Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.08.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 22, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Loftis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and SargentPresent5 - Bandrapalli, and GaulAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.August 8, 2016 Planning Commission meeting minutes Review of the minutes was deferred until the next regular meeting. Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue approval of the August 8, 2016 minutes until the next regular meeting. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the deliberations for Agenda Item 7a. (807 Acacia Drive) as his firm is the architect in that matter. 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.807 Acacia Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review, Side Setback Variance, and Variance for driveway width for a two-story addition at the rear of an existing single family dwelling (Daniel Dunigan, DTA- Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc ., applicant and architect; Lily Gray and Josh Weiner, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 8, 2016 MEETING Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve Consent Calendar Item 7a. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Sargent4 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - Recused:Terrones1 - b.509 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a 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 15301(e)(2). (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Brian Ament and Sara Ponzio, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve Consent Calendar Item 7b. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment of the Design Review approval of an office /life science development ("Burlingame Point") and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum (Steve Atkinson/Arent Fox, applicant ; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner; Gensler, Architect) (29 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner - CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 8, 2016 MEETING All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Commissioner DeMartini noted that the applicant had met with former members of the Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee - it should be noted that the committee is no longer active. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Ben Tranel, Gensler Architects, represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Requested clarification of the changes in the square footage of uses within the development - referenced the table in the staff report. Is the office conference space intended to be leased out to tenants? (Tranel - moved some of the uses from the amenities center into the office buildings along the promenade, particularly Buildings 1 and 2. The conference space is to be leased out to tenants.) >Previous concern was to ensure that there are enough amenities along the promenade to ensure that people are drawn to the area. It appears that the retail and food service uses have been reduced by Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 500 square feet or less. (Tranel - the total retail and food service is somewhat greater, but has been shifted amongst the buildings.) These changes, providing more food service at the ground floor, could create more gravity to the area. >Noted that the child care and associated uses has been reduced in area by roughly 20,000 square feet. (Tranel - have reviewed the appropriate sizing of the facility based upon the expected tenancy.) >Is there any potential for keeping the excavated soils on the site and raising the podium? (Tranel - have designed the site to accommodate sea-level rise with the assumed excavation.) >Appears that the prior iteration of the site plan had more trees included. (Tranel - increased trees along Sanchez Channel to serve as a windbreak. Have spaced trees along the promenade to ensure some exposure to the sky. The east side of the site has been designed with fewer trees to preserve an open area for activities and to also permit the wind to cross the water.) >Encouraged adding trees within the surface parking lots. >Noted a prior concern regarding the scale of the building entries; were changes made? If not, why? (Tranel - the lobbies have been designed with large opening doors to make the area feel inviting, much like an indoor-outdoor space. Provides a better connection to the plaza and promenade. The fins on the building stop nine -feet above the surface, much at the same height as the tree canopies. The entire architecture and massing is designed to step back and reduce the apparent scale.) >What was the assumption regarding anticipated sea -level rise? (Tranel - designed to accommodate 1.3-feet of sea-level rise.) What happens if the sea rises to a greater level? (Tranel - the elevation referenced is derived from USGS data. Could raise the height of the berms if needed in the future.) >Will the event lawn be open to the public, could soccer be accommodated? (Tranel - the space is roughly 70-feet x 100-feet in size. The space could not be rented out for soccer matches. The space is intended to be an amenity to be used for the enjoyment of the public and may be rented out for events.) >What happens if a "world-class" single tenant occupies the entire complex; how would the retail and restaurant uses function? (Tranel - the spaces would continue to be open to the public.) >Will access to the loading areas actually work? How large are the trucks that would use the areas? (Tranel - have checked the areas and are confident that they will work. Are designed for a 30-foot single-body vehicle. The parking areas in front of the building could accommodate larger tractor -trailer type vehicles.) >Are trucks backing up to the buildings on the Bay side? Asked to double -check the service corridors for these areas to determine if the design is accurate. (Tranel - will review this aspect and change as warranted.) >Is the fin material fiberglas? (Tranel - the sample provide is Corian material, not fiberglas.) >How can the City be certain that the ground floor of the buildings does not become office space? (Meeker - the plans reference the uses and usage must be consistent with the approved plans.) >Noted that there are no specifics regarding the landscape plan. (Tranel - do have a specific landscape plan, but just not submitted for the hearing. Meeker - suggested submitting it later as an FYI.) Public comments: Adrian Simi, Field Carpenters Union - fully supports the project. The project will provide good jobs for men and women. Will provide healthcare coverage and pensions to the workers. Looking forward to building the project. Pat Calahan, 921 Linden Avenue, member of the construction trade - supports the project. Will bring jobs to the area. The completed project will be a real boon to the area. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue - this iteration of the project is better than the prior project. The road has been reconfigured; it is unconscionable that there is no bike trail along the roadway in this version of the plan. Referenced the number of bicyclists that traverse the road daily; they will not use the Bay Trail . Referenced the Complete Streets Act; no new street may be built without taking into consideration bicycle and pedestrian needs. Noted that the Transportation Engineer noted that he has never viewed the street plan until today. Peter Comorato - the community is very small. Expects the new owners of the project to treat the community with respect. Encouraged the owner to clean up the site. A great project. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Justin Wooley, North Shoreview Neighborhood, San Mateo resident - concerns regarding traffic and air quality in his neighborhood and project impacts. What is being done to ensure the correct traffic flow, and has the State or City of San Mateo ensured adequate access by emergency services? Believes there could be cut -through traffic through his neighborhood. Will there be another meeting to discuss the project's environmental impacts. (Kane - noted that the City of San Mateo and neighborhood residents have met with the developer to reach agreements on measures to address his concerns.) Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Staff and applicant responses: Kane - the street configuration is the same as the original approval, but for a shift in the curve at the center. Public Works has reviewed the plan and that staff may be better able to address comments regarding the Complete Streets Act. Chair Loftis re-opened the public hearing to permit the applicant to respond to questions. Tranel - there are two lanes of traffic on Airport Boulevard as realigned - there will be a painted bike lane included in the alignment. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Is there a requirement for the bike lanes as suggested? (Kane - can't opine on the exact requirements, but is within the purview of the Public Works Department.) >Likes the project and the revisions that have been made. >Needs to see more information on the landscaping via an FYI. >Clarification of street/bike lane issue may be addressed via an FYI. >The applicant needs to take a close look at the landscaping and improve the look of the plan. May need to add more trees. >Noted that several of the actors on the Bicycle -Pedestrian Advisory Committee are active in monitoring bike lane matters; should re -visit the bike lane issue to determine if a bike lane may be added. >The project is acceptable. >Particularly likes that the development will feed people into the Broadway Commercial Area. >Projects of this sort have a long life. The original project approval occurred in 2012 and was the culmination of many public meetings including environmental impact considerations. At this point the Commission is only considering project refinements. These refinements are a natural evolution of a major project. >Should revisit the landscape plan and analysis of how the project was viewed relative to the Complete Streets Act. >Believes the revisions are made to improve the project's function. >Need to take into consideration the maintenance and upkeep of the property prior to breaking ground for the new project. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to approve the application with the following additional conditions: >A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Commission as an FYI prior to issunce of a building permit for the project. >Prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI shall be submitted to the Commission that provides an analysis of the project's compliance with the Complete Streets Act. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - b.146 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (James Chu, Chu Design Associates; Raymond Wong, property owner) (43 notices) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 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: >Clarified that the project is subject to only a Negative Declaration, not a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Doesn't see the movement of the garage forward reflected on the plan. (Chu - will request staff approval of the three-foot setback when the plans are submitted for building permit.) >With respect to the landscaping reference to four Arbortis Marina trees, is a tree missing? (Chu - yes, there are only three shown.) >Clarified that the garage will be moved forward 36-inches from the property line. Public comments: Marilyn Cannon, 1545 Howard Avenue the applicant has addressed the concern by moving the garage forward. The prior setback would have permitted area for animals to congregate but not enough area to maintain the space. Understands that the drainage matter will be addressed during the construction . Would appreciate consultation with the applicant regarding the trees located along the rear of the property. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Believes that applicant has taken all comments to heart. Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve the application with the following additional condition: >Move garage forward 36-inches and add the missing tree for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote on the motion and it carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.1704 Davis Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a 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 15301(e)(1). (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Barbara Maley, property owner) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report. Chair Loftis noted that he had reviewed the recording from the design review study meeting. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Thanked the applicant for taking the extra effort to work with the neighbors. >Clarified that the five clerestory windows in the first floor bedroom are to be frosted glass. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: There was no Commission discussion. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - d.616 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 - Application for a Design Review Amendment for proposed changes to a previously approved application for first and second story additions. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 (e)(1) (Rob Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Joshua and Hilary Henshaw, property owners) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Requested clarification of the design of the garage door. (Wehmeyer - would like to install a design with horizontal slats.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Have addressed the concerns about the approach. Appreciates how the architect has approached the design revisions. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, and Sargent5 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - e.1491-1493 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-3 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Lot Merger, Condominium Permit, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five story, 10-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking (Mark Haesloop, CHS Development Group, applicant; Chi -Hwa Shao, Sheil Patel c/o CHS Development Group, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had reviewed the recordings from the prior discussions of the project. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Noted another project on El Camino Real that revealed a potential conflict between the code provisions regarding four stories or 55-feet; how can a five -story building be allowed? (Meeker - noted that in instances where a policy plan such as the Downtown Specific Plan contains a policy reference that conflicts with the zoning regulations, the policy language applies - in this instance, the Plan permits five stories, up to 55-feet in height. Also noted that the number of stories is an immaterial reference because you could still a build a 55-foot tall building with four stories that would be of the same mass.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Mark Haesloop and Toby Levy represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Asked if there was another neighborhood meeting since the project was last reviewed? (Haesloop - has met with the Valdes' and with the homeowners' association at 1499 Oak Grove Avenue. There has not been another noticed neighborhood meeting.) >Where are bicycles parked in the building? How are they designed? How many spaces? (Levy - doesn't show on the plans, but will be in the area behind the secondary stairs. Will be individual bicycle lockers; assumes one per unit.) >Is there any concern that the City doesn't have enough of a water allocation for the project . (Haesloop - would hope that adequacy of the supply is a condition of approval. Irrigation plans are changing for the project.) >What are the species of the three trees in front of the stairwell? (Levy - appears to be three, 24-inch box Smoke Trees.) >Seems that every speaker that spoke at the prior meetings commented on the height of the building . Why wasn't the building made shorter? (Levy - the goal was to provide a variety of housing types in the project. Are providing one, family -sized unit that will be located on the fifth floor. Have attempted to reduce the impact of that extra unit on the fifth floor through the design.) >Appears that this round of revisions didn't affect the size of the building. (Haesloop - size and massing is a perception as much as it is a physical dimension; massing has been broken up to reduce the scale of the building. Can't tell that it is a five -story building when viewed from the front. Didn't build lot-line to lot-line; there is quite a bit of separation from the adjacent buildings. This separation can make the project appear a bit taller. Wanted to have a mix of unit types that could serve a family and their needs. The building is not perceived to be any larger than the building at 1499 El Camino Real. The project to the left could be redeveloped at some point in the future.) >Which neighborhood was referenced in terms of neighborhood compatibility? (Levy - referenced the variety of housing that exists in the area. The project is smaller than other multi -unit buildings. Feels very much in context with projects within a 1,000-foot radius. Are bridging the variety of building types in the area.) >Is it the intention to have the range of colorations in the wood material and stucco material to ensure the textural variety? (Levy - have used the stucco product elsewhere successfully. Are researching the wood material to ensure that it is not a constant maintenance problem. The intention is to have a material that more closely reflects the renderings.) Wants to see materials that are convincing in what they are intended to emulate (i.e. stone and wood). (Levy - open to submitting an FYI once a final material is selected.) >Requested clarification regarding the faux windows. Could windows be placed on the left side of the stairwell? (Levy - are of a spandrel glass type material in order to eliminate neighbor concerns regarding light from the stairwell. Can add spandrel glass on the left side of the stairwell.) Public comments: Bill Alfonso, representing the homeowners' association for 1499 Oak Grove - opposed to the five -story height of the project. Doesn't fit with the mass and scale of the area. The new building should be required to make right -turns only upon exiting the property due to the traffic from the school. The developer has agreed to power -wash their building after construction. Expressed concern about the maintenance of the trellis facing their building. The trellis system will tend to attract pests and rodents . Ensure that there are adequate root barriers to prevent roots from encroaching into their drainage system. Have little confidence in the developer given their experience with them in the past. Have not received any written confirmation from the developer regarding agreements. Phillip Travisano - has lived in the area for 21-years. Feels the design is boxy, industrial; looks like a modern building that will be tied to this era. Has been designed in this manner because the developer feels that is what the public wants. Concerned for Burlingame. Doesn't feel that it would be appropriate to erect more similar style buildings. Must be a better solution for the faux windows. Not concerned with mass and scale or the number of units. Would like to see the design totally revamped. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Concerned about the massing and scale of the project design. Pretty certain that this will be the tallest building in the area. Most of the buildings to the south are two and three stories in height . Lower-scale structures exist to the north. Is a tough location to design for as it is on the periphery of two neighborhoods . Needs to fit into the single -story neighborhood to the north. Must look at the compatibility of style as well. Doesn't fit in. Are within the density range allowed for the area, but is too dense given the site location at the periphery of a high -density neighborhood and a low -density neighborhood . Doesn't feel that the project should be compared to projects along El Camino Real. Referenced a recent discussion that requires a greater setback between commercial buildings and residential buildings; this should apply in this instance. >Disagrees; this is a transitional neighborhood - is not a typical R -1 residential area. The area is actually evolving to multi -family projects. The project has been re -crafted and detailed to have a three-story presence with the fourth floor stepped back somewhat and the fifth floor significantly stepped back. Is a handsome design and well detailed. Have successfully give the project human scale. The property is a transitional property on a significant street within the City, a major thoroughfare - represents a transition from the lower -density areas to the north and the Downtown District; this property is within the Downtown Area. If there is a commitment to the Downtown Specific Plan, then this type of design must be considered. Has evolved into a good project, with some finishing details to be worked out. >The project is approvable at this point; agrees with prior Commissioner comments. Architect has done a good job with massing. >Doesn't have an issue with respect to the design; the street contains some rather boxy designs . Feels this design is poor planning with respect to allowing five -stories on the property. Would prefer removing a floor from the building with the fourth floor moved back on the property. Concerned that one side of the street will become a wall of four -story buildings in the future. If 55-feet is what is desired in the area, then eliminate the need for a conditional use permit for heights exceeding 35-feet. Two driveways for a building of this size seems unnecessary and results in a reduction in landscaped area. Concerned that a rear elevation is excluded from the renderings and doesn't show the impact upon Floribunda Avenue. Feels would be a mistake to approve the design at this location. >Sees the project as a nice, tidy example of Contemporary architecture. Feels the renderings make the project look smaller than it will actually be. The building is similar in scale and footprint than some of the adjacent apartment buildings and the school across the street. Other development in the area could be opposed based upon the footprint that the structure occupies. Feels that the building is a perfect fit for the property. Doesn't see the building will read as an extremely tall building. Is an improvement of the architecture upon the street. Concerned about the materials - needs to feel more certain about the material that will be used in finishing. Project is approvable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the applications with the additional condition that a sample board providing details of the exterior finishing materials be submitted to the Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of a building permit. Discussion: >Will Commission have the opportunity to pull the FYI for discussion? (Meeker: Yes, in the same manner as other FYIs.) >Provide a materials board that provides a scale of samples that gives a true sense of the colors and textures. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Terrones, and Sargent3 - Nay:DeMartini, and Gum2 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - f.620 Airport Boulevard, zoned AA - Application for a Five Year Extension of a Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Conditional Use Permit for an existing aiport parking interim use. (Boca Lake Office, Inc., applicant and property owner) (15 notices) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Sharon Lai represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >Requested information regarding what is anticipated for use in the future by the applicant? Are they waiting for residential usage? (Lai - are currently evaluating options. Residential is an option being considered as is senior housing. Need to wait to see what the parameters will be before beginning design work. Meeker - clarified that the General Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance project will be completed by the end of 2017. A significanty sized project can usually anticipate 18-months to go through the entitlement process.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Has expressed concerns about extension of the long -term airport parking uses in the past, though does understand that the the General Plan Update is a bit of a game changer. Can respect that fact that the property owner needs some time to determine how the property can be used. Need to give the property some leeway to determine what the property can be use for in the future. (Meeker - noted that the consultant will be working on the update of the zoning ordinance in tandem with the General Plan update, but the policy direction of the plan must be set first - the adoption of the zoning ordinance could lag behind the adoption of the General Plan somewhat.) >Knows that the Council was working on the Enterprise car rental lot previously and indicated no further extensions. The zoning is in place for many other uses, but it still remains a parking use . Receives complaints from neighbors regarding Airport parking in the neighborhoods. Feels that the five years is excessive. The property owner can engage in the General Plan Update process. Would be more comfortable with a three year extension could grant a further extension once an application is submitted, if necessary. >Doesn't believe a five-year extension is unreasonable. >Its not simple to force development to happen. The best you can do is provide the opportunity for a return on investment that makes sense to the developer - the General Plan Update provides this opportunity. Usually when discussing a project proposal, the Commission approves or denies what is requested, could a lesser timeframe be granted? (Meeker - since this is just an extension, a lesser time could be approved. Kane - if a lesser time is approved, the applicant could pursue further options, including appeal.) >Feels a three-year extension is appropriate. Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gum, to approve the extension for a period of three years. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Discussion: >Feels the discussion is disingenuous - Burlingame Point hasn't been built yet because they couldn't find a tenant. Would have developed if there was another option. Trying to give them a stick to develop the property, but it seems that there is nothing out there. >Disagrees completely, referenced the City Council's efforts to compel Enterprise to develop its property. Brokers have indicated that as long as the conditional use permit exists, nothing will be done. Chair Loftis called a voice vote on the motion and it carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Terrones4 - Nay:Sargent1 - Absent:Bandrapalli, and Gaul2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There were no Design Review Study Items 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner DeMartini noted that there will not be another General Plan CAC meeting for another month. Had a health discussion regarding sustainability at the last meeting. Commissioner Terrones referenced the opening of Hoover School. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that there were no actions to report from the August 15, 2016 City Council Meeting. He reminded the Commission of the upcoming community open house scheduled for Wednesday, August 24th regarding the conceptual development including the former Downtown Post Office and adjacent Parking Lot E. The open house will be held in the lobby of the former Post Office at 220 Park Road from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. a.2117 Hillside Drive - FYI - to review final landscape plan as required by Conditions of Approval for a previously approved Design Review application Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:23 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 August 22, 2016. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on September 1, 2016, 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. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016 August 22, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 11/3/2016