HomeMy WebLinkAbout619-625 California Drive - Staff Report.v'���;
��`���
BURI..INGAMF
� .:;� �. �;.
DATE
�
�►�il
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
November 6, 2018
Planning Commission
Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager
Director's Report
Meeting Date: November 13, 2018
SUBJECT: FYI — REVIEW OF CHANGES REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT
AT 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, NORTH CALIFORNIA DRIVE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
Summary: An application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review,
Conditional Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit and Lot Merger for construction
of a new four-story, 26-unit live/work development with retail commercial space on the ground
floor at 619-625 California Drive, zoned C-2, North California Drive Commercial District, was
approved by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2018 (see attached September 24,
2018 Planning Commission Minutes). A building permit has not yet been submitted for this
project.
At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project based upon the following
revisions being reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building
permit:
1) Refine the exterior color palette by working in some warmth and depth;
2) Revisit the size of the roof terraces, particularly those at the rear of the building
facing the adjacent neighbor; and
3) Revisit the articulation of the stairwelf at the corner of the building, including adding
glazing to soften the stairwell.
Please refer to the attached letters submitted by the project architect, dated October 29, 2018,
for an explanation and detailed list of changes made to the project in response to the
Commission's direction. Revised visual simulations and plans, date stamped October 30, 2018,
were submitted to show the changes to the originally approved project. The originally approved
plans, date stamped September 18, 2018, have been attached for reference.
If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action
calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
Attachments:
Explanation letters submitted by the architect, dated October 29, 2018
September 24, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
Originally approved plans, date stamped September 18, 2018
Revised plans, date stamped October 30, 2018
. . .. _ 1i_.w � kb � � �
PROJECT: California Drive Live/Work
619-625 California Drive, Burlingame CA
\k(�i II I I(�f I IKI
L��B
15666
10/29/2018
)ob#:
,,e-, ,.. .��';=:'�_iNGAME Date:
`•r �!�'.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission FYI
ArchitecYs summary and response to conditions of approval from 9/24/2018 action hearing.
6
of Comments and Architect's
These notes summarize the design team's responses to the Conditions of Approval imposed by the
Planning Commission Action Hearing on 9/24/2018.
Conditions of A�proval:
1. Applicant shall refine the exterior color palette by working in some warmth and depth.
Acknowledged and amended.
The exterior color palette has been reselected in res�onse ro the Commissioners' comments
regarding'warming' the overall im�ression of the building and enhancing the appearance of
'de�th'.
a. The updated palette is based on a new warm and earthy base color for the Ceraclad
horizontal 'reveal' panels (color 60). The selection is much warmer and more saturated
than the previous color. The appearance of depth created via the more saturated base
color will be further enhanced by the crisp horizontal shadow lines generated by the
ribbed surfaces in the panels. The proposed base color is a beautiful accompaniment to the
Architecture of the building, and broadens the range of contrast between the various
elements of the facade.
b. The smooth Ceraclad panels at the 4`h Floor exterior walls (color OO ) and the integral color
limestone cement plaster (colors OO and 40) have been reselected in a range of warm off-
whites to complement the new base color. The two plaster colors will be applied in a
range of three different textures across the building facades.
c. Wood planks have been added above the entrance to the Common Terrace at the 4'" Floor
upper roof soffit. This will create a point of visual interest offering additional warmth and
visual depth at the upper reaches of the facade.
d. The facia of the 4'h Floor upper roof has been changed to echo the anodized aluminum
extrusion that characterizes the 3�`' Floor cornice. Adding this darker, horizontal datum line
at the uppermost story will impart greater contrast at the upper roof and increased sense of
de�th the overall perception of the building.
" �
i�� �i�'
� r�, ��1i, .,� ,. ._.��i �� ..�;; ;, ;�-, ,,;i�
�1�, rrn���'� .�1� _��i��� SF�rti��nG" filr t��P �'��in��nc in t���
2. Applicant shall revisit the size of the roof terraces, particularly those at the rear of the building
facing the adjacent neighbor.
Acknowledged and amended.
The sizes of the private roof terraces on the 4ih floor have been reduced significantly.
a. The previous delta 5 design indicated the depth of the California Drive facing terraces to
be 10' (units #23 and #24), and 12' at the rear facing terraces (Units #25 ancl #26). In all
r_ii�s A. s�no�<�nE� nin
Peninsula Building • 30; South "[3" Street tt12 . San b1atE� CA 94-301 • 650 • 343 • 34i2
cases the depth is now reduced to 8'. The private terraces facing the adjacent neighbor are
reduced by 4'.
b. The widths of the private terraces have also been reduced as follows:
Delta 5 desi�n
Unit #23: 49'
Unit #24: 45'
Unit #25: 48'
Unit #26: 50'
Updated delta 6 design
41'
39'
40.5'
42'
Reduction in width
-8'
-6'
-7.5'
-8'
3. Applicant shall revisit the articulation of the stairwell at the corner of the building, including
adding glazing to soften the stairwelL (Architect's note: This comment refers to Stair # 1/.
Acknowledged and amended.
Stair #1 and its enclosure have been redesigned in response to the Planning Commissioners'
and the public commenter's concerns about its appearance.
a. The stair enclosure no longer breaks the 3�`' Floor cornice line. IYs been fully integrated
into the mass of the building at the lower three floors, and steps back above the 3"' Floor
level to rise entirely within the perimeter walls of the 4`h Floor. The proposed change
eliminates any impression of the Stair #1 enclosure as a'tower'.
b. Fenestration at the Stair #1 enclosure has been significantly increased with the use of a 2-
hour fire-rated glazing system. The updated design has glazing wra�ping the corner of the
building at all 4 Floor levels, with a large setback at the 4`h Floor level.
End of Response to the Planning Commission's conditions of approval- p/ease call if you have
questions. Thank you.
"� Ulgrtalty signM by Eilis A.
Schoichef AIA
. UN�cn=E:lisA.SchoichetAlA
'� �ate�.7018.11.0713�51�2ft
. ...., -0/.,�.
Ellis A Schoichet AIA
650.343.34 �2
Note:
A detailed list of changes to the 8/27/2018 Delta 5 plan set is attached for reference.
EASA Architecture California Drive Live/Work 2 of 2
�s. _
; �;� 1i���'�' �:
�,.�. .,, .
:�. � :��: �
i;`�w.; �.; �
'!. Y.w.'
PROjECT: California Drive Live/Work f3uilding
619-625 California Drive, Burlingame CA
���'����r�v����
:0U -� 2018
�! i Y'�F 3URlIPlGA.i,if�oh�: 15666
, ,. ,;_ _ _, Date: 10/29/2018
City of Burlingame Planning Commission FYI
Delta 6(10/29/2018): List of Changes lrom Delta 5/ PC Action (8/27/2018)
A1
1. Fenestration at Stair # 1 enclosure has been modified.
A2
A3
A4
A5
1. Fenestration at Stair # 1 enclosure has been modified.
2. Stair # 1 up fi�om 2"`� Floor has been modified.
1. Fenestration at Stair # 1 enclosure has been modified.
2. Stair # 1 up and down Irom 3"' Floor has been modified.
3. Design of Stair # 1 enclosure has been modified.
1. Fenestration at Stair # 1 enclosure has been modified.
2. Stair # 1 do�vn from 4th Floor has been modified.
3. Design of Stair # 1 enclosure has been modified.
4. Size of private terraces has been reduced for Units #23-26.
1. Design of Stair # 1 enclosure has been modified.
2. Size of private terraces has t�een reduced for Units #23-26.
A6-A7
1. Design of Stair # 1 enclosure has been modified.
2. Size of private terraces has ,�een reduced for Units #23-26.
3. Facia at 4`� Floor upper roof has been modified to match 3�`' Floor cornice treatment.
A8-A9
1. Design of Stair # 1 enclosure h��s been modified.
2. Size of private terraces has been recluced for Units #23-26.
3. Facia at 4'`' Floor upper roof has been modified to match 3'`� Floor cornice treatment.
A21
New Sheet sho�ving 4`" Floor Reflected Ceiling Plan.
RENDERINGS
1. Views # 1-5 have been updated with revised color palette.
2. Views #1-.S have been updated with facia at 4'h Floor upper roof matching 3�`' Floor
cornice treatment.
3. View #2 is u�dated with ne�v design for Stair # 1 enclosure.
4. View #2 is upciated to indicate wood soffit at 4�'' Floor upper roof over doors to Common
Terrace.
Fllis A. Schoichet AIA
Peninsula Building • 30; Sou�h "[3" Street .12 • San Mateo CA 94401 • 650 • 343 • 3452
PANEL COLOR SELECTIONS, COLOR BOARD and KEY
1. 'Panel Color Selections' sheet has been updated with ne�v color palette.
2. A copy of View #2 has been annotated with keys referencing the new color palette.
3. The color and materials board has been updated with the new color palette.
This list is intended as an overview/summary of significant changes and may not note every
subtle or minor modification. Please call if you have questions about any specific item. Thank
you.
�
, ����,�;_���:
`= .
�... .
' .lattc'iA 1:.:i`•� .
,_ _ . f..� . 1:.. _
Ellis A Schoichet AlA
650.343.3452
Digitally signed by Ellis
A. Schoichet AIA
DN: cn=Ellis A. Schoichet
AIA
Date: 2018.11.02
13:41:02 -07'00'
2of2
����
BURLINGAME
I a� ��
���1ir��.�� '
Monday, September 24, 2018
7:00 PM
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers
d. 619-625 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) -
Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review, Conditional
Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit, and Tentative Condominium Map
and Tentative Parcel Map for a new four-story, 26-Unit live/work development with retail
commercial space on the ground floor. (Ellis A. Schoichet, AIA, applicant and architect;
Ed 1005 BM LLC, property owner) (239 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Tse and Loftis met with the applicant.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
• Page 4 of staff report indicafes that the maximum building height allowed is 75 feet, is that correct%
(Hurin: No, the maximum height allowed is 55 feet, will correct the staff report.)
• We don't have a breakdown of the public impact fees, but is the fee stated in the staff report correct?
(Hurin: Yes, it is correctly stated in the staff report.)
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Ellis Schoichet, project architect, represenfed the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
• What is the average unit size for the residential unifs? (Schoichet: Unit sizes vary between 900 and
1,100 square feet; average is approximately 1,000 square feet.)
• Point out CERACLAD "Cannonball" siding on proposed building elevations and materials board.
(Schoichet: CERACLAD "Cannonball" is noted with a different keynote on plans. It is proposed to be
used on panels with a horizontal reveal.)
• Rendering is deceiving because it makes the building very grey and monotone.
• Concerned that the color disappeared and looks monochromatic. (Schoichet: There will be several
stucco colors and a palette of textures, from very smooth to slightly fextured. Idea of using CERACLAD
fiber cement panels on fourth floor is to have it be fog like. Horizontal CERACLAD is intended to be in
more highly visible locations at the base and shaft of the building. Porcelain panels in a gray, stone
texture are proposed in and around storefronts on ground floor. Provided examples of similar palette of
materials on building in San Francisco.)
• What is happening with the glazing? (Schoichet: Want to have maximum glazing for light into the units
and also for the aesthetic of the building, but at same time don't want people on street looking up into the
units. So a spandrel panel, consisting of fritted glazing, would be used across the bottom of the windows .
Fritted glazing would also be used on some of fhe storefronts.)
• How deep are fourth floor private terraces? Specifically concerned with the terraces at the rear of the
building. At 12 feet wide by 47 and 49 feet long, they seem large. (Schoichet: Yes, they are large. �th
all that roof space, iYs what we've decided to do.)
• There is an 8.5 foot wide curb cut on California Drive. Is it just for trash removal? (Schoichet� Yes,
iYs just for the dumpsters.)
• Is curb cut on California Drive reason for removal of the Magnolia street tree? (Schoichet: This is a
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Builingame paye � Piinted on 11/6/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2018
13-inch diameter tree and is not in very good shape. Curb cut would require removal of the tree.)
• Have you considered replacing it with another tree7 (Schoichet: Believe there is another existing tree
next to it, so did not consider adding a new street tree.)
• Understand traffic study and traffic flow and am familiar with that intersecfion. Given that westbound
Oak Grove Avenue is one lane, am concerned about impacts from someone wanting to tum left into site
off Oak Grove Avenue. Has consideration been given to something like painting "keep clear" in the
sfreet, like you would see at an approach to a left hand turn? (Schoichet: Would like to leave it to the
experts, but my understanding is that the Public Works Department doesn't want to make a permanent
sign/marker in street.)
• Corner plaza area could turn into natural high school meeting spot before and after school for student
drop off and pick up; could increase amounf of traffic at intersection. (Schoichet: Curb will be painted red
at corner to prevent vehicles from stopping there.)
• Red zone will be from project driveway to corner along Oak Grove Avenue? (Schoichet: Currently, red
zone starts at middle of proposed driveway and extends to the corner and will remain. Mitigafion measure
from traffic report calls for a red zone from project driveway to west end of property to maximize visibility
from driveway and enhance safety of vehicles exiting the site.)
• Find balance by brown color shown in commercial space on rendering; compliments and offsets cool,
light colors on rest of building. Seems like there should be some counter balance to colors, consider
adding warmth to finishes. (Schoichet: Point is well taken.)
• Design has moved along nicely.
Public Comments:
• Danelle Renks: Longtime resident and live around the corner. What buildings are being demolished
and are they currently occupied? (Schoichef: Two houses on corner and existing auto shop will be
demolished. Corner building is being used as an office, there is a short term tenant in building behind it
and an automobile shop in the commercial building). Concerned that current occupants are being moved
out. Think this is a beautiful building, should use green building materials and greywater system to
irrigate landscaping. Concerned with fraffic, Oak Grove Avenue is major thoroughfare to freeway, Carolan
Avenue, California Drive and high school. Would like to see construction vehicle parking moved to
Caltrain parking lof to alleviate traffic jams.
• Sam Jones, Coffee Family Trust: Own apartment building across street. Trying to reconcile resu/ts
of the traffic sfudy, see backups of 10-15 cars all the time and area of proposed driveway constantly
blocked with cars. Perhaps studies were done when school was not in session, there is a lot of traffic
generated from parents dropping off and picking up kids. Intersection is a mess, traffic impacts are not
just during peak hours.
• Elma Kim: Lives in neighborhood, in support of project, important that there are live/work opportunities
provided, needed for entrepreneurs coming to this area. Trusting the Commission and community to find
the right solution for the traffic. In morning; experience traffic along Oak Grove Avenue wanting to make a
left o� right turn onto California Drive. Question veracity and honesty of traffic study. Vehicles will not be
able to turn left into the project site off Oak Grove Avenue due to vehicles driving towards California Drive .
There is a potential for traffic accidents because cars whip around onto Oak Grove Avenue assuming
there will be no hindrances. Would like to see ingress on California Drive. Don't think there should be a
left hand turn from project driveway.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
• Concerned with traffic impacts in area, should be looked at a bit closer.
where ingress and egress to the site was addressed. See vehicle backup
approaching California Drive all the time.
• Green zone along California Drive for pick-up and delivery may or may
discussed with Public Works Department.
Didn't see in traffic study
on Oak Grove Avenue
not work, needs to be
City of Burlingame paye p Printed on �1/6/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2018
• With 26 live/work units and two commercial spaces, believe there will be deliverres made every day
and am concerned there is no area provided for deliveries. A space for delivery vehicles is critical.
• Uber and Lyft may a/so have an impact on traffic.
• Is the transportation consultant selected by the applicant or City? (Hurin: After reviewing proposals
from environmental consultanfs, the City selects an environmental consultanf who has a subconsultant
prepare the traffic analysis, the City, not the applicant, manages the environmental consultant.)
• Traffic studies often don't match a gut feeling one has about traffic will be impacted by a project.
When analyzing projects, need to use best analytical tools available.
• Like the direction the archifecture has gone, this is a good looking building. The zoning is appropriate
for this kind of project in this area.
• Lrke idea of having retail here. Will tie in really nicely to retail node north of this site.
• Having a hard time with the corner location and how the architecture is treated. Most visible part of
this project is going to be what's visible from the corner of Oak Grove Avenue and California Drive.
• Downtown Specific Plan talks about corner locations as being important and having special
architectural requirements. Corner is least architecturally inviting part of the building.
• Like drrection of architecture, it has an elegant, timeless quality. However, project still needs warmth,
needs to be studied further.
• Regarding traffic, we shouldn't ever rely on gut feel. We have to rely on engineering and calculations,
as required by CEQA. Need to analyze whether or not something rises to the level of impact that causes
any further mitigation relative to CEQA.
• Should look at traffic confrols in an out of the driveway, because of its specific location. Many of the
issues of the specific location are relative somewhat to peak periods.
• There is a real intensity in mornings because of the elementary school and high school in the area.
• Could ask Public Works to comment on whether or not there should be traffic controls at project
driveway.
• Overall good project and adds housing units in great location. We have an opportunity to create
housing in an area where we need it.
• Have better potential to serve our downtown area with housing in locations such as this.
• Have questions for traffic consultant if he is available.
Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing.
Gary Black, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, was present to answer questions.
• Can you explain how trips are analyzed for live/work developments? Are the morning trips eliminated
because residents are working from their units? (Black: Typically treat live/work units as saying that
those two factors offset each other, so in the tratfic study they are treated as typical apartment units in
terms of trip generation.)
• That doesn't mean that you've eliminated people leaving to go to work. (Black: No, we haven't.)
• Just because this is a live/work building, there is no guarantee that someone won't have a job
elsewhere. (Black. There may also be units that have more than one employed person living there.
Traffic study reflects people going to work in the morning.)
• So this trip generation has been accommodated in the traffic study and in the level of service analysis
that's done for the intersections nearby? (Black: Yes.)
• Has any consideration been given to left hand turns into site and blocking Oak Grove Avenue?
(Black: Yes, it was addressed in the traffic study on page 14. It discusses the average and maximum
queue length at the signal and whether that would extend back to the driveway to create the situation
where a vehicle wants to turn left into the site and the driveway is blocked. Traffic study concludes that it
would happen rarely and project doesn'f generate that much traffic. The busrest time on Oak Grove
Avenue heading towards Californra Drive rs in the morning when people are going to school. Generally,
residents from this project would be leaving the site in the morning, not coming in; they tend to come into
the site in the afternoon. There is not as much traffic on Oak Grove Avenue in the afternoon based on
our traffic counts. So the situation you're envisioning will be infrequent. The average queue length, even
in the morning, based on our observations and calculations, does not go back as far as the driveway.
City o/ Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 11/8/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2018
Sometimes, when the maximum queue is reached, it does go back to the driveway and past the driveway.
We also have to consider that if we're going to have a project, there needs to be a driveway somewhere,
and in our opinion the driveway is in the best location that you could put a driveway. IYs as far away from
California Drive as you can get it, would not recommend a driveway on California Drive. Driveway controls
are not necessary, don't see that there would be left turn conflicts on a regular basis.)
• When preparing a traffic study, you're not just using a book and applying the data to the real world,
you're actuaUy taking counts, correct? (Black: Yes, we counted traffic on Oak Grove Avenue and
California Drive. The am and pm peak hour counts are provided in the traffic study; also make
observations on how traffic operates during these times. The counts were done while school was in
session.)
• Trafiic study as part of General Plan updated noted areas of concern. Was this intersection one of
those areas? (Hurin: Believe areas of concern included the intersection at Broadway and the Oak Grove
Avenue/Carolan Avenue intersection.)
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Continued Discussion:
• Project has come a long way, no longer feels like a cartoon, feels like a real building now. Don't think
the colors are right yet. However, the materials are much more substantial. Renderings are not helping
because they're so stark.
• Materials can be fine-tuned, but that shouldn't stop the project from moving forward.
• Concerned about the large private terraces at rear of building facing the residential neighborhood .
Suggest that roof planters be added to reduce size of usable area; should be substantially reduced .
Could come back for review as an FYI if we move forward with project.
• Like where project is going, appreciate adding more trees in rear yard. Agree that terraces are too
large, concerned with noise from activity on terraces traveling to neighbors, size of terraces need to be
reduced.
• Like design of building, fhe stepped back fourth floor and dip in roof, takes away from hard edges
around building.
• No matter what is built, traffic will be a problem fo� people living in area. City has changed over the
years, can't expect small projects to be built any longer at these locations.
• Unfortunate that at some points during the day traffic will be a problem, will be felt by people living in
area, but reality is that someone living in a house at that corner is gone.
• Live/work in Burlingame is still an experiment, but this building in its high tra�c location is proper
place to try live/work to see if it will be successful. Think project wil! be successful.
• Concerned with stairwell design at corner, is tallest part of building and is stark and blank. Would
like design of stairwell to be looked at again.
• Should look at Section 5.2.5.7 of the Downtown Specific Plan regarding fagade treatments on corner
parcels.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the
application with the following condition:
• that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning
Commission review to address the following items: 1) refine the exterior color palette by working
in some warmth and depth; 2) revisit the size of the roof terraces, particularly those at the rear of
the building facing the adjacent neighbor; and 3) revisit the articulation of the stairwell at the
corner of the building, including adding glazing to soften the stairwell.
Commission discussion:
• Broad to say study articulation on the corner, can we say anything more specific? Perhaps
introducing glazing to soften the stairwell, reduce its apparent size and be more interesting.
Would not be as solid and would see more life in that corner.
City of Burlinqame Page 4 Prinied on 11/8/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2018
• Proposed ground level treatment at corner is significant, this is what most people will see.
Pedestrians will experience seating, trees and vegetation. Treatment of stairwell at corner with
the vegetation could be very nice.
• Not in support of motion, feel that approval is premature given concerns with the design of
the stairwell at the corner, merits more consideration by the applicant.
• FYI can be brought back for further discussion. Have seen project several times and
applicant has made significant improvements, need to move on and take action.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6- Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
Nay: 1 - Sargent
Clty of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 11/8/2018