Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.10.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, October 23, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent7 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft October 10, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft October 10, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Horan noted that he was not present at the October 10, 2023 meeting, but watched the meeting video and feels comfortable participating in the vote. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 7. STUDY ITEMS a.1200-1340 Bayshore Highway, zoned BFC - Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report for an application for Commercial Design Review, Special Permits for Building Heights and Development under Tier 3/Community Benefits for a new development consisting of three, 11-story life science/office buildings and two, 10-story parking structures. (DivcoWest, Burlingame Venture LLC, applicant and property owner; WRNS Studio, architect) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: Kelly Beggs/Catherine Keylon Page 1City of Burlingame October 23, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Draft EIR 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Combined Appendices 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Marjan Abubo: I am speaking on behalf of ("LiUNA") the Labors International Union of North America, Local Union 261 and its members living in and near the City of Burlingame regarding the project known as Peninsula Crossing. LiUNA is currently reviewing the Project and we anticipate sharing our findings regarding potential impacts to air quality, noise, and biological resources as well as general consistency issues. LiUNA anticipates submitting timely comments along with independent expert reviews of our findings, and we have been working closely with the City and Ms . Keylon to obtain all relevant materials to perform a holistic review. Provided how comments are due next Friday on November 3 and we have not yet received information regarding the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, LiUNA respectfully requests an extension of the comment deadline in order to fully evaluate the Project and any potential impacts. Looking ahead to future planning dates, prior to approving the project, LiUNA hopes for the Commission to take the time necessary to consider LiUNA's comments, review the potential impacts that would result from construction and operation of the Project on surrounding sensitive communities, recognize the possibly significant health risks posed to workers at the Project, as well as prepare a CEQA document that assesses these potentially significant environmental effects. Thank you for considering these comments and I look forward to hearing any updates during this evening's meeting. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Clarifying that this is not a meeting to go back and forth with the applicants. However, if we have some questions do we just ask you? (Keylon: If there are clarifying questions regarding the CEQA document or the overall details of the project, we would be happy to do that. Tonight, we are not responding to any inquiries about the specific studies, but we can add those to the Response to Comments document. Then at the next hearing, if you think the responses were not sufficient or have further questions, we can have dialogue at that time.) >Clarifying question on the footnote on page 2 of staff report about intersection function that it is no longer part of the CEQA document. Where is it now being evaluated? (Keylon: We refer to that as Level of Service and was previously looked at in CEQA. SB743 then changed that analysis to what is called VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled). That analysis is now included with the CEQA document. The City's Engineering Division does look at intersection functionality or level of service as part of their analysis and overall review of the project, but not within the scope of CEQA or the environmental review.) >What is the projected timeline and phasing for the project? (Keylon: The phasing is detailed in the project description, which is in Section 3. We have months’ projections, but no actual dates provided. Is it not specific in terms of nailing down the calendar years, it just has the proposal for each phase. That is something that will come before the Commission for final decision when the project comes forwards . There is also a development agreement that is part of the full entitlement package.) >Does this project have a photovoltaic system? (Keylon: In referencing the attached climate action Page 2City of Burlingame October 23, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes checklist, the applicant notes that the project does not include a photovoltaic system and one is not required for non-residential buildings that are more than three stories. This information is included in their application.) >In the past meetings, I have accentuated and had concerns about the pedestrian scale of the use of public spaces and access to the project site. So I want to call attention to and highlight Adrienne Leigh ’s letter that goes into great detail, specifically on how to provide safe pedestrian travel and bicyclists, noting some of the sizes and dimensions of the features that should be provided. I believe she ’s on the Transportation Commission. I just want to bring attention to that specifically because it is in line with my concerns I've noted in the past, including the human relationship with this project site. >I have similar comments to many of the written public comments we have received. I do have one specific item that I did not understand and that is with relation to vibration and pile driving. I have read in the report that they may be using a different type of technique. I could not understand it, so I was wondering if it can be further investigated for the final document. (Keylon: It is included in Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration, on page 14 of the CEQA document under Impact Analysis. The first paragraph says “No pile driving or blasting activities are proposed during construction of the project. However, sheet piles would be installed using a drilled cast -in-place method such as auger cast or torque down piles or vibratory hammer suspended from a crane for sheet piles comprising portions of the proposed seawall .” We can ask for detailed information on how each of those might work in the field and the Response to Comments document may include a summary.) There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental review has been completed. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS There were no Regular Action Items. 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.201 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., applicant and designer; Burlingame Bancroft Estate LLC, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 201 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 201 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 201 Burlingame Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Fernando Correa, 211 Burlingame Avenue: The 201 Burlingame Avenue address is directly adjacent to our house. Our family has two comments /questions: a) We have Page 3City of Burlingame October 23, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes two newborns (4 months old) and are concerned about the debris this construction could generate. We would like to know if the 201 Burlingame Avenue owners are conducting any inspection of the house for hazardous materials such as lead, asbestos, etc ., before initiating the construction and will they provide a report? What precautions are they planning to take to restrict construction debris from impacting their neighbors? How will the city ensure that protocols are followed? b) Are they planning to make any changes to the fence between our houses? If yes, could they provide a detailed description of the changes? Please let me know if you have any questions. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks for your time and consideration. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Overall, the design is good. Consider the sill heights of the two bathroom windows on the upper floor . They look like doors. Given the verticality, I would not want my windows to be that low. I am not saying that it is a must, but it will be a good conversation to have with the client. Otherwise, I am in support of the project. >To the same point mentioned by my colleague, if it wasn ’t going to be planned for obscure glass windows and they were going to be clear glass widows with window treatment on them, it will be much better for the occupants if those windows were shorter and felt a little bit more private. With the height of those windows, even if they were not in private spaces, there should be some hierarchy with the windows on the main floor versus the windows on the second floor. Somewhat like what was done in the interior side elevation; there was a little bit of change in sizes of windows upstairs and it appropriately feels that the same calls for that in this side as well, especially with the street fa çade. Back to the front elevation with the asymmetrical roof line, I fully understand the design direction that you have there. Consider adding a design element that pops up there, maybe a change of plane with a curve instead of a straight asymmetrical roof. As a deliberate design feature, it can be taken to the next level with a little bit more decoration, change the profile of the roof, take the tiles off, or treat it like you did on the right -hand side. It feels like it is asking for a little bit more attention because of the asymmetrical roof. Otherwise, it is a really beautiful design. Great job. >I love my fellow commissioner’s idea. It looks chopped off, consider adding something up there to balance it because you did call attention to that roof. I also really like this house. With respect to the public comment we have received, I believe these are issues that can be taken cared of by the city as far as permits are concerned. (Gardiner: That is correct. The building permit does address the various issues related to both demolition and making sure that debris is handled responsibly and disposed of correctly . Also, during construction, our inspectors are there to do regular inspections. But of course, if something comes to the attention of the neighbor, they can call the Building Department and we can send out and inspector if it is something that has not already been scheduled. I can ’t speak regarding the fence so I would advise the applicant to contact the neighbor to discuss whatever fence issue there may be.) >On the front elevation, suggests bringing the chimney flue up a further because this may be the reason why the attention is focused on the truncated area. Not sure if this can resolve the issue, but it's something to consider. I agree with my fellow commissioner that it might look good to go higher so it does not look like it has been cut off. >I like the house overall. What might be throwing some people off a little bit is the angles of the roof being cut off are the same as the higher peaked roof behind it, which is full and goes all the way. Consider using different angles to set the roofs apart. I am okay with it as it is. Regarding the terra cotta tiles at the crawl space level, I have not seen that a whole lot on this style of house, which is fine because we don ’t have any strict requirements, but I think there is a reason for that. If I was the homeowner and I had those on the inside and backyard side of my house, those vents because the way they protrude, might last a few years before they get knocked off by a hose rack, a kid or something like that. There are a lot of alternative designs with terra cotta tiles that are used often on these buildings; there are little square ones flushed with the wall that have a design cut in them. There are lots of options to choose from. I would personally recommend a flushed design to use at the crawl space vents. I wouldn ’t be as concerned about it if it was just on Bancroft Way and Burlingame Avenue side because they will be covered by plants, but Page 4City of Burlingame October 23, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes it is also on the west side, the interior side of the building. It's something to consider but not a deal breaker for me. Commissioner Schmid 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: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner noted two items of interest that were discussed at the October 16, 2023 City Council meeting. First, there was a presentation from OneShorline on sea level rise adaptation and a study they've been working on looking at alternatives. Second, there was a decision by the Council to phase out gas -powered leaf blowers; they will be mandated to be replaced with electric-powered blowers next year to address noise and air quality concerns. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Page 5City of Burlingame