Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.09.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 12, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and GaulPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting minutes will be reviewed at the September 26th meeting. a.Draft August 22, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes b.Draft July 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA No changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: >Comment regarding 300 Airport Boulevard. >Pine trees are a bad idea, as are any deciduous trees that lose their leaves for six months of the year. >Suggestion for one eucalyptus tree. Before building the golf center there were three eucalyptus trees for 40-50 years next to the former landfill. They were a nesting site for egrets. There are no longer egrets nesting in Burlingame. >Suggest adding a eucalyptus in the roundabout on the road that goes past the Bay Trail, facing the airport. It would be at a turnaround, would not be a traffic obstruction. >For the public art, suggest how it was done with the hospital, charette style. At the hospital property Sutter provided art, and submitted three or four candidates for the City to vote on. Art should reflect the nature of the playfulness of the area, such as kite flyers, or the former carnival playland that used to be nearby. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1424 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure to be used as accessory living quarters and an office and with a full bathroom (Jerry Deal, JD Associates, applicant and designer; Weilyn and Arthur Wood, propert owners) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Sargent, DeMartini, Gum, and Loftis met with the applicant. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >The structure is currently being used in a manner that is not permitted or is proposed to be used. Is there a history of code enforcement? (Hurin: There is a history of code enforcement dating back to 1986 for several previous owners. The previous owner tried to correct the matter by applying for a secondary dwelling unit permit, but then decided not to do it. The current owners propose to use the space only as accessory living quarters, with no kitchen. This application will be addressing the code enforcement.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, represented the applicant, with property owners Weilyn and Arthur Wood. Commission questions/comments: >Meet with neighbor on right side? (Deal: Had talked with her previously, but she is traveling and they did not got hold of her.) >Were there thoughts to make the design of the accessory structure more compatible with the main house? (Deal: The intent was to keep it consistent with what is already there.) >How would the structure be used? (W. Wood: Has an expanding family. Parents visit frequently to help out with childcare. It is intended as a guest space.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item: >The 1400 block of Balboa Avenue is bad for parking. If the accessory structure has living space, would like a condition stipulating that the unit not be used as a rental. OK to use it for the in -laws or children. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Appears the structure has been there some time. Code enforcement was related to unpermitted construction, not a complaint from intrusive activity. >Owners have reached out to adjacent neighbors. There are apartments behind. >Easement alley helps with a buffer. There is a tall fence. >Current owners are trying to legalize something that was not legalized before. >Since it will be used for accessory living for extended family, it is supportable. >It is a simple, straightforward building compatible with the main structure. >There would be a condition that the structure could not be used as a secondary dwelling unit. >Should show the utilities on he plans and whether or not they are independent from the main house. >Suggest eliminating the window in the closet; it will eliminate one of the Conditional Use Permit requests. >Would prefer the structure be more compatible with the main house. Would be required to be compatible if it was a secondary dwelling unit. >Walking fine line with parking for an accessory dwelling unit vs accessory living space. As accessory living space could be rented out in manner of airbnb, but parking would not be required. >Plate height is only 6 inches above existing and will be well screened. >CUPs are supportable. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes No action was taken since this is a Study Item. The application will return on the Regular Action Calendar. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1731 Adrian Road #14, zoned RR - Application for a Conditional Use Permit and a Parking Variance for a Commercial Recreation use. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 (a) (Wing Lee, applicant and architect; Steven Chou property owner ) (25 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini had met with the builder of the project. Commissioner Sargent noted that he was not in attendance at the study meeting but had watched the video. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Is the ability to request a variance in this instance because the space is commercial recreation rather than office? (Hurin: The zoning is set up to retain the existing industrial uses, and specifically to not covert industrial space to office parks. Commercial recreation is distinct from office uses.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Wing Lee represented the applicant, with property and business owner Steven Chou. Commission questions/comments: >How many vendors are you expecting to come look at the equipment? (Chou: The equipment will have slight modifications such as chains or exercise bands, to modify the motion to fit the client's needs . If vendors come to look, they will only be visiting one at a time. Business model is based on one -on-one interaction.) >Is it possible a variance is not needed given the business operations and availability of parking on site? Concerned that the variance is permanent and could be utilized by a business in the future that was full capacity. (Kane: The variance is required under the code for the particular use, not because of the specific details of the business .)(Gardiner: The CUP is more specific with regards to the details of the business and numbers of customers.) >If the CUP is granted can it be specific to this type of commercial recreational use? (Gardiner: CUPs are specific to a particular business model. If the unit were sold in the future, the new owner could either take over the CUP with exactly the same terms, or apply for an amendment if they wanted to change the terms.)(Hurin: Condition #7 limits the occupancy to a maximum of two persons.) >Know how many of the units in the building are vacant? (Bob Mantegani, 1731 Adrian Rd condominium representative: All units are occupied, but there are some uses where virtually nobody is there.) >Would the vacant spaces be available? A time limit has been mentioned. (Mantegani: Since the inception 25 years ago, every unit has a certain number of spaces assigned depending on the square footage varying from two to six. There are nine visitor spots, available for everybody. The two -hour restriction is something separate that has been discussed to prevent owners or employees from leaving a car in the space all day rather than visitors. Previous use was two persons, same as this.) Public comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Andrew Stats spoke on this item: >Longtime friend and on/off patron of the applicant. >Does not expect applicant to be changing business practices. >Cost of the sessions is why the business model is viable. Shawn Kirby spoke on this item: >Has been a client of the applicant's for 5 1/2 years. >One-on-one training. Has never seen anyone other than someone coming out when arriving. >Parking is not an issue with the business. Bob Mantegani, 1731 Adrian Road, spoke on this item: >The plans have a juice bar, but the condo association did not want there to be a kitchen. >If there are violations of the CUP the condo association can approach the City. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item: >Suggests using BART or Caltrain to get to facility. Can use bicycles. >If in future there are more employees, suggest employees come by transit for congestion management. BART and Caltrain are not too far away. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Has thoroughly considered all the parking issues. >Commercial recreation aspects are understood. >Hearing the testimonials from the clients is important. >Agrees with the symbiotic, harmonious relationship with industrial uses and commercial recreation in the area. >Offices are limited in the area to minimize potential complaints towards industrial uses. >The commercial recreation use operates in a less intense manner. >The business plan creates unique circumstances. It will not be detrimental to the other businesses in the building. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1530 Los Altos Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and a Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage (Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture, applicant and architect; Gemmy Tsai and Karen Tsai, property owners) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbor at 1526 Los Altos Drive. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture, represented the applicant with property owners Gemmy and Karen Tsai. Commission questions/comments: >Where are the new trees on the plan? (Morris: Three trees are existing, one is new.) >Has there been consideration of screening for the neighbor on the right side? (Morris: There is an 18" planter along the fence from the front to the back. Would be open to planting more screening along the fence.) >How many square feet is the upper roof deck? Concerned with the size and the amount of activity that could be accommodated. (Morris: 13' x 22' based on size of room below.) Would be helpful to show a 6' person standing at the railing; it appears a person would be taller than the peak of the roof. Also show a section of the site showing the rear property line and the slope on the back of the property in relation to the house below. >Front elevation has an eave over the front door under the upper window, going across the stone veneer. Should it show as a projection on the south elevation as well? (Morris: Yes, needs to be added to the elevation.) >Is the front entry element meant to read as a solid two -story element? (Morris: One solid element with the awning over the front door projecting 4 or 5 feet. The shadow line should break it up.) >Would like to see a rendering. Hard to understand what it will look like based on the elevations. >Concerns with the third story roof deck. How will the owner use it? (Gemmy Tsai: Wants to enjoy the views. Can't see the views as well from the second floor, can only capture the views from the roof deck . Not planning on hosting big parties.) >Less concerned with the second story deck since it will be more tucked in, and will protect the privacy both of the users of the deck and the neighbors. >What is the architectural style trying to achieve, with contemporary together with prairie elements? (Morris: Started with combination of shed and flat roofs, but it would be too similar to the neighboring house. Having all flat roofs would look too modern. With primary roof in center and low -sloped hip roof with deep overhang, trying to soften the starkness of predominantly flat roofs. It also complements the sloped roofs on the first floor at rear.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Is there a limit on stories in the Hillside area, and /or is a roof deck counted as a story? (Hurin: The limit is 2 1/2 stories. Typically a story is defined as an area or room with a roof, enclosed by walls. The roof deck would not be counted as a story. Overall height is measured from average top of curb to the top of the roof ridge.) >Has the potential for being a handsome, modern contemporary house. There is a precedent for this type of house in the hillside area. There is not a danger in this house being too similar to the neighboring house. It could work well with flat roofs; the hip roof in the center is not helping the design. >Concern with the roof deck. Typically views are from a living space; a roof deck on top of the second floor would be unusual. The size of the deck has the potential to be intrusive on the neighbors. There is an opportunity on the back to have a view deck on the second floor extending over the living spaces below, rather than squeezed than between the sloping roofs as currently proposed. >The architecture would work better with flat roofs, with interplay between the varying heights of the Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes roofs. >Concern with view blockage. Story poles could be helpful. >Contemporary styling works well in this area. >Having a rendering is critical. >Concern with so many different elements, such as the 10-foot plate heights, the awning at the front entry that is so much higher than the front door, the garage seems so small. >Should have story poles, so won't be guessing whether there will be an impact or not. >Roof deck is a non-starter. Does not fit with the neighborhood. >Concern with the minimalist landscaping. Not sure what the planter boxes will look like. Wants to know what plants are going in each location. Doesn't want to see a modern design with just rocks and a tree in front. The street has significant landscaping in front of almost every house. >There is a precedent in the neighborhood for modern design; it can help bring the height down and make the design more cohesive. >Not sure about story poles. Does not appear views would be blocked. Neighbors have been consulted and are not objecting. >Relying on neighbors to be able to read plans, but here the commission has a hard time reading the plans. Does not necessarily need to have story poles for the entire house. The commission typically gets more feedback when the story poles go up. >Owners in the hillside area are zealously protective of their views. If the neighbors are not here commenting, it speaks volumes. The noticing process is something the community has agreed is appropriate for providing notice. >The application would benefit from input from a design review consultant. >The plate heights are reversed, with 8 feet on the first floor and 10 feet on the second. Could feel imposing from the street. >Concerned that neighbors are timid or do not want to upset the new owners, so are not expressing concerns. Commission should do what it thinks is right for the situation. >Direction to the design review consultant is to work with the applicant and architect on the cohesiveness of the design. >Neighbors may be expecting commission to require story poles. Hard to determine whether there would be view issues. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the Discussion Item to a design review consultant, and to have story poles placed after the design review consultation but before returning to the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - b.1300 Bayshore Highway, zoned SL - Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study for an Application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Height, Building Width and Retail Use, Parking Variance for tandem parking configuration and Lot Merger to demolish the existing structures, and construct one 8-story building and one 9-story building (connected) totaling 258,612 SF; the new buildings would include 238,162 SF of office space, 11,840 SF of restaurant space and 8,610 SF of retail space. (Steve Porter, applicant; Nardi Associates LLP, architect; Fox Bayshore Investment, property owner) (18 notices) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant, and also set up a meeting with the applicant and members of the former Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee at the request of the applicant but did not attend the meeting. Commissioners Terrones, Gaul, Gum, Bandrapalli, Loftis, and Sargent met with the applicant. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Is there any way the Bay Trail could be extended behind the Holiday Inn Express in conjunction with this project? (Gardiner: This can be taken up with Public Works. It cannot be conditioned on this particular project, but it has been a long term goal of the City to bridge the gaps in the trail. This project will bridge one of the gaps, and there may be options such as grants to bridge the remaining gap.) >Will the applicant be responsible for funding the parking operations needed for this project such as the valet parking, or would the City need to fund it? (Gardiner: Funding would be the applicant's responsibility entirely.) >Would shuttles or subsidies for bicycles be the responsibility of the applicant? (Gardiner: Yes.) >Where does the parking square footage fit into the total? (Gardiner: There is almost an equal amount of area in parking and building area. The current proposal shows 252,022 square feet in parking, and 241,737 square feet in building area. Parking area is not counted towards the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) since it is not habitable floor area.) >The variance application in the package needs to be updated as it describes a reduction in parking rather than the tandem spaces. > The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is over a year old and does not have the correct project square footage. Does the environmental analysis proceed with the incorrect information? (Gardiner: It is not unusual for the traffic analysis to be updated with a large project as the design evolves. In this instance the preliminary traffic analysis was also designed to test the feasibility of the project and understand what could be accommodated on the site.) >The traffic analysis uses data from the SummerHill project including current conditions that date prior to the Broadway interchange construction. Would the current conditions need to be updated to reflect the current interchange construction? (Gardiner: It is reasonable to have an updated traffic study, particularly if it is utilizing old data from another project. The Broadway interchange should be evaluated as it will operate at completion rather than during construction.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Agustin Rosas Maxemin and Noberto Nardi represented the applicant. >The traffic consultant has prepared an addendum to the traffic analysis. The variance application will be updated. >The Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) will review the application after the City takes action. >Instead of an object or building, the intention is to create a place that is responsive and can be used by the the community. >The view corridor is 25 feet on the lower portion, 32 feet in the higher area. Bigger, more imposing. >Consideration of wind generation. >There is site area available for adapting to Sea Level Rise. Can defend the site but cannot defend the entire area. >The Bay Trail will be within the BCDC jurisdiction. The desire is to orchestrate a continuation of the trail with the neighboring property. >Project is a combination of public spaces, public art, private areas, meeting areas in the park, and the building itself. Commission questions/comments: >The CUP applications should be revised to address how each is not a detriment or is neutral. For example the commission will need to determine whether the building width is a detriment to adjacent properties, or is supportive, or neutral. Similarly the building height talks about being offset by the amount of landscape and public spaces, but some of the public access space is the creekbed and adjacent embankments which cannot be accessed by the public. (Nardi: Neither BCDC or the City of Burlingame has a requirement on the amount of public access.) Prefers that the building height CUP discuss whether the height; the height itself has an impact rather than the height relative to the open space >Variance application needs to be revised to discuss the tandem parking proposal. Needs more Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes explanation for the extraordinary circumstances of this site that require this parking configuration, and that it will not be detrimental to neighboring properties. (Nardi: The variance is from the geometric standards.) Needs to draw a nexus between the parking configuration and the parking management plan put forward by the traffic consultant. >In the traffic report Crane has made recommendations on configurations and sight lines. Has that been incorporated? (Nardi: Yes.) Also recommendations on the traffic indicators, striping, and the roundabout. (Nardi: They have been incorporated.) >The traffic analysis refers to the SummerHill traffic study. Are the methodologies consistent with standard industry practice? Concern that the SummerHill report is a bit stale now. >Crane should revise Figure 8 - fails to show the existing bike /pedestrian crossing that will remain across Highway 101. >Page 9 Table 4 of the traffic study shows all intersections will be at acceptable LOS except the California Drive/Broadway intersection. Is that with and without the project? It needs to be clarified. >The traffic study uses a 5-second increase to determine whether an impact is significant. Where does that come from? Is it a City of Burlingame standard or an industry standard? >Developer needs to define the specific components of the TDM plan and what is being committed to, including valet parking. (Nardi: Some of the recommendations in the Crane report are to address a reduction in parking, but the project has been revised to comply with the required amount of parking.) >The two buildings are tied together so they appear as one building. Does BCDC accept this? (Nardi: There has been a staff -level review at BCDC but nothing has been accepted officially. The canal is under BCDC jurisdiction, and they will not accept bridging over the canal with built area. However they are willing to consider the view corridor concept.) >View corridor has been presented as 32 feet at highest point, but shows 21 feet on elevation. (Nardi: Graphic mistake. Should be 32 feet at highest section.) >Have neighboring properties had opinions on view corridor? (Nardi: Met with the General Manager and CEO of the Hyatt Regency hotel across the street. They said they are anxious to see the project take place. The manager said his main concern is with views from the lower floors, and that the view corridor will reduce the obstruction.) >Is the design and height compatible with the surroundings? How does it promote and protect pedestrian activity? (Nardi: The retail component encourages more pedestrian activity on Bayshore Highway. The road is currently treated as a highway, not a city street. The building is trying to promote the direction for Bayshore Boulevard to become more like a street. Consolidating the footprint of the building with the parking structure rather than having a parking lot creates more open space.) >How does the project address Sea Level Rise? (Nardi: It is adaptable. The bike trail can be formed into a levy. However it is a bigger issue than just this project.) >Concerned with so much construction on the Bayfront. What is the impact on the community, and on the schools? People who work locally will want to live locally. Will this project induce growth? >Concerned with noise impacts on the community. (Nardi: The existing parking lot creates more noise compared to a concealed parking garage. The project will not create a lot of noise generation. The project will produce an increase in the labor force, so it will be a benefit to the community.) >How will the outdoor conference areas be separated from the area open to the public? (Nardi: Proposing a 5-foot glass translucent wall that will act as a fence, running along the diagonal to enclose the space. It will be guarded and controlled. The outdoor conference rooms will be in the controlled area . The renovation of the lobby in the Hyatt has similar meeting areas.) >Are the photovoltaic panels a proposal, or will it happen? How much power will it generate? (Nardi: They are not panels, they are assemblies comprised of two sheets of glass with semi -transparent film in between containing the photovoltaic panel. It has been utilized in many buildings already. It will power all of the consumption in the public areas including corridors, parking areas, and outdoor gardens. There may also be the potential to provide additional energy to some of the rentable spaces.) >There will be a traffic signal at northbound 101. Wants the revised traffic analysis to study the potential backup, based on the anticipated traffic generation. >Needs to better understand the California Drive /Broadway intersection. It already has problems, and seems to be the only intersection that would continue to be a problem. >Would like more detail on the Transportation Demand Management. >Can something be integrated into the creek to address the cleanliness? Trash tends to accumulate in creeks. Perhaps native grasses on the bank, and a cleanup program. (Nardi: The City of Burlingame Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes maintains the creeks. BCDC says the creek needs to be reshaped and cleaned when the project is done.)(Maxemin: Maintenance is done by Army Corps of Engineers. The project will need to meet with them and come up with a plan.) Should be implemented into the project, possibly reintroduce some of the native grasses and create a focal point. >Is the property being sold, is it being built for the current property owner? (Maxemin: There are three partners in the ownership, and they have hired the developer. The objective is to build it. Further on will be looking for a tenant. The project is intended to be seen from the freeway, and also from the air . Intention is to build something very special, that will be an icon in the Bay Area.) >Is the current plan to do valet parking? Who would use the valet parking? (Nardi: 70% of the parking will be valet parking. The first level is all self parking, the upper floors all valet parking. Can accommodate all required parking in a 70/30 ratio.) Will all the tandem parking be valet parking? (Nardi: Yes. Must have valet parking at this scale. First floor is self-parking for the retail and restaurants.) >How many employees are expected to arrive by bicycle, and which route will they use to get there? (Nardi: Bike parking is allocated in a covered area on the ground floor. Bikes may arrive from the trail if the trail is made continuous.) Would like an estimate of how many employees will be arriving by bike, and how they will be accommodated. The City should consider improvements to Bayshore Highway . (Nardi: Could consider a light for a pedestrian crossing.) >Valet is an expensive proposition. Would parking be free? (Nardi: Does not have an answer for it .) (Maxemin: Intention is for valet to be an incentive.) Code may not allow charging for parking. >Will the existing businesses on the site be accommodated in the new building? (Nardi: Maybe the American Grill, but not the car rental .)(Omar Tanturk, Fox Investments: Does not have any long -term leases with existing tenants. Some discussions with possible tenants but nothing has been signed up yet. There is a lot of interest on the retail side.) >Is the intention to lease to one tenant? (Tanturk: Likely one large and some minor tenants.) >With a single tenant would the restaurant be open to the public rather than just being an amenity for the office? (Tanturk: Yes.) >It would be helpful to have a rendering of the retail area, what bike riders will see, and with accurately scaled landscaping. >What happens to the outdoor conference units at night? Will the area be fenced off at the Bay side? (Nardi: Yes, fenced off on the Bay side. Each unit can also be locked. The area will be controlled, with guards.) >Table 2 and 3 in the traffic study show the Broadway /Carolan intersection with and without the project increasing from 29.7 a.m. peak hour to 47.4 peak hour, but in the p .m. peak hour they both stay at 42.1. The Broadway/California intersection stays the same for both a .m. and p.m. peak hours. The consultant should check this. >Is there a geotechnical engineer on the project? What is known about the bearing capacity of the mud? (Nardi: Yes has a geotech and a preliminary report. Decided not to go underground based on the outcome of the soil report.) Who is structural engineer? (Nardi: Yosef Engineers.) >It is an idiosyncratic building. Where are the structural columns? (Nardi: The building will use an ectoskeleton. Minimizes internal skeletons, puts structure on exterior of building. Will provide a fundamental rigidity for the wind. Lateral forces of the wind are greater than seismic. There are some vertical trusses that connect like shear walls.) >What is depth of building at its greatest point? (Nardi: 75 feet.) >Is it possible to bear down on the soil in such few points? (Nardi: There will be pilings. Frees the building of internal columns. Creates a flexible floor plate.) >10 feet floor is typical for a garage. How does that work for office floors? 13'-6" to 13'-9" is more typical for offices, to provide room for HVAC. (Nardi: The central corridor will have a ceiling of 8'-6" and will accommodate the ductwork for the HVAC.) Will there be post -tension slabs? (Nardi: Yes, 9" post-tension slabs.) >It is an enormous structure, 700 feet long along Bayshore Highway. It's a big intervention. (Nardi: A tall building with a small footprint is not economical with this type of subsoil compared to a midrise building.) >Has electric carshare been considered? (Nardi: Has taken a more conservative approach, providing the full amount of parking.) Public comments: Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Gay O'Brien spoke on this item: >Native of Burlingame. Has lived here for over 50 years. >Is eager to see change and progress. Burlingame is a progressive community. >The proposal represents change and an opportunity to create real progress. >The plan will bring the property to the Bay where a wall exists today. >The current condition of the site does little for the community. >Prime location for accessing Highway 101 and the Broadway business district. >Project will bring new revenue to the city and school district, as well as local business communities. Kris Cannon, 1304 Bernal Avenue, spoke on this item: >Dramatic development, quite a change. >Issues and questions that have been asked are the same as what has been heard from the community. >General Plan Update has talked about pulling the Bayfront together. This fits in with what has been talked about. >Likes the pedestrian access, the vision of the Bay and the openness under the building. It is forward-thinking. >Likes the idea of the mixed use. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item: >Can provide info on bike statistics, or talk to Andrew Wong. Has counted the numbers of bikes between 7 and 9 a.m. on the Bayshore. At least 100 bike commuters use the road in those two hours. >Sidewalks are too narrow and obstructed. >This is a visionary project, could be the icon of Burlingame. People laughed at the Transamerica building, but it's an icon. Same with the tweezer building and the Marriott ("Mighty Wurlitzer"), and they are icons. Jazzed about this project. >City of Burlingame can approach the Holiday Inn Express as a good -neighbor gesture to link up the Bay Trail, to reduce the number of spaces to extend the trail along the Bay. John Root spoke on this item: >Burlingame has its share of plain, large buildings that aren't very exciting. This is a bold, distinctive design. >The Bay corridor would be more open, with ability to be able to look through. >It is a real opportunity for something special. >Will be rid of an eyesore. >Supports project. Bobbi Benson, 550 El Camino Real, spoke on this item: >Fabulous project. Designer has a great reverence for the Bayfront. >Project will be a great draw for Burlingame. >Wants the Bay Trail finished. Hopes the project will encourage Public Works to make sure the trail is completed. >Wants plenty of bike racks for people visiting the restaurant. Mary L. Hunt, 725 Vernon Way, spoke on this item: >Is a Beautification commissioner. >The proposal is beautiful, thinks of the Jetsons. >Will be a statement for Burlingame. >Opening it up to the Bay is exciting. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Exciting to see development on the Bayfront. The current underutilization is striking. >Variance and CUP applications should be recrafted to specifically talk about the details of the current proposal. >It is a large building stretching across the whole site. Accepts the interpretation of the view corridor . The Bayfront Specific Plan does not talk specifically about what the views are (from tall buildings, the roadway, pedestrian realm, etc .), so goes back to creating a better pedestrian experience with human scale. The tunnel creates transparency and connection. >The architecture is hamstrung by the parking requirement that results in three or four floors of parking structure, but the parking needs to be accommodated. Looking at the A 0.1 sheet view, it is a potentially brutal experience seeing 3-4 floors of parking above, rather than seeing offices above. >The architecture is a bold and dramatic statement, and these can work (think Wright's Guggenheim in New York, or more recently Calatrava and Gehry) - however these examples are not parking and offices. They work because of what they are programmatically (museums, conference centers, music halls), they have a different kind of experience, with a symbiotic relationship between the building and the program. With this project the challenge is that there are three or four levels of concrete parking levels before getting to the dramatic elements with the ectoskeleton and skin. >Connection between the retail area in Building B and its parking in the plaza behind needs to be reconsidered to get a better connection between the retail and the pedestrian realm. >There is lots of open space but so much is walled off from the public behind a fence. Would there be another use that might be a better contributor? The public is just out on the edges. >Concerned with the amount of valet parking, particularly how long it can be sustained. >Pedestrians and bike safety needs to be further considered. >Concern with flood zone, beyond just raising the building up above the flood level. >The glass wall closes so much off to the public, compared to Burlingame Point where the landscaping is very open. It would be a benefit to attract more people, and become a part of the community rather than just being for business. >Intent of the Bayfront Specific Plan is to prevent a wall of structure along the bayfront. This building is 700 feet wide and very tall; it will set a precedent for other buildings. Interprets the intent of the view corridor in the Bayfront plan to be kept clear, up into the sky, without being blocked by structure. >The creek should be a focal point. Would like it back to its natural habitat. >If more open space were public, it would be a park. This is an office project. The public gets access through the site and to the Bay Trail. >Likes the interpretation of the view corridor. A strict application would create a series of boxes, like those next door. >Suggests building a model of the building so people can get a sense of what the space will be like. >Dynamic-looking building. First thought was it looks like an arena but has slowly grown on it. It is an interesting, iconic design though the ground level details need more work. >The architect and developer are being humble. They are very experienced and a lot of thinking has gone into this. >Public outreach has been extensive. >Would still like to see a ferry on the Bayfront. >Status of details are still in play: the square footage changes, the valet parking has not been completely thought through, nor has the bike parking or the retail. Would like to see it one more time in a month with responses so not jumping the gun on the environmental scoping and avoid delays later. >Retail area needs to be livened up. Needs more than just a small restaurant and store. >The view corridor will be intriguing and will draw people through. >Height is supportable given number of tall buildings in the area. >Will bring increased activity to the hotels in town. >There is no question that the existing conditions are an eyesore but "anything can be an improvement" is a low bar. >There is a lot to like of the building as a diagram, but not sure about the architecture. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Building is anti-pedestrian; it is more like a wall to the Bay rather than something that would invite one to the Bay. >Even with more discussion on the building, does not believe much will be changed in the design. It is an insistent building: the geometry is insistent, the "Jetsons" imagery is insistent. It is prescriptive of how the person experiences it, there is not a lot of room for interpretation. >Goal is to create a place, but not sure it is the right architectural intervention. >Not convinced it pencils out given how unusual it is. Typically when there is anything unusual the price goes up substantially. Concerned once the ectoskeleton is priced out the project will not pencil out . 268,000 sq ft is not a large office building large for the Bay Area, and this will not be in the cost range of a typical office building so it may not be a viable project. >Not sure this is the right icon for Burlingame. It's not in the same league of other iconic buildings going on in the Bay Area. >There have been some big iconic Bay Area projects that have not turned out well. The Metreon is an example of an icon that did not work; it was insistent and prescriptive. The Marin County Civic Center, very iconic but perhaps the worst Frank Llloyd Wright building ever. >Clever use of the site, but having a 700 foot building along the Bay is extreme, and the rendering of the view corridor is brutal. >Concerned about water supply. Needs to do a current water supply assessment. >Talk to some commercial real estate brokers about the viability of 9'-3" floor to ceiling heights, plus air and lighting. The trend in office space has been taller ceiling heights. There is no action on this item because environmental review is required. The application will return to the Planning Commission when the draft environmental review has been completed. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner DeMartini noted the City Council discussed the General Plan Update and provided direction on the land use strategy. He also suggested the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) be reinitiated. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner noted that the City Council approved the 1509 El Camino Real application at its meeting on September 6th. In a study session on September 7th the City Council reviewed the General Plan Update, and comments were similar to those of the Planning Commission. The Council sees housing opportunities in the North Burlingame area, particularly around Burlingame Plaza and north El Camino Real, as well as live /work or artists lofts in the northern end of the Rollins Road area. Residential development would not be considered in the Bayfront area. a.770 Walnut Avenue - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Not accepted. Concerns with character of the house deviating from the original approval, and dark roof color compared to renderings shown when the application was under review. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:36 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on September 12, 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 22, 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016 September 12, 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 13City of Burlingame Printed on 11/4/2016