Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2024.04.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, April 8, 2024 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, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent6 - HoranAbsent1 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION Commissioner Tse requested to participate remotely due to a medical condition pursuant to AB 2449 (Government Code Section 54943(f)). The Planning Commission approved the request. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft March 25, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 25, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments, non-agenda. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1541-1565 Adrian Road and 960 David Road, zoned I -I - Recommendation on an Page 1City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Application for a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for Lot Merger and Subdivision to create four parcels. (Colby Schaefer, applicant; Jason Yee, BKF Engineers, Engineer; Lift II Adrian 1541 LLC, property owner) (27 noticed) Staff Contact: Victor Voong Memorandum Attachments Plans Attachments: Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1602 Forest View Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an 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. (Edward Collantes, applicant, designer, and property owner) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1602 Forest View Ave - Staff Report 1602 Forest View Ave - Attachments 1602 Forest View Ave - Renderings 1602 Forest View 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. Edward Collantes, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Rendering is not consistent with the elevations. >The second story on the proposed east elevation is cantilevered over the garage. The front elevation does not reflect that condition; knee brace corbel details are missing. The details on top of the garage on the proposed elevation do not match up with what is being shown on the east elevation. There is confusion about what you are intending to do between those two elevations. >Correct drafting errors. >Why would this project have been exempted, the whole front elevation is changing? (Gardiner: The changes on the front elevation do not trigger Design Review. If the addition is less than 100SF, then it is Page 2City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes exempt. One can change the façade of their home without expanding it and that would not be subject to Design Review.) >If you extend the first floor it will not trigger Design Review? (Gardiner: Under most circumstances, no . There are a few circumstances where a first floor addition would trigger Design Review, but in most instances it does not.) >I’d like the plans to be representative of what is actually happening and the renderings to be more accurate per the plans. Come back with the correct details on the plans. >I don’t have issues with the extra square footage on the back and the reason why we got here. It’s the fact that nothing about the front is coordinated at the moment that bothers me. I am concerned that there is a cantilever and am not sure if there are structural drawings in the building permit set; with the lack of coordination I am afraid of what will happen as this project gets finished. This was not in our purview at the beginning either. My whole interest is in the front and not the back which is why they are here for. >I don’t disagree with that either. I don’t have any issues with the second story addition. >Given what they came here for, we should take action on the second story addition. I hope that the Building Division will take another look and confirm that the front of this house is going to work. If we continue, then this will go on forever and that is not the intent of what we wanted to do with this application. >I do not have a problem with the additional square footage on the second story. But because this is now being brought to us as a Design Review project due to the size of the second floor addition, we must look at it from that perspective. If some of the architectural details, style and the composition of the front isn’t pulled together clearly, then we may be facing an issue later when the house is built, and it does not match the approved design. There certainly should be another round of review to give the applicant the opportunity to look at some of the things we have questioned, think through with their contractor or designer how all these elements will come together and come back to us with updated drawings and a more applicable rendering that will reflect that design. In that way, everything will be cohesive in one package despite the fact that we are all generally in approval of the second story addition. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - b.1410 Carlos Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an 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. (Joe Sabel, Aero 11 Design, applicant and designer; Neda Hamadani and Bahram Razani, property owners) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1410 Carlos Ave - Staff Report 1410 Carlos Ave - Attachments 1410 Carlos Ave - Renderings 1410 Carlos Ave - 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. Joe Sabel, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Thank you for the changes, they are going in the right direction. >The front entry cantilevered roof feels like it's floating; consider incorporating columns. >Understanding that the homeowners do not want columns at the front entry, there is something about it that makes it look like it is not holding weight. Consider using details, like the structural L -brackets mentioned earlier, as an architectural component to show that the roof is actually sitting on something. I love that the roof was brought down, this is much better than the previous design. >The front is very symmetrical, but the house is not. The front door gives the impression of a chapel . Consider changing the front door so it pulls back to the rest of the house, making it less symmetrical. >Still struggling with the front of the house. You’ve done an exceptional job with the rest of the house . Consider making the front entry more grand. This characteristic is bothersome because it is so symmetrical. The free-floating piece above the entry is not helping with the look, it needs something to hold it at the ends to make it more cohesive. >If you followed the rendering more, widen the gable and extend the pediment so it intersects with the gable. It gives you some space to work with where you can ground the doorway on both sides. >Instead of a decorative attic vent which is non -functioning, consider a change in material or an alternative treatment to the gable end to call more interest to that front entrance. >The design has greatly improved. I like the windows, especially with the way the frames have been added on the first story, now looking at the primary facade it ’s like a series of pairs of openings. I’m okay with the doors, but you’ve gotten a lot of feedback on that one if you choose to make changes. There is definitely a little bit of room for tweaking on the lower portion of the front entry. Consider having a more inviting or grand entry by curving the outer corners that are facing the door on the recess inward, instead of it being right angles; that can open that portion up a little bit. The design language will make the overhang feel a little less hanging if it was curved backward. The brackets, whether a traditional or modern bracket, are also good ideas. In isolation, that part of the house does not look exactly like a house. Chapel-like is a good description. If it is by itself, it will be a little bit concerning, but it ’s part of a larger structure and it reads as residential. As presented right now, it is ok if it has a mass that is non -traditional. It’s going to be an interesting entrance. It is different from most of the houses in the neighborhood, but not so different that it causes some issues. I no longer have issues with no divided lites or simulated divided lites. The windows with the added frames will look better without the divided lites. >Revisit the floor plan to see how you can open the space up to allow you to get more creative with the front entry. If you have a nice glass door with two side lites, you may not need the windows. It needs to be more rounded, more inviting, and less of a pitch. Not sure if it is the door or the pediment that makes it not look right. >We have given a fair amount of feedback, but it does not feel like the issues have been resolved. I’m not sure moving this project forward will put us in a better spot, it just gives us an unresolved entry. >I agree, but in a little disagreement about the window grids. In this neighborhood every house has grids. This house originally had grids. I understand that they have made improvements to the windows, but this is not a super modern house. Curious if we are creating something that sticks out. >I don’t have issues with the windows. I like looking out my windows without grids. I have a problem with the front door and the pediment above it; it feels out of place. I don ’t think I can move forward in approving this project with that front door. Other than that, I am ok with everything else. >All of us have some issues with the front entry. There were comments last time that they can keep the windows without the grids moving forward, but need some work is needed on the front of the house. >I totally understand the comment regarding the consistency in the neighborhood. I can also see this house with grids. If the front is somehow resolved, it can be a statement and can define the whole thing . Then you would not notice if the windows had grids or not. >Suggest walking by the door and window store along Broadway, it has a good front door on their building. Look at their products to get inspiration on ideas of what you can do for your design style. Page 4City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - c.34 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved project for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. 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, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Peter Gorski and Suzanne Nguyen, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 34 Dwight Rd - Staff Report 34 Dwight Rd - Attachments 34 Dwight Rd - 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, and Peter Gorski and Susan Nguyen, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Make sure there is enough space between the top of the front entry door and the angled recessed entry. >The angled recessed entry appears to be missing some lines on the front elevation; correct drafting errors on the elevations. >Consider using the same wood trim detail on the second floor cantilevered element on the rear elevation on the cantilevered element on the left side of the house for a more consistent look. >I prefer some things in the prior design. I don ’t think we should be designing for all the neighbors. We have a house with three different designs. You must be really careful. It’s nice to respect neighbors as much as you can, but adding or taking away window grids does nothing to a neighbor. I don ’t think it is busy, I personally like the three grids. Whatever style you choose, you need to be consistent and do it on all sides. With the way it is presented, it looks like you didn ’t get around to replacing the windows on one side of your house or the other three sides. The house is supposed to be whole even though we are mainly seeing only one side. There needs to be consistency all the way around. >I agree. I find all the changes to be cost -saving measures. I understand that as a contractor, it is a huge reduction in cost. Unfortunately, with it comes some looks. I also like the design as it was before, but it is fine the way it is now. I believe this design solution happened because it has become expensive to build. The beautiful arch window in the front is very expensive to build. An arched doorway with a beautiful cascading entry way looks great and is very expensive to build. The new design is not Page 5City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes deplorable, but not as nice as the first one. I would be fine moving it forward. That is probably why this item was pulled from the last meeting, because it is drastically different. >I like the original design better. This project will look flat, which is unfortunately what a lot of the existing houses have now. It is flat with aluminum windows and not a whole lot of depth to the design. The entry is important and maybe getting the chamfer there will help. It seems that everything else is going flat and simple. I don ’t think it is making the house look better. I can appreciate the changes and the desire of the owners. I don’t necessarily oppose it, it’s just not better. >If this project comes before me today, not knowing what the first design was, would I approve this project? I think we are almost there. Having said that, something needs to be done on the left side elevation. I also agree with the comments made about the window grids. If you are going to do grids, do them all around. Other than that, I can see moving this project forward. >I wanted to thank the applicants for bringing this to our attention now rather than later when the house is constructed. Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - d.1499 Old Bayshore Highway/825 Mahler Road, zoned I-I - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review, Special Permits for building height and development under Tier 3 with a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a new 8-story research and development building with a 7-story parking structure. (King 1499 Bayshore Owner LLC, applicant and property owner; DGA, Inc. architect) (105 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1499 Old Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1499 Old Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1499 Old Bayshore Hwy - IS/MND 1499 Old Bayshore Hwy - MMRP 1499 Old Bayshore Hwy - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she had communications with the applicant via Zoom. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Peter Banzhaf and Gary Leivers represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Was a wind study conducted especially on the balconies? (Banzhaf: Yes, we conducted a wind study; it is a windy location by default. The prevailing winds come from the northwest which is the San Bruno Page 6City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Mountain gap in the mornings and most of the day. The wind shifts, particularly in the summer, and they come from the east. What we envisioned the balcony to be is a private space. I don ’t imagine people spending tremendous amounts of time there. The light exposure there is in the morning, but they will be protected from the wind most of the time.) >Is there an update on how the café is being developed? I know you don ’t have a tenant yet and is still probably programmatic. (Banzhaf: That is a deviation of what we showed last year where we proposed an area where a café can go. On these new set of drawings, we have removed the caf é. Over the past year during our community outreach to life science users and the feedback we received from them, we learned that they put a very high value on the ground floor space for a few reasons. First, is employee retention - they’d like to be able to get outside quickly. Second, they like the ground floor so they can have sensitive equipment on the ground versus upper floors where you must strengthen the structure to accommodate the equipment. Lastly, we don ’t know yet who the tenant is, in the absence of having it identified, we ’d like to go and bring a full building user here. The best way we can do that is to have the blankest canvas that we can. That is why we have pulled the café from the proposal this evening. With that said, we heard the commission wanting to have a food amenity and to have an activated experience for the plaza. We believe it can be achieved by having a wider access road to get food trucks in this area and to provide restrooms so the community can come and use this space and its intended purpose. We thought about the process of what the marketplace is asking for versus what the commission asked for as well.) >Have you considered having café kiosks in the public area? (Banzhaf: The infrastructure involved with café kiosks is more challenging than meets the eye. It’s been done in the past, but it does not give you the variety that we think can be achieved as opposed to having a more mobile food amenity. I have worked in the same office building for nearly seven years; if you have the same café with the same menu, it’s hard to have a variety of choices. If we can have the ability to make it a food truck, food choices can vary from coffee to tacos or anything a la carte at any time. We think that is a better solution than having a fixture that must be programmed and if you change the program, it is much more challenging.) >Where in the site plan is that being programmed? (Banzhaf: There’s an ability to park a food truck at the end of the emergency vehicle access, there is a hammer head turn towards the plaza.) >I think we are losing our access to food and other things in the area as we densify an office. Your project and several others are taking over areas that otherwise had restaurants. That area has become denser with non-amenities. As we continue to approve projects like this and they don ’t have anything to replace those amenities, then it just makes that area worse. I understand the food truck concept. For us, it is only as good as somebody programs it and asks the food trucks to come. Whereas a built environment, you will put a tenant in. I do like the idea of putting it out like a café kiosk. There have been some projects who have done remote venues outside of the building. Yes, they are more challenging. I have done them and getting all the utilities there can be troublesome for a small vendor, but it also enhances the experience in the plaza. Right now, it feels that the plaza is going to be mostly a tenant piece than a public piece if we are not engaging the public. It is a good thing that we are improving the shoreline there, which I like. But it ’s thinking what will draw the public there versus several other public spaces that are being created by other developments up and down Old Bayshore Highway. The lack of a programmed public amenity makes me nervous. The idea of having the food trucks come and have a variety is a good thing. It’s just that if it gets ignored it does not happen and we have no control over that . That is worrisome. >How many public spaces are available to the public? (Banzhaf: There are eight parking stalls in the garage.) >The area where the bird sanctuary is, where the creek starts, is very flat. At what point does sea level rise overburden Old Bayshore Highway before it goes to the Mills Creek area that we are expanding on this plan? It is great, but it also feels like it will overcome Old Bayshore Highway. I do notice that the east side of the building is elevated. Why is it not considered a sea level rise infrastructure, or does it need that seawall for it to happen? (Banzhaf: I think it is more global comment about the bayfront which is a mixture of public and private lands. We don ’t own the corner at Mills Creek and Old Bayshore Highway. It’s a carve-out, we will show it as improved, and we ’ll work on the details with the Public Works Division. That is PG&E and part of the bridge infrastructure so we can ’t do work within that property. Regarding the comment about the bayfront is a comprehensive approach. Yes, you are correct. If we were to build a seawall in front of the bayshore, what would happen to Old Bayshore Highway? The bigger issue for the Page 7City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes bayfront is dealt with One Shoreline and we are trying to do our part, which is the tidally component of Mills Creek in our property.) >Is the cumulative effect of these bayshore infrastructure improvements making sense or are we creating gaps? It is nice to have infrastructure, but as we know, the whole bay is going to rise not just in segmented areas. I am concerned that we are looking at this as a public benefit but, is it actually a public benefit for the entire Burlingame bayshore area? >Are you improving the foot bridge across from your building? Is it something you can imagine doing someday? (Banzhaf: Initially, we thought to have a mid -block crossing where we would tie that component into our building. Right now, we don ’t have a mid-block crossing, but we are not opposed to helping that area be better. We did that by landing down the street. It is something we want to express tonight that we are committed to keeping the bay trail as a nice amenity. It is not required of us, but we are willing to contribute towards that effort. Again, we don ’t own the land, but we can give our ideas to city staff with the monetary ability to execute on it.) >Thank you for the presentation. The plans are well done and exquisite. I definitely understand what the project is about. I like the building a lot. I liked it the first time. I know some of my fellow commissioners thought it was a little plain or flat, I didn ’t mind it. The building orientation you have chosen is ideal. I am concerned, as my fellow commissioner said, that public amenities need to have something that draws people in that area. It needs to be activated. If you build it, they will come. If you don ’t have a reason to go over there, why am I going to take my kids across Old Bayshore Highway off the bay trail to go to this public plaza? I just don ’t see myself doing that. I also agree that the plaza will be a great amenity for the tenants. The worst thing is to approve these buildings for them not to be occupied. That is extremely important to me, to make sure these will not end up being ghost buildings. I’ll take your word for it that occupying an entire building is more feasible than trying to make it segmented. It is a problem for me, I wanted a café there. With all these big buildings, it is one of the nice things about it. >I am concerned about the entirety of the bay trail infrastructure and the sea level rise component . That seems to be a common theme with many of the public amenities that these buildings are proposing . Maybe we can put it as a different item in a future meeting. I am trying to understand how this Mills Creek enhancement is an actual benefit to the public. Fundamentally it works as it is, but as we have noted, the water will just go around. I’m struggling to see how this one actually helps the city in itself. (Gardiner: To explain how the vision works is ultimately that the entire bayfront will be protected, that is something OneShoreline wants to do. What OneShoreline is hoping, and the city would like is as projects come forward, is that they will pre -build their piece of the protection. The standards they are building to are typically seen by OneShoreline and ultimately stitched together. What OneShoreline does not want to do is come in ten years after a project was built and tear it all down. As it is now, it does not connect to anything, but there is a wall built in there that will connect to the next adjacent property and each project is able to design their landscaping in a way that the protection fits with their design aesthetic. If OneShoreline comes in and puts in protections, they may be a little engineering -focused as to urban design-focused, so we are asking the proposed projects to front that. It is both a cost and an obligation to do their part. Each piece does not work in isolation, they do have to be stitched together ultimately.) >Obviously, it is a benefit to this building and to this lot. How then does that define a community benefit at this time? (Gardiner: It would mean that when the full infrastructure is put in, OneShoreline or whoever is doing the improvements, does not need to put in protections along the creek. They will already be there and will connect on each side.) >Thank you for the project and the explanation of what you are doing engineering -wise to build up the property and the plaza. A food truck is a great idea, but it will be hard to get food trucks there. It will take time for someone to organize that. I don ’t know if that will happen. It is very windy and can get cold out there. I agree with my fellow commissioners that an enclosed coffee shop where we can sit down, see the wetlands, and enjoy the bay like you do at Kincaid ’s, is a public benefit. It will do our city a complete disservice not to have a café or a place to sit inside. If we want to take a walk out there and sit to enjoy being outside, we don’t have anywhere to do that. There is no enclosed space that we can do that. There is a coffee shop at the Meta campus, I see it engaged by the public and it is interesting to see how that is working. >My fellow commissioner also mentioned public parking. I believe you have about 600 parking spaces and only providing eight parking spaces for the public. I would ask that you provide at least 20 public Page 8City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes parking spaces so we can utilize that space more. I know that the buildings at 555-577 Airport Boulevard have several public parking spaces and they have always been full. Providing only eight public parking spaces will not be enough for what you have in the building. >You have done a great job on the details of the building. How you have configured the design architecturally, I love everything about it, but I want to see something out there that we can utilize to sit and enjoy. >The public parking does not have to be designated at all hours; consider looking to program off hours . You will not need 600 parking spaces during some of the off hours. As we talked to the developers who are doing the project south of this site, we went from 20 public parking spaces to 100 public parking spaces. They were thinking of how to provide additional public parking spaces, so it is not locked off from security all the time. That is the key piece. How do you make it accessible without necessarily being behind security all the time so that it can be used by both. >Regarding providing a food amenity, I ’ve asked for it on all the projects that have come before us. It is an important piece to try and engage in this area. >I like the site plan a lot and how you made it work. It is a difficult site when you think about the different things that are going on. I can appreciate the intricacies and seeing how it developed from the original hotel site plan to where we are today is a huge improvement. I like the efficiency of this project and how it lays out. I can support the EIR. The height is not a problem for me. I like the idea of having a public restroom. It is a help because it is one of the pieces that we find we don ’t have enough public amenity of. >The south and west elevations facing the plaza and the bay are good looking elevations. I am not sold on the front entry. The rendering is nice, but there is not a whole lot to show in that elevation, it ’s just glass. There is no depth in the detail to see anything other than glass. The renderings you brought tonight are a huge help in seeing the character which the drawings didn’t do anything for me over the weekend. >The project has gone a long way; I can be supportive of it. >I want to thank the applicant for a thorough presentation, for all the renderings and the drawings provided. It is a very complete package that we have here. The design of the building is quite nice. It fits program needs and hopefully you find a nice tenant. It would have been nice to see your other project in the renderings to see the congruous connection along that street. The landscaping is really beautiful. The public amenity space is nicely developed apart from the lack of a café or some type of eating establishment to provide the public. I appreciate the art elements at the corner of Mahler Road and Old Bayshore Highway as a draw into the public amenity space off the street. Concerned how pedestrians would want to get across the street from the bay trail as opposed to walking all the way up to the traffic signal area at the far corner. >You have more than met the requirements for parking, with the TDM program you are only required to have 377 to 471 parking spaces and you are providing 639. There is ample opportunity to provide for public use spaces since you have more than exceeded the need for parking. Revisit and consider the potential for increase on the public parking spaces. >I am in support for all the applications for Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Commercial Design Review, and the Special Permits for building height. All the other elements on the staff report all seem approvable. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The lack of some kind of ground floor cafe or restaurant tenant would hurt in the long run. It doesn ’t have to be large. I do appreciate the change from the last time. They are noticeable but good. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. This reminds me of the Meta campus because of how generous it is with the landscaping, which I really appreciate because you are way over and above what is required. The building feels very much in proportion to the setting. We don ’t see that much often . Regarding the restaurant situation, during the Meta campus application we wanted them to provide a restaurant, a day care and some other public benefit amenities. In reality what we ended up with is a very small café. I don’t know how to resolve this. Do we make it a destination place where people specifically go to dine? We lost a lot of restaurants in that area that were destination places. At the same time, the rest of Burlingame really doesn’t have much. It’s for people who just got here. >They must build it, so people can go there. We don ’t ask for it, but we need some spaces out there for the public to go and have a good time. Page 9City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Generally, it looks great. You did a really good job. Agree with my fellow commissioner ’s comments regarding the temptation to just jump across the median to get to this project; that is not good. Would appreciate if you provide more public parking spaces because you have more than enough to accommodate the public. As mentioned by the applicant, it would be good to contribute to the other side of the street to make a complete package and they are beautiful together. Anything that you could help to make that bay trail beautiful will be nice. >I would also like to echo my fellow commissioners’ comments about the crosswalk. In the future, it ’ll be interesting to dig into how that process works; how it could or could not work here. The lack of a median crosswalk is definitely a negative to the project. Based on the flow of patterns, there should be one there. That is something that the developers are not in control of but a city thing. >(Keylon: Original proposal submitted by Helios did include the crosswalk. We had several meetings with the development team, their traffic engineers and the city ’s traffic engineers. The city's traffic engineers felt that the distance between the signalized intersection at Mahler Road and Old Bayshore Highway, based on the speed from that take off point when the light turns green to where the crosswalk would be, is too short of a distance to have a crosswalk location. Helios was very much supportive of it . This was a discussion they also had with BCDC. It was the city ’s determination that it can pose an issue in terms of safety since it would be unsignalized. We are looking at the Bayshore Feasibility and Street Landscape Improvement Plan, which is on the Public Works’ list of projects that are coming up and it is something that is in the works. I can discuss internally with the Public Works team about the suggestion of the commission regarding the details on the median as that street landscape plan evolves. For now, Helios was asked specifically by Public Works to eliminate that from their project. I can pass along your comments and maybe that is something that the city can consider exploring in other ways to make that happen.) >I would like to see if the Public Works Division will be amenable to considering a proposed crosswalk with blinking lights, not a traffic signal, located towards the south between the two bridge connections to the bay trail. Will this be a greater distance from the other crosswalk? It could be a potential idea to have another connection to the other side. >This is a beautiful building. The design is subtle, not enormous, and totally in proportion. I am in support of this project. Chair Pfaff re-opened the public hearing. >Banzhaf: We are 100% supportive of a mid -block crossing. We have proposed a beacon activation, similar to what they have at The Landing. We thought that was an appropriate solution given the proximity of another crosswalk. We support what the staff has told us, hence the proposed project what was presented tonight. We would like hat mid -block crossing; it adds to the value and there is obvious need to it. I know Public Works is working through that and we are working together with them. There is a bigger picture, and we are just a portion of it. I don ’t want to ignore the effort that they are going through which is more comprehensive and complicated than I can imagine. >Banzhaf: Regarding the sea level rise infrastructure, the way we have considered is that we are future-proofing without it being aesthetically awful. It is easy to build something that is utilitarian and as a resident of the community, I am nervous as to what that could look like. There are areas that are closer to San Francisco Bay, the hotels, and restaurants along the bay front, that would lose the ambiance that they enjoy right now if a large riprap wall is built. We are trying to think through the current issues, like storm surge issues. How do we build up a seawall that prevents Mills Creek from flooding our neighbors? We can’t control adjacent properties down the street, but we can design something thoughtful and adaptable, not so blunt, but at the end of the day it is effective. It is our way of future -proofing it for the longevity of the building, which is 75 years. >Banzhaf: On the public parking, the garage is configured with the ability to put access gates. It can be done at Mahler Road, which is our first approach. We acknowledge that without public parking, there is a reduced amount of vibrancy that can be on the trail system. So, we offered public parking through the community outreach that we received from BCDC and the community around. Eight public parking stalls is what we came up with from understanding the other projects in the neighborhood. I was not in attendance during the presentation of the Peninsula Crossing. I understand how they can flex their parking spaces; Page 10City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes they have a parking structure for 1000 vehicles. The size of that project is five times bigger than ours; it is proportionally different. We have the ability to move gates within the garage to the second level which opens up one whole ramp tray. Instead of eight stalls that are at -grade that allow for all the ADA access, there can be an extension which goes down the ramp before the gates. That will be feasible, because now I won’t be moving the gates up into the building, which reduces the capacity of the garage. If that is something that the commission would like us to do, we can do that. It will probably double the public parking count. We must study it. It can be something with flexible hours, but a dedicated set of parking spaces with the first tray can easily be done. Beyond that, it becomes more complicated. If that is something the commission wants to be part of the conditions of approval, we can accept that. >Banzhaf: We don’t own the bay trail area similar to waterfront properties, but we recognize the association of it. With The Landing project, we contributed $100,000 to clean up the access point between the Marriott Hotel, the T-intersection and the Fox parking garage. It is not the most desirable and we don ’t have control over how to direct the money because it ’s not our property. We came up with an idea for our project and are committed to that funding. We can propose something like that here and we can contribute the same amount of money because that would create the same inviting environment that we have on the Mills Creek trail across the street. That makes a cohesive environment. If that is something the commission wants to be part of the conditions of approval, we can accept that. >Banzhaf: The one thing that is difficult for us is the plaza and the café because that is not something that the life science community wants. They don ’t want a café in the building. The property that you saw at Peninsula Crossing is an office building that can swing into labs, that is why the parking ratio is 2.5:1,000 versus 2.0 like ours. That is also one reason why they have taller buildings. As you go up in the structure, you can’t have controlled access space for chemical storage. So, every floor above level six, you lose that and becomes less valuable. For offices, as you go higher you get better views, and you get more premium. It’s the opposite for Life and Science, lower floors, better equipment, higher premium. That is a difficult position for us. It is not required by zoning. We do think that there is a community benefit to the amount of land that we procured that helped us orient the building. It creates a really nice environment . We are doing as much as we can to make it a publicly accessible place. We have parking, but we are unwilling to make the interior of the building a public café because we are all required to. We are trying to be thoughtful about the project that we can present our best foot forward for longevity. That is not to say that a café can’t be here, it’s just that we want to bring a full building user to Burlingame, and the best way to do that is to have a blank canvas. >Is there a possibility of putting utility lines for a possible caf é/restaurant in the future? (Banzhaf: We studied the building for the ability to put a café there and CEQA studied that too for traffic counts; the infrastructure for an entitlement standpoint is there. From the physical standpoint of piping, most restaurants run on gas, and we have an all -electric building. We can get away with the things that you will see in the café that we are doing at The Landing; we view this as a sister building so we will try to hopefully curate the two together. The infrastructure can be built within the space, but it cannot meet the Reach Code if there is more than one caf é. If it is meant to be a full -scale restaurant, it has different requirements. You need a different type of parking situation. You need to be able to arrive and feel welcome. A garage is difficult to do that with a restaurant unless it is in an urban setting. Destination restaurants tend to be 6,000 to 10,000 sf. But the back of the house is very large. You must have grease traps; it is a different methodology. I don ’t know if you can get a mixed -use building where there is a full restaurant in it. I know it is a desired. Hotels have that because they have a totally different audience, they have to serve people. Life science buildings are not well -meshed with cafes because they will be using the same loading docks in receiving materials for experiments and food. The primary purpose of the building is to create scientific experiments, that is part of the reason why a full -service restaurant is very difficult in life science buildings. >Will the food truck operators be charged rent to be on property? (Banzhaf: No. The food trucks will be there as a subsidy. We will have contracts with the food truck operators where we will guarantee them a certain amount of revenue, they can make that through sales or we can come up with the balance .) Consider putting up some signage to let the public know that the food trucks are there. (Banzhaf: Yes, that is what we are trying to promote, the ability to have variety and to bring people into the plaza. A food truck will be there when we have people there. If we have people within the building or on weekends when we know it is busy, we can spread that revenue stream out. It’s hard to define that if you have a vacant Page 11City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes building and entitlements.) >The food truck solution is a viable one. I understand the challenges of getting food into this building . The commitment to program for that to try and continue to push it and not just blow it off because that is what we are feeling on some of the other projects; we say go and they say yes but there is no programming. The tenant will not program it. We don ’t want it to be just a dead plaza. I don ’t think you can do either. We can ’t go back to you in 10 years that nobody bothered to program this. We are trying to be encouraging on trying to help the project be successful for both the tenants and the public and to take advantage of this great public amenity that you are doing. There are a lot of possibilities that you are bringing on the table with this. I like it. I am just trying to make sure that it gets fully utilized. >I appreciate all the things that you have done. I understand about this dilemma of the coffee shop, but it is not about the coffee shop. It’s about the entire bayshore area and if we don ’t ask for what we want now, that will not be a vibrant part of our community. I really want to see that part of the community over by the bayshore to be vibrant. This may fall on the staff side for us to consider. We are getting some amazing projects with great benefits but how do we take it to the next step? Thank you for all your hard work. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Chair Pfaff called for a ten minute recess to allow staff to draft conditions of approval for consideration regarding increasing the number of public parking spaces and contribution towards improvements on the Old Bayshore Highway frontage near the Shorebird Sanctuary. Chair Pfaff reconvened the meeting. The Commission reviewed the added conditions of approval and accepted them. Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the environmental review. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse Absent: 1 - Horan Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the entitlements application with the following added conditions: >that at least 20 of the parking stalls on Level 1 in the Parking Structure shall be public stalls dedicated for use from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, seven days a week. >that the applicant shall contribute $100,000 towards improvements on the Old Bayshore Highway frontage near the City of Burlingame Shorebird Sanctuary. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS a.1427 Montero Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, and Variances for building height and side setback for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Travis Culwell, applicant and property owner; Costa Brown Architecture, architect) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao Page 12City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1427 Montero Ave - Staff Report 1427 Montero Ave - Attachments 1427 Montero Ave - Renderings 1427 Montero Ave - 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. Albert Costa, designer and Travis Culwell, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Kate and Rob Buccieri, 1423 Montero Avenue, submitted via public comment email: As next door neighbors to 1427 Montero Avenue, we'd like to let you know our support for the proposed remodel plan . We are familiar with the design and support the proposed variances and special permits. The design is beautiful, and the neighborhood will be all the better for it. Old houses are the charm of Burlingame, and we appreciate remodels that keep these treasures intact and allow owners to reach their vision on aesthetics and functionality. Just completing our own remodel, we very much appreciate the thoughtful and practical approach to the plans that we submitted and the process. Thanks for your work. >Fred Pahlavan, 1431 Montero Avenue, submitted via public comment email: We, the Pahlavan family, have seen the 1427 Montero Avenue project proposal. We want to inform you that we support the Culwell ’s remodel project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The window at the far right corner on the dormer located on top of the bathtub is almost up to the corner. Consider giving it enough space from the edge and dividing it with grids to match the style of the rest of the house so it does not look like an add-on. >I like the house. I appreciate that it is being reused. I don ’t think that this has a negative impact on the street going forward. It seems like there is no height issue because of how the property is configured . There is a huge upslope at the front. I can appreciate the declining height envelope and the overall height from the curb doesn ’t actually apply very well. I don ’t have any issues with the additional height they are asking for. When we think about the characterization of the declining height envelope, this is not what it was meant for. This is an excellent candidate for the Variance for what it is doing and reusing. I support this project. >I agree and I can see this moving forward to the Consent Calendar. >It is an absolutely beautiful house. I understand the concerns from the neighbor at the back given that this is a different look from the small gable that was there. This is a very modest and thoughtful proposal. A little more work can be done on the windows to make them more cohesive. Other than that, I can see reason for the Variance and the declining height issue in this case. Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - Page 13City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair Pfaff noted that she attended a Safety Element workshop; it was an informational workshop which included input from the public on experiences and concerns with natural hazards. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reminded the Commission of the Annual Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting on Saturday, April 13, 2024. Discussion items include Mills Act and Historic Preservation Incentives, General Plan Buildout Evaluation, and Multiunit Residential Standards . He also noted that at the April 1, 2024 City Council meeting the Council approved the entitlements for the development project at 1200-1340 Old Bayshore Highway; the Development Agreement will return to the City Council as an Ordinance on April 15, 2024. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The Planning Commission requested that a study session be held in the future to review zoning regulations in the bayshore area and look at how uses can be encouraged that would not only be office and life science, but can provide community benefits that we are asking for. That could include reviewing zoning regulations for smaller properties that are not destined for office or life science, how we better provide incentives to larger developments to provide community benefits that we want to see, or other strategies. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Page 14City of Burlingame