That doesn't mention the other operators in San Jose. Most cities are losing money by the bucket because of COVID, but they're trying to mitigate operations in their cities where they're not making any money off of it. Cannabis is just transitioning in the legal market for most vendors and operators and cities are realizing the faster they can get these folks from the illegal market to the legal market, they can monitor those in their community. Having a cannabis ordinance or having a cannabis entity within a city allows you to identify who is in your city and require them to go through the natural process to operate in the city.) >Spansail: Before you close the public hearing, it's my understanding under State law that we already are going to have to allow point of delivery sales in Burlingame under the current State law. We're going to have deliveries in Burlingame and whether they come from or to Burlingame, that's an issue we have today. Right now, if someone ordered marijuana from Burlingame to be delivered from Redwood City, it's still going to be delivered. I believe there are challenges in the law and it's subject to change. The way it is right now, we're not going to avoid delivery sales even if we reject this ordinance. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. >I want to try to unpack this. The question we have to ask ourselves, what are we being asked to do? We're being asked to make a recommendation for something to the City Council. We're not elected officials and we serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Our job is to address the uses and the physical characteristics of the city. That's what is asked of us to do as specialists. I am hesitant to get involved in making value judgments about that. If I follow my fellow commissioner's path, we wouldn't allow alcohol sales in the city, but we do that. We allow alcohol and there are alcoholics. They drink and drive and all sorts of things, but that's not our purview. It's up to the City Council to decide whether certain activities are allowed in the city. The question for us is, tell me if I'm wrong, if we would have such a thing, does it make sense to have the regulations and have it in this part of the city? That's the way I look at this. I don't know how else to look at it. They're not asking me to decide whether or not marijuana, cannabis is distributed out of Burlingame or not. That's not my business. I'm not an elected official. So, if I maintain that very narrow focus on this, I don't see anything objectionable. There maybe great benefits that our elected officials see in pursuing this path. Even if they were to allow such a thing, having these kinds of facilities unmarked, hidden facilities in this part of the city makes a lot of sense. I don't find anything highly objectionable about this and I'm glad it's not up to me to make that decision about whether this is allowed or not. I would ask this, perhaps, of our City Attorney, am I misunderstanding our purview here? (Spansail: That’s certainly the most beneficial aspect of having the Planning Commission look at this. It's going into our Zoning Code, so anything that's going to affect zoning is a use. If you found that it was not a valid use the way it's written in any of the land use districts, per se, you may be taking an action on that. But really, what we would like feedback on for your recommendation to City Council is looking at the Ordinance as Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes written, making sure it is consistent with what you believe is appropriate in these land use districts and it's done in a way that's going to keep these land use districts or the welfare of them in the way you would for other ordinances we pass through you. You're correct in the fact that, we are not trying to determine today, whether we should go against State law or the decision to allow marijuana in Burlingame is necessarily the right or wrong one, so much as you're looking at where this should be allowed, if anywhere, which unfortunately does have some crossover.) If I saw this were next to a school, I might say those two uses don't belong next to each other. (Spansail: Absolutely. State law did a little bit of that for you. If you say the industrial district is not the right section, but there's a better land use district to have this, that's valuable information. If you believe certain elements of the Ordinance weren't going to take care of security or odor control or it's going to be detrimental to that land use district, we can fix it in that way . That’s something the City Council looks to the expertise of the Planning Commission to know and to be able to analyze as well and pass along in that recommendation.) >There's a minimum distance of 600 feet to schools or residents and a number of categories of sites . Would this fairly small area, the Innovation Industrial District, actually going to even comply with being 600 feet away from the closest residential development that could potentially be built in the North Rollins Road zone? (Gardiner: It would need to be 600 feet away from the North Rollins Road area. The State requires these buffers, so it's there regardless. That would be a constraint within the Rollins Road area. But you have the whole Inner Bayshore area on the other side of the freeway, which does have a school, so that would be a constraint. It has a continuation high school, but otherwise, it doesn't have any other schools so there are sensitive uses over there. It's still a challenge to find a site. It's not our job to find a site, but we tried to identify some land use districts where there's more likely to be sites available that can still comply with those distance requirements from schools and other sensitive places.) >So our option essentially this evening is to make a recommendation for approval to the City Council . We can make recommendations with changes to the City Council or we can make a recommendation for denial. >We're affecting the zoning code at this point. When an applicant eventually does identify a site, then Planning has an opportunity to weigh in on traffic impacts and the amount of cars that go in and out relative to that area so we don't damage the neighbors? I'm assuming with 200,000 trips a year, there's a fair amount of car traffic and we would have to take into account how that car traffic is getting in and out of a small focal point. Would that be true? (Gardiner: That’s correct. A Conditional Use Permit will be required and you would make the same analysis and findings with the Conditional Use Permit that you would with any other commercial use permit application that you would have within the zoning districts .) As far as them applying for the Conditional Use Permit, would we already have standards in place saying we would need a traffic analysis for that because we don't necessarily ask that of everybody who is getting a Conditional Use Permit, right? (Gardiner: A trip generation estimate could be requested if that was a concern with a Conditional Use Permit because you would need to make the findings that it won't be detrimental to the district and to the surrounding properties. So should that be a concern, that could be something that is part of a Conditional Use Permit application and perhaps, it can compare to other industrial uses with deliveries, is it more or less? Is it comparable to other uses you would find in that same district.) Not that it affects this document at this point, but that seems like a downstream implementation type of thing, because this would be a lot more of a delivery business than probably most others that we have. >We've had a couple of items that my fellow commissioner has brought up that we can make recommendations to City Council. For example, the traffic study, once the zoning location is determined and then there was something regarding the smell and keeping it contained. Those are the two items of concern. >Do we have any discussion about police activity in these areas when we know they're in sight? How does it impact the Police Department? Do we need to have any discussion on that or any recommendation to City Council for extra police help out in those areas? (Gardiner: At least from our discussion with the Police Department, they did not particularly foresee an additional need for their services. The 24-hour security is typical of the providers in the first place and the police are there to supplement that. Chief Matteucci had looked over this and talked to his peers and felt that, whether it's counterintuitive or not, it's one of the lower demands on police services.) >The way the document is written, we have talked about a few wordsmithing items and as a whole it Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes covers the items of security location. We understand the buffers and the areas where they could go. At this point, I don't actually see an issue here and would recommend that this be sent to the City Council for their approval. I don't see anything substantial that needs to be changed in order to be able to submit that. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to recommend approval of the Ordinance to City Council with the suggestions noted in their discussion. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid4 - Nay:Gaul1 - Absent:Sargent, and Terrones2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1835 Capistrano Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, one -story single family dwelling with an attached garage. (Sunny Gao, applicant and architect; 1835 Capistrano LLC, property owner) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1835 Capistrano Way - Staff Report 1835 Capistrano Way - Attachments 1835 Capistrano Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Sunny Gao, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >What is the material you are planning to use at the front porch and the first step? Noticed stone on the walls and columns. (Gao: Just concrete for the two steps. Veneers will be used on the columns and the wood will be rustic style wood columns.) Public Comments: >Scott and Sharon Hagberg, 1845 Capistrano Way: We appreciate the consciousness of the design and fitting in the neighborhood. Having lived through the fire next door, we are concerned about making sure that the hillside is cleared of any dead trees and fire danger, and also that any trimming be done that is necessary. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Didn’t see any documentation on the landscape plan for the property regarding the hillside area. Would love to see what they are planning to do other than the deck off the back. The lot slopes up towards the street above and was wondering if there is a landscape plan. Would like to have an in depth discussion about the landscaping in the future, especially for the backyard. >It is a nice looking project. I would agree with my fellow commissioner that given the neighbors ’ comments and that there is an enormous amount of growth in the rear yard, that a little more detail be put into the proposed site plan to better understand if those trees are not on the property, how are they being managed and who is trimming them. It could be the fact that it ’s the neighbor above just letting it overgrow. There are definitely a lot of trees back there, a lot more than what is shown in the site plan. A little bit of clarity will help ease the neighbor’s concern. >I like the project, it fits well in the neighborhood especially with the predominance of Eichler homes in the area. I can find support for the special permit for the attached garage, as that seems to be a pattern in the neighborhood. I appreciate that they are doing a single -story home on the hillside and alleviating the need for story poles. Would like to see this project move forward. >I'm not a fan of metal roofing in Burlingame, in particular the steeper the roof gets the more it becomes facade-like and the less it is appropriate. In this case, a one -story house with a metal roof, it is obvious on the front sheet that the metal roof is half of the building. You have a metal roof on top and in equal amount you have the normal facade on the bottom. I don ’t like the utilitarian material for use in Burlingame. Typically eases off on the use of metal roof when it is lower pitched and when it is less facade-like. In this instance, it is half of the building. During the site visit today and in looking at the neighborhood, assumed it is not really true and what actually happens in a one -story house. But in fact, I saw a one-story house with a shake roof. Half of the building is shake roof and half is an eight foot facade of a one-story house. It is a nice looking composition. It is well scaled and it has nice components to it . My only objection is the use of a metal roof. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, 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, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid4 - Nay:Loftis1 - Absent:Sargent, and Terrones2 - b.1037 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage. (Elaine Lee, applicant and architect; Beth and Keith Taylor, property owners) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1037 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1037 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1037 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Elaine Lee, represented the applicant with property owner Beth Taylor. Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >Tell me about the steel awning on the front facade? Does it have a slope to it? Is it just a flat insert? (Lee: The idea is that there would be some slope built into it with an integrated gutter, this should not be readily apparent from the street and there would be a downspout to carry away the rain water.) What I'm concerned about is what looks like a 1/8-inch wide black piece of metal. Is that right? (Lee: Yes, all black. The idea is for the entry door to be steel and the window finish would be in a similar color, with that same metal finish. It is all intended to be within a similar color family.) >When you say the entry door would be steel, do you mean industrial sash steel or do you just mean it's made of steel? What are you trying to achieve? (Lee: A more industrial, modern aesthetic. The goal was to create a modern Tudor architecture. We're working on a 3D model rendering and we have a photo of the house that was served as an inspirational design. I also have a photo of another modern Tudor that we've completed on Occidental Avenue that came before the commission in the past. I would be happy to share those if that's possible.) (Taylor: The idea is that it would be a more industrial look like a rolled steel door. You see them quite often in modern homes whether it's in a bathroom, shower door, the front door or wine cellar door. It's meant to look like a rolled steel door and the awning was to enhance the look of the front door, if that helps answer that question.) It does help somewhat. >Are the windows industrial sash as well, the old style warehouse windows would have been steel and they would have an incredibly narrow style, is that what you're trying to achieve in the windows and door? (Lee: The windows would not be steel windows. The windows would be aluminum clad wood windows. They wouldn't have the super narrow sashes as you would get with a traditional steel window.) Probably a 3D model is good to clarify. I'm having problems following what the intention is. I expected to hear, yes, all the windows are industrial sash, very narrow style steel windows and so is the door and therefore, the metal canopy makes sense, but I'm not hearing that. So I'm a little confused about it and need to get clear about what the intentions were. (Taylor: Doing a metal window is not very useable in a home. But the windows are thought to match with the door in terms of the steel modern look. The windows would be more useable being wooden aluminum clad, but the black finish on it will match well with the metal -looking door. I hope that helps clarify things. Then the added steel above the door, it's just to enhance and add to the modern feel of the house. We love the traditional Tudors in Burlingame and it's very desirable and very appealing to me to have a little bit of a modern take on the traditional Tudor that we see so often in the Easton Addition, Burlingame Park and other areas of Burlingame. It's meant to appeal to the neighborhood, but also have a small modern take on it.) (Lee: To further describe the window series that we've specified for the house, they have relative to other wood windows, very narrow grids and narrow frames. So while it doesn't try to simulate an old school style steel window, they do have much more modern lines to them over a standard window.) >I appreciate your explanation and the thought. Looking at the windows online, they look great. I'm happy with what I see as the direction of the house. While on site I was a little concerned about the driveway located between the two trees and the ability to get a driveway in there without killing at least one of the trees on the left side of the site. Have you done any work with anybody from the Public Works Department or anybody on the reality of being able to do that without killing that tree? (Lee: Not with the street trees. That one hasn't come up. I don't believe it's a protected size. The one tree that has come up in discussion with staff is the neighbor's Oak tree in the backyard, but we can certainly have our arborist give us an assessment and protection recommendations for those trees.) Would suggest that you do that sooner than later. Standing at the site, there wasn't really room for a car to go through there because those two trees have roots going a good two to three feet out and into the planting area, but they're growing together. When you go to make that curb cut it's going to be a challenge. >Looking at the rear elevation, in between the two gables you've got the roof at a 3:12 pitch. Looking at the plan, that roof goes almost all the way back to the front of the house. Is that correct? (Lee: Correct.) There are two skylights in there. Would those be flat glass skylight as opposed to an acrylic dome? (Lee: Yes.) >This is a really nice project. Would also like to see the 3D rendering completed, that would be really great. If you can show us some examples of what you're trying to create from another project when you come back again, that would be greatly appreciated. I like the project and could see it coming back on Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the Consent Calendar. >Appreciate the massing and the siting of the house so the driveway is on the left adjacent to the neighbor with the one-story home, and that the two -story element and massing of the house is closer to the house to the right that has two stories. I'm curious if you've had a chance to review what you're seeing from the windows at the second story to your neighbor to the right and what they may be seeing, since there may be bedroom windows against bedroom windows? (Lee: We took a look at it and part of the reason why we sited the house, as you described, was to get further separation with the driveways in between the houses. So, we'll need to spend a little more detail looking at exactly where the windows are and provide screening, if needed.) Maybe reaching out to that neighbor would help if you haven ’t already, just to ensure they know what's planned there. It's better to combat these issues now than later. >Where the laundry/pantry room side rear yard door is located, it looks like you open the door and immediately there's a few steps down to grade. Was there an opportunity to deepen that landing so you have a little bit more of a resting spot or even a proper landing in front of those steps before you go inside? (Lee: It would be difficult to accommodate a deeper landing without compromising the efficiency of some of the rest of the layout. We had a little bit more than we needed, just to accommodate the grade change and for the steps with the recess, but not so much to afford an additional three -foot landing. It would be a very significant chunk out of the plan to fit that in.) Rather than having the door be centered in that space, maybe it could be off to the side so you could actually turn right on to the landing and have steps up and then inside, just a thought, it's nothing major. When I first looked at it in plan, I didn't realize that was a doorway because it looked shallow on plan, so I thought it was a window area or something like that. Just trying to improve upon that experience for someone to use that side entry. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This has the potential to become a really good house. It reminds me of Charles Mackintosh, the Scottish architect who did industrial -gothic style, but beautiful houses and large buildings. In particular, what is really nice about the left, right and rear side is there's a peaceful, asymmetrical element and it's well balanced and very well articulated. But I've got to say that the front facade is just a real disappointment. Given the other three facades and the sculpting of the rest of the building, the front facade is flat. Not flat as in no depth, but it doesn't sing. The other facades are wonderful. Don't know what to think about the black windows, but you're missing some opportunities there. Is it approvable? Yes. It's highly approval, but you're missing an opportunity to turn this into an exceptional house. I'm disappointed and really excited by it at the same time. There's so much about the house that reminds me of Mackintosh, we don't see this kind of thing very often. It's approvable. I'll support it. I wish you would go back and look at the front facade. >I had the same reaction and especially, it's amplified by the minimalist trim around the window and "flat" is the correct word to describe it. The other elevations are pretty nice. When walking the neighborhood, there's a single -story house on the left and a modest two -story house on the right. It's broken up enough, but maybe it's the front elevation. Across the street there are a couple of really nice two-story houses where the top floors don ’t have as much massing as the front of this one does. At first I was very concerned about the rear elevation, but understanding the 3:12 roof pitch, you probably won't see that so it will look like it's broken up more. I could move forward with this, but the front elevation just needs another pass, but you're close. >It's a really nice design. Listening to my fellow commissioner, I would agree that it's a little flat on the front. Overall like the project and you're going in the right direction. >I agree. I like the project a lot and am excited about it. The 3D rendering, not even having to be really sophisticated, would really help us understand a little bit more of the front elevation and that would help make that next review easy for us. Page 19City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent, and Terrones2 - c.1814-1820 Ogden Drive, zoned NBMU - Application for Environmental Review, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for tandem parking and use of parking stackers, and Condominium Permit for a new 6-Story, 90-Unit condominium building. (DPT 1820 Ogden Drive LLC & 1814 Ogden LLC & Patel Family Trust, applicants and property owners; Levy Design Partners, architect) (233 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1814-1820 Ogden Dr - Staff Report 1814-1820 Ogden Dr - Attachments 1814-1820 Ogden Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Franco Zaragoza and Toby Levy, Levy Design Partners, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >How far is the adjacent Sunrise Senior Assisted living property from the face of your project? (Zaragoza: We have a ten-foot side setback. Their property is set back the width of their driveway, which looks like a two-way driveway, so that could be an additional 15-20 feet.) So that gives 40 feet total. (Zaragoza: Correct.) >Trying to figure out what the people who live in this new project would see of the senior living facility and what the senior living facility folks would see of that raised courtyard. Have you got any sense of that? Can you talk through that? (Zaragoza: The basic essence is that our ground floor plan is about 13 feet from grade. The podium is going to be around that area. The site does taper back towards the back of our building, so it could be even taller. We have punched openings along the first level of that courtyard to add privacy, yet it has a view outside. It's creating an environment rather than an open courtyard looking into the building, so you're creating that sort of protected experience within the property and we have windows facing outward. The adjacent property is two-quarters lower than this property.) >If there's a gathering of folks in the courtyard and they're standing up against the edge looking toward the senior living facility, are they looking down into people's rooms or is there any screening? What does that interaction look like between the senior living inhabitants and the people hanging out in that courtyard? (Levy: We have conceptually designed the courtyard as not being a party space. If you look at the landscape plan, it's more of a contemplative space. We have increased the private open space in the courtyard. It was not meant to be a party space. There is a gathering space, but you see all the green areas marked off, that's what it was conceived as. There is a community room downstairs, but we incorporated that wall specifically so it would be an environmental buffer to the courtyard space at this Page 20City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes podium level.) >Will you have a certain amount of people that are allowed on that balcony or deck to help eliminate the noise? It's not very big, but have you considered what the CC&R ’s might include for that decking up there? (Levy: Not yet.) Maybe that's one of those items that we can discuss as we go through it. >Can you describe a little bit more the furniture or the activities you see happening at the plaza down at the front? (Zaragoza: The front plaza’s use is currently open for activities to occur for small gatherings . There are some seated areas, some benches that are going to be aligned around the perimeters. What we could see here is a place for a small community to do a little art gathering, could be a poetry read, just small neighborhood gatherings. There are going to be informal picnic -like tables scattered around. But mostly just a small breakout space for the community.) Have you considered some more permanent kinds of landscape furniture pieces to go in here? Concerned about the tables and chairs because they're going to sit out and deteriorate. I’m trying to think more creatively from a landscape architect's point of view what you might integrate into that public space. The furniture does make the space usable and I applaud it, but I don't want it to be just a big empty open space because the furniture got destroyed. Could it be more substantially done given that it's a community benefit and you're not hiding it away? Where as the upper plaza is great with the proposed furniture, it ’s easier to get covered and kept nice. The front is more public so consider a more public, friendly, resistant hardscape design more than just landscaping to integrate into that. (Zaragoza: We can look at that. Part of the strategy also was to keep site lines visible. We didn't go down the path of integrating seat walls, but we can look at the integration of strategized seating to still allow that transparency.) Without any programming, it's going to be open space but with some programming, you could drive that use. >The County set the affordable housing standards and I know that they set these limits for income. Do you have an idea of what the rents might be on some of those units that would be affordable? Maybe based on past experience, knowing you've done some of these projects before. (Levy: These are going to be at the very low-income of the median income of the area. I don't know what the rent is, but they'll be qualified. I think it's more like 80% of the median area income for the lowest tier. There is a commission that administers the affordable housing and they decide what the rent is based on what the area median income is at the time of the rental. That's totally outside of our hands.) Wondering if you knew what the rent was supposed to be? (Levy: These won't be rent because it's a for sale product. I suspect you could get a two-bedroom apartment for something like $350,000 - $400,000 only because our interest rates are so low. If the interest rates were higher, then the developer could charge less.) > It's commendable that you have considered zero energy, I ’m anxious to see if you can pull that off . Solar panels are easy, but how about the wind turbines? What do you envision there? You ’re not going to have any of those propellers like at Altamont Pass, right? (Zaragoza: No.) Not familiar with anything small or on a scale like this for wind energy. Do you have anything to share how the wind will generate? (Levy: Besides designing at a low energy use, it is also purchasing energy from a renewable source. So that's how you make up the difference without putting a wind turbine.) I thought there are small ones. (Levy: No, it's a combination of strategies that include purchasing the power from a renewable source.) >On sheet A0.3 it shows a small area in the lobby, but it's not shown anywhere else on the other plans . What is the area intended for? (Zaragoza: The small space directly adjacent to the bike storage room is our parcel boxes. Those will be opening to the main lobby and we have a separate package room that's across from this bike storage room.) They're not reflected in the other plans and it's not an omission, so it's a drafting issue that we'll get updated and you still intend to have this parcel area going forward? (Zaragoza: Yes.) >How is the rear yard accessed, through the rear stairs? (Zaragoza: Yes. There’s a rear stair access for egress purposes as well. There will be side gates and fences for access around the whole perimeter of the building and we're providing this access for fire. It's going to be a walkable path around the entire perimeter of our property.) Will there be no furniture or gathering space planned in this area? (Zaragoza: No. As mentioned, we're using the far rear of our property mostly as our bio -retention area.) But you can still walk across it? (Zaragoza: It's not going to be programmed for any active uses.) (Levy: It is also required on our sanitary easement that we're not allowed to do anything here, we can't build across it and can't have bays across it. We really investigated this and they don't want people back there. We couldn't build anything to cross it because that would be in violation of the easement that exists on the property. It renders a good portion of our site not buildable.) And not enjoyable in that far corner there, as outdoor Page 21City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes space? (Levy: We’re willing to investigate it, but we've had a very difficult time getting any concessions on the easement from Public Works.) >Having visited the site, I was pleasantly surprised to see how much space is between the Sunrise Senior Living Facility and your public space on the second level podium. It felt very open. They didn't have any concerns about any privacy from the units across the way. But I was a little worried about the solar pattern there. Earlier in your presentation you showed the solar path. Because it's at the second floor on a six-story building, will a good amount be in shade by the afternoon? (Levy: Yes. We made the choice of locating it over here in deference to the fact that on the other side there weren't units that opened up there . We felt we could build closer, so we opted to put the courtyard and we see the courtyard as a private open space for our units. A lot of units have decks that open up to it or units that open up to it, so we were less concerned about the sun getting in there as opposed to the other things that contributed to having the courtyard there. So it's a balancing act.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a really nice project, it does some nice things for the site. It feels like it fits well in the neighborhood given the types of surrounding uses. It's well articulated and has some interesting materials. >One concern was the potential party deck. It sounds like it's not much of a party deck, we don't always have complete control over that. The fact that it is not rental apartments and it's owned condominium units makes a difference because owners who are looking onto that deck couldn't tolerate a whole lot of noise on a regular basis. The community sort of self regulates that adjacency and it wouldn ’t be a good thing if it becomes a party deck, but it seems a low probability. >I always have concerns about the puzzle stackers, but that's because they're so new. There are a lot of puzzle stackers here, but again, these are condominiums and the owners will not tolerate not being able to park there. So I suspect it's not like in an apartment building where you have to wait for someone to come in and you have to wait for someone to fix it, which they may or might not be able to fix it. But these people live there, they own the building, own the puzzle stackers and I suspect that's a low probability. >I feel pretty good about the project. I do believe we looked at it a year and a half ago or so. I would like to see it move forward. Obviously, we have to address environmental concerns and the obvious ones are parking and traffic. Those are issues that need to be studied and we need some comfort level that this doesn't overburden the neighborhood or significantly change the levels of service at the major intersections surrounding. It's a good project. >I was also going to bring up the traffic issue especially with the other project up the street that we're seeing moving forward. I want to make sure that traffic is looked at in the environmental study. Recalling from the project across the street, that there was supposed to be a Water Management Plan developed by the City in 2020 and we have not seen that. Would like to see that completed and brought forward in the environmental document. It's easy to say we're going to have enough water and there will be enough, but the more we're building, the less we are going to get because we don't just get as much water as we want . I wanted to make sure that's addressed. >It's a really nice project, they've done a great job. My concern is the amount of traffic on that deck; would like see some limiting factors in the CC&R's regarding how many people would be allowed on that deck. Perhaps that could be something that we request on the next go around. >I'd like to see landscaping for the front of the building. It's a great project and I look forward to it coming in front of us with the other information that we'll get. >It's a good project. Would like to see a materials board when the project returns. Would also like to see what the courtyard looks like from the senior housing location looking down in? The wall will do substantially what you intend it to do. If you have the opportunity with a 3D model to look in there, that Page 22City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes would be a terrific add for us to understand that. >As noted earlier, should consider a little bit more on how to program the front plaza and integrate the landscaping with a bit more hardscape so it is useable and maintainable for everybody. >I also echo a lot of my fellow commissioners' comments. I like the application of materials on the building, along with the articulation that's happening on the outside, how that helps to play down the height of the structure and a little bit more relatable to its neighbors, that ’s very well done. Would also like to see a materials board for the proposed finishes on the building, as well as an example of the windows that are planned for the structure. I spent a lot of time sitting in the middle of the street studying various angles of this proposed building and the neighboring buildings. I was surprised at how peaceful it was on the street, no cars were in front of me or behind me. I can't help but think about traffic concerns as this building is built-out along with the other proposed development down the street and how that can change that landscape from a driver's perspective. So the traffic study will be important to understand and especially inclusive of what may be happening as well with the other development. Would like to see some more programming developed along the front plaza and definitely some durable materials and furniture that look like they're intended to stay on the premises. I too would like to see this move forward. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, 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, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent, and Terrones2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS >Community Development Director Gardiner noted that at the January 19, 2021 City Council meeting the Council discussed unpermitted construction and demolition. No decisions were made, but it's a conversation the Council wants to have in terms of trying to prevent and provide more deterrents for projects that are going too far in building without permits; also addresses projects coming in for FYIs when it's really right at the finish line or taking down a structure that is not permitted to be demolished. This may be something the City Council and Planning Commission may want to discuss jointly in a couple of months. >The City Council held its annual Goal Setting meeting on Saturday. There was discussion over the City's finances and the COVID recovery, particularly related to economic development and trying to help businesses in the next year to get back on their feet. The Economic Development Subcommittee will be busy in this next year as there were quite a few things that were agendized for that committee, but the intent is to help the businesses here in Burlingame recover. >The next Planning Commission meeting on February 8, 2021 will start at 6 pm. We'll have a study session for the North Rollins Road Specific Plan. We have some use alternatives and also some streetscape and open space concepts to present. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on January 25, 2021. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 4, 2021, 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 23City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021 January 25, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 24City of Burlingame Printed on 2/23/2021