PLANNI
NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
M I N U T
E S
SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m. by Chair Jagtiani
This meeting was held as a hybrid meeting.
2. ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Haddad, Pedro, Venkat, and Chair Jagtiani
Absent:
Commissioners Bronitsky
Staff Present: Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director; Helen Gannon, Associate Planner; and Denise Bazzano, Assistant City Attorney
3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
1. None
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
ACTION:
Motion by Commissioner Pedro, seconded by Commissioner Haddad to approve the Minutes of August 17, 2023 Regular Meeting, passed 4-0-0-1 (Absent:
Bronitsky)
5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
1. None
6. NEW PUBLIC HEARING
1. CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT TO RELO CATE
AND CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY ON A SITE WHICH CONTAINS A
SHARED DRIVEWAY, ADD SIX NEW SKYLIGHTS, EXPAND AN EXISTING COVERED PATIO IN THE REAR, AND CONSTRUCT A TOTAL OF 770 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION
TO THE FRONT AND REAR ELEVATION OF THE SINGLE-STORY SINGLE-FAMI LY HOME LOCATED AT 106 CHALLENGE COURT IN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 – AR2023-0004 Planning Commission and Public Comments:
Kirti Patel, the applicant for 106 Challenge Court, shared his family’s needs, including separate office spaces to work from home and proposin g single-story addition,
keeping in mind privacy of the neighbors and characteristics of an Eichler home.
The applicant noted that they have accommodated changes i n their final DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
design per neighbor’s requests and there is no record of a shar ed driveway. A driveway study was prepared by Kimley-Horn using the two larges t minivans. He then shared examples from the surrounding neighborhood, including 103 and 104 Challenge Court, 650 Matsonia Drive.
Mr. Bernal from Kimley Horn explained the driveway study is in cluded as an attachment to the staff report and shared his recommendations. Commissioner Venkat asked if there were other rebuttals from a ny other neighbors besides 104 Challenge, to which staff replied that no other nei ghbors provided comments.
Commissioner Haddad asked if there are any city requirements f or on-street parking as the proposed driveway will result in loss of a parki ng space, to which staff replied that we do not have the requirements.
Commissioner Pedro asked if the movement for 104 Challenge Cou rt would be impacted, to which Mr. Bernal replied yes. Then the Commissione r asked about the best practice regarding single turn that Traffic Patterns i ncluded in the peer review. Mr. Bernal replied that in the current built environment, it is not uncommon for a garage to require a three-point turn movement.
Chair Jagtiani asked if, in the future, the homeowner for 104 Challenge Court decides to sell the house, they would need to include a disclos ure or recommendation regarding the reverse entry for a single movemen t entry. Mr.
Bernal replied that he is not aware of such a requirement and t hat it would only apply if there was a second car parked already. Chair Jagtiani then asked if there would be any impact to emergency vehicles. Mr. Bernal noted tha t he was not aware of ambulances using driveways or requirements related to it. Lastly, Chair Jagtiani asked if the consultant would have a different conclus ion to the report if he were to prepare it for the neighbor’s property at 104 Challenge Court. Commissioner Pedro asked Mr. Rodriguez from Traffic Patterns a bout the impact on 104 Challenge Court if the best practices mentioned in the peer review are not followed. Mr. Rodriguez replied that he is not aware of any new construction that does not require a single movement and the review was done keeping in mind how would it impact the 104 Challenge Court as it operates today and believes there is a significant impact.
Commissioner Haddad questioned whether widening of the drivewa y for 104 Challenge Court could resolve the issue of entering the garage. Mr. Rodriguez suggested that this specific scenario hasn't been analyzed, so it's unclear whether it would definitively solve the issue.
Commissioner Haddad requested the applicant to consider explor ing this option.
The applicant expressed willingness to investigate widening the entrance as a potential solution. However, the Assistant City Attorney noted that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed project.
Commissioner Venkat questioned the designer regarding the desi gn choices, particularly the use of larger windows facing the street in an Eichler-style home, and whether there are any examples of similar Eichlers that have opened the front for additional windows and light. The designer responded by mentioning that they are not prepared to discuss other houses but notes that historically, Eichler homes have had more backyard-oriented glazing. However, she emphasize d that the purpose of the rooms being added, which are meant to be offices, played a role in DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
the design decisions. The designer also mentioned that the neighbor's preference led to the relocation of the office entrance.
Commissioner Pedro asked if widening the driveway of 106 Chall enge Court would lessen the impact on 104 Challenge Court. Mr. Bernal answered t hat it would not make a difference.
Commissioner Venkat questioned one of the written public comme nts regarding the depreciation of the property value for 104 Challenge Court. Nancy Harmon, a resident of 104 Challenge Court for over 37 ye ars, shared that she has had the benefit of being able to pull-in and back out o f both sides of the driveway and is happy that Traffic Patterns was called in for a n opinion and concurred that this development would result in significant neg ative circulation.
She mentioned the absence of consideration for recreational veh icles, which retirees like her may purchase and asked for consideration of t he same. She referred to previously submitted comments from a realtor and Ch ris Eckert. She noted appreciation for the changes that the applicants made as per their request including the location of a door and a notch to the building to give them more room.
She requested that story poles be erected to visualize the impact of the proposed changes on the area's accessibility. She then requested to put story poles with mesh and drawing a line with chalk was not sufficient. The applicant also proposed to extend the neighbor’s driveway.
Bill Borter is concerned about the lack of clarity regarding h ow the proposed house will impact the area. He mentioned a desire for visual representations, like netting seen in other Bay Area projects, to better understand the chang es. Mr. Borter described his parking habits and how the proposed changes would affect them.
He expressed concerns about the need to back out onto the street or driveway. He acknowledged the concessions made by the applicant but emphasiz ed the importance of understanding the impact on his property's value, noting that there is already a negative impact.
The majority of the Planning Commission noted that they would not be able to make at least one (1) of the findings out of three (3) and asked the applicant if they were willing to change the project design.
The applicant noted that they had considered a lot of options, including building in the rear as they use their backyard a lot and adding a second s tory because of privacy concerns. The option to build in the front was to lever age the use of our property for work from home situation. Based on this, the appli cant came up with a minimum viable area to fit two (2) bedrooms and a bathroom. T he applicant did work with their neighbors and there is enough space. The applicant then provided comments on the peer review by Traffic Patterns. The applicant said that the project was submitted in January and a lot of work has gone int o it. The driveway study was done using large cars.
Chair Jagtiani asked if the applicant was willing to show the configuration and how it would impact the neighbor. The applicant agreed to show the boundary of the configuration and let the neighbors use it for a few days. Commissioner Venkat noted that nine months is already a long t ime and concessions have been made. It does not send a good message to other homeowners who wish to make changes to their property.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7 PLANNI
NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Pedro to continue item to a date uncertain, seconded by Commissioner Haddad, passed 3-1-0-1 (Noes: Venkat; Absent: Bronitsky)
7. OLD BUSINESS
1. None
8. NEW BUSINESS
1. None
9. STUDY SESSION
1. TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS PROPOSED SITE AND ARCHITECTURA L PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED ±190,000 SQUARE FOOT, FIVE-STORY, RESEAR CH AND DEVELOPMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 331 LAKESIDE DRIVE IN THE SOUTH CAMPUS OF THE GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CAMPUS MASTER P LAN – UP2023-0079
Planning Commission Comments:
Commissioner Pedro requested to explore in more detail the spe cific LEED requirements
that are being fulfilled and discuss California's landscaping practices and
how they contribute positively to the environment through reduced water usage and r
elated aspects.
o Gilead landscape representative explained that the building's goal is to be prepared for a net-zero carbon future, achieved by transitionin g to an all- electric system and replacing traditional gas boilers with electric heat pum ps.
This move reduces carbon emissions immediately and even more so over time.
Currently, the building benefits from a lower-carbon PG&E grid as it uses electricity, which aligns with PG&E's commitment to reaching net zero between 2035 and 2040.
o
By adopting this all-electric system now, as the PG&E grid becomes greener, the building will eventually reach net-zero carbon emissions. T his approach ensures that all the energy required for the laboratory building can be sourced from the California grid and this technology.
o In addition to the energy aspect, Gilead is dedicated to sustainability goals, aiming
for a 50% reduction in water use compared to the baseline, which i s part of their
ongoing design brief for the project.
o In relation to the landscaping aspect, the emphasis is on plan t materials, particularly those native to California. The selection of plant mat erials predominantly
leans towards California natives, as indicated by the yellow dots on a slide. This choice aligns with the California coastal prai rie and co astal scrub palett
e found in the Bay Area and the site's historical ecosystem. o The use of these native plants aims to support the local habitat e cology naturally.
Drip irrigation will be employed, and most of the ch osen plants a re drought-tole
rant, with a few exceptions, such as those used in bioretention DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7 PLANNI
NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
basins for stormwater treatment. Overall, the landscaping plan focuses on sustainability and achieving a distinctly native appearance. o Gilead representative also mentioned a project in Burlingame Point with similar plant
materials, emphasizing how this approach fosters native wildlife, such as butterflies and insects, and enhances the connection with natur e, which is expected to inspire scientific endeavors and provide a restorative environment for workers.
Commissioner Venkat inquired about the availability of any pub lic spaces and amenities that could be enjoyed by members of the community. o Gilead design representative responded that the Vintage Park C ommunity Associatio
n access and corridors around the project will be pre served, and there will be visual improvements for those walking through the campus. Chair Jagtiani inquired if there would be more people working in the new building compared to the one being replaced and if this change might affect traffic to and from the city.
o Kohar Kojayan, a representative from Gilead, stated that there will be a net
increase
of around 200 employees on campus due to the expansion , which is consistent with what was studied in the EIR. The total number o f employees and traffic impacts remain within the approved limits from the CEQA document.
Additionally, they have a Transportation Demand Management (TDM ) plan in place, which is regularly monitored and shows compliance with a llotted campus limits for employees and traffic.
The Commission had no further comments and did not recommend any modifications to the proposed building.
10. COMMU
NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REPORT
1. Director Mangalam discussed that staff is solicitating feedback on a Draft Ordinance for Objective
Design and Development Standards from the community. She menti oned sending
emails and conducting tabling events to gather input but expressed a need for more
feedback. She requested the Commissioners' assistance in spreading the word about
the Draft Ordinance. Director Mangalam mentioned plans for a future Study Session to
discuss any feedback received and potential amendments to ot her Chapters in the Municipal Code.
11. STATEMENTS AND REQUESTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS
1. Commissioner Venkat expressed gratitude to the staff and the applicant, as well as the neighbors and individuals who provided public comments. She men tioned a recent homicide in San Mateo County related to domestic violence, invo lving a woman na med Grace Marie Kelly. She emphasized the ongoing issue of domestic violence and abuse and shared the hotline number for CORA, an organization that assists individuals affected by domestic violence in San Mateo County, which is 800-300-1080.
2. Commissioner Pedro commended a successful meeting and offere d special recognition to project planner Helen for her extensive efforts on item 6.1. He expressed appreciation for the cooperation of the group of Commissioners and acknowled ged the valu able contributions each member makes to the public process. He echoed the sentiment that public feedback and comments are refreshing and instrumental in the decision-making DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7 PLANNI
NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
process, encouraging continued participation from the public. H e thanked the public for their involvement in the meeting.
3. Chair Jagtiani expressed gratitude to staff and specifically acknowledged Helen for her hard work on the project. He committed to spreading the word ab out ODDS, mentioned his efforts on social media and his intention to personally rea ch out to others to ensure they engage with it.
12. ADJOU
RNMENT
Adjourned at 7.48 pm on October 5, 2023, Regular Meeting.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7 PLANNI
NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planni ng Commission of the City of Foster City at a Regular Meeting thereof held on October 5, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES, COMMISSIONERS: Haddad, Pedro, and Chair Jagtiani
NOES, COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN, COMMISSIONERS: Bronitsky
ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: Venkat
___________________
RAVI JAGTIANI, CHAIR
ATTEST:
____________________________
SOFIA MANGALAM, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7