Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.10.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineTuesday, October 11, 2022 On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, which allows a local agency to meet remotely when: 1. The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency; 2. State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and 3. Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. On September 19, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 114-2022 stating that the City Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1. There is still a declared state of emergency; 2. The State recommends that individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks; and 3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners in their meeting spaces. Pursuant to Resolution Number 114-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the October 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging on to the Zoom meeting listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on YouTube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the consent agenda. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure your comment is received and read to the Planning Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 11, 2022. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Planning Commission after the meeting. Page 1City of Burlingame October 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 830 2039 5883 Passcode: 880447 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 830 2039 5883 Passcode: 880447 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft September 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft September 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto noted that she was not present at the September 12, 2022 meeting, but did read the meeting minutes and therefore will participate in the vote. The following corrections were made: Page 8; second line from top of page: replace "I would have had a better feel about it." with "if the variance were to be approved for this structure, it could be rebuilt completely as long as the percentage of the rebuild was up to 49.9% of the structure, then the entire structure could be rebuilt right where it is at the larger variance level than it currently is, even though it would essentially almost be a new structure." Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study - Presentation Page 2City of Burlingame October 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Staff Report Presentation Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Brian Fletcher, president of Callander Associates, presented an overview of the Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study and answered questions about the study. Public Comments: > Adrienne Leigh: I wanted to thank Mr. Fletcher for his comments about studying the ability to cross from the northwest corner of the Hyatt Hotel, across the entrances of the Highway 101 freeway ramps, and to access Broadway at the corner of Broadway and Airport Boulevard. I frequently see pedestrians basically running for their lives while crossing there over to Broadway. To go over to Broadway using the pedestrian overpass, which is two blocks away, it is very hilly and takes you out of your way to Cadillac Drive. People do want to cross from the Hyatt Hotel to get over to Broadway and then just cross the Broadway overpass. It is wonderful that it will be part of the feasibility study and to work with Caltrans because people cross there anyway. We should make it safe for them. I want to comment and appreciate the commissioner ’s comment about crossing on Old Bayshore Highway, that we need to have numerous places where pedestrians can safely cross. Maybe they can push a button and have the flashing lights so they can get to the center refuge island and be able to cross the next lane of traffic to get across Old Bayshore Highway. It is desirable to have them frequent and convenient. Right now, should you choose to go from the Hyatt Hotel to get over to the pedestrian overpass you have to walk one block north, cross over, and then go to the overpass which takes you two blocks out of your way, so it is not realistic. To have frequent crossings will be wonderful. Pedestrian level lighting should be focused at crossings and intersections heavily so that pedestrian crossings are better lit than just the roadway. Dark sky lighting should also be used, wherever feasible, because we are near nature and our preserves. Thank you very much. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Concerned that the vision in the Old Bayshore Highway as presented will not be fully implemented as some of the big projects in this area go by a certain standard as far as setbacks are concerned. I noticed that something as basic as a front setback is usually fairly close to the inner sidewalk edge. In this area it is not, it is often closer to the curb. I see these beautiful drawings with nice setbacks and trees, but as a matter of fact, unless the standards are adjusted we will not have what is drawn. We want to have room for the trees to grow. We don’t want to have the building right at the edge of the sidewalk where the tree that we hope will make a beautiful canopy will be trimmed at some point because there is no room for it. We need to identify where the property lines are in this area of town because they are not where we are customarily used to seeing them in the rest of the city. It is going to change whatever was accepted as the vision. (Fletcher: We are doing a road diet. All of our improvements will happen within the city right -of-way, which will include the wider sidewalks, planted buffer, bike lanes, and traffic lanes. The only small bit that we are proposing beyond the right -of-way is just the bus shelter locations. Setbacks for buildings will happened beyond that right-of-way.) >Concerned about the pedestrian connection from Bayside Park across Airport Boulevard over to Old Bayshore Highway because it is a five -lane wide intersection. I see that as a potential problem intersection when it becomes busy with people from the park going over to the Bay Trail. >I am more concerned about Airport Boulevard. Old Bayshore Highway has lanes, has space and can afford to diet. Airport Boulevard is already narrow and we are talking about a significantly higher number of Page 3City of Burlingame October 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes people, with two or three projects going on out there now. That Airport Boulevard /Old Bayshore Highway/Broadway intersection is the one spot where you can get onto southbound Highway 101. So everybody coming from the south of that is going to have to come through that intersection. I am concerned that we only have two lanes now on Airport Boulevard coming into that intersection and am thinking how we could actually make that road wider. >This is a great study of pedestrians and traffic on the road, but we need to also address the mixture of uses that we want to see in some of these areas. We are struggling with convincing developers of what we would like to see them help us develop in these areas that are not traditionally well occupied. If we want to see more retail, more food and more groceries we have to have some ways in our plan to include those items if they are not going to develop organically on their own. I would love to see them develop organically rather than forcing developments to do this, but I don ’t disagree that they are the ones who are going to bring in all the people and they are the ones that are doing development at this point. As we go along Airport Boulevard, there is less and less opportunity for it to just organically happen the way I think it can happen on Old Bayshore Highway or North Rollins Road. Those two locations have more ability to organically develop new business that supports the housing and workforce areas. Whereas Airport Boulevard does not necessarily have those nodes at this time. That is something I am hoping that we can get in so that the developers know what we are looking for and not having those arguments during our meetings. >To follow my fellow commissioner ’s topic, one of the things that we might also need to consider doing with these developers is thinking about their open space. The proposed open space in some of these projects are not really open space. It is closed to the entity or to the project itself. Therefore, maybe what we could do is some sort of in -lieu fee and set aside some money to do some of these bridges, improve some of these intersections, or give ourselves something that we can create some space within. It is a perfect place to do it now that we have a blank slate. I don ’t think the open space that some of these projects are giving us is enough. Maybe it is better to set aside money for the city so we can determine where that open space goes. >In anticipating what the traffic patterns along this corridor with the increased developments will be and our intended increase in pedestrian activity with people enjoying the Bay Trail, I worry about pedestrians crossing the street. We could be in a situation with one lane in each direction that there is going to be a constant flow of traffic, and that it will be a bit intimidating to cross the street anywhere along this corridor even though it will be receiving a road diet. I don ’t know if that means introducing traffic signals to make sure that we actually have pedestrian right -of-way for a set of time. Just added consideration to think about with the eventual increase in the numbers of people using the roads in trying to cross the streets. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1548 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Michael Guillory, Kotas /Pantaleoni Architects, applicant and architect; Sarah and Theo Wong, property owners) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1548 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report 1548 Westmoor Rd - Attachments 1548 Westmoor Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff Page 4City of Burlingame October 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tony Pantaleoni, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I feel like the second floor bay window at the front is a bigger issue than it is being presented. It's affecting a lot of aspects of the front elevation. Looking at the floor plan now, I can see that it is one foot less in the closet so the bench could go back into the shower. I don't think that's going to be a tremendous loss for the closet, but forcing the shower floor out in front of the house poses a bigger problem. There's an imbalance of the height of this bay window accentuated by the vertical siding on the second story over an arched entry way to the porch and the tall stone cladding along the outside of the house. The proportions of these three elements are off, they almost should be in reverse. The wainscoting should come down lower. Maybe it could not be an arched entry way to the front porch. The bay window should be shorter and certainly the vertical siding is not helping. I don't see that this issue has been resolved. It's something that was brought up from the very beginning and it has gotten worse in this rendition. I'm just troubled by the proposed bay window at the front elevation. The other elements are okay but I don't find that this has been resolved satisfactorily. >I would agree. The bay window looks odd to start with and that was why the suggestions for making it a bench seat came up. It would be a simple enough fix for an engineer or even a good carpenter to come up with a structural solution that can support a one foot projection for a seat. That's the big issue for me . I’m not crazy about a lot of the other elements just because they add to that height that we were trying to get away from by eliminating some of the upper windows and putting in vertical board and batten siding. It just makes it look taller which we are trying to get away from. If this was around the back, I could go along with it but I agree with my fellow commissioner. I agree that this is not a good solution to a problem we had already resolved. So I don't know if I can go along with the changes or at least that change. >I hear everyone; aesthetics are subjective. It doesn't bother me as much as it sounds like it bothers the other commissioners. The orientation of the siding might be an easier fix so to not make it look as tall, but it's nice to have variety in the house and this is a different architectural feature. It really doesn't bother me. >Though it wasn't brought up when this was reviewed, I agree with what was said previously about the issue of the bump-out. I actually thought that the proposed West Elevation is fine. It's an improvement over this little window that wasn't there before. However, the one that also looks very strange to me and wasn't improved is the North Elevation. The upper window was better before and it's oversized, but now because of the vertical siding it just makes it so prominent, so I ’m not sure that was a good decision. I do want to thank the applicant for actually not going ahead and building this because that's not allowed. I appreciate that it looks like its way far down and nothing has happened, so definitely appreciative they haven't done this. Therefore, it's an opportunity that this can really be fixed, but I don't see it's fixed. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. I also agree with the comment on the North Elevation, that change just makes it look so much taller. I don't really like that change in particular. I can understand some of the other changes, but the front elevation and the North Elevation are of concern to me. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 28, 2022, sheets A1.0 through A4.0, and building elevations, with the Page 5City of Burlingame October 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes exception of the changes to the second floor bays on the South (Front) and North (Rear) Elevations. Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.1805 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Michael and Raquel Seitz, applicants and property owners; Julio Guerrero, 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 Gaul opened the public hearing. Michael Seitz, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Reading through the comments from the previous meeting that I wasn't able to attend but did watch, they did a good job addressing many of the comments. The project looks really nice. The plan was really put together and I’m certainly in favor. >I agree. The time they've spent was well worth it and looks like day and night improvements. Thank you for addressing those. >I would agree with those comments. I know it's not enough conversation for this application specifically, but I’m a little confused about what constitutes a JADU inside a house, so I ’ll address that separately with the planning staff at a different time. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - c.1305 Rollins Road, zoned I /I - Application for Commercial Design Review for exterior facade improvements to an existing commercial building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.(William Hagman, applicant and architect; Black Mountain Properties, LLC, property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 6City of Burlingame October 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1305 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1305 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1305 Rollins Rd - Plans 1305 Rollins Rd - Renderings Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. William Hagman, designer, and Steve Mitchell represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I wanted to thank the applicant for providing the details and thinking about the transitions before it was later in the process. It always make for a better project. >First of all, I really appreciate my fellow commissioner for bringing that detail up because that's something I’ve never seen before. I very much appreciate it being addressed, so thank you so much . Good job. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - d.Consideration and Recommendation of a Repeal of the Bayfront Specific Plan, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the Bayfront Development Fee, and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee. (published notice) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Staff Report Specific Plan Areas General Plan Land Use Map CEQA Resolution Repeal Resolution Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 7City of Burlingame October 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >It sounds great and the development fees make sense. It personally makes me nervous seeing projects come down the pike that is not a fixed design and then wondering whether the setbacks are going to be appropriate. I don't remember what the previous specific plan was, so I don't know. I know it all makes sense to everybody but I feel that there's a gap. We're going to take these projects and kind of trust that they follow the General Plan. If the General Plan isn't really exacting enough because we don't have a design plan, I’m not really sure how it fits together. So I’m uncomfortable with some parts of this. >(Gardiner: All things being equal, there will be a new specific plan that would address some of those urban design issues and that's something we're working on for the North Rollins Road area. For the Bayfront, it does require a little more interpretation between what is described in the General Plan as the qualities for the Bayfront. It does fall on design review and that is trickier without having a specific plan in place, but that is the purview of the Planning Commission to look at the urban design context for these different development projects and then make those design judgments.) >Do we have any new projects that are coming before us in the next few months that might indicate that we need to get this going faster or are we okay after the last one we had on Rollins Road? (Gardiner: There are no current projects in the Rollins Road area that are in the pipeline. Of course, there could be another one in the future, but we have not had any pre -application meetings or anything like that. In the Bayfront area, there is one more project that has been submitted where the hotel that was approved at 1499 Bayshore Highway; it has been resubmitted as a new commercial project, so that would be coming in the future. But then beyond that, as of today, we have not had inquiries or any kind of pre -application meetings or any further projects even in the El Camino Real zone. >What’s the process now? If the fees are coming off the books, then we have to work on the new specific plan for that area. Is that correct? (Gardiner: Yes, you don't need to have a specific plan. It's helpful to have one. It basically provides further detail or specificity to the General Plan. The specific plan is part of the General Plan. In absence of a specific plan, the guiding regulations are the General Plan in terms of the policy direction and then the Zoning Code for the design regulations. So, in the Rollins Road area there will be more design guidelines coming along and it will provide a little more detail on what is in the General Plan, but much of it will look familiar as it will reflect a lot of what is already in the Zoning Code right now. It is meant to implement the General Plan so it's not really taking things in a different direction. With the Bayfront area, in looking at the old specific plan, it described a very different kind of development typology. Either the projects we're seeing now or what the General Plan looked at, it was a lower density and projects would be a little more isolated from each other. They were a little more self-contained. So, the General Plan did shift the direction and go with a more urban framework. But again, you don't need to have a specific plan. It could be helpful but in the absence of one, it's the Zoning Code and design review through the Planning Commission. >(Spansail: Director Gardiner, you hit on this a little bit right there. This is sort of the housekeeping project and the General Plan did go into some details in this area. So essentially, by repealing this, it doesn't mean we're trying to move back progress. The General Plan had contemplated this area of the city and that does not stop from a future specific plan going into place. I wanted to make sure that the Commission understood that this isn't necessarily a permanent thing, but it's a next step in the progress of the work being done in that area.) (Gardiner: That's correct. When the General Plan was adopted, we thought that basically it overrides the specific plans, they are obsolete. But as long as they are on the books, that does create both confusion and also potentially legal questions in terms of whatever is really the guiding document. Given the General Plan is more current and was adopted more recently, that's inferred to be as the guiding document. But it's confusing to have different plans saying different things both on the books. We really want the 2019 General Plan to be describing the vision for these areas.) Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to recommend adoption of the resolution and ordnance to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - Page 8City of Burlingame October 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no Design Review Study Items. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1 Adrian Ct - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review application for a new 265-unit mixed use residential development. 1 Adrian Ct - Memorandum 1 Adrian Ct - Proposed Plans 1 Adrian Ct - Original Plans Attachments: >Pulled for further discussion. Commission noted that they would like to discuss the proposed change to the art wall graphics further with the applicant. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 11, 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 October 21, 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 $745.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 9City of Burlingame