Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.02.14BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, February 14, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and PfaffPresent6 - LoftisAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no meeting minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1431 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for a One Year Extension and landscape plan revisions for a previously approved application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Parking Variance for a new 3-story, 6-unit condominium building. (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1431 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1431 El Camino Real - Attachments 1431 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Pfaff was recused because she had previously commented on the project as a member of the public. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid5 - Page 1City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:Pfaff1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1141 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (Form + One, applicant and designer; Winnie Wong and Michael Chin, property owners) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1141 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1141 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1141 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Pfaff was recused because she had previously commented on the project as a member of the public. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Michael Chin and Winnie Wong, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the fact that you reconsidered the materials and put the stucco on the lower portion of the house and the siding on the top along the right side elevation. In looking at that bay by the front entry, you're showing the horizontal siding but that horizontal siding doesn't appear on the lower portion of the right side elevation. Please correct drafting error. > I like the changes that have been made. In terms of the archetype, it hangs together better with the stucco on the lower portion and the wood siding above; I like that refinement. Appreciate that they revisited the window detailing and incorporated some aprons as my fellow commissioner mentioned. The project is approvable and should move forward. >It’s a very tastefully designed home; I appreciate you addressing all the various commissioners comments. It will be a very beautiful house. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid5 - Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:Pfaff1 - Page 2City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes b.121 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit 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. (Form + One Design, applicant and designer; Britt Miller, property owner) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 121 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 121 Occidental Ave - Attachments 121 Occidental Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 121 Occidental Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Richard Rosales, 125 Occidental Avenue: I live immediately next door to 121 Occidental Avenue on the north side. I have major problems with this structure, not only is it oversized for the lot, but it's oversized for this whole community. They added 20 feet at the back of the existing structure and it will cut off all of the sunlight to my patio on the southern exposure. It is also too high for the declining height envelope which I understand it shouldn ’t be. The second story extends out further than the first story of the house which further blocks my sunlight and it's only four feet from my property line. It is going to be a major problem for me because it's going to look like a big huge monstrous apartment house. This builder has already built one directly across the street that is oversized for the neighborhood and sticks out like a sore thumb. This should be completely redrawn and made smaller. I’ve been here for 41 years and for the last three years. I know that the rear property line location between the houses on Pepper Avenue has been contested; the surveyors made a mistake. This project should be denied until this structure is completely redesigned and made smaller so that it doesn't impact me so much. >Jason Doren, 117 Occidental Avenue: Similar to our neighbor, our main concern is how much farther back the house extends compared to the existing house. We just learned exactly how far it would extend back on Friday when the developer installed a marker post. We were told before that it would be about eight feet back and it was actually about 12 feet. On Friday, the post was installed and it seems to be more like 19 to 20 feet. It's going to create a huge privacy issue and it's going to block sunlight. Even at 18 feet back, the second story is going to come out further than the neighbors' house; the house will not be in sync with the neighborhood. That is why there is an average setback for the front of the house; it seems like neighbors’ setbacks should also be considered for the rear of the house where they spend most of their time. The design guidebook encourages privacy and access to sunlight and designs of newly built homes to respect existing situations and neighboring yards. The only reason this house can be as large as it is and extend so far back is because of an extra 1,100 square feet that the property captures at the rear of the lot that the existing neighbors don ’t have. We appreciate the small concessions, but the architect said he was going to make the windows smaller, and not all of the them were made smaller . Some of them are labeled as office /closet. It would be great if the windows for the master bathroom, which will look directly into our master bathroom and bedroom, could be smaller. We would like more time to work with Tim and the developer to see if the house can be moved forward or if the second story could not extend as far back. There's an issue with screening on the side. There was a discussion about hedges, but we don't know exactly how high those are going to grow and where they're going to be planted . (Raduenz: We sent the plans to the neighbor last week and stated that they were going to be Grecian laurels.) We want to work with the architect, but I don't feel like we've had enough time and I didn't see the plan. Page 3City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Chair Schmid: This would probably not be a good time to have that conversation. I suggest that you work this out offline. Just because we make a decision this evening doesn't mean the discussion stops between neighbors, so we'll go through our process and would hope that the neighbors can do theirs as well. >(Keylon: Condition of approval #2 addresses the screening along the left side property line from the rear portion of the house to the front portion of the garage requiring Grecian laurels, evergreen hedge or equivalent to be planted so long as it's maintaining the required 9'-6" driveway width. The plans that are before you this evening were somewhat speculative, but did have a commitment and show the location and this condition of approval was intended to clarify that issue.) Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Appreciate the changes that were made. >I looked at an aerial photo of all of the houses on that block and they vary quite a bit. It just so happens that the two neighbors have existing houses that are closer, but the vast majority of the houses on this block are multi -story, they're tight and extend further back. As you talk about privacy, we run into this all the time. Many of the houses in Burlingame are close to each other. We have close setbacks and we have to work together. Some people already have two -story residences with windows in place and those that are redoing theirs need to have the opportunity as well. We hope that the neighbors can work those things out together. >The design of this house is nice. I did look at those rear windows from the office, he made those higher so it's not directly looking into one yard or the other. This is going to be a very attractive house in this location. So I can see approving this project. >I wanted to add to what my fellow commissioner stated that the homeowner has a right to develop one’s property, although they can have neighbors in their original homes that are a lot smaller. Looking at the proposed and allowable lot coverage, 40% is the maximum allowed and what's being proposed is under 30%. The applicant could have also gone further back a greater degree of lot coverage that would even exaggerate the situation. They've met the requirements and there are no Special Permits or Variances being requested here . It's a straightforward two -story house on a good sized lot and the house has been nicely designed. The comments had been addressed for the most part; I could see approving this project. >I agree with the other commissioners. I can sympathize with the neighbor ’s concern over the changing fabric of our neighborhoods and that's long been the case of where we've come over the course of the last 15 or more years. But we have ordinances and design guidelines in place that help us as a community craft the changes to our neighborhood fabric that are done in a well -crafted way. What we have before us is a project that's asking for design review and no other considerations. We have a lot that's over 8,600 square feet, whether there's legitimacy to what's happening in the rear or not, we have a lot that can absorb a house that's being proposed. We've vetted this through the study session. They've come back with revisions that are for the better and so it's a well -crafted design. We don't have a privacy ordinance. I have said it before that we don't have anything in our ordinance that says houses cannot look into other neighbor’s backyards. So we ask neighbors to coordinate and cooperate and work together as best they can. There's not a tool for us to require houses not to go back a certain distance on a lot other than rear setbacks, lot coverage, declining height envelope, etc. The house is within the guidelines for the declining height envelope, with regard to shade and shadow, that's the way that we control impacts on neighboring properties. I don't see any reason for the project not to move forward. The changes are for the better, from a design standpoint. I can make the finding necessary to approve the project. >My fellow commissioner ’s comments were right on point. I'd like to add that we've set a precedence, tried to be considerate of neighbors and having second story decks. This property doesn ’t have a second story deck. We've done everything we can as a commission to take into consideration some of the issues that have come before us with privacy. But again, developers or owner /users can do what they want with their property as long as it's within our guidelines and our design criteria, so I agree with my fellow commissioners. >I agree that the project has come a long way and is approvable. However, I would encourage the Page 4City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes designer to look into planting a little more along the driveway. As I ’ve said in the past, it doesn't just fall on the applicant; if the neighbors have concerns they are free to plant screening on their side as well. It works both ways. In some cases it creates a thicker hedge and more privacy for both parties concerned . I’m very concerned about that rear property line, it's not in our purview for tonight, but I would encourage the applicant to hammer that out with the rear neighbor because that can get into a legal battle somewhere down the line while you're developing the property and you're not going to like how that unfolds. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Chair Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Loftis1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.128 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage, and Variance for floor area ratio for a new, two and a half-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. (Beth Taylor, applicant and property owner; Elaine Lee, architect) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 128 Elm Ave - Staff Report 128 Elm Ave - Attachments 128 Elm Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 128 Elm Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones was recused on this item for non-statutory reasons. Commissioner Gaul noted that he met with the tenant that is currently living in the house on the subject property. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Elaine Lee, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Clarify on plans if there will be retaining walls on the sides. >Please provide copy of 3D rendering. >I like the look of the house. However, I'm struggling with what appears to be a very tall house and the architectural style is not helping, it's exacerbating it a little bit. I'm having a hard time with the side and rear elevation with a 15:12 pitch on that upper roof, they seem to show an awful lot of roof. Something should be done to reduce that and make it fit into the lot a little better. >I understand the request for an attached garage, that ’s probably a good solution. I like the idea that a vehicle can turn around and exit the site in a forward direction. Looking at the house to the left that we approved a couple of years ago, they have a substantially large garage, it's a four -car garage plus a little extra. I'm guessing it is close to 1,000 square feet and that worked as a detached garage. I’m not opposed to an attached garage since its hidden. There are some houses on the street with attached garages, Page 5City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes although the Burlingame Avenue side is predominantly detached. >The declining height envelope could work, although I would like to see that reduced and can be done with changing the roof pitch to some extent. >I have a hard time finding justification for the FAR variance especially on a new house. You have an 11,000 square feet lot and there's plenty of room to build a house. Consider expanding lot coverage to the reduce the tall massing. Instead, spread out the floor area since you are under the allowed lot coverage . I'm heartbroken that the trees are going, they're beautiful, but I get that it's in the middle of the lot and it's unfortunate. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I understand you're not keeping the tree, but had it been that you found a way to work around the tree and it was going to survive, I definitely could have found a good reason for a variance. But in this case, it's hard to justify the FAR variance on a lot of this size because it sets a precedent. I do not recall that the house to the north asked for variances, I may be wrong, but they have a detached garage. I think the landscaping is similar to yours. I'm also having trouble with the very exposed deck, which would be a little bit annoying even if there's not a rule for it. I do think it's a really pretty house, maybe it needs a little more refinement in some areas. > It would be interesting to see and maybe staff could confirm the property next door to the left doesn't slope as much as this property does in the back. I remember walking both properties and it felt like this property definitely dropped significantly in the back. I agree with my fellow commissioners that it feels really tall and a little out of scale. I do love the design and the artist renditions or the 3D images that they have obtained because it doesn't feel like it's in your face with the materials. Suggests to supply those 3D renderings the next time around. I'm not against the garage being attached below. Consider reducing the FAR. The only other concern is the deck being so large on that floor. How does it impact and what is the noise to the neighbors? I thought that there was a deck next door as well, I can't recall, it just need to be a little bit smaller. I'm not against the garage and giving some FAR if it makes the house look better, but some of that height needs to come down. >Concerned with the rear deck, it is too large and can generate noise and sound; I ’m worried about the experience for the neighbor. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. I wanted to reiterate a little bit of a concern on the right side elevation, in particular toward the back at least in elevation. It looks like an apartment building given the height of it being three stories plus the height of the roof forms; it's really a little overwhelming for that neighbor. The house is very pretty and it looks really nice from the front, but the rendering of the rear exacerbates the height of the structure from the backyard and again it looks a little looming. Consider exploring another architectural style or changing the roof pitch to bring some of this massing down to something that could work better for this particular narrow and long lot. >I can see approving an attached garage which is a clever decision. It’s tucked away and hidden and gives you the space for a detached ADU at the back of the property. >I’m having difficulty with the FAR variance considering it's such a large property and there's already a lot to work with. Suggest taking a look at the declining height envelope to see if there's anything that can be done to avoid asking for that as well. Otherwise, there some very nice developments here. I look forward to seeing this come back around a second time. >I appreciate the design; the renderings spoke a lot. It was more important as far as being able to visualize it. I can appreciate the attached garage. The Special Permit for the attached garage isn't difficult for me, it is a clever solution given the circumstances. But I'm not seeing the exceptional extraordinary reasoning that are needed for the FAR and the declining height variance. This house could have been designed to go down the hill and been able to deal with the declining height, because 52 feet wide is a pretty good size lot to work with. Given that we have an ADU and junior ADU, I ’m not seeing a compelling reason for an FAR variance here either. Suggest that you take a good look at that before you come back because I'm not sure I can see any reasons to make that approval. The design itself looks nice, it's just not working with the formulas and the criteria that you would need to meet to be within the standards. >I have nothing against the attached garage in the back, it's quite an elegant solution. I do have a problem with using that as a reason for the additional square footage. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 6City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Pfaff5 - Absent:Loftis1 - Recused:Terrones1 - b.1805 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Michael and Raquel Seitz, applicants and property owners; Julio Geurrero, Guerrero Design, designer) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1805 Easton Dr - Staff Report 1805 Easton Dr - Attachments 1805 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Julio Guerrero, designer, and Michael and Raquel Seitz, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Windows should have similar grid patterns throughout the house. >On the East Elevation, the center section of the house looks very blank, consider reconfiguring the closet and bathroom upstairs. If you were to put the closet towards the center of the house, you can get the bathroom to the exterior wall and get a window along that elevation. It's a little deceptive because you're showing the filled in windows as having some texture, but it is actually part of the blank wall. The neighbor is not going to like looking at a big blank wall. You can do window treatments and frosted glass, there’s a lot of options to give that blank wall something. >We need to get some definitive analysis from staff on the JADU. The concern is that it is not a separate dwelling unit that the community can take advantage of. It looks like an adjunct living space that doesn't meet the spirit of what the intentions are for an JADU. Ask that staff provide an interpretation on that because the project is slightly below the allowable maximum FAR. >I also have the same concerns from a design review standpoint on the East Elevation. Effectively, once you have ignored the heavy poch é, all we have is a stucco wall that flows from the second floor all the way to the living room; we end up with these large media walls. The only thing breaking up that big blank wall is the lattice that's on the living room portion of the first floor. Consider revisiting that side because from a design review standpoint, it's out of scale with the rest of the house. It doesn't have a breakup of the mass with some windows or openings to provide relief. My fellow commissioner raises a good point in terms of the second floor window being large. I understand wanting maximum height into the spaces, but the proportions of the windows have to work within themselves. It's losing the charm and delicacy that we see in the Easton Addition. From a design review standpoint, we;re concerned mainly with the East Elevation and how the windows are going to operate in terms of the double -hung operation; the center rail is going to be larger than a muntin. Page 7City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I would like to echo my fellow commissioner ’s comments and would like to add that the window wells we spoke about should probably show up on the second floor plan as they encroach into the lower roof on sheet A1.4; that would be helpful to understand. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. It feels like we have this big wall. Having a 3D rendering might be helpful in this situation just to get a real feel of how things were laid out and what type of materials are being used to get a better sense of the house. I agree that the East Elevation definitely needs some work. >Looking at the photos of the house online it has a very cute look and presence on the street . Unfortunately, the drawings as elevations are flat and give no personality to this house, so it's hard to see how some of the addition pieces are working with the house or not. It really feels like it's going to be taped together at the moment. I’m not seeing the cohesiveness of what a house would look like if it were done . What I’m seeing is a remodel that is being patched together and that doesn't mean it can't be a good looking house that way. It's just that the drawings, not being 3D and not having anything other than simple line weights to them, aren't helping me fall in love with the addition. There needs to be some more communication with this one to make me feel comfortable with some of the things that are being changed. We're adding in the back, but we have a cut off roof in the middle which could be corrected with a hipped roof pretty easily. Again, it's just not going to turn out very cohesive the way we're going. >Request that the applicant to provide a little more clarification on that garage when they come back, it seems to have a very short header. I need to understand how they're using it because I don't know if you can get a car in that garage. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Loftis1 - c.516 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and designer; Jill and Joe Cannon, property owners) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 516 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 516 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 516 Burlingame Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, and Jill and Joe Cannon, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Make sure plans and elevations are drawn to match. Page 8City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Please provide 3D drawings when this comes back for the action meeting. >On the proposed left elevation, where it notes that it is an optional transom window, it looks peculiar and is not cohesive. Consider something totally of a different pattern. >I had the same question about the transom window, but wasn't sure if it was dotted in as an option for us to consider in design review. It looks like it's missing a sash or a trim, or it might just be how it was drafted. >It's helpful to have the 3D rendering in advance of the meeting so we can save some questions because things have been clarified for us. The rendering for the rear of the house helped me to visualize that elevation much more clearly. >It's a relatively straightforward project; it's not a huge ask. It's nice the way that it works on the rear facade. If the drafting corrections can be made, we can move this forward. >Regarding the dining room windows, if the basic window is going to be at the head height of the adjacent windows that are flanking the chimney, the concern is that you tried to get transom windows in there. By the time you get a transom bar, you don't have much window left. What they'll end up defaulting to is just larger windows in the dining room and it ’s going to wreck the composition of the left side elevation. I get that they want to get more light in that space, but would encourage the applicant to try to keep those windows aligned with the window adjacent to the chimney because it works well. The windows are getting so close to the fascia of the roof above at the eave. Otherwise, the project should move forward. >That particular window looked better in the 3D rendering because it looked more like a single unit of three instead of three individual units; that view looked better than the elevation even though they're the same number of lines. So, I could go either way on that because it wraps around on the other side with tall windows too. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Loftis1 - d.410 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application for Environmental Scoping, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Parking Variance for construction of a new public nature/recreation park and education center. (The Sphere Institute, applicant; H .T. Harvey & Associates, landscape architect; SERA Architects, Inc ., architect; California State Lands Commission, property owner) (23 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 410 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 410 Airport Blvd - Attachments 410 Airport Blvd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Pfaff noted that she had met with some of the applicants about three years ago on behalf of the Historical Society. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. William Johnson, Rachel Visscher, Jeff Roberts, Joe Howard and Erica Strohmeier represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Page 9City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a very exciting project. It will be great to see something come out of that land as a community resource. We would like to see this work both as a somewhat passive place on a daily basis by the public, but also as a possible event space, and that it becomes a jewel out there on the bayfront. >Have some concerns about the parking and the request for a Parking Variance. Maybe it could be addressed when this goes to the environmental analysis and comes back later, but currently am not seeing the exceptional and extraordinary circumstance pointed out clearly in order to make the findings for the Variance. To say this is a well -intended project and is going to be a great community resource is not something that we can latch onto as an exceptional circumstance. Please provide a better explanation and a linear way to get to the conclusion that a Parking Variance is founded, not just mitigating the Variance, but specify and provide supporting documents for the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. >Would like to see this work from an access standpoint. >There needs to be some sort of documentation regarding the exit easement to be able to access Bayview Place. >This looks like a really great design and I’m excited about seeing this property get developed. >Please provide how many parking spaces might be available at the Sphere Institute office building across the street if people need to park there during the day, because that might impact at how we're looking at the parking numbers. >Consider doing a minimum of two -hour parking on the site because there are concerns about transients parking their motor homes, other cars and trucks at sites in the area and not leaving. Suggest taking that into consideration and the safety of the site. >Recommend having some sort of a plaque on site where it discusses how this site came to be so that people understand the story around where this came from. It would be really interesting for all to understand how it started and how it got developed because it would be great history. >Please provide a materials board when this returns for review. >We're excited about this project and we want to see it be successful. >In your report, there were a number of nearby garages or building structures with outdoor /indoor parking listed that you're hoping to add to the count of potential parking spaces from a logistical perspective. Please provide information on how one would know where the parking options are in addition to what's immediately on site. >Consider some type of a shuttle service, either connected with the Burlingame trolley or something else, just to bring visitors to the area on some type of regularity. >Suggest creating some type of publicly displayed schedule because it would be unfortunate if people come to find that there's an event happening and they can't get access to the educational center and enjoy the spaces indoors. >Please make sure to include all Burlingame schools in your list of outreach. >Consider reconnecting with the group that is working on our regional solutions for flood protection and sea level rise resilience and make sure that we're aligning with those; I ’m a little nervous when I read that this is being approved to the previous Zoning Code. If we're going to ignore that we're already changing into the recently adopted new Zoning Code and what we are learning from our new sea level rise change, which defeats the purpose. >I’m struggling with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) because without the operation plan, it feels like an event center described as a park. If we were truly going to be park people, we wouldn't build a building . We would have some trash enclosure and restrooms and this would remain an ecological park and not a educational center. I need more information on the education component to understand why we're building a building to be able to support a CUP. For the event planning from a kitchen and catering standpoint, there's going to be a lot more discussion about what level of catering and kitchen goes in there because you're talking about grease interceptors and a lot more health regulations that are not in that space right now. So it’s going to change the architecture. The CUP is asking us to go outside of what would otherwise be there and the event center is a significant piece. If we do the CUP without the backup, that doesn't Page 10City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes mean it's going to happen in three years and you get around to building a building. And then we wouldn't have done our due diligence. >I would like to see the park and this facility work. I’ve seen too many of those facilities that wither and die because they don't have the potential for other event type uses. It's a little bit of a risky combination, is it really an event place or an interpretive education center and a park? From my standpoint, to sustain operations such as these, they have to have some gravity and have an engine to make them go and work . I hate to see things like this, as my fellow commissioner was getting to, go through a worst case scenario where something gets built and nobody goes there whether it's for lack of parking or lack of facilities to use it for things. I don't think we need to create a facility that allows for a 300-person wedding, we don't need to design a facility that is a convention center or something to that extent, but we have to allow for it to have enough gravity and enough facilities to have an engine to make it work, remain as a resource for the community and not just go fallow again. >Struggling with creating an environmental park that suddenly has to have more paving with parking, but people need to be able to get there and this is a bigger picture issue. We don't have people that live over there. It's not easy for people to just walk to this facility. So, we get in our cars and drive over there to be able to walk or ride bikes at the bayfront. But for school groups and others to use the facility they're going to need to drive over there and then do something with their cars while they're having this event. If they can get access to a shuttle program, that would be great. If there are ways to get out of cars and get to the places we want to go, that's great too. For this to work, it needs to have mechanisms in place like parking, valet or whatever it is to make sure that people will use it and will go there. >In terms of the applicant ’s outreach initiative, I would encourage them to also reach out to the private schools because they may get excited and offer another branch of people that want to come and visit the facility. >For the environmental scoping, it comes down to the ironic confluence of parking, environment and ecology, but that needs to get sorted out with more detail. I understand that it's tough getting the valet company fully on board and under contract without having an actual project, but we have to be more definitive on how it’s going to work and the facility is going to remain viable. >I would like to understand what the State Lands Commission is trying to accomplish out there, as well and see what they have in their minds. So if there is a meeting that we can attend that might be coming up, that would be helpful. >Don't want a building out there where it gets infiltrated with transients or people that we don't really want out there. I just want to make sure it's a safe site for everyone and for it to be successful. >There are multiple ways you can handle this. They could have the State grant and do the ecological part of it. It could be an online tour for education, everybody carries around an iPad and learns all about the ecology, you don’t even need a room for that. How much do you need to make the park work and how much of this is an event center? If we're going to do an event center, it needs to be done well. It needs to have a statement of operations. We need to have some conditions of approval. In the write up, it seems it was more about the event center being an event center than any education happening. I’m just not seeing it yet. I can appreciate that it's hard to get the whole program up and running and get all of your approvals with having everything already in place. But we're being asked to approve a CUP, which almost seems a little early at this point given the development. I actually have less concern about the environmental scoping as long as they tie in the sea level rise. The design review study was fine, there just needs to be more in it. Since we're giving guidance for environmental review study, then I ’m satisfied that we have given a fair amount of guidance here. >We're being asked to do something that ’s unique, which is good. I'm not totally against it, just wanting to make sure we make some good decisions and we've all had an opportunity to bring our expertise to this becoming a good project. Because we all do come at it from different points of view. It's a unique project for us. This isn't just another house that we're doing a design review study for. This is an impactful project and we want to make sure it goes well. There was no motion from the Planning Commission, as this application is required to return on the Regular Action Calendar. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 11City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - FYI for review of building material (solar roof shingles ) proposed for a previously approved Design Review project for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling with an attached garage. 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Memorandum 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments Attachments: >Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on February 14, 2022. 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 24, 2022, 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 $708.00, which includes noticing costs. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Page 12City of Burlingame