Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.11.27BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 27, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and ComarotoPresent6 - KellyAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to be approved. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Comaroto indicated that she would recuse herself from the discussions regarding Items 8a (1355 Laguna Avenue) and 11 (729 Walnut Avenue). Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Item 8b (305 Burlingame Avenue). 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1355 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Joann Gann, applicant and designer; Ryan and Wendy Vance, property owners) (70 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1355 Laguna Ave - Staff Report 1355 Laguna Ave - Attachments 1355 Laguna Ave - Plans - 11.27.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto left the chambers as she recused herself from the discussion of this item because she owns property within 500 feet of the subject property. Commissioner Loftis noted that though he did not review the recording from the last discussion of this item, he had visited the site and reviewed the project plans. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Joann Gann represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Was hoping that the direct vent of the fireplace could be routed up the chimney. (Gann: will make this revision.) Public Comments: John Chauis, neighbor to the proposed project: concerned that the proposed home will shine light into his child's bedroom. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Doesn't feel that the home will affect light to the neighboring property. >The home falls under the maximum permitted height by two feet. Well-scaled project. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to approve the application with the additional condition that the project design shall be revised to route the direct vent fireplace up through the chimney. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, and Loftis5 - Absent:Kelly1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Danny Meredith, applicant; Helen Cook, property owner; Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 305 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 305 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 305 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 11.27.17 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto returned the dais. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Commissioner Gaul noted that he had submitted a bid on the project previously, but has no involvement in the project at this time. Commissioner Sargent left the chambers as he was recused from the discussion for non-statutory reasons. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Danny Meredith and Helen Cook represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Noted that comments regarding the floor plan were not intended to presume the conversion of space to an additional bedroom; was concerned about where the media wall would be placed. >Why was the dialog cut off with the design review consultant? (Meredith: felt that every problem raised by the Commission had been addressed. Are in a time crunch.) >Noted that the intent of the design review process is to streamline the process by gaining the experience of the consultant in assisting with refining designs. >Doesn't understand why there are two larger, inboard gables on the left elevation? Doesn't appear that these elements are necessary. Also, isn't clear how the center gable resolves into the main roof on the left elevation. (Meredith: stated that they are clearly shown on the rear elevation.) The gables are not drawn properly on the roof plan. These elements need to be resolved. >Noted that the small bay on the left elevation shows a belly -band that doesn't appear to follow along to the rear elevation. >What is creating the double lines on the roof? (Meredith: had the architect remove the roof finish pattern.) >The massing and the drawings don't hang together. >Feels that the architect's approach to articulating the surfaces doesn't work with the design; doesn't belief the proposed means of articulation really addresses the concerns. >The roof doesn't do a good job of articulating the wall surfaces. >Likes the increased size of the porch and some of the other changes. >Concerned that the design is a large box that relies upon an undulating roofline to articulate the elevations. The changes don't really fully address the issues raised by the Commission previously. >Suggested that a 3-D model would help the interpretation of the design; not clear that the person drawing the plans really understands the concerns expressed by the Commission. >Likes what was done with the front elevation, but has the same concerns expressed by others regarding the left elevation. >Appears that the primary concern of the Commission is the roofline articulation. Noted that some details get worked out when being built. Doesn't feel that the articulation concerns have been adequately resolved. Needs further revisions. Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >One more round of review by the design review consultant may have resolved the outstanding issues; this is confirmed by the design reviewer's comments. Also noted a lack of consistency in the project plans. The projects should have been finally reviewed by the licensed architect before being presented to the Commission. >Make more of an effort to improve the articulation, not just roofline changes. >The roof drawings do not match the elevation details, particularly related to gables. The front and right-side elevations show incorrectly drawn gables (hips are shown, rather than gables.) Have taken what was massive and bulky and simply made changes to the roofline and added a bay. Likes the enlarged porch. Now a matter of better articulating what is implied in the roof design as it relates to the elevations . The most significant suggestions raised previously were to enlarge the porch and work with a design review consultant. >Asked other Commissioners if there were concerns regarding the window selection. >The window selection is acceptable. >Have made a good effort to address design concerns, but needs to work further with the design review consultant. >Make sure that the project designer can adequately respond to the questions raised by the design review consultant; the drawings need to hang together. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the item and refer the matter back to a design review consultant for further evaluation. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, and Comaroto5 - Absent:Kelly1 - Recused:Sargent1 - c.1548 Balboa Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan, architect; Edward Y. Li and Zhi Hui Liu, property owners) (42 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1548 Balboa Way - Staff Report 1548 Balboa Way - Attachments 1548 Balboa Way - Plans - 11.27.17 Attachments: Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Commissioner Sargent noted that he had reviewed the recording of the prior discussion of the item. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Xie Guan represented the applicant. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >The windows are now sized properly. >Was it intended that the front fireplace be tucked into the corner of the room? (Guan: is an existing condition. Will be converted to a gas-fired unit. Still want to keep it as part of the design.) >On the proposed first floor plan, the fireplace is shown in the correct location. Looks like there is a separate wall constructed on the outside of the fireplace. (Guan: this is correct.) >Noted that the design review consultant mentioned a general lack of attention to detail in the drawings. >The spacing of the exterior columns seems odd. Appears that there is a column missing. (Guan: didn't want a column in front of the window.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The design review consultant process has helped; the changes made have helped. >Agrees that there is a pilaster missing on one of the corners and that a column is missing. >Window articulation with added muntins is improved. >Feels the project is approvable. >Massing is done well. >Feels that adding a column on the front may be necessary from a structural standpoint. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to approve the application with the additional condition that the designer revisit the installation of an additional column on the front elevation. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - d.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment of the Design Review approval of an office /life science development ("Burlingame Point") (Genzon Investment Group, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner; Gensler, Architect) (23 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner (Continued from the October 23, 2017 meeting) 300 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 300 Airport Blvd - Attachments 300 Airport Blvd - Plans - 11.27.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commission Comaroto noted that she previously had a business relationship with the prior owner of the property, but no longer has a connection to the property . She was contacted by the project applicant, but did no return the call. Commissioner Gum noted that the applicant had attempted to reach him, but he did not speak with them. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Amy Tian and Ben Tranel represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Clarified that the rooftop terraces are not accessible to the public. (Tranel: this is correct.) >Has potential mechanical equipment been sized to fall below the roof -screening height? (Tranel: yes, certain that all equipment will fit. Is also reflective of the plans that have been submitted to the Building Division for review.) >The buildings were always intended to be potential life -science spaces? (Tranel: yes. The changes are only necessitated by use for such purpose.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The rooftop terraces were never intended to be public amenities, and all other public spaces will be maintained. >The project needs to achieve success, so the changes must be made to attract the desired tenant. >This is the first project of this magnitude to be developed in Burlingame. The project as revised meets the design criteria. Having the lab-use in the area will help to ensure project success. >Reinforced that the project must be built as approved, or may be subject to further review by the Planning Commission. >This is a sophisticated developer and architect, but reminded the Commission of the instance when changes were made to the new hospital without prior approval. >More pedestrian activity may be brought back to the ground. >Concerned that the rooftop decks may have limited utility due to wind conditions. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve The application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1327 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for first and second floor additions to an existing two -story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Eiki Tanaka, Studio 02, Inc., designer and applicant; Celeste and Eric Leung, property owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1327 Castillo Ave - Staff Report 1327 Castillo Ave - Attachments 1327 Castillo Ave - Plans - 11.27.17 Attachments: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Eiki Tanaka represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >On the front elevation there is a shelf or something over the garage door that mimics the roof over the entry, what is this? (Tanaka: is intended to mimic that element.) >What are the materials for the new windows? (Tanaka: aluminum clad.) >What will the entry stair well look like? (Tanaka: referred to the side elevation plan; will be a painted metal railing; will be the same as what is to be provided on the landing). Show these details on the plans. >Will the skylights be flat? (Tanaka: yes.) >Notes that no window trim is shown; why? (Tanaka: want to make the design appear a bit more contemporary with no window trim and with smooth stucco.) >Will the new stucco match the existing stucco? (Tanaka: the intent is to replace the existing stucco.) >Doesn't feel that the flat roof element above the entry and the garage door are not found elsewhere in the neighborhood. (Tanaka: wanted to include both elements to make them consistent within the design . Is a small element that adds to the contemporary design.) >Noted that the new porch is a bit shallower and narrower; couldn't find a similar design approach in the neighborhood. Is there anything that can be done to increase the prominence of the porch? (Tanaka: working with the existing structure makes this a challenge. Want to expand the garage to make meet the spatial requirements.) >Is the intention to use the garage as a two car garage? (Tanaka: want to use the space for one car, plus storage.) Was any thought given to narrowing the garage? (Tanaka: it will be up to the owner to decide how it may be used; may attempt to fit two cars into the garage.) Public Comments: Beryl Lucey, 1331 Castillo Avenue: expressed concerns regarding privacy as expressed in his letter to the Commission. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. City Attorney Kane noted that where a hedge is present on a property line, it is treated as a fence and cannot exceed the maximum fence height. Staff is reviewing the materials to determine the location of the hedge. Commission Discussion: >Are only asking for design review; no special considerations. >The design is stripped of any detail and is not really contemporary; other homes on the block have detail and character. >Massing is handled nicely, but the windows and other details do not provide any detail or character. >Needs another pass to make the design address the design guidelines and to fit within the neighborhood context. >The details are lacking. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There are a number of things that could make the design more consistent with a Modern design as desired by the applicant. >Is a good candidate for a design review consultant. >Is very different from surrounding designs. >Looking for traditional massing with more contemporary detailing to fit into the neighborhood. >The neighbor's privacy issue needs to be addressed, though there is no guaranteed protection of privacy, though there are things that can be done on both properties to address the concern. Encouraged the applicant and the neighbor to work together. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the application to a design review consultant. Discussion of Motion: >Is an interesting house. Has some conspicuous, modernist elements already present in the design (e.g. the corner windows). These elements are being taken away and replaced with typical windows that would be provided in a traditional ranch design. Are taking away design elements that actually contribute to a modernist design approach. Removal of these elements may be undermining the design approach. >Briefly spoke to the applicant in the lobby; noted that referral to a design review consultant can be a positive process that streamlines the process. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - b.2115 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Right Side Setback Variance for a major renovation, first and second story addition and modifications to existing detached garage (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, architect; Christopher and Tracey Papazian, property owners) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 2115 Roosevelt Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 2115 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 11.27.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones introduced himself to the property owner, but didn't discuss project details. Chair Gum spoke to the neighbor at 2109 Roosevelt Avenue. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Noted that Roosevelt Avenue is off of Vancouver Avenue, not Columbus Avenue. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Randy Grange represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Understands the argument for the variance on the right side. What is the jog shown on the roof eave Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes on the right elevation? (Grange: needed to reduce the overhang depth to meet Fire Code restrictions regarding setback from the property line.) >Is there anything that prevents pushing the addition back to meet the setback? (Grange: as shown the roofline is nice and clean; pushing the addition over would create the need for a separate roofline. The room in the addition is a minimal width for living purposes.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Is a handsome design. Looks like the home was originally designed as presented. >Nice scale and articulation. >Argument for the variance is supportable. A jog in the plan would make the addition look like it was done later. >The house is similar to other homes that were built at a conforming setback that was different than that required today. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the consent calendar when ready for action. Discussion of Motion: >Is not supportive of the variance request; requires exceptional circumstances. By extending the addition at the existing, non-conforming setback are increasing the density and reducing the space between homes. Would like to see the variance eliminated. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto5 - Nay:Gum1 - Absent:Kelly1 - c.1333 Howard Avenue, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use (fitness studio) within an existing building at 1333 Howard Avenue (Adam Shane, BBC Inc., applicant; Shawn Anderson, MSA Architecture + Design, architect; Michael C. and Athia M. Giotinis TRS, property owner) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1333 Howard Ave - Staff Report 1333 Howard Ave - Attachments 1333 Howard Ave - Plans - 11.27.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Does the applicant know what the signage constraints are? (Hurin: can reface the existing sign, but cannot remove it. All signs are reviewed under a separate permit and are not subject to design review.) >Have there been code enforcement complaints regarding the prior use? (Hurin: not sure, can research.) >What hours of operation were set for "Bootcamp" on California Drive? (Hurin: suggested having the applicant's representative respond as he was involved in that case as well.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, Adam Shane, Shawn Anderson, and Mark Bucarelli represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is there a reason why the cement plaster panel that conceals the fire department panel is in the same plane as the glazing; is there a reason why the electrical panel on the opposite corner is not in the same plane? (Bucarelli: needed clearance from the existing gas meter.) >What is the thinking behind the cement panel fin on the facade? (Bucarelli: intended to separate the electrical closet and the gas meter from the rest of the facade.) Otherwise the facade is very symmetrical. >Does the interior floor plan need to be updated to show the two moment frames? (Bucarelli: yes.) >The facade changes are not huge, but is a cleaner look. Is there any reason why the entry /exit doors cannot be reduced in height and transom windows added above them to make them more consistent with the pattern of other storefronts in the area? (Bucarelli: will look at this. Was initially a building owner preference.) >Why is the studio space walled off from the rest of the space? (Anderson: walls isolate the sound from the rest of the area and from the exterior of the building.) >Discussed the non-studio space uses. (Anderson: a reception desk and a juice bar.) >Can non-members use the juice bar? (Anderson: yes.) >Is there a residence above the UPS store next door? (Hudak: as far as he knows it has never been residential, only office use.) >What were the hours of "Basecamp"? (Hudak: started at either 5:00 a.m. or 5:30 a.m. to allow two classes before 8 a.m. Will not be any earlier than that use.) >Would it be possible to have a glass front on the studio space so that pedestrians could see the activity? (Shane: patrons don't like to have the public viewing them while working out.) >Will there be sound treatment of the roof? (Shane: no.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the project. >Will be interesting to see the steel structure behind the glazing on the front. However, doesn't like the cement panel fin projecting from the front near the electrical room. Feels that the panels detract from the symmetry of the facade. >Good application. Good arguments in support of the conditional use permit; very similar to the prior operation. No special considerations. Will bring good life to the location. >Agrees that the fin on the front may be necessary, but consider a different type of material. >Revisit the entry door heights as discussed earlier. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the regular action calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Absent:Kelly1 - d.1499 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB - Application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permits for Hotel Room Density, Building Height, and Floor Area Ratio, and Lot Merger to construct a 12-story hotel development (HKS Architects, Inc., architect; EKN Development Group, property owner) (35 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 1499 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1499 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1499 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 11.27.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she did have ex-parte communication with the applicant. Sheldon Ah-Sing, Contract Planner, presented an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Is there also an FAR variance? (Ah-Sing: a conditional use permit is required for the greater density.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ebbie Nakhjavani, Andrew Davies, and the project architect represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Are the Palm trees on the site plan existing? (Architect: yes.) >Requested clarification regarding the exterior cladding materials. (Architect: still exploring options.) >Wants more information regarding the articulation around the windows; what are the profiles? Will influence which exterior finishing material is selected. >The renderings, particular the 3-D help. The renderings shows that the elevations hang together. >Concerned regarding the design of the ground level; is there articulation at this level so that the design does not "slam to the ground"? (Architect: will revisit this element of the design.) >Wants to see a view of what the experience will be as you look out from the lobby to the back side of the restaurant. How will one experience the pedestrian realm? Is it possible to revisit the design to provide more of a presence to the corner that also promotes the Bay Trail. >Have a large buffer of landscaping; show how pedestrians will experience this area. >Clarified that all access is off of Bayshore Highway through a one-way driveway. >Are requesting a variance for the parking. There is an argument that current parking requirements for hotels are needing to be reviewed. (Meeker: noted that this is being evaluated currently. Have seen an option for .8 space per room. This amendment will likely be processed before the project comes back for review again.) >Is there a requirement for hotel shuttle services? Could this be a way to justify a parking reduction? (Meeker: would be beneficial to the hotel.) >Is the lot combination including 1499 Bayshore Highway and 801 Mahler? (Architect: yes.) >Any consideration to providing a walkway along Mills Creek? (Architect: required be kept clear for Fire Department access.) Could a walkway be provided somewhere in the area? (Architect: the property line is setback from the top of the bank, so this limits options.) Would like to see something that interacts with the creek. >Is there an update regarding the FAA and other agencies. (Davies: have been in meetings with various Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes agencies. Are below the FAA's maximum height limitation.) >Is the rooftop deck open to the public? (Architect: open to the public.) >Has the applicant looked at the possibility of providing another crossing from the front of the property nearest the wetlands to the property? (Kane: likely hazardous given the amount of traffic in the area . Would need considerable review by the City's Traffic Engineer.) >Anything that can be done to blend the corner of the property with the wetland area will be appreciated. Public Comments: Kristen Parks, Housing for All, Burlingame: Is the developer willing to provide affordable housing for its workers in Burlingame. The project will increase the jobs -housing imbalance. Will the development be subject to Commercial Linkage Fees? What are the public benefits to the community. Look at population and housing impacts in the environmental evaluation. Union-level wage standards should be applied to all new commercial development. Cynthia Gomez, hotel worker union representative: agreed with comments regarding bringing low -pay jobs into an area without addressing the housing needs. Need to ensure union -wages through an agreement . Workers that cannot afford to live in the community must drive and will add to traffic and parking impacts . Car-share employees can't afford to live in Burlingame, so they commute from other areas outside the city to pick-up passengers. Concerned about building load and cladding materials - can the Bayfill support it . Ensure no impacts to the shorebird sanctuary. The benefits of granting the variances must be weighed against the impacts - there should be significant public benefits provided by the project in order to receive the variances. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Does this project involve a development agreement? (Meeker: no, there is no development agreement with this project.) >Provide a copy of the rendering provided at this hearing. Also provide additional views and analyses of the pedestrian-realm experience. >Look at police/fire services impacts. >Traffic impact looks like it will be more on Mahler and Bayshore; include in environmental analysis. >Look at how job creation from this project fits into the projections for job growth shown in the General Plan update; was this included, or anticipated. >Will need to wait and see how the analysis of parking standards by staff will relate to the project. >Look at impacts upon water and sewer infrastructure. >Provide additional renderings, particularly for the pedestrian level. >Provide more analysis of surrounding building heights as part of the environmental analysis. >Look at potential view blockage from new building. >Pay special attention to biological resources, water quality, etc. >Provide more interesting features within the lobby areas to draw people into the interior. >Likes the corner restaurant; could imagine opening up this space to views through the structure. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director's reports. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018 November 27, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 729 Walnut Ave - Review of clarifications to a previously approved Design Review project. 729 Walnut Ave - Memorandum 729 Walnut Ave - Plans - 11.27.17 Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:17 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 November 27, 2017. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 7, 2017, 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 $533, 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 13City of Burlingame Printed on 1/9/2018