HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.09.23BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 23, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior
Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and LoftisPresent5 -
Comaroto, and GaulAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.1212 Balboa Avenue, 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. (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Lowell and Regina
Scott, property owners) (152 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1212 Balboa Ave - Staff Report
1212 Balboa Ave - Attachments
1212 Balboa Ave - Plans
Attachments:
b.1669 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously
approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a commercial recreation
(CrossFit studio) business. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Craig Ranier Gadduang, applicant; 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLC, property
owner) (28 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report
1669 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments
1669 Bayshore Hwy - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 -
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.725 Plymouth Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor
addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301
(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Stavoy, applicant and architect; Heather and
David Sanchez, property owners) (139 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
725 Plymouth Way - Staff Report
725 Plymouth Way - Attachments
725 Plymouth Way - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex -parte communications to report .
Commissioner Loftis noted that he was not in attendance at the two previous meetings for this project, but
he did watch the meeting videos.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
James Stavoy, architect and David Sanchez, property owner, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There appears to be a drafting error on the front elevation in comparison to the west side elevation .
The west side elevation shows 8x stained wood brackets underneath the overhang, but these are not
shown on the front elevation. Are they intended to be on the front elevation? (Stavoy: That is a drafting
error, we are not proposing wood brackets on the front elevation. Because of the offset due to the
declining height envelope, it didn't create the right proportions for the brackets.)
Public Comments:
Jeannie Bosley, 729 Plymouth Way: Located adjacent to the project site. Have studied the second
revision of the plans and have had my questions kindly and thoroughly answered by Planning staff .
Pleased that Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez and their architect took time to consider your feedback and make
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
changes to their plans. However, am disappointed that no revisions have been made to address my
ongoing concern about the mass of the structure that extends 11 feet beyond the existing house and is so
close to the fence. Have described in writing, in my previous remarks to you, and with photos, the
negative impact and harm this causes me. Have provided addresses of nine homes on my street and in
our neighborhood that have recently undergone significant remodels, their designs do not invade the rear
open space. Out of respect for their neighbors, they have considered privacy, light, livability and
aesthetics. The intrusion in this plan is not in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. Very early
in this process, before the project plans were submitted, met with Mr. Sanchez twice to review and
discuss the plans. Contrary to what he stated to you in writing, in our second meeting, shared my concern
about the mass of the two story structure and the issues it raised for me. He made it very clear then that
my feedback was not welcome and that has been the case since then. Have appeared before you three
times because you have been my only recourse for having my concerns heard. Ask you again to address
the harm the two story addition will cause.
David Sanchez: We've proactively reached out to get feedback. There were no specific elements of
feedback that we were able to address. We've reached out on the second revision and not been able to
gather any additional feedback, so we're looking forward to moving forward with any feedback the
Commission deems appropriate.
Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Respect the fact that they've eliminated the request for a Special Permit for declining height envelope,
think the revisions handled that issue very gracefully.
>Can support the project the way it's been designed. Architecture is compatible with the character of
the neighborhood; garage pattern is existing and remaining; style, mass and bulk is similar to other
structures in the neighborhood.
>While the interface with proposed structures on adjacent properties may be an issue to the neighbor,
we don't have much recourse in terms of denial or any further massaging that we can request at this point;
the project complies with the ordinances. It's not any taller than is allowed, the setbacks are met, and the
landscaping and its proportions in mass and bulk are consistent with what we would expect for a project of
this type. Can support project the way it has been submitted.
>Commend you for working carefully through these rounds of design review with us and considering our
comments. Appreciate the withdrawal of the declining height envelope variance request.
>Can understand that the neighbors concern, but can see by the massing and the shape of your home,
and in relationship to your neighbor on the left who has a similar rear addition, that you have designed this
second story in a clean fashion.
>Appreciate that the master bedroom has recessed in towards the center of the property, helping to
reduce the amount of potential reduction of sunlight to your neighbors' property. Also preserves the ability
to use the area between the garage and rear addition of the home. Project has come a long way; can
support the design of the project as it stands.
>Of all the changes made, especially like the addition of the depth on the west elevation.
>In regards to the comments from the neighbor, it's always an issue that is tough to approach for us
because privacy under the design guidelines is something we can consider, but it's not guaranteed. As
previously noted, this project meets the design guidelines and think it's approvable.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application.
Discussion of Motion:
>Project has come a long way, it's a clean application, and project meets design guidelines;
no exceptions required since it complies with all of the requirements for setbacks and declining
height envelope.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Note that they have an existing nonconforming side setback and we often see that applicants
ask for a variance to continue the nonconforming setback with additions. However in this case
applicant has not made that request; understand the neighbors concerns, but think this is a
reasonable request and can support it.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 -
b.1520 Ralston Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a Conditional Use Permit for an
accessory structure. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1).
(Jo Ann Gann, designer and applicant; Thomas and Anna Tracy, property owners) (123
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1520 Ralston Ave - Staff Report
1520 Ralston Ave - Attachments
1520 Ralston Ave - Plans
1520 Ralston Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Jo Ann Gann, project designer, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Is the existing first floor plate remaining the same except for the addition area? (Gann: Yes, it's all the
same.)
>On the proposed right elevation of the accessory structure, the new addition is shown on the wrong
end of the structure, will need to be corrected. (Gann: Yes, you are correct.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Like the revisions and appreciate the fact that they reduced the plate height on the second floor. The
difference may be subtle, but think it helps with that top heaviness. It gives better proportions to the
bays, particularly on the right elevation. It's a much nicer piece of the architecture and think the changes
they've made are supportable; in support of the project the way it stands.
>Really like the changes they've made; think it helps bring the feel of the project down and make it
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
more compatible with the neighborhood.
>Can make the findings on the conditional use permit for the full bathroom and the rear structure
because it's a use we typically approve to support a pool in the way it is proposed.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the
application.
>Do we want to ask for the revised drawing to come back as an FYI?
>No, I think it's something that staff can look at when it comes back for a building permit.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 -
c.2721 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review, Hillside
Area Construction Permit, and Front Setback Variance to extend the front porch by 2'-0"
for a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 153031 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Xie Guan, Xie Associates, Inc ., applicant and architect; Lin Yun Ping, property owner )
(67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
2721 Martinez Dr - Staff Report
2721 Martinez Dr - Attachments
2721 Martinez Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had 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:
>They have a landing at the top of the stairs that is wider and extends from underneath the porch being
extended. Because of that height, is it still considered structure and therefore requiring a variance for that
front setback? (Hurin: Yes, that's correct.)
Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Bill Guan, project architect, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
There were no questions for the applicant.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Is it correct that the covered portion of the porch and any portion that we're considering porch area
exempt from FAR because it's still below the allowed 200 square feet? (Hurin: The FAR exemption only
applies to the covered portion of the porch; the uncovered stairway that is more than 30 inches above
grade counts toward the lot coverage and they're well under that.)
>This is a straight forward request. Usually with variance requests, it's very hard to make the findings,
but think that the findings in the staff report address that it would be unreasonable to expect them to
make a large change to the existing footprint of the house to get this reasonable access to the front of
their house; therefore am in support the application.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 -
d.1 & 45 Adrian Court, zoned RRMU - Application for Design Review, Density Bonus,
Approval of Community Benefit Bonuses, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for lot
combination for a new seven -story, 265-unit mixed-use development. The project is
Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (SummerHill
Apartment Communities, applicant; Seidel Architects, architect; Helf Investments and
Nicolet Family Partners, property owners) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Staff Report
1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Attachments
1 & 45 Adrian Ct - CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption
1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Plans
1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Public Works - Engineering Memo
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent noted that he had met with the
applicant. Commissioners Loftis, Terrones and Tse noted that they each had a brief email exchange with
the applicant.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Who is responsible for maintaining the public amenities and maintaining their accessibility in the
future? As long as the project exists, they have to remain public, but what stops them from ten years
down the road saying we're going to actually incorporate this into part of our building? Are there protections
in place for that? (Hurin: There will be an agreement between the applicant and the City that would address
those issues and concerns.)
>Are there hours of operation restrictions to the public park? (Hurin: I don't think we've gotten to that
level of detail yet; we'll probably look at our City hours for parks as a consideration.) (Kane: The park also
has to be available to the residents of the project, and would probably be available to them for longer
hours than to the general members of the public. We want to be sensitive to the location in terms of
security issues, so we're looking at that as part of the agreement that would cover it.)
Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Elaine Breeze and Alex Seidel, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Are the 38 affordable units distributed throughout the project? (Breeze: Yes, they will be. We'll enter
into an affordable housing agreement with the City. They will be equally distributed by unit type.)
> The affordable units are designated at the beginning and will remain designated affordable units
throughout their life, is that correct? (Breeze: Yes, we have recently worked with other cities where once
the program is established, there is some flexibility, but the goal is that you always have those 38 units
that comprised the same unit mix we agreed upon. They are equally distributed.)
> Is there any update on what the potential uses are or potential tenants are for the commercial space
or is that still to be decided? (Breeze: That is still to be decided.)
> Where is the plaster smooth finish verses the plaster sand float finish going to be used? (Seidel: The
white rectangles that surrounds the wood would be the smooth finish, and then the sand float finish would
be used on everything else.)
> On the pool deck level, is there just one barbecue area that serves that pool deck? (Breeze: There
are barbecues areas in the eastern and western courtyards, as well as on the far left side off the club
room.)
>On your renderings you show the trees along Adrian Court are lit. Is that the plan to light the trees
along the sidewalk? (Breeze: That might be a little architectural license. That is within the public
right-of-way and I don't think the City will allow that. There will be street lights above and lighting on the
building that will need to comply with downcast requirements; there will be lighting on the building side of
the sidewalk.)
>You mentioned transitioning from one type of window along the Adrian Road and Adrian Court
elevations to another window type on the remaining elevations. How would you transition the windows
along those elevations? (Breeze: We would wrap the windows around the unit so that nobody has two
different window types; we've identified where we would want to wrap so it's properly breaking.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>This is an exciting project. It has to be really satisfying for the community based on how much work
went into the General Plan. Changing the zoning of this area was a leap of faith and to see it realized so
quickly, I think it's really exciting. The community benefits are a great addition to this area, project is
approvable.
>Agree, it is a really exciting project, astounding that it happened quickly while work was continuing on
the General Plan. The project is extremely well articulated and the benefits are pretty remarkable.
>The one concern I had was to make sure the affordable units were not shoved up against Highway
101, happy to hear they're distributed through the project. I'm in full support of the project as well.
>Agree with my fellow Commissioners and am excited about the project. I think there's been so much
thought put into every aspect of the design of this project, there are so many elements where you have
exceeded requirements.
>Adrian Court is going to be a special place to go and visit and use, like the paseo entrance to the
park. Thank you for all the care that you have taken to articulate the design of this project, can support
the project.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
application for Design Review, Density Bonus, and Community Benefit Bonuses and recommend
approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel map to City Council.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Discussion of Motion:
>When we were working on what would would like to see in the new zoning for this area, we
identified public amenities as being an important element; think that this project has set a good
standard for future projects; in support of project.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 -
e.1499 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Lot
Merger, Commercial Design Review, and Conditional Use Permits for Hotel Room
Density, Building Height, Floor Area Ratio, and Parking Reduction to construction of a
new 11-story, 404-room hotel development. (HKS Architects, Inc ., architect; EKN
Development Group, property owner) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner
1499 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report
1499 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments
1499 Bayshore Hwy - Plans
1499 Bayshore Hwy - MND
1499 Bayshore Hwy - MND Appendices
1499 Bayshore Hwy - MMRP
1499 Bayshore Hwy - Response to Comments
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Sheldon Ah-Sing, Contract Planner, presented an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Andrew Davies and Tom Sprinkle represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>What color is the glass? (Sprinkle: It's not bright blue or gray as shown on the building elevations .
Think the renderer did a good job of picking a glass that has enough thermal qualities to meet Title 3
Energy Code requirements, but that's also clear enough to provide a sense of occupied space inside. This
particular glass does a nice job of picking up the color of its environment. It has a bit of a heat absorbing
tint for solar protection, especially on the east and west facades, but it's not a colored glass. It's a nice,
muted, blue/green color; like it because it picks up the color of the sky.)
>Is there a designated rideshare pickup waiting area? (Sprinkle: That's a good point because I think a
hotel like this, especially near the airport, we will expect a lot of that activity. There will be shuttle bus
service in association with a nearby hotels, but for the rideshare and taxis, that would happen near the
lobby area; there's a lounge inside, so in inclement weather you can sit inside and wait, or wait in this
plaza-like area. It's meant to be very easy, in -and-out pickup and go out. Doing everything we can to
keep that space from getting congested.)
>It's a one way drive -thru area so you can stack both sides with parking, correct? (Sprinkle: Depending
on how much valet there is, there is plenty of room to stack valet the drive -thru area. We always make
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
sure and leave two cars stacking in one bypass lane so you've got room for maneuvering.)
>In regards to the special request for parking, I know it's not a variance anymore. Based on the
parking study that was done using ITE standards, 0.64 parking spaces are recommended per guest room .
But the project is providing more than that, correct? (Ah-Sing: That is correct, the parking study does use
national standards and they are different than the city's standards. In that case, the number of parking
spaces per room is less and the amount that they're providing ends up being more.)
>Seems that what is being presented to us is that the nature of hotel parking is evolving on a fairly
regular basis in terms of how it affects planning and standards. Is that what you're seeing as well in terms
of your planning and experience? (Sprinkle: Think that's very true. There are places like Los Angeles and
Dallas that are still very much car dependent, those airports tend to much more remote than in this case .
Think that anyone that travels to San Francisco and rents a car and drives downtown only does it once
and then probably not again it's too inconvenient. We find that our challenges are more related to the drop
off, the arrival sequence and getting those cars out. For the people that do drive, they may want to
self-park or have a valet parking, so we have to accommodate both of those things. However, the overall
number of parking spaces is coming way down, in fact in some areas that we work in, they're requiring us
to provide less than code because the code hasn't quite caught up. Burlingame is probably more ahead
than a lot of places. We've got all these hotels and parking spaces and no one is using them, so it make
you wonder why they're building them anymore.)
>The area near the lobby under the shade structure, with all of the bollards, really only provides an area
for approximately six cars at most, and with the shuttle and valet services, it's a combination of a lot of
activity that could be happening here. Should consider planning for some more temporary resting spots
for vehicles, rather than having circling around or parking on Mahler Road. (Davies: If that becomes an
issue, we would utilize the parking structure for people waiting on rideshare. Know many airports have
utilized that and it has been quite successful. Also wanted to point out that we did provide a little more
parking than the ITE standards for hotels, but we wanted to make the restaurant and other hotel offerings
an amenity for the residents of Burlingame, so we thought people might come locally as well and wanted to
plan for that.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Like the project and the improvements that have been made, can support it at this point.
>This is a very architecturally sophisticated project, in the things that is does with respect to the urban
design or establishing some design in that area, is very nice. Like the relation of the building to the
Shorebird Sanctuary. Like the one -story element on the corner that associates itself with the other
similarly scaled objects in the immediate vicinity. It takes very good advantage of all the opportunities on
the site, in particular what you have done on the Mills Creek side was a huge improvement, am extremely
excited about this project.
>Think it is a nice project. Appreciate the additional graphics provided to help communicate the
pedestrian experience that I was asking about at the first hearing. Think that it will be a very nice
experience in and around the hotel.
>Think there is an opportunity provided here besides just for hotel guests. The idea of place for
Burlingame residents to enjoy the restaurant as well, like that added benefit. The cinema concept that's
associated with the roof deck, there are some nice elements that tell me that the project has been very
well thought of and thought through. Think that the project is approvable and should move forward.
>Can accept the findings in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit.
>In regards to the parking, we have an analysis that shows that the parking should be sufficient and will
be beyond what otherwise would be required based on the standard analysis.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
application. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.831 Acacia Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached
garage. (Nikko Kandhari, applicant and property owner; Kellond Architects, architect )
(149 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
831 Acacia Dr - Staff Report
831 Acacia Dr - Attachments
831 Acacia Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Steve Kellond, project architect, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Like what you're doing in terms of taking advantage of existing thick walls, what looks like around the
porch area and thickening the other walls to give depth, particularly on the front elevation. In regards to the
trim, you're showing a cast stone with a stucco finish trim around the windows. Am I correct in assuming
that's a smooth finish to help it make it look like stone? (Kellond: Yes, that's correct, it's a smooth
stucco finish.)
>What is the purpose of that trim, is that just to add some detail? (Kellond: The main reason for that is
we have existing two-by-four wall construction we're utilizing. Normally in this case we would prefer to do a
thicker-framed wall that we can insert and roll the stucco into. So in this case, rather than have the window
flushed into the exterior wall with no sort of relief, that was a detail we're proposing along some of the
sides, provides a difference in the articulation of the different windows.)
>Appreciate idea of adding depth. See what you're saying in trying to capture some of the Spanish
Revival or Mediterranean style homes in the neighborhood. However, when stone trim with a stucco or
sand finish is done poorly it looks awful. Like doing something to get that articulation. Other possibility to
consider is doing a timber header across the top of the windows and let the rest of the windows relax and
even if they are flat with the stucco, you can get that iconic look to a Spanish Revival. Don't know if you're
interested in exploring that, but it's something you do see in that traditional style and it helps to give depth
to the windows and detail to them so they're not just modern windows, flushed on a stucco wall.
>Front porch columns are identified as stucco finish also, but the idea is that those would look like
stone, correct? (Kellond: Correct.)
>Project looks like it's more toward the Mediterranean style with the stone columns, as opposed to
Spanish Revival with the timber. (Kellond: Correct, it's also reflected in the lighter color palette and
decorative tile trim.)
>Understand the limitations of this site in terms of the sloping lot and don't see a problem with the
Special Permit request for the declining height envelope.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Concerned about the apparent height of the building, house looks tall at the front. Proposed 9-foot
plate height on the first floor is pretty standard; could you consider reducing the second floor plate height?
More typically see an 8-foot foot plate height on second floor, can use some of the roof structure to create
height within that second story.
>With downward slope, house is going to appear really tall at the rear. Program makes sense of trying
to maximize the space, but should look at ways to mitigate mass at rear. (Kellond: If you look at the side
elevation, what we were trying to accomplish was a stair effect to pull the massing back; two -dimension
drawings can look flat and tall. Outdoor deck and covered space on ground floor help to minimize that
mass, and then also stepping back upper floors. Would also point out that deck on upper level off the
master bedroom is incorporated into the roof, so that helps in terms of massing, where the roof comes
above that roof deck level, so we were trying to integrate and be sensitive to that.
>The floor of the third -level deck isn't really at the bottom of that guardrail, correct? (Kellond: Correct.)
The guardrail looks out of proportion, assume it will be 42 inches in height. (Kellond: Correct, code
requires 42 inches, don't remember how much it is above the actual deck elevation, believe it's around 8
inches above.)
>Trying to get a handle on the thickening of the walls. It appears to happen in the front, where the wall
is thickened and then you bevel it back to the window plain. Is that the only place? (Kellond: There are
three main places where that happens. We're using it at the front in the main living room on the front
facade, off the family room space, and then upstairs on the master bedroom.
Public Comments:
Name not provided, 835 Acacia Drive: Live immediately to the north of the project site. After reviewing
plans, have several concerns with proposed project. The first is related to privacy; our lot has the same
characteristics as their lots, is downward sloping. Our house is split -level, one story at the front and two
stories at the rear; there is a unique atrium with an entire wall of windows bridging the front and rear of the
house. Concerned with the proposed right elevation, house is now going from six to 28 window panes, so
there's an incredible expansion of windows facing our property; especially in the back, concerned with all
of those windows facing into our backyard. Have a similar concern with the upper level balcony at that
elevation looking into our backyard, we'll have no private enjoyment of our yard. Second concern is with
loss of light, the encroachment on the right side appears to run two -thirds of the house length, that's not
immaterial in winter time regarding how much light is going to come through.
Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Having a hard time understanding this project and the architectural style. Would help to have
renderings to make a reasonable assessment of the project.
>Having problems with the way the windows are articulated with primarily horizontal panes, which makes
the style more modern. However, they're inserted into something that is much more traditional. Concerned
with the hard-edge window openings, and the style of architecture that suggests with an arched doorway
and other elements, that it wants to be much softer. Project feels to me like it's trying to be really
modern, but traditional at the same time.
>Doesn't hang very well together; having a rendering or model would help me understand the project
better.
>Similar plate heights on first and second floors makes it seem like a square on top of a square,
doesn't provide for much relief since it continues on all sides of the house, which contributes to making it
feel larger than it may in fact be. Reducing the plate height on the second floor will help with the massing .
The only relief is on the right side where it steps in a little bit.
>The left side elevation is really stark and sheer, should also look at providing some relief along the left
side of the house.
>Have granted Special Permits for declining height envelope in the past, particularly on sloped sites,
but the effect is just further complicated by that 9-foot plate on the second floor. Have approved projects
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
with 10 and 9-foot plates, they look proportional and detailed, are set into a neighborhood of two -story
homes, which may include Spanish Revival or Mediterranean homes, but the new house looks like it's on
steroids because it's overly bulky. House may look good on its own, but in the context of the
neighborhood, particularly on this side of the street where there are a number of houses that are still
effectively one-story on the street, that added additional height on that second floor plate makes it even
worse in terms of the declining height envelope; therefore second floor plate height should be
reconsidered.
>Regarding the neighbors' concerns about window patterns along the right elevation, applicant should
investigate how those windows line up with the neighboring windows.
>Wasn't clear whether the neighbor was expressing concern about the deck off the master bedroom or
the main floor deck; however the master bedroom deck is consistent with decks we've approved before, is
small and isn't going to promote large gatherings.
>A material's board could also be helpful in reviewing this project.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried
by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 -
b.1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU:
a. Application for Environmental Review, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for
mechanical parking stackers for a new seven -story, mixed-use building with retail, office
and 60 residential units with below grade parking (Certosa Inc. applicant and property
owner; Architecture International, architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
b. Application for Zoning Code Amendment to Amend Office Parking Regulations in the
NBMU Zone. Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1766 El Camino Real - Staff Report -9b-a
1766 El Camino Real - Attachments- 9b-a
1766 El Camino Real - Plans
1766 El Camino Real - Staff Report - 9b-b
1766 El Camino Real - Attachments - 9b-b
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>What is the parking ratio in other commercial zones? (Keylon: Parking ratio for office is the same
throughout the city and is 1:300 SF. Parking ratio for medical uses is 1:250 SF, except in the Inner
Bayshore area where it is 1:300 SF in buildings over 20,000 SF in area; that's the nexus we used for this
application on the north end of Burlingame.)
>Please clarify the residential linkage fee. (Keylon: Projects that are developing residential units can
either provide affordable units on site or pay an in -lieu fee based on their density and type of labor. The
rate is different if the project is prevailing wage or non -prevailing wage. In this case, the community benefit
they've chosen is to provide affordable units at 5% low income, and therefore the residential linkage fee
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
would not be required since affordable units are being provided.
>In reading through the reduced parking requirements and the modifications being proposed in this
area for the office ratio, what's being presented to us is changing the ordinances so that the parking ratio
is 1 space per 500 SF, or 2 spaces per 1,000 SF as it's being presented in the parking table provide by
Hexagon. Even with reductions allowing for projects that are close to multimodal transportation or in
downtown areas, not seeing too many that get as low as 2 parking spaces per 1,000 SF. There are various
considerations, for example Mountain View says parking reduction and shared parking may be
implemented if it can be justified that there will be no resulting parking deficiency, however that doesn't tell
me they're getting as low as 2 parking spaces per 1,000 SF on a regular basis. If we're going to 2 spaces
per 1,000 SF, there doesn't seem to be too many other communities that are going that low, am I correct
in reading this? (Keylon: For Millbrae, their ratio comes down to approximately 1 space per 660 SF within
800 feet of the multimodal station. Outside of that boundary, it's 1 space per 400 SF; San Mateo is almost
1 per 400 SF because they're 2.6 per 1,000 SF; and South San Francisco within their downtown near the
train station is 1 per 400 SF. The case study also provides additional information. (Kane: The table
referring to TOD buildings demonstrates a considerably lower ratio than the default ratio for the City's.)
Acting Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Mario Muzzi, Bill Higgins, Dave LoCoco and John Martin, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Staff report shows 20 parking spaces dedicated or assigned for the commercial spaces. Where would
those spaces be located? (Higgins: It's an unbundled garage, but they could be assigned spaces for the
commercial tenants, probably off the California Drive side since that's the easiest entry point without going
deep into the garage. We haven't explored exactly the actual assignment or location, but that's one idea.)
>Are the 20 parking spaces for employees working in the commercial space or are those for customers
or clients coming to visit the commercial space? (Keylon: The intent is that they would be for both .)
(LoCoco: From an accessibility and electric vehicle point of view, the code requires certain percentages
of those types of parking spaces for commercial and residential uses, and this project has those. The
final signage of which are retail are not designated at this point, but it would get evolved as the leases are
made. Assume there would be some spaces underneath and some along the back edge for employees;
want to make your most comfortable retail spaces available for the customer.)
>If I am a customer or employee coming to the commercial area and I park in the garage, how would I
get to the commercial space? (LoCoco: You would use the office elevator to the front lobby, which will
provide access to the retail spaces through the outdoor plaza area. We're not trying to create a mall or an
internal streetscape.)
>Are you confident that people coming to the retail businesses will use the garage parking and walk out
to the street and then back into a store? (Higgins: Yes, it's all protected so they can park in a protected
area and come through a protected lobby.)
>Can there be better identification for the lobby along the El Camino Real facade? Concern is that it's
a six-story building and there is a hard line between the first and second floors, and there isn't really a
celebration of that lobby. Something is needed to help identify and articulate that entry and create a little
bit more pedestrian experience. (Higgins: We could look at adding a canopy extension.)
>Have same concern on the residential side; there is a canopy of some sort that is a little better
articulated, but some sense of entry is needed. Perhaps some movement into upper floors with the
canopy.
>In and around the fitness center, the plan is showing an arcade and plaza leading up to building which
feels a little harsh. Is there any opportunity to get some softened edges, perhaps some trees along the
driveway to soften that transition from the storefront wall of the fitness center to the arcade. Might filter
that view into the fitness center so you don't feel like you're on the driveway. (Higgins: Intent would be the
fitness center would be entered from the Trousdale Drive side, it could have a double entry. The
pedestrian experience does continue under cover to get to the front entry; there is a planter separating it
from the sidewalk area.) May want to revisit that edge between the arcade and driveway, would help to
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
soften that edge.
>Plans show artificial turf in the dog play area, however the images show benches and other amenities .
Will the dog play area get developed with some articulation besides just a swath of turf over the parking?
(Martin: Yes, we want to make sure people can socialize and let the dogs out and sit around and talk to
their neighbor.)
>Do you have the trees species identified for what will be planted along the street? (Martin: Patriot elm
along El Camino Real and Red Oak along Trousdale Drive. In both of our plans, they are 5-foot tree wells,
which is what we understood also from the city was the desired size, and it shifts away from the curb in
Option 2 to allow for a step out zone; provides extra space to open your door depending on if you're
parking or being dropped off.)
> The basement garage wall is at the edge of the public right -of-way. Are you confident that the Patriot
elm will have enough room to grow at the height shown on the plans? What height will they grow to?
(Martin: Growth height would be approximately 40 feet. The intent is make sure the roots don't encroach
on the basement walls with root barriers, as well as how we take an approach to using soil and making
sure that the desirable soil for the tree runs closer to the curb where the roots are going to go.) (Higgins:
The garage itself is going to be a straight line, so that section was taken at the narrowest point.)
>The second layer of trees are in raised planters because they're above the garage, correct? (Martin:
Yes, they are in raised planters and there is an opportunity to look closer into detail the use of the nose of
where the cars are parking to be able to provide more depth along that edge.) What is the species of
those trees? (Martin: Those would be Peppermint trees, they have a darker appearance and are more
ornamental, intent is to provide more verticality.) What height would you expect those to get if they're in
raised planters? (Martin: Depends on the soil, but would likely ge to 10 to 15 feet in height.)
>With the dominant corner of Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real where you're looking to develop a
bulb out, there's an opportunity to define that corner more at the building. Having trouble identifying the
entrance in the middle of the building along El Camino Real. Wondering how the corner can either orient or
direct people a little bit more in that direction with perhaps some greater depth of landscaping around that
corner, and some more activity that could help people to visualize or move in that direction versus having
a flat facade. For example, Peninsula Hospital across the street has sculptures at the corner; corner
needs more attention.
>At the residential turnaround up against masonry wall at the police station, is there some thought as to
how you'll present that rear edge of the property? (Higgins: We have to look at the grades and the top of
the wall, but wall will have to extend up because the drop off is up near the lobby level, so it is up from the
street level about three to four feet; will have to look at the articulation of that wall as a landscape wall
since it's going to be the backdrop of our drop off, so that will require some attention.)
>You have some punch outs along the residential levels and even in the center part of the commercial
level, wondering if there's enough shade for the balcony areas? West side has a really strong sun
exposure. (Higgins: Intent is that the balconies create some outdoor living, we have scaled them such
that we have about 6 to 8 feet depending on the dimension of the bow. The office ones extend back over
ten feet deep and are much bolder due to the floor heights. We think they do provide opportunity for sun
shading on that facade. Not carrying them around because we want the balconies off the living dining
areas and not just off every room.)
>Wondering if there could be some more dimensionality with more projection coming beyond the eve,
maybe it's a material or trellis, some type of element that could define the face of the building a little bit
more. Higgins: Sometimes we do articulate the slab edge by extending it out since it's post -tension
concrete, that is possible for the slab edge. Right now we're envisioning the office being a more of a
curtain wall expression and maybe it can transition to that sort of slab expression as we get to the top.)
>How do you see this building fitting into Burlingame? Why this building, on this site, in this town?
(Higgins: Architecturally think it will fit in very well, it anchors this location as part of the north Burlingame
entry. This is across the street from the hospital, which also has a prominent facade even though it's
setback further, it establishes a vocabulary that this office carries across the street and can create a
mixed-use district. This is a more sophisticated architecture that is compatible with the hospital. Creates
a contemporary expression which creates a new zone as an entry to Burlingame, shows the growth of
Burlingame and follows the pattern of the new zoning.)
>Does this building seem very frontal to you? (Higgins: It is indeed frontal because the longest facade
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
is facing El Camino Real, part of the intent is to not have it be a wall of a building but to articulate the
mass so it breaks down the mass, and not try to necessarily read like three buildings, but also address
that this facade is an important facade, and it needs to be highly articulated, otherwise it will become a
300-foot wall. Part of the interim zoning guidelines is to breakdown the mass with depth and movement.)
>If this is a gateway building, doesn't that mean that the end facade becomes considerably more
important? (Higgins: It does and that's one of the reasons we turned the glass around the corner so it
reveals a solid edge.)
>The end of your building is static and symmetrical and that's very frontal, and the long facade is very
frontal.
>Why have the tri-part type divisions of the major pieces and what's the bow got to do with anything? It
seems very, very symmetrical. (Higgins: It's not perfectly symmetrical because the facades have different
dimensions. It's an agled site, so we're gradually moving the facade out into that zone with the bow, so it's
stepping the facade forward to address El Camino Real as opposed to being a straight rectangle. Think
the bow and notching of the facade helps us create a re -entry zone so that we can articulate the bow, also
provides a more panoramic view.)
Public Comments:
Larisa Vaserman: Not associated with the museum, however am appalled and upset by the idea that that
museum will have to cease to exist; there doesn't seem to be a solution to relocate the museum. Am a
member of the most vulnerable part of the human society, am disabled and an dependent adult. Early
lease termination of the Peninsula Museum of Art in Burlingame is making me and members of the
community frustrated and upset. Land owner decided to demolish the structure at 1777 California Drive, a
museum which includes exhibition galleries, a library, and working studios for professional artists and a
wide variety of mediums. Owner plans to build a high rise housing complex, which will no doubt be
unaffordable for most. There are a lot of souls being sheltered and nurtured at the museum, museum
gives us hope, that our human society will be more humane, better, kinder, loving and compassionate .
Museum hosts visitors, special events, exhibit openings, and regular group meetings. Museum receives
financial support, understanding the museums' importance in the contribution to a better world. Museum
admission is free and provides guided tours and exhibitions for schools, children, seniors and people with
disabilities. Museum has made many disabled -accessible upgrades and is extensively used by the elderly
and disabled. Museum is needed for people who are confined to a hospital or assisted living facility .
Given the difficult health issues in our society, it's imperative that we put our mindset toward art. Museum
is an invaluable institution in San Mateo County and what it provides for the community is priceless and
very much needed.
Dale Young: Live in condominium building next door, next to the California Drive entrance to the proposed
project. This transition creates many more users of these premises between the residents, employees,
office tenants, and patrons than are using that building now. Concerned with reduction in the parking,
parking already is a problem in the area. I've had people try to come visit me, they have to park a block
away because they cannot find parking on California Drive. Concerned with the height of the building
because my backyard is there. Not sure how much glass there is on the other side of the building, but i
don't know if I like the idea of people peering in my backyard. If you're going to emphasize the transit
orientation of the area, you need to focus on how are people are going to get to and from their
destinations. Know from personal experience, because I walk from my condominium to the BART and
Caltrain station everyday, that traffic at Trousdale and California Drive will be a problem; stepping into the
crosswalk across Trousdale Drive is dangerous for pedestrians. People driving eastbound on Trousdale
Drive turning south onto California Drive often roll right through that stop sign, even if there's a pedestrian
standing on the corner. Have nearly been hit three times travelling southbound on California Drive from the
BART station, with northbound traffic on California Drive turning left onto Trousdale Drive, it turns abruptly
even though a person is stepping off the curb into the crosswalk or not paying attention. Think there
needs to be a recommendation perhaps to City Council or other city department that there be a traffic
signal installed at that intersection. Also, there is no way to get across California Drive between Broadway
and Murchison Drive, people jaywalk which is very dangerous. If there is going to be more traffic, there
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
should also be another crosswalk across California Dive at Trousdale Drive and not just a traffic signal for
the traffic, but a dedicated pedestrian signal as well.
No name provided: Live in condominium building next door and have same concerns as previous speaker .
Main concern is the parking because the city has taking away parking spaces and parking hours. Nice
that you want to have a transit oriented community at this end of town, but it's not the reality of what
people do; if people come in their car and there is no place for them to park, they'll park where they're not
supposed to which is our driveway or our guest parking spaces. Regarding the transit orientation, most
buildings in area are medical buildings that a lot of disabled people come to, so they are not using public
transit; there needs to be places for people who come in a car that need help being escorted into the
building. Think it's an impractical proposal to reduce the parking and that's not the reality of what people
do.
Acting Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>This is an incredible opportunity site and am really excited about the idea of the project.
>One of the challenges you face in doing this project is that almost anything you do on a project of this
size is going to seem out of place in some way, because it's going to stand out, even though the hospital
is across the street; it's going to stand out as a new scale of building and a new type of architecture.
>Think that transit oriented developments is an important step for us, there is certainly going to be
traffic studies completed.
>Think there are a lot of good things going on with this building, however it leaves me cold. My first
reaction to it was it looks like a Washington, D .C. suburban Virginia office building, it doesn't feel like it
belongs here somehow, seems formulaic. Reason I was asking about the bowed front is because it
looks like a building from the mid 80's and mid 90's, think it's missing a tremendous opportunity on that
site. It's very frontal, stayed and measured, and not exactly symmetrical. The site and the opportunity
seems very asymmetrical; it is a gateway project. Has the long 300 foot facade that has to be broken up
in some way, but it doesn't have to be broken up necessarily in this way, this is just one option. Don't
know exactly where to go with it, really want to see something exceptional on this corner. Feels
uninspired, seems like you have a formula and you put the formula before us, seems like it wants to be
strung with buildings that are the same, if you get enough of them you have a pseudo city. It doesn't feel
like Burlingame and it doesn't feel like it belongs on this site and it doesn't do what it needs to do on this
site.
>Feel like this project is so done the way it's been presented, feel like we haven't had the opportunity to
provide input. Have provided many details on the plans, but you haven't solved the urban design problem,
the most important problem you need to solve. You've got the building completely designed, all the
materials and plants chosen, but think you need to take a huge step back. Glad that this is a design
review study, but fear is that somebody is going to make a proposal and we bring this back on regular
action, we'll look at it one more time and it will be approved. This looks like one of those projects that just
has to be worked, and it needs more thought; big problem needs to be solved before the small problems .
Want so much for this sort of thing to happen in Burlingame, but not like this one.
>Generally accepting of the conditional use permit for the mechanical stackers and zoning code
amendment, but think those issue are going to be bourne out through the environmental review. Need to
see what the traffic analysis shows, need to see how that's going to affect traffic in the neighborhood and
potential impacts. Unfortunately, this project is not going to be able to solve a lot of the issues elsewhere
in the neighborhood. Understand what the neighbors are saying, have witnessed similar experiences in
terms of the crossings and the intersections at California Drive. Fortunately, this project can address the
intersections and the crossings at El Camino Real and along Trousdale Drive. Grateful that they are
considering the bulb-outs to make it an easier crossing for pedestrians across an intersection, you get the
those bulb-outs in the sidewalks and you get more territory dedicated to pedestrians and you cause the
car to have to slow and navigate through intersections.
>Landscaping needs additional work in terms of the detailing and articulation, what is experience going
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
to be like in the dog park area, what are the edges going to be like at the fitness center, and what are the
anecdotal or the scenario type experiences in the plaza for the public amenity. What is the expectation for
how that's experienced, and when and who is experiencing that because there's not a lot of pedestrian
traffic along El Camino Real and along that slip road, for the time being it's still traffic oriented. With this
office park, there likely will be more people coming from the BART /Caltrain station and arriving to the
office and walking into the office park, so there likely would be more scenarios of the office users down in
that plaza, but what is that experience like? Are they going to come down and use that? What if the
commercial spaces could help support that in terms of accessing that to pick up coffee or a sandwich.
>In terms of design review, building is very horizontal. Appreciate the mixed -use nature of the
building, really like the commitment to providing the office, commercial and the residential component
within this project. Adds for some great dynamic for the interplay of what I was describing in terms of the
users for how they experience the street and the building. The mix of users is going to help with the
vibrancy of the potential for this corner.
>I look at this building versus the hospital building, which has been cited as an example, and the
hospital building is much more massive, but it's broken down and articulated in a different way in terms of
its component parts and pieces that come together as a building that really helped to experience that
building both close up and from a distance in terms of understanding it visually, in terms of different parts
and pieces of the architecture. Along El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive, the hospital is experienced in
a certain way in looking at its architecture, this project has a lot of stretch of the same thing. Don't think
solution is as simple as breaking down the massing down to three component pieces. Needs strong
consideration of how architecture defines itself in terms of the pieces of the facade.
>There is a great opportunity to define what happens at the corner, both in the architecture,
landscaping and in the pedestrian realm. Might help to define end or corner piece because that is going to
be prominent for the time being. Would like to know that we're not just looking at a corner that just kind
of happened with two facades coming together.
>Like the project in terms of what it's doing, know for a fact when we were putting together the plan in
this area, there was doubt as to what would happen with these properties, so am grateful that property
owners are coming forward and wanting to commit to embracing our area plan and adding some energy to
this neighborhood and doing something with those properties along there.
>Agree about the mixed-use nature of this project, will be a great addition to this area.
>Important to look at dewatering during and after construction, given that the garage is 20 feet below
sea level.
>Generally in support of reducing the parking ratio in this area. Would parking reduction also apply to
hospital or medical uses? (Keylon: It would apply to medical and dental offices, there is a different ratio for
hospitals.)
>Not convinced that 1:500 SF is the right ratio for this area. Studies that Hexagon presented in their
report were really helpful, and by two of them, this building would be under parked everyday, so it doesn't
seem to support it. In looking at the other cities referenced, almost none of them had a parking ratio like
this, particularly Millbrae which is next to the same intermodal station; even their ratio was not this light
and is also limited to 800 feet, which is a significantly tighter radius than the half mile proposed in the
amendment. Don't think the data supports 1:500 SF ratio; could see supporting a 1:400 SF, but would like
to see additional data to get to that ratio.
>Do we know the distance from this property to the intermodal station? Would help to know the
distance, should include in next staff report. (Muzzi: Located 0.4 miles from station.)
>Not sure if I can support the reduced parking ratio, but could still consider it with additional studies .
We're in this heavily medical office area, so we do have to think about companions bringing people to their
appointments, and maybe the need even for more disabled -accessible parking spaces depending on what
the commercial usage of the office spaces may be.
>Concerned about access to the main entrance off the slip road. There should be some more
exploration of locating a main entrance closer to the corner at Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real, rather
than in the middle of the property. Access to a middle entrance would be difficult because you would have
to make a u-turn if driving southbound. If you move forward with a middle entrance, wondering if that could
be the residential entrance, and the main entrance and entrance to the fitness center and office spaces
could be some where else.
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019
September 23, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Property is great as a mixed -used designation, thank you for embracing that idea. This is a great
opportunity to be a gateway property, much like how the eucalyptus trees along El Camino Real form the
entrance to Burlingame.
>Building doesn't have to look like the hospital, but definitely could be an interesting architectural
feature to the area, and meet a lot of the needs of this part of the city.
>When we first started looking at the zoning and discussed the height limits for this particular block of
buildings, was concerned because there are homes and backyards just one block away that look up to
medical buildings and then this project would extend above that. Given this building and location, it is one
floor too tall.
>With regards to the design, can see how you arrived at this design; the police station is next door, an
old medical building is adjacent to the site, there is a medical facility on Trousdale Drive, and older
medical buildings to the north that are certainly due to be rebuilt soon. But that is what makes this
building so important, will be setting the standard for new zoning in the area. Focus on the detail of this
building is due, and we really have to get it right. Don't feel like I'm truly entering Burlingame until I'm a
block south of this site, think you have the potential to change that with this building on this prominent
corner.
>A contemporary design is the right direction to be headed with this. Not at all suggesting that it
doesn't fit into Burlingame because it's not mission style, contemporary makes a lot of sense for me in
this location.
>There is a certain homogeneity of the project that makes me uneasy, it's a very homogeneous project
except for the indentations splitting the building into three pieces over 300 feet. Needs to have asymmetry
and less homogeneity and it needs to address the various urban design requirements of the site which has
to do with the entrance and the hospital across the street.
>Have a phenomenal opportunity here and would like to see it pushed as far as we possibly can.
>In support of the reduced parking, however it does feel light.
There is no motion for this item. The application will return for action once the environmental
review has been completed.
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
There were no Director Reports.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:09 p.m.
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on September 23, 2019. 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 3, 2019, 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 $1,045, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 10/29/2019