Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 12.13.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, December 13, 2010 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Yie called the December 13, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Terrones and Yie Absent: Commissioner Lindstrom, Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the November 22, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 11, sixth bullet under applicant's presentation; change "1441 "to "1445" ■ Page 13, mid -page, motion to approve; revise maker of motion to be "Cauchi" rather than "Auran" Motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Terrones abstaining). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for discussion. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Vice -Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Vice -Chair Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from voting on Item 1 a (1116 Drake Avenue) since she resides within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would be unable to vote on the item as well since he had not had the opportunity to review the audio recording of the discussion of the matter at the prior design review study session. Given that a quorum of members of the Commission was not available to vote on item 1 a, the item was held over until the next regular meeting agenda (January 10, 2011). 1a. 1116 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRET AND SUE BOTTARINI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 1 b. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2011 — STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Item 1 b (Planning Commission Calendar) was approved unanimously by a vote of the Commission. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 3 BELVEDERE COURT, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TODD B. LOWPENSKY. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 13, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; represented the applicant. ■ Not asking for variances; are in compliance with code requirements. ■ The only issue is the alleged impact upon a distant view from the neighbors' property. ■ Distant views considered by the Commission are typically those looking to the Bay or to the Airport, or to a significant tree view; the question in this instance is whether the distant views will be obstructed. The question is whether a significant view impact exists, not that there is no encroachment of the addition into a view. ■ Referenced a photograph of a view from the Gumas property from the patio, across the swimming pool, towards the bay and the airport; a fence on the Gumas property blocks the view of the addition, as well as of the story poles. ■ There is a huge differential between the Gumas property and the Lowpensky property; there is no way that the view is obstructed. ■ The City Code references views from the living areas of a residence; however, Gumas has denied the Lowpenskys access to the interior of his home for the applicant to document any potential view impacts. It is difficult to have persuasive credibility in this forum if you refuse the project proponent access to see view impacts for themselves. ■ Are reliant upon the Commissioners' perspectives regarding view impacts. ■ There is no other opposition from the neighborhood. ■ Believes that the architect and property owners began with a good project that doesn't warrant modification. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Commission comments: None. Public comments: John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive; spoke: ■ Are not against the project in any way. ■ Both sides have merit to their arguments. ■ Don't want to be antagonistic with the neighbors. ■ Hoping for some give and take; there are two sides, just looking for a compromise. ■ Asked that the roof of the addition not exceed the height of the existing roof; raise the roof no greater than one foot. (Commissioner— noted that the applicant is matching the existing roofline, not increasing the roof by two feet). Additional comments by Mark Hudak: The opponent's argument is simply about having power; where is the photograph that demonstrates the impacts from the project. Simply trying to force changes for the sake of changes; there isn't a basis for forcing changes to the project. Approve or deny the project as submitted. Additional Commission comments: Visited the property and saw the story poles; doesn't see a view corridor issue. Honestly doesn't see why the ceiling height is critical, or why the ceiling of the addition must match the existing living room. The applicant has met the requirements; doesn't see a way to compel a change to occur; requests that the applicant consider a compromise for the sake of neighbor relations. Comments by project architect Tim Raduenz, 3841 241h Street, San Francisco; Are matching the existing roofline. Critical because the addition is at the end of the home and provides relief from the eight -foot ceilings in the rest of the home. Soffited areas have been created within the interior that increase the floor -to -ceiling height. Are within the zoning standards. Further Commission comments: Encouraged a compromise for the sake of neighbor relations. (Hudak — a reduction in the roof height would result in three different roof heights. In order to get the interior effect the applicant wishes, the roof height is needed. Important to have the height for the livability of the addition. If the view were truly blocked, dropping the roof would be an important consideration; however, the proposal does not block the Gumas' view; why shouldn't the applicant receive the exterior and interior design features that they wish; unless it can be shown that the proposal creates an impact upon the neighbor. Will always be below the distant view line. Cinda Bailey (property owner) — the interior is important; has already bought furniture for the space. Has researched the difference between the floor to ceiling heights on line; if the design affected the neighbor, it would be changed. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Have been working on the project for two years; doesn't seem right to require a change to be made now.) ■ Are actually talking about 10 '/2 foot ceilings; making the request in the spirit of neighborly cooperation. ■ Is the addition matching the existing roofline? (Lowpensky — the living room roofline will be matched; it has beams that break up the ceiling. The height hides the window blinds and preserves the window design as viewed from the interior. The ceiling will not be matched within the interior, but the roofline is matched. Hudak — shouldn't it be the applicant's choice to pursue the design if it doesn't impact the neighbor?) ■ Asked about the different roofing materials. (Lowpensky — darker colors will increase heat -load. It is difficult to dictate a roofing material; appearance is all in how it is installed. Doesn't want dark grey gravel that will make it difficult to keep the room cool.) ■ Noted that the existing chimney stack is six -feet taller than the existing room. ■ With respect to the landscape fencing; asked if pressure -treated lumber will be used in the fence posts. (Lowpensky — indicated that the steel will be of a material that maintains its appearance and that the posts will be pressure -treated. Will plant whatever the adjacent neighbor wishes, since the applicant will not see the area.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. More Commission comments: ■ Everyone visited the site. ■ Wasn't able to view from the interior of the Gumas home; would believe that the view from the interior will be less of an impact. ■ Likes the height of the addition being the same as the living room. ■ Encouraged looking into different roofing materials. ■ Supports the project, with consideration given to the roofing material. ■ Feels that the City's view ordinance is vague; however, the distant views as stated in the ordinance are not greatly impacted. ■ Was in the interior of the Gumas property; the story poles were visible. ■ Would like a compromise. ■ Can't demand that the height be decreased by one -foot in the spirit of cooperation with the neighbor. ■ Supports the application as submitted; would look awkward to have three different roof heights. ■ Was not allowed to enter the Gumas property, but could see no view impacts. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 8, 2010, sheets T1.0, A1.0, AB2 through AB3.1, A2.0 through A4.0, L1.0 and L2.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that the final selection of the roofing material shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to building permit issuance; E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 27 and August 5, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's August 6, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's August 9, 2010 memo, the Park Supervisor's October 1 and August 5, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's August 4, 2010 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: ■ Supports the motion with some regret, there could be some compromise for the sake of neighborliness. ■ Doesn't see a view issue. ■ There is not really a view obstruction; the further you get into the house, the less the impact. ■ Doesn't see a problem with three roof heights. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:47 p.m. 3. 2628 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ELLIS A. SCHOICHET, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; WAYNE AND JULISSA WESTERMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 13, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet, 307 South B Street, San Mateo; represented the applicant. ■ Are considering Italian clay roofing tile; provided a small sample for viewing. • Also have a significant amount of flat roof; a cool roof may provide too much glare, so are considering a mineral surface cap -sheet in a brown color. ■ The story poles have been erected; demonstrates minimal impact upon the neighbors. ■ Was able to view the site from neighboring downslope property at 2620 Summit Drive; there are no view or privacy issues with the neighbors. Owners are willing to install additional landscaping if neighbor privacy is a concern. ■ Made attempts to visit 2640 Summit Drive on four occasions, but was unable to visit the property; provided photos from the subject site that demonstrate minimal impact upon this property. ■ Requested that a continuance not occur, since application of the new building code could financially impact the project. Public comments: None. Commission comments: Requested clarification of the metal roofing over the entry. (Schoichet — will use aged copper.) Was able to visit the Lambert property; didn't see any view impacts. The predominant views are to the left of the addition, more toward the airport. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 ■ Believes that the neighbors at 2620 Summit Drive have some ideas regarding landscaping that would help mitigate any impacts. ■ Well crafted design. ■ Noted that the Garibaldi's son had visited the Lambert property and observed no view impacts from the property. ■ No view impacts from neighbor; the story poles tell the story of how the project hugs the slope. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 28, 2010, sheets AO through A6, A8, GP-1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and date stamped December 1, 2010, sheet A7; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that the metal roofing over the entry be of a copper, as well as the downspouts; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 5, 2010 and September 27, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's October 21, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 19, 2010 letter and September 30, 2010 memo, the Park Supervisor's October 12, 2010 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 27, 2010 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc. according to the approved Planning and Building plans The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. will inspect and note compliance of the ) to verify that the project has been built Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m. 4. 1720 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND HOYMAN AND TRAM HONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 13, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Hoyman Hong, 1720 Adeline Drive; represented the applicant. Feels that the proposed horizontal grids are consistent with the architecture; as well as other recently constructed properties in the area. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 The original French doors were not practical; feel the sliding doors are more functional. Commission comments: Why remove the vertical grids? (Hong — liked the look better). Ok with the horizontal grids. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: The initial FYI (showing no window grids) detracted from the Tudor design. There are a lot of homes that lose their architectural character once the window grids are removed. The current proposal is better, but the original design was still better. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 1, 2010, sheets A.4.1, A.4.2, A.5.1 and A.5.2; date stamped July 28, 2010, sheet A.3; and date stamped July 6, 2010, sheets A.1, A.2, A.6, 1_1.0 and Boundary Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 20, 2010, and July 7, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's June 2, 2010 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 20, 2010 memo, the Parks Supervisor's May 24, 2010 and July 10, 2010 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 20, 2010 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Not supportive of the window change. Tends to like the original design better; but can accept the proposed change to the windows. Feels the design is a faux Tudor, the change is acceptable. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-2 (Commissioners 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Vistica and Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Auran dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. 8:09 p.m. 5. 1235 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA —APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FACADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT (CHRISTIAN GOEDDE, FRANCESCA'S COLLECTIONS, APPLICANT; STEVEN TURNER, MENEMSHA, DESIGNER; TYBAB PARNTERS LLC, PROPERTY OWNER STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 13, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine (9) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Terry Horn, 405 Primrose Road; represented the applicant. Windows will be dual -paned glazing. Commission comments: ■ Is there any reason why the windows couldn't be matched with the muntins present at Peet's? (Horn — was the architect's and the business owner's suggestion.) ■ The proposed windows are a bit out of scale. ■ Will they be display windows? (Horn — yes.) ■ Consider matching the muntin pattern with a wood -frame window to that present at Peet's. ■ Perhaps match the windows along the front side to Peet's, but use the same window sash frame on the perpendicular windows. ■ Match all of the windows to Peet's coffee. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 22, 2010, sheets PC-01 through PC-05; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 3. that the proposed windows shall be of a material and design that matches the existing window design at the adjacent Peet's coffee shop to the right of the tenant space; the final design shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to building permit issuance; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:16 p.m. 6. 1505 SHERMAN AVENUE (TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH), ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AFTER -SCHOOL TUTORING BUSINESS OPERATING AT AN EXISTING CHURCH SITE (SHERMAN TUNG, APPLICANT; TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (APPLICATION PREVIOUSLY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) Reference staff report dated December 13, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Vice -Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Questions of staff: ■ No additional parking required? (Strohmeier— no intensification of use is proposed; is being used for the same purpose that it has been used since the original approval.) ■ If the use were a new use, what would be the parking requirement? (Strohmeier — one parking space for each 50-square feet of instructional area.) ■ Would seem that perhaps more parking should be required. ■ Requested clarification regarding the continued use as a school -type use. (Strohmeier— clarified that the use was approved in 1983 as a pre-school; this is why it is not considered an intensification of the use. We don't know how many students were previously enrolled at the location.) ■ Asked why a traffic count was done? It was done by a volunteer from the County? (Strohmeier — the applicant wished to have a count done; Commission directed to have a study done but did not require having it prepared by a professional.) ■ When was the traffic count completed? (Strohmeier — the end of October; the tutoring center has been closed during this time. The applicant closed down the operation that was underway without approvals. The study doesn't reflect traffic generated by the use.) ■ Asked about the easement's extension; to end of block? (Strohmeier— runs to the end of the block; vehicles cross the easement when turning onto Balboa Avenue.) Wayne Lee, 1206 Hillcrest Boulevard, Millbrae; Sherman Tung, 841 Sequoia Avenue, Millbrae; Jeffrey Schufreider, Pastor at Trinity Lutheran Church, 1245 El Camino Real; and Phil Tobin, representing parents of students of Intelligent Learning; represented the applicant: ■ Started the program in September 2009. ■ Assist students with afterschool work. ■ Students have a set curriculum; students are supervised by an adult at all times. ■ Drop-off is orderly, since it is a confined space; cars slowly drive onto the property, then leave. ■ With respect to neighborhood outreach; had two people from the neighborhood that attended the meeting. Concerns were more about noise and use of the property. They indicated they liked the school and the children, but were concerned about the noise and parking. ■ Understand the need to mitigate noise from the playground. ■ Parents do not park at the location. ■ With respect to traffic; is consistent with impacts from other churches. ■ The program is in high demand; there is a waiting list. The applicant can regulate how people drop- off and pick-up children. Commission comments: ■ The program doesn't provide enough details regarding the schedule of events at the school, including recess times. A daily schedule would be helpful. ■ When the children are outside, it is possible that the children can be a disturbance. ■ Need a more defined schedule of the activities at the site. (Tung — Provided details of traffic patterns to and from the site; prior to 6 p.m. have up to 21 cars. Lee — No more than 8-10 children outside at a time. Cars slowly come into the site given the presence of children on the property. No one lingers at the site.) ■ Is there a designated pick-up location for children? ■ Asked for clarification regarding supervision of children in the play area. (Tung — are supervised at all times. Lee - The teacher follows the class out to the yard.) 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Is there anywhere else that could be used as play space on the church property? (Pastor — the southwest portion of the church parking lot is an area that could be used for play in an effort to minimize noise impacts.) Was the sense that the neighbors were concerned about noise at specific times, or during the entire day? (Lee — during the entire day.) Is there anywhere else on the property that could be used for play space? (Schufreider — the southwest portion of the church parking lot would be available for play.) Public comments: Jane Leow, 4 Hillview Court; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Nancy McGee, 1520 Sherman Avenue; Kenneth Aron, 1600 Sherman Avenue; Bob Costa, 1265 Balboa Avenue; Deborah Passanisi, 1224 Balboa Avenue; and Alisa Johnson, 1136 Cortez Avenue; spoke: ■ Daughter sometimes shares a driver; are dropped off very quickly. ■ The neighborhood has three churches and a school. ■ Is a worthwhile project. ■ The Presbyterian Church runs a program all year; they walk students to a park for exercise. ■ Children play and make noise. ■ Not all children will be out at the same time. ■ The students will be dropped off; no one will wait for 2-3 hours for their children. ■ The Presbyterian Church may possible be available for drop-off of students and students could be walked to the site. ■ Children are life in a neighborhood. Traffic is bad; but it only lasts for 20-minutes. ■ If there is a way to allow the use and find a way to drop off children and minimize noise impacts; can't see why the project should be denied. ■ Referenced her (McGee's letter); corrected that the school is actually operating in Millbrae. ■ Also noted that most of her questions have been answered by the project planner. ■ For the people living around the school; this is an intensification of the use; there has not been a consistent school on the site since 1983. ■ There have been some summer camps on the property at times. ■ The school is very large for the size of the property, and it is not affiliated with the church. ■ Other activities since 1983 have been church -affiliated as far as it is known; the current proposal is an intensification of the use. ■ The use will be a big impact on the neighborhood. ■ Referenced all of the changes to the neighborhood that have occurred since 1983; a permit issued in 1983 may not be relevant in 2010. ■ Do not approve the request. ■ It is important that the use make sense for the neighborhood. ■ This is an important issue for the neighborhood. ■ Fails to see where the mitigations are since the prior meetings; is hearing only opinions that the use is not bad for the neighborhood. ■ The discussions seem to be turning to the merits of the school. ■ The applicant is not operating a non-profit under the auspices of Trinity Lutheran Church. ■ What makes this such a compelling argument that the use should be permitted at the location. ■ Is wondering if this is an attempt by the applicant to reduce his overhead. ■ Trinity Lutheran is positioning the use as a community service; but there is no indication what the church is gaining from the use; there is a business plan with no financial information provided. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 ■ There has been no way for the members of the community to determine how the school operates based upon its current location. ■ Have not been able to do their own due diligence. ■ Feels the traffic study is inadequate; no qualifications, no criteria, etc. to form the basis for the study. ■ Is it the practice of the Planning Commission to allow data to be submitted that is designed and prepared by the applicant. ■ Is this the best use for the neighborhood; this is a commercial use encroaching into a residential area; the use is not dissimilar to Kumon Learning. ■ Similar uses at other locations are church -based. ■ Was truly offended by some of the comments made at the prior Commission meeting regarding the characterization of the neighbors; requested that the comments made be refuted. ■ Was not able to attend the neighborhood meeting. ■ How can the church use the residential zoning for a commercial enterprise? ■ Site was never used for the number of students proposed previously. ■ Feels that there will be a problem with no parking. ■ In other areas, the churches have an entire block; the church properties are in closer proximity to the residences in this area. ■ Was not aware of the community meeting. ■ Unclear whether this is a school or a learning center; there is not enough clarity. ■ Would the Commission permit something like Sylvan move into the location? (Strohmeier—would be required to go through the same process.) Closing comments from the applicant: ■ Don't refute that the center is a business, but it is consistent with the use of the property. ■ Is an impact to the neighbors, but is not an undue impact. (Commissioner — requested clarification regarding the schedule of activities.) ■ Kindergarten kids come in at a certain time. ■ Begin with tutoring based upon regular school program; then move on to art or Chinese language portion of program. ■ Children are outside for 15-minutes between classes. They do not rotate the children outside. ■ Most of the children play in the classrooms or in the inner courtyard; some may play in other areas while waiting to be picked up. Additional Commission comments: ■ Asked if the student population identified in the application is as large as the program will get? ■ Need to see some real numbers regarding the number of students, etc. (Schufrieder— church will allow no greater than 30-students. Meeker— noted that there appears to be a number of questions that remain unanswered; it doesn't appear that there are answers to the outstanding questions. Commissioner - want to consider approving the item based upon certain parameters, including recess times, students in the play area; provide something that can be used as a basis for monitoring and assuring that the neighbors are not unduly impacted.) ■ Doesn't feel that there is enough information regarding the parameters of the program. ■ Would like to be able to approve the project, but would like to set forth boundaries that provide the neighbors with recourse if the boundaries are exceeded. (Lee — feels that this is a very low impact use. Carpooling is not the issue, the number of vehicles is the issue.) Additional public comments: 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Nancy McGee, 1520 Sherman Avenue and Liz Parker, 1228 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Got to see the use in action previously; there was noise continuously and the use was disruptive. ■ The project is good for the City, but is not good for the neighborhood. ■ Would the conditions be enforceable for the space? ■ The neighbors are here because the applicant wasn't able to demonstrate that it can control the impacts from the use. ■ None of the neighbors' issues have been addressed. ■ Mainly concerned about the safety issue; have been accidents on the block, there is nowhere to park; people will park on Balboa Avenue impacting the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ Feels that the use has been and will continue to be an impact on the neighborhood; boils down to noise and traffic impacts. ■ Have been provided with a less than complete application; sounds like the use is more like a tutoring operation. ■ Needs a schedule of daily activities, numbers of students (including limits), traffic circulation plan (traffic in and out). The traffic study is invalid; need a traffic study prepared by a reputable professional that can be relied upon for accuracy of information. After all of this information is received, there will be enough information to make an informed decision. ■ Would like to see the applicant come back with the information requested; continue indefinitely. ■ Neighbors have made some compelling arguments. ■ Applicant hasn't changed significantly since the last viewing. ■ The applicant's success may be its downfall; this may not be the correct location for this use. ■ The focus is upon the tutoring more than upon the administration of the use; there could be some casual approach to administering the use that could lead to impacts upon the neighborhood. ■ Because of the traffic on El Camino Real, all pick-up and drop-off must occur on Balboa Avenue and Sherman Avenue. ■ If the play area is moved to the parking area; then that will conflict with picking up students; could result in impacts upon the neighbors. ■ Feels that it is pertinent that this use brings a use into the neighborhood that is not serving the neighborhood like a church -related use would. ■ Not comfortable with using the back -yard of the church and the City easement for traffic circulation. ■ Not saying the use is unwanted in Burlingame, but perhaps consider another location. Consider the Burlingame Lions Club hall? Kumon was previously at the location. ■ Referenced another learning center that picked up students from the other schools; could also delineate the pick-up and drop-off areas. ■ What is the history of the number of students that were previously allowed on the property; provide a detailed history of usage of the property. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the matter with strong direction to the applicant to provide all information requested during the public hearings, including the following items: Professional traffic study. Number of students, including maximum capacity. Specific drop-off and pick up locations. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Hour by hour schedule of activities. How many students will be allowed outside during recess times? The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Comments on motion: ■ Use needs to be de -intensified if provided at this location. ■ Feels that the traffic study will show a lot of traffic coming to this location; how would this be mitigated (carpooling, etc.)? ■ The applicant needs to find some means of mitigating neighborhood impacts. ■ Consider finding a location that can accommodate the business plan. ■ Need to provide some recourse if conditions aren't followed. ■ Encouraged finding a location that can better serve the use while minimally impacting the surrounding neighborhood. Vice -Chair Yie called fora voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). The Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:28 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1653 WESTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFF BOSSHARD, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 13, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Trying to avoid the wedding -cake look with the design; hence the request for a special permit for declining height envelope. Commission comments: ■ Likes the design. ■ Consider a larger scale material (6X versus 4X material) for the knee brace. ■ Thinks the massing is handled nicely. ■ Believes there is support for the Special Permit and Variance. ■ The portions of the roof flanking the gable additions (redwood crown) are a little out of place with the traditional feel of the addition; consider a simple shed roof on those portions. (Robertson — considered shed roofs, but it didn't look attractive. Didn't want the addition to get too high.) ■ The flat roof with the rail looks a bit odd; appears somewhat like a parapet; a simple shed would bring the eave line down a bit. ■ Consider placing a gable vent. (Robertson — would need to be a faux vent due to fire code.) 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 ■ The second floor deck from the office; is a bit odd facing the street; encouraged a bay window in lieu of the deck. (Robertson — felt the decks and the rails were attempts to break up massing and add design character.) ■ Consider a couple of knee braces at the gable on the south elevation. ■ Consider dressing up the design of the porch columns (perhaps a base). ■ Feels that the railing (crown) is superfluous. ■ The rear balcony is shallow; couldn't stand on it. (Robertson — is only to allow French doors that open in to the room.) Public comments: ■ None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion ■ None. Vice -Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 8. 1333 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; KAINDL PARTNERS, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated December 13, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Otto Miller, 1333 DeSoto Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Nice design. On the roof plan; sheet 4.0; regarding the gables over the bedrooms on the roof plan, but is not consistent with the elevations. (Miller — shifted to a more sloped roof to address the neighbor's concerns.) On the front elevation; finish off the drawing so that the ground line is shown to demonstrate the relationship to the ground to assist in supporting the Special Permit. EN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 ■ Behind the house (landscape plan); there are a lot of landscape pavers; wants to be certain that this area is not used as a parking space; is there a way to prevent parking in the area. (Miller — unless there is a break in the paving, someone will park there if they wish to park there.) ■ Consider continuing the planting area into this area to breakup the area. (Miller— doesn't think this type of change would prevent someone from parking at that area.) ■ Clarified that the windows will be painted wood. ■ Clarified that the chimney will be stucco. ■ On the left elevation, noted corbels; similar details are not provided on the right elevation. (Miller — is cantilevered on the left side.) ■ Is there any way to break up the long wall on the side? (Miller — not really; no one will be able to see it.) ■ Call out some of the details; size of trim details, columns, corbels, belly -band, vents, etc. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Alison Greenspan and Stan Mazer; 1337 Balboa Avenue; spoke ■ Regarding the second -floor balcony; consider some landscaping along the fence line to protect the neighbor's privacy. ■ Originally raised objections to prior design; see the current design as a significant improvement. ■ Requested clarification about the 35-foot, 2-inch height. ■ Doesn't understand the need to raise the roof as the house goes back; are the pitches of the dormers lowered as much as they can be? (Commissioner — noted that the greater height is because of the manner in which height is measured.) ■ Requested clarification regarding the design of the roof. ■ Pleased at the manner that the second floor is stepped back. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Yie called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:57 p.m. 9. 1152 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (AVTAR JOHAL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND ASHLEY CANTY. INTERIOR SOLUTIONS. DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 13, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Avtar Johal, 925 Seaview Road, Hillsborough; Erich Muelbach, 650 Fifth Street, San Francisco; and Avery Perkins, 10 Greenbrier Court, Half Moon Bay represented the applicant. Noted that the latest project plans remove the wine display area and replace it with booth seating. Want to evaluate the business after it opens to determine if alcohol sales are necessary. Commission comments: Is sidewalk seating intended? (Muelbach — may look at outside seating in the future.) What is the name of the business? (Muelbach — currently working on the name.) Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Yie called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p. M. 10. 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED APN/APS — APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW OFFICE/LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS ON AN 18.13 ACRE SITE; CONSISTING OF FOUR BUILDINGS (CONTAINING 5, 7 AND 8 STORIES) TOTALING 730,000 SQUARE FEET, A TWO-STORY AMENITIES BUILDING (37,000 SQUARE FEET), AND A FIVE -LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE; PROJECT INCLUDES AMENDMENTS TO THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO FROM 0.60 TO 1.0, REZONING OF A PORTION OF THE SITE FROM APS TO APN, AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING AND SIGN CODES TO CHANGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DAY-CARE USE, AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW (MILLENNIUM PARTNERS, APPLICANT; 350 BEACH ROAD LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; DES ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACTS: MAUREEN BROOKS/RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated December 13, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Questions of staff: 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 Requested clarification of the request for an increase in FAR from .6 to 1.0; is it based upon the parking structure? (Meeker — the majority of parking is below the podium structure, at a subterranean level; the massing of the buildings, as proposed based upon wind analyses, necessitates the request for an increase in FAR.) Asked if it would be possible to add residential condominiums to the project; if not, why? (Meeker — the Bayfront Specific Plan prohibits residential uses in the Bayfront area, including the subject site. The decision to prohibit this type of land -use was based, in part, upon the lack of availability of services that would be necessary to serve residential uses in the area.) Vice -Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Sean Jeffries, 735 Market Street, San Francisco and Tom Gilman, 399 Bradford Street, Redwood City; represented the applicant: ■ Provided a comprehensive overview of the project. ■ A pedestrian spine runs through the property allowing pedestrians to access the Bay edges. ■ About 3.5 acres of new Bay edge park will be created, with about 1/2-mile of new Bay trail. ■ About 60% of parking is in an underground garage; 30% in an above -ground structure; and 10% on the surface. (Commissioner — is there a bridge that crosses over Airport Boulevard? People use Airport Boulevard like a freeway.) Everything is at -grade; there will be pylon markers at crosswalks to show pedestrian crossings. The street has been designed to slow down traffic within the project. There will be markers and textured paving at the borders of the project to provide a sense that you are entering a special area. Street trees and median landscaping will help to define the character of the area. ■ Will be opportunities for enhanced pedestrian activities at the ground level of the buildings; for example, cafe -type uses. ■ Provided perspective views from various vantage points within the development, including Bay Trail improvements. ■ Amenities center would include fitness center, cafe, and child-care; will have a direct visual connection to buildings within the development as well as to the Bay. Parking is adjacent within the parking structure. ■ Are considering extending the subterranean parking under Airport Boulevard to promote circulation and air -flow. (Commissioner — will the parking be closed on weekends?) Not having fully evaluated the operation of parking facilities, there may be gates present at the entries to the subterranean parking structures; though there would be surface parking available to persons on the site on the weekends. ■ Though much of the landscaped area is on top of the podium structure; it will be designed in a manner that landscaping can be installed much like would occur in a non -podium area. Bermed areas will provide a smooth transition from the Bay Trail to the interior of the site. Seating that could be provided along the Bay Trail will be wind -protected by the berms. ■ Trying to provide opportunities for as much laboratory spaces along the perimeter spaces of the interior of the buildings to promote natural light; with interior spaces for offices. ■ The facades of the buildings are formed by the wind and exposure to the natural light; trying to be as sustainable as possible. ■ Provided an overview of potential exterior finishing materials. ■ Provided views from the amenities center. (Commissioner — is there parking connected to the amenities center for the child-care use?) Parking occurs immediately adjacent to the building; including drop-off location and dedicated parking. 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 LEED Gold standard (or equal) anticipated. Designing a state-of-the-art office/life-science campus; looking at solar, rainwater harvesting, day -lighting, energy -efficient skins, recycled water use for irrigation, drought -tolerant landscaping, and low water usage. Commission comments: ■ Asked about the location of food service; is it strictly in the amenities building? (Gilman — would be in the amenities building initially, but in the long-term, could be food service for employees within the individual buildings.) For the most part, the buildings will be office uses. ■ Will the amenities building and its uses be open to the public? (Gilman — would likely be opened to the general public as well as to the project tenants. Would provide opportunities for others already in the area to use the amenities.) ■ Asked if wind studies have been done? Most wind is from the northwest; how will wind surfers be affected? There is a wind -shadow in the area already. (Gilman — have worked in a wind tunnel with various models in an effort to minimize wind -surfing impacts. Anticipate that they will be in the wind -tunnel again in order to fine-tune the wind affects. Has been their intent to live up to the community wind standard from the original project on the site.) ■ Noted that a wind turbine was approved for a nearby site; are other such features being considered? (Gilman — are considering various sustainability features that may be incorporated into the design.) ■ Spoke to traffic circulation to and from the site; there is no access to the site from the south. Broadway is really the only way to the site. (Gilman — a traffic study will be prepared as part of the EIR, additionally Fehr and Peers study has been used to inform the formulation of the project.) ■ Encouraged shuttles into and out of the project to BART. (Gilman — will provide a TDM plan, initially with a minimum 10% trip reduction goal. Will consider shuttle connectivity between BART and CalTrain.) ■ Will there be bike racks? (Gilman — yes, will be near Sanchez Channel.) ■ What does Millennium think of housing in the area? (Jeffries — to get the services necessary for residential development; the magnitude of development that would be necessary support the needed services would be significant. Looked at noise from the airport and the freeway as well. The density that would be required on the site would be problematic.) ■ The developer is operating on the direction of the City that housing is not allowed. However, can easily imagine a scenario where if housing were provided; persons living there would drive their children to existing schools. The City is missing an opportunity by prohibiting housing in the area. This is a great opportunity to imagine a future where young professionals are living and working in the area. Mixed -use is called for in the Bayfront Plan. ■ Are taking the specific plan that was worked on previously is being gutted; we're not getting mixed - use, but are now encouraging corporate campus, more height and increased FAR. ■ We encouraged internalized parking, but now we have an office park with a lot of surface parking. ■ When thinking of an office campus, thinking of a place that one would wish to be, rather than just office park with nice buildings. ■ The City has an affordable housing issue; condominiums could be a means of providing affordable housing. ■ Couldn't Airport Boulevard be depressed with a pedestrian element that is separated from the traffic. (Meeker— referenced initial meetings with developer that included Commissioners Terrones and Vistica that encouraged bring the street to the same level as pedestrians to provide a pedestrian experience.) ■ Recalled encouraging a more pedestrian -oriented frontage for buildings with uses on the ground floor that would be mixed use and create a sense of a neighborhood in the area. 22 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 ■ Encouraged uses on the ground -floor that promoted pedestrian use and a more pedestrian oriented use. ■ Look at the supportability of the additional office space and impacts upon other office uses in the area. (Jeffries — confirmed that the uses are supportable.) ■ If we are creating a corporate campus that has an attraction, the area needs to be lively enough to be an attraction for the area and be distinctly different from other office developments in the Bayfront area. ■ Referenced the illustration contained within the specific plan that seemed to represent a more campus -oriented development; feels the proposal is more of an office park. ■ Haven't created a reason to stop in the area; there is nothing compelling cause one to stop in the area. If there was retail lining either side of the street it would be more of a reason to stop in the area. As designed will only be vibrant during the day. ■ Would be nice to have more attractions for Burlingame residents. ■ There are a few businesses in the area that are frequented by City residents; the development has a feel that may be like a ghost -town on the weekends, similar to Redwood Shores. Give people a reason to slow -down and visit the area. ■ The site is a southern gateway to the City; with the proposed plan, the shoreline is self-contained by the development; reduces its appeal to residents and visitors. ■ This is a pioneer project; currently, people can live out their lives and not know that they live on the Bay. ■ The Bayfront has been given over to the hotels, now it would be given over to an office development; it is not the bayfront that could be. ■ The surface parking is shown on the water side, could be on the other side; walkways could be widened as well as the Bayfront portion of the site. ■ Nicely designed, but seems to be an island where people will work, but won't be utilized by anyone else in Burlingame. ■ Excited about the sustainability features and the LEED Gold goal for the design. Public comments: Jim McGrath, 2301 Brussel Street, Berkeley (representing San Francisco Board -Sailing Organization); Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Anna Shimko (representing adjacent property owner), 1 Market Plaza, San Francisco; spoke: ■ Appreciated that the developer is going to look at wind velocity and turbulence. ■ Is a complicated project. ■ Shorelines with areas where wind comes close enough to the shore are rare; Coyote Point is one of few prime areas in the Bay Area. ■ Since the original plan was considered by the City, the BCDC amended its Bay Plan in 2006; consistency with adopted plans is a hallmark for determining significant impact (on Plan Map 6); with respect to Coyote Point the Bay Plan says to preserve and improve wind -surfing and provide opportunities for non -motorized small boats. Are actively used in the area. ■ Features within designated waterfront parks that provide optimal conditions for specific water -based recreational uses should be preserved. There is a framework of policy that recognizes recreation. Need to provide a high -degree of transparency; want to see the full results of the wind model analysis of impacts; including a robust array of alternatives. Encouraged the City to conduct a workshop to fully discuss the approach. ■ Should take into account various levels of sea -level rise during the lifetime of the project. ■ Define clear thresholds of significance so that clear mitigation measures can be developed. 23 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 ■ The area was always the cash -cow for the City; specifically designed for recreation and hotels; no housing is supported in the area. ■ The hotels have provided services that all cities on the Peninsula have been envious of. ■ Will fight to keep housing from being in the area; is a lousy place to live. (Commissioner — is a great opportunity for housing in the area.) ■ With respect to bicycles; the roadway design will provide better buffering from wind; but will not truly slow down traffic due to the wide lanes; there are no bike -lanes shown, there should be. Provide area for bike lanes, not bike paths. Reduce the median a bit to accommodate this change and encourage bicycle commuting. ■ Noted the narrowing of the street near the southeast corner of the site; will likely be widened at some point in the future; will still encourage vehicles to speed through the site. ■ The bicycle parking tends to be minimal with this type of development. Provide racks that encourage use and opportunities for weather -protected bicycle areas. ■ Provide shower facilities within the buildings and amenities building to allow areas for bicyclists to clean up before work. ■ Consider bicycle -sharing program; could broaden to allow use by other businesses in the area. ■ Notice and staff report indicate the changes that would affect not only changes that will affect not only 300 Airport Boulevard and the adjacent 350 Airport Boulevard. It is expected that the EIR will evaluate the higher level of development that could occur on both properties. ■ Are somewhat behind Millennium Partners in the development process; expect to have a decision whether or not they wish to proceed with development on their site in the upcoming months. ■ The EIR should ensure that sufficient infrastructure capacity (water, sewer, traffic, etc.), ingress/egress is provided and all proposed amendments will be provided to 350 Airport Boulevard and evaluation occurs based the sites' highest permitted levels of development. Clarified that the adjacent site is roughly 9-acres. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. No action was required by the Commission. This item concluded at 11:05 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of December 6, 2010: None. FYI: 1212 Mills Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. 24 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes December 13, 2010 FYI: 1121 Drake Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: 2200 Poppy Drive — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — November, 2010. ■ Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 11:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Gaul, Secretary 25