Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2020.05.11BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, May 11, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, City Attorney Kathleen Kane, and Parks & Recreation Director Margaret Glomstad. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and SchmidPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Schmid abstained because he was not yet on the Planning Commission at the time of the meetings. A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 - Abstain:Schmid1 - a.Draft February 24, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Revised Draft February 24, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft February 24, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: b.Draft March 9, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Revised Draft March 9, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 9, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - a.2217 Davis Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Paul Yep, applicant and property owner; MEI Architects, architect) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2217 Davis Dr - Staff Report 2217 Davis Dr - Attachments 2217 Davis Dr - Plans Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.250 Anza Boulevard, zoned Unclassified - Application for Environmental Review (Mitigated Negative Declaration ), Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new commercial recreation use (Topgolf) with associated restaurant and bar uses. (Topgolf, applicant; The Beck Group/Arco Murray, architects-engineers; City of Burlingame, owner ) (490 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 250 Anza Blvd - Topgolf - Staff Report 250 Anza Blvd - Topgolf - Attachments 250 Anza Blvd - Topgolf - Plans 250 Anza Blvd - Topgolf Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX A - Photosims Peer Review APPENDIX B - Air Quality and GHG Assessments APPENDIX C1 - Biological Resources Report and Peer Review APPENDIX C2 - Avian Monitoring Survey Results APPENDIX C3 - Final Biological Resources Report APPENDIX D1 - Preliminary Geotechnical Report APPENDIX D2 - Draft Geotechnical Report APPENDIX D3 - Geotechnical Peer Review APPENDIX E - Phase I Env Site Assessment APPENDIX F - Noise Assessment APPENDIX G - Transportation Impact Assessment 250 Anza Blvd - Topgolf - Response to Comments Memorandum 250 Anza Blvd - CEQA Comment Letters Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Tanner Micheli, Topgolf and Eric Uebelhor, BECK, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Want to understand the proposed traffic flow, is proposed entrance going to be on Anza Boulevard or Airport Boulevard? (Uebelhor: Our intention is to use the Airport Boulevard as a secondary access but also an important access point.) >Not sure if it's a question for the Parks & Recreation Director, Margaret Glomstad, if you had a chance to see Russ Cohen ’s letter asking if we might be able to take advantage of some opportunity to do landscaping and some city identity on the slope that faces up towards the lagoon area. (Glomstad: We did see the letter today. The challenge is that it is outside of the scope of work. That hillside is city property. That suggestion has to go through a different method, but not on the Topgolf project because it's not within their lease boundaries.) >Questions for the applicant about the netting for the birds. Saw on your Brooklyn project that you use squawk boxes, is that something considered here or have you looked at the amount of birds flying around there, with the bay right there? (Micheli: The squawk boxes are standard in all of our venues, including this project. We have addressed it in the CEQA document as well. Topgolf is a brand and we have quite a bit of experience just given how tall our nets are, the numerous locations that we had in sensitive areas where there are large migratory environment. For this specific location we worked with the Audubon Society. We had a mitigation measure in place that reviews bird impacts and there's adaptive management plan if there are issues. There is no scientific data that says barrier netting is impactful or not impactful. The netting we use is the same that is used in aviaries, and it is also used for protecting the birds from hitting glass windows, which is one of the major causes of bird death in the world. We are quite confident in what we have and that monitoring process works for two years. We hope this is an opportunity for the Audubon Society and other groups to learn from this project and understand how netting is or is not impactful to the avian wild life.) > Is the turf all natural grass? (Micheli: No, it's artificial turf). >Have you considered any greywater or rainwater retention for the irrigation on the other parts of the project? (Uebelhor: We have considered it. I understand that the city doesn't have any sort of purple line available. In order to meet the LEED certifiable design criteria that we're going to need, we are looking to harvest some of the rainwater for irrigation. Our options are somewhat limited to how closely we have to not allow any water to infiltrate into the landfill cap. Between fire retention we do expect that there will be areas for harvesting some of the rainwater for irrigation.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >We have seen this project a couple of times now. Appreciate the clarifications that have been made. >Accepting of the findings and the environmental assessment. >Based on that, can make the findings for the design review, some of the critical criteria are more important than others being that it's a unique location. Can also make the findings for the Conditional Use Permit based on the mitigation that has been done. >Cannot see it being a major detriment to other properties in the area so can make the findings and am Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes accepting of the mitigation measures that were identified in the environmental assessment, and can also make the findings for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - b.850 Burlingame Avenue, zoned Unclassified - Application for Fence Exception for the height of a new fence at the Burlingame Community Center. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines. (City of Burlingame, applicant and property owner; Teresa Rom, Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc ., architect) (209 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 850 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 850 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 850 Burlingame Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones and Loftis sat on the ad hoc Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) with the architects and other city staff, and were able to get a preview of the project. Community Development Director Gardiner, provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Dawn Merkes, Group 4 Architecture, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a fine application. It fits in well with the recreation center. >In many ways it mimics the existing condition in that there's a solid fence already there and in several places there is lattice above it that exceeds the 8 feet. >To note further, one of the things that we always have difficulty with a fence height exception is finding the exceptional circumstances. In this case the exceptional circumstance is the difference in zoning between the single-family residential, the neighboring properties and a parking lot for a public recreation use right next door, so can make the findings for the exceptions. >Seems like a very straightforward solution to the problem that needs to be addressed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - c.212 Bloomfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (James Chu, designer and applicant; Bob Gilson, property owner) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 212 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 212 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 212 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had a brief communication with Mr. David Harris regarding the project. Commissioner Sargent had a brief conversation with the applicant, about the project. Commissioner Comaroto had a brief conversation with the applicant after the second rendition of the application. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. James Chu, represented the applicant with property owner Bob Gilson. Commission Questions/Comments: >On your letter dated May 4, the front setback has been increased from 17’-7” to 24’-7”, is that from the original house there now? (Chu: Sorry, that was a typo. There is no change on the setback.) >On the side elevation there's one small roof area that seems to be a standing seam metal roof and it ’s not shown in any other areas, is that something that has been left from previous versions, or is that intentionally one area that's going to be a different roof material? (Chu: I'm sorry, that's probably a left over from a previous design. We will make the change to a composition roof to match the rest.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The changes improved the house quite a lot. The issue has always been the apparent mass of the house. The designer uses a strategy that is used several times around town, that really does a good job with bringing the mass down, and that's the roof sloping away from the front property line. That one change makes a huge difference. It diminishes the apparent mass of the house very significantly and he's able to maintain the functionality with the shed roof and the small dormers sitting on that sloping roof. With the roof sloping away from the house, it changes the nature of the porch significantly. >Really like the changes and he’s done a good job at addressing the concerns. >The changes are subtle but critically important. Another thing to elaborate on is pulling in the second Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes floor two feet along the front side of the house on either side is important. What was said in previous meetings is that the previous design is just a two -story house with an overhang adornment. But in this case by pulling in the side elevations on the second floor an additional two feet, we have a more substantive roof that slopes up from the first floor plate height of the porch and breaks that continuous eave line that we had on the second floor. Appreciate the revisions that have been made. The project is approvable at this point. >Really like what has been done with the front porch in bringing the massing down over the columns, that it looks really nice and appreciate the applicant for making the changes. >The scale is improved, and the revisions make it a lot more attractive and scalable at the front. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - d.217 Channing Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Rob Wehmeyer, RC Wehmeyer, applicant and designer; Somrat and Sarah Niyogi, property owners) (141 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 217 Channing Rd - Staff Report 217 Channing Rd - Attachments 217 Channing Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent recused due to having a financial interest in a property located within five hundred feet of the subject property. Commissioner Terrones had the opportunity to meet with the project designer after the last meeting regarding what was discussed at that meeting. Community Development Director Gardiner, provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Rob Wehmeyer, RC Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant with property owners Somrat and Sarah Niyogi. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is the material that you're requesting, the Hardieplank lap siding and cedar mill with 8” exposure, with the raised grain as opposed to the smooth? (Wehmeyer: Yes, it is the one with the raised grain. I have seen it two-ways, I have seen it done a couple of times and seen how when it is painted well it does look very nice. The trick on it is the preparation in painting with that to make it pop out the right way.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >Like the changes that have been made but have some concerns, as expressed previously, about the height of the front porch and that main floor plate along the front of the house where there is the high forehead above those windows. The changes that were made are subtle but important. >Believe they would be much more satisfied using the cedar shingles on the second floor and eliminating the corner caps, and can be accepting of the Hardie siding with the corner board on the first floor. Am accepting the revisions that are before us. >Have no problem with the windows being mulled together because we have enough room between the windows. When they are mulled together they will still appear as separate units. >As far as the roof goes, it is a great solution and has helped out quite a bit. >Appreciate making the second floor cedar shingles, but still have a problem with the corner boards. It works on some architectural styles, but doesn't seem to work on this project. As a builder, it is a shortcut . Agree that there are other houses in town that have used it but don't necessarily think those are good examples of a corner board application. In walking the block, there were four houses that use vertical siding and none of them had a corner cap. One of them has mitered corners and the other three have a one inch corner caps. When you get to the size of the four -inch corner board, it looks like this is the easiest and quickest way to put things up. It doesn't say Burlingame in an older craftsman style home, so that along with the cedar mill Hardieplank is the least attractive of all the options in the Hardieplank. It looks cheap or fake because it looks like it's trying to have a raised wood grain. Can support the roof termination changes and the window changes, but am having trouble with the siding. >The changes at the front helped quite a bit. Agree that all the work that has been done and it is a positive outcome. The change in the rear doors, in changing the header height, and everything has made a better solution as well on how we got some improvement in scale. Fine with the window mulled solution as well and can support this as a project. >Like the changes and don't mind the mulled windows. Fully agree with my fellow commissioner that the raised grain in the siding would make it look cheap as opposed to making it smooth, but the project is approvable. >Agree with my fellow commissioners comments regarding the shingles up on the second story, the improvements with the front porch and the structural modifications. Personally like to see the front elevation receive the separate windows but it's not a deal breaker if you go for the mulled approach. >Want to thank the homeowners for taking the time to craft that nice long letter to us explaining the reasoning behind the changes, by doing a lot of the research in your neighborhood to help us understand where you're coming from with your material choices. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Nay:Gaul1 - Recused:Sargent1 - e.556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five -story, 21-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Omar Hernandez, RSS Architecture, Architect; Roman Knop, property owner) (472 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 556 El Camino Real - Staff Report 556 El Camino Real - Attachments 556 El Camino Real - 2nd Revised Initial Study 556 El Camino Real - Appendix A Shade and Shadow Analysis 556 El Camino Real - Appendix B Construction Health Risk Assessment 556 El Camino Real - Appendix C Tree Survey 556 El Camino Real - Appendix D Revised Geotechnical 556 El Camino Real - Appendix E Revised Traffic Analyses 556 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had some discussions with the architect regarding some of the details. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, Andy Raymundo and Omar Hernandez, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >On page L1 of the landscape plan, were the concrete grass pavers at grade level shown on the previous application at the entrance? Aware that's been approved by the city for secondary parking uses, but that seems like it is going to cause a pretty significant amount of traffic. Is that kind of use appropriate for that project? (Raymundo: We have seen it used in a lot of applications and we don ’t have any reason to believe that this will be unconventional in terms of how it is used and whether or not it will uphold under the traffic load. We have specified it in the past where we had situations similar to this, where it takes quite heavy traffic load and frequency of traffic. We’ll make sure that when we do the specifications, we design it for construction that it is a usable, durable and appropriate product for this type of application.) >Did you look at other ways to meet the front landscape requirement that didn ’t require the pavers? (Raymundo: We have thought of different ways to do it, but we felt this is the best approach given our experience of this product and how we have seen it used.) (Hernandez: We are providing about 62% of landscape and the requirement is 50% of landscape.) >Appreciate addressing the below grade design, it was an important topic from the previous meeting . Understand now that you have lifted up the excavation about ten feet and the finished floor or the bottom of the excavation is about 18 feet below grade? (Raymundo: Obviously there is some slope to it but at its lowest projection below grade from street level is at 18 feet.) (Hernandez: The majority of the garage is exactly 10 feet below grade. Because of the parking, we need to have a pit and the lowest grade of the pit is at 18 feet.) >Where does that place you in relation to the water table? What do you know about the water table there? (Hernandez: There is a report by the geotechnical engineer that made some recommendations on how to go about the foundation. He suggested building the walls and the slab for hydrostatic pressure and to put a water proofing membrane on it.) >Noticed that Public Works comment noted that you have to get a permit from Caltrans if you want to pump water out to El Camino Real. Do you anticipate pumping water out to El Camino Real? (Hernandez: That won't be necessary. The idea is to solve it with a waterproofing membrane and fill it such that they don't have to do that. The drainage on the site has been improved and the footprint of the proposed Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes building is less than what they currently have. The civil engineer has proposed some bioretention tents that are going to help considerably to what they have right now.) (Raymundo: In order to get the parking to support this proposed project, we have to go to the stacking system, and the owner fully understands that there are expenses in site development specifically regarding the concern about the water table. As the architects, we are very concerned about it because it's a liability issue for us. That's something that we'll be involved very intimately with designing a system that we can stand behind and we're secure in presenting as part of the design package. It is a concerning issue but it is something that we believe is achievable.) >So you build a boat essentially and design it for hydrostatic pressure and the water table will flow around that boat. The other place where the water can come from is down the ramp, presuming that there's going to be a trench drain across that. Is that part of El Camino Real prone to flooding? (Hudak: I'm up and down El Camino Real all of the time. It's usually on the west side of El Camino Real that you have significant ponding and it's a little bit closer to Howard Avenue than Floribunda from my experience .) That’s good. If it's not flooding on El Camino Real then you probably don't have significant water going down the ramp. So I’m comforted by that at least. >Do you think there's a way to work the architecture to where the lap siding has a little prominence, because you have the horizontal nature of the cable guardrails and the glass rails to make them more solid and obscure the glass to make it still be that piece of the architecture? It is something that can possibly go forward and if necessary, be an FYI. Is that something that can be revisited or have you talked about it with the owners? (Raymundo: We’ve talked about that a lot and they are comfortable with doing some kind of modification. I don't know what kind of process we would go through, but we would work with staff to come up with something that you can sign off on. So it remains a fluid piece in terms of the design. Certainly we will look at that as you were suggesting and consider it in a way that is compatible with the style of architecture of the building.) >On your drawings it shows you have a filtration system that will pump water out of El Camino Real, assuming that you had some discussion with Caltrans regarding this matter, do you know if Caltrans has a limit of how much water you can pump out? (Hernandez: There was an application going on with Caltrans and they had a chance to review previous plans and didn ’t have any objections on it. Are we talking about water that goes into the garage from the rain?) No, it's ground water. (Hernandez: It probably wouldn ’t be the case for our building and it ’s not recommended that we remove water from the building because it can cause settlements with the neighboring buildings.) So your intention is for the ground water to remain and you're basically going to build the boat in the water? (Hernandez: We are going to build a boat.) >Is the area with the grass pavers and the electric charging station for the two cars considered part of the front landscaping? (Hernandez: Yes.) Would you still have the required parking if you were to eliminate those two electric charging stations? (Hernandez: Those are additional parking being provided which are not part of the parking count that were required. It was proposed so that we can have parking for guests or service vehicles. If someone needs to have a delivery for some reason, they can do so in those two spaces, but it's not intended to be assigned to any of the residents .)(Raymundo: We do meet parking requirements without those additional parking spaces.) >Struggling with having a parking lot counted as part of the landscaping. If you were to eliminate those parking spaces and have some plants as opposed to having pavers there, will that satisfy the landscape requirement? (Raymundo: We are using those pavers to get to the landscaping requirements. It sits back a little bit to get some additional depth as you come in from the driveway. If the parking spaces were not there we may be able to extend the landscape areas a little farther, not a lot, but we can probably pick up a little bit.) >When entering the garage, do you have to go to a specific bay to park your car or is the instruction to go the farthest in, to bay one, for example? If someone comes in at the same time, do you go to bay two? (Hernandez: You go to the specific bay that you were assigned to your parking stall. When you leave your house, the way to request for your car is by the app. By the time that you go downstairs, your car is in front and the spaces have been shifted.) Likewise, when you come in? (Hernandez: You make the request as well.) >Regarding the railings outside at the balconies, can't help but think that when people are settled into their condos there is the possibility that they will use the balcony as a storage space. It would be nice if it was less visible to the street, and keep a neater streetscape by providing more privacy panels at the Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes balcony railings. (Raymundo: We have done so many of these types of projects where you get arguments on the other side, where people say we want them to be more transparent. And as you described, we had people saying they should be solid because people are using them as storage areas and we ’d rather not see people's stuff. In my personal opinion, having them solid would reinforce this modern look, not that the railings proposed are not modern. For the privacy purposes and the purposes of using the railing as a screening device, I think that this would work very well, and it would be preferable.) Public Comments: >Nick Popovic, 1515 Floribunda Avenue: Thank you for the opportunity to express the public comments, I’ve sent an e-mail comment, as well. Being on the neighboring property we will be directly impacted by this project. We don't see much has changed in this proposal compared to the previous proposals. The underground and automated parking system will cause risks to the neighboring properties . With the height of 55’ or 56’, it negatively impacts our view and the peaceful enjoyment that we expect to have in the neighborhood. The number of units is the same but the number of parking spots were reduced, we don ’t think it is sufficient. We expect to see a lot more traffic at El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue. There is already insufficient parking there. There have been a lot of accidents in that intersection and the city has to enact to stop the last signal from El Camino Real. In terms of water, we do see excess water every year, and so bringing another building that is potentially pumping water to El Camino Real will be a serious concern to the safety of the big trees that we all cherish and need. I also wanted to express the concern in terms of potentially having the low -income housing being replaced. I wanted to ask the commission what is the plan of Burlingame to replace the below income housing available there in the current location. Finally, I wanted to request that some changes be made and we like to see reductions in terms of the height and size of building footprint so that it fits better in the neighborhood. >Gardiner: We have three e-mails, with the three minute rule I ’m going to read them as quickly as I can but still be intelligible and will also forward them to the Planning Commissioners so that if I ’m not able to read it within three minutes, you do have the text of the e-mail. >Bobby Benson sent via e-mail, 550 El Camino Real: This building is too big for the lot, too high for the neighborhood of three -story buildings and for traffic being the first driveway south of Floribunda. They will be digging 33 feet down for two parking levels right on the property line, there may be structural damage to our building. They need to install solid balcony patio and deck walls on all five stories to provide privacy and peace. Oversized patios on the south side come within three feet of the property line . They need to be scaled back so that no part of those patios come within the mandated ten foot setbacks between condo buildings. Prevailing winds will bring any smoke from these patios and may then spread right into our windows. I have asthma, it has happened before. The environmental studies show that the dangerous amount of toxic dust will affect all nine of our condos that face the building. 556 El Camino Real should be wrapped on each side with air filters provided with each unit and our building shall be repeatedly power washed for our health. We would appreciate if they replace the eight -foot high solid fence on the front corner of the building to the very back. Do not allow the work to begin until the pandemic is over. Evicting affordable housing residents there now before the end of the pandemic would be heartless. >Don Weiner, sent via e -mail: Dear commissioners, the project at 556 El Camino Real has been brought up repeatedly to the Planning Commission. Overall the project is simply too big and too ambitious. The only way that the project is continued forward is that it is brought down to realistic expectations. Compared to prior plans you can see that the overall size of the project hasn't changed in any insignificant way. Only minor details have been adjusted and nothing that mitigates current or past concerns. Reviewing the plans I can see that the parking situations are not a practical proposal. Most objections are in regards to the automated car shuffling system into the space needed for it. The underground area has been reduced from prior proposals. Unfortunately, they just didn ’t work. There’s no reason for the multiple people waiting for their cars at the same time and if the car shuffling mechanism breaks down nobody gets their cars until it's fixed. There is also no provision for plugged -in electric Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes vehicles in the underground parking. As far as I can tell, every vehicle that is there is assumed either to be gas powered or possibly a hybrid. Everyone with a plug -in electrical car needs to be plugged outside with only two available spaces serving the entire building, that's absurd. I don't see any special accommodations for people delivering without impeding ingress /egress of the building. All it takes is a couple of families trying to drop off groceries simultaneously and cars will be backed up in El Camino Real or people need to circle the block until the space becomes available. The shadow study shows the proposed building will cast a large shadow in the neighboring properties, one of them being the property that I live at. The worst is the December 21st projections. The only way to address this is to lower the overall height of the project and that would mean reducing the story count. The bottom line is that the building is simply too big. This is a classic case of trying to fit too much into a small of a package. The building I currently live in is three stories tall and when seen in person, it is a very large building. The proposed building at 556 El Camino Real is two stories taller than mine, and that is flat out absurd. I recognize and appreciate that Burlingame is a growing town but we ’re not quite at a point where building of this size fits in. To summarize, the only solution is by doing one simple thing and that is reducing the overall size of the project. Reducing the building height by two stories will eliminate the shadow issue and requiring less parking area alleviating the need for the automated car shuffling system and for the separate outdoor EV parking, giving more room for delivery and grocery drop off. >Anonymous sent via e-mail: The intersection of El Camino Real and Floribunda has had many traffic accidents. Please address concerns regarding this large of a building that will increase traffic and decrease visibility even further. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >We have to remind ourselves that one of the more important criteria we have to consider is the Housing Accountability Act, consider and apply standards that are objective for the application. We have to look closely at what was previously presented versus what is before us now. What we previously had that can potentially affect neighboring properties is the parking system and what we have now is a much better design. It’s much different than the option we had before. >The major issues were addressed with the revised plans except the details of the architecture in terms of the guardrails. Appreciate that the architect is willing to go back and revisit and that's something that can be reconsidered as an FYI or an amendment. >Per the applicant, they are not going to be pumping ground water out to El Camino Real. They are going to build a system that can sit and allow the ground water to do what it’s doing. >Understand my fellow commissioner ’s concerns in terms of the front landscaping, but prefer the turf block to be considered if it means bringing about additional visitor and /or service vehicle parking spaces in front of the building particularly because of this location, not something that's required, but something that's important for this location. >Fully recognize the fact that there's a substantive change in this location. With the analysis that's been put before us, in terms of the environmental review and the revisions that have been presented, the project should be moved forward. >The staff report makes it clear that it meets the objective standards. Neighbors’ concern is that it will have an environmental impact on the neighbors, and that's the nature of living in a semi -urban living environment. There are no rights to views and there's no right to light beyond what's provided by the setbacks, that's what the regulations are for, the setback regulations are to allow light and air between buildings, and this meets the objective. >Much more comfortable with the below grade solution, it seems to be better addressed in the application and agree with application to be moved forward. >Agree with most of the comments that have been made. But still have a little bit of trouble because we're going to be adding quite a bit to our system. On a separate discussion we can get into the impact fees. With the increase of toilets and the dishwashers in the kitchen, am concerned about the increase in how much water we're going to be using and the impact on the city's infrastructure. That has a lot to do Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes with the size of the units. The units they currently have there now would have one person because they are small. This proposed building will allow each unit to have a lot more people and so they will have more use. >On the landscape plan, we have the system that looks like a lawn so it is counting as part of the landscape space but can also be used as parking space. Don't think that's a reasonable way to come up with the landscape plan, because if we do that, we're going to have this all along El Camino Real where we’re not going to have the vegetation that we want. We all drive through El Camino Real along San Mateo and Millbrae and we know how stark the difference is. Everybody comments on how lush Burlingame is because of all of our trees. We do have requirements for 50 percent of the coverage of the landscape, but don't see where you can count this as a parking area or a driveway and as a landscape space as well . Agree that you need a place to have deliveries and guest parking, those are necessities for this size of a project. But what it boils down is that it feels like they're working too hard to come up with loopholes to fit a lot of building onto a site that doesn't quite handle it. >The project has been before the Planning Commission for quite some time. It’s come an incredible distance since the project was proposed. The environmental impact statement addressed a couple of the concerns that the neighbors and the members of the community brought up, which is the traffic and the parking and found that they wouldn't have significant impacts on either of those things. That's important in our consideration of this project. >Agree with fellow commissioners on the parking, having the additional parking spots are not required upfront and that's a nice addition to the project. Sharing my fellow commissioner's concern about whether the blocks can be used, but would be comfortable if the applicant can come back with an FYI to the suitability of those blocks for high traffic areas, like the entrance ramp would be. Able to support the project primarily because they have addressed the one real concern from the last meeting about the underground parking. >On the railing designs, don't know if it needs to be totally opaque or built -in, but some degree of obstacle needs to be there to help provide some privacy, particularly on the sides that are closer to the neighbors. >Have seen this project come before me three times at least. They have made good progress. One of our biggest concerns is the water table issue below for the parking. Some of that privacy concerns with the balconies that was brought up at the last meeting is still there. We really need to create some privacy for the other neighbors nearby. >If they can work with the other neighbors regarding the fence, would appreciate keeping it clean and controlled debris going into the neighbors during construction. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Action Item with the following condition: >Prior to the submittal of a Building permit, the applicant shall apply for an FYI to the Planning Commission to show new privacy materials or designs for the balconies shown on the project and to provide technical specifications for the proposed turf block pavers in the front setback of the project. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Nay:Gaul1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There were no Design Review Study Items. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Terrones reported that staff has reached out to schedule the next Neighborhood Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020 May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Consistency Subcommittee meeting. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.133 Clarendon Road - FYI for review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 133 Clarendon Rd - Memorandum 133 Clarendon Rd - Plans Attachments: Accepted. b.4 La Mesa Court - FYI for review of clarifications to a previously approved Design Review project. 4 La Mesa Ct - Memorandum 4 La Mesa Ct - Plans Attachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on May 11, 2020. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on May 21, 2020, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $1,045.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 6/23/2020