The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMin - PC - 2014.02.24 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California February 24, 2014 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the February 24, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Sargent, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Terrones absent Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; City Attorney Kathleen Kane; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Davis to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 1, first bullet, Commissioner Davis’s name should be removed. She did not meet anyone at the La Mesa property.  Page 1, first bullet, Commissioner Yie spoke with a neighbor. “With a resident” should be deleted.  Page 7, bullet towards the end starting with “likes how the top roof floats…” delete “decorative.” Intent of comment was for it to read more as a roof than as a trim.  Page 7, 5th bullet, typo “the street contains…” it should be “an” not “and.”  Page 7, last bullet clarification (Meeker: Ultimately it was left the way it was.)  Page 8, first bullet, should read “understands structurally why the side wall was extended at the garage. However, visually it extends as a flat wall. Is there another solution that can be considered to support the overhang?”  Page 8, third bullet, typo.  Page 14 “note to self” – “Sandra’s comment” needs to be verified with recording.  Page 20, 712 Newhall ex parte communications, Commissioner Davis met with the owner at the site, as did Commissioner DeMartini.  Page 21, Commissioner Davis did not meet with the neighbor.  Page 21, bullet starting with “pop-out dormers…” change the sentence to “pop-out dormers to the existing roofline could have been a simpler approach.”  Page 22 commission comments, typo towards the bottom first bullet should state “the applicant…”  Page 24, 1125 Burlingame commission comments typo, the bullet starting with “feels that the design…” add “feels that the design integrating outdoor dining along Burlingame Avenue is exactly the direction…”  Page 24, the bullet starting with “what is the lighting plan for the exterior…” says “listen to recording.” (Meeker: That was a reference note, should have been deleted.) Motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 2 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Bobbi Benson, spoke from the floor:  Asked that 5-foot wide sidewalks be required along El Camino Real. Should go around the trees when necessary. There are many people that use the sidewalks; more space is needed.  Would be nice if the City would require developers to power wash the buildings adjacent to construction projects. 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. 1. 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED IB – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE PARKING RATE AT AN EXISTING HOTEL (KEVIN KRETSCH, HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT, APPLICANT; AND HMC BURLINGAME HOTELS LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Yie moved approval of the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were explained. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 2112 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ROOSEVELT AVE. LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had met with the Principal of Roosevelt School and with the school secretary. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. James Chu and Craig Suhl represented the applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 3 Commission comments:  The window proportions are better.  The window box helps under the stair window.  Look at centering the window above the porch with the porch. (Suhl and Chu – will center the window.)  Appreciates the efforts to reach out to the school. The applicant has done enough in terms of outreach. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 12, 2014, sheets A.1 through A.6, sheet G.1, sheets L.1 and L.2, and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map; 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 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 Building Division’s December 16, 2013 and January 31, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s December 23, 2013, February 3 and February 18, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s December 26, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s December 16, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s December 23, 2013 and February 3, 2014 memos 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; 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 4 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, 2013 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 applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. 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 16. 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 Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 5 3. 74 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BALMORE HERNANDEZ, AZUL WORKS INC., APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Balmore Hernandez and James Herrera represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Appreciates taking a look at the plate height on the second floor and reducing it. Still looks like a three story home from the rear. The shed dormer adds to the appearance of height.  What will be at the top level that requires the additional space? (Hernandez – the maximum height at the highest point is seven feet. Some of the area will be for solar panels, boiler and storage.)  What type of height is needed for the equipment? Seven feet seems a bit high; appears like a third story. (Hernandez – the dormers are provided for accessibility to the area so that you can walk through the area easily to service equipment.)  Most people don’t need to create a third floor for mechanical equipment. Most applicants are able to fit the equipment into attic space.  Concerned that the plans are not drawn correctly. Why are the eaves not lining up? How is the eave so much lower than the eave next to it?  The height may be greater than 30-feet.  Doesn’t believe that the roof can be built as shown on the plans. Doesn’t believe that the skylight can be installed as shown.  What is under the skylights? Effort to put the skylights in the area, but they don’t service anything. The curb in the skylight will push it over the height limit. (Herrera – the skylights are intended to provide clear access via the ladder to the attic.)  Doesn’t believe that the height is needed in the area where mechanical equipment is to be installed.  Concerned that the area may be converted to a recreational space or accessory unit in the future.  There are a lot of technical issues with the drawings that imply that the project may exceed the height limit.  Reducing the window size in the gable over the garage was effective; it de-emphasizes the garage.  Has the Commission traditionally approved nine foot plate heights on the ground floor and nine foot heights on the second floor? (Meeker – this has varied considerably and depends upon the overall design of the project.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 6 Additional Commission comments:  Concerned about the dormer. Not compelled that there is a need for the increased access to the mechanical equipment in the dormer area. Other homeowners live with the restriction on height in attic areas.  The building is beginning to feel like a three story building. The combination of the higher plate height and the dormers makes it tower over other single-story structures in the area.  If the roof pitch is lowered and the gable height is limited along with a lower plate height, would this be acceptable?  Not comfortable with a condition that would not allow the applicant to meet the height limit.  Doesn’t feel the plate heights are unreasonable.  Believes the second floor plate height needs to be reduced.  The plate height is not consistent for the second story.  The nine foot plate height on the second floor is too tall.  The second story mass and bulk is still too heavy.  Bring down the dormers that are conducive to conversion to living space.  Feels that the dormers contribute to that level reading as a third story. Consider eliminating the dormer to limit the apparent height of the structure. Commissioner Sargent moved to continue the item to a date uncertain, with direction to the applicant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion of Item 4 (1448 Laguna Avenue) as he has a financial interest in a property within 500-feet of the project site. He left the Council Chambers. 4. 1448 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (PEYLING YAP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JEFF CHOW, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Peyling Yap, James Evans and Jeff Chow represented the applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 7 Commission comments:  Project is improved.  Were the rear porch changes reviewed with the neighbor? (Evans – yes, have communicated and made some positive progress. Are including some greenery features between the lots such as planter boxes and substantial bamboo that will provide privacy screens for both properties. The deck has also been reduced.)  Were the windows going to have grids, or clear? (Evans – prefers not to have grids.)  Thicker window trim looks good.  Believes a handrail will be required from the front porch. (Evans: It will be added.)  How will the top of the columns be trimmed? (Evans – will have a crown design with a cap so that it is more pronounced. Not just a thin strip of wood.)  Suggested continuing a wood handrail down from the porch.  Thanked the applicant for working with the neighbor.  Believes the window above the gable will need to be reduced in height to accommodate flashing. Could make both windows on the second story the same height.  On the deck, was there consideration of making it a pitched roof with the deck cut out of the roof, as opposed to a flat roof? 2112 Roosevelt Avenue is an example (on the current agenda) with a similar balcony in the back – in that project the balcony is cut out from the pitched roof area. This would be better for drainage/water, and would also limit the ability to move the railing to make a bigger deck in the future. (Evan: Intention is to not have a flat roof there. Is not their intention to have a bare platform for a potential extension of the deck.)  How will the overhang under the rear balcony be supported? (Chow – there will be brackets supporting the awning.) Brackets need to be shown.  On page A3.1 on the new side elevation, it still shows the old tudor arch detail at the entry. Needs to be removed on that elevation.  On the rear elevation, the rear awning is drawn in as a roof (with roofing material), but on the side elevations it is shown as an awning. Needs to be coordinated between the elevations.  Did the applicant look at providing a fireplace chimney? (Evans – believes there is supposed to have a chimney.)  A1.1 Landscape plan – will there be any fencing to separate the front yard from the back yard? There is a gate at the garage, but will there be a fence or gate on the right side? (Evans – wood fence will be provided.) May wish to expand the rear yard by moving the fence forward.  Are the trees in the rear in planters? Referring to the non-fruit trees shown in a 24-inch square planter, but looks like they are on top of the stone pavers. (Evans – will have planter boxes or will remove the stone to ensure that there is adequate area for the trees.) Public comments: Sheldon Low, 1448 Laguna Avenue (behind the project site), spoke on this item:  Appreciates the applicant’s attempt to address the privacy concerns he expressed previously. Changes are better, the deck is smaller and less intrusive. Believes the solutions will work and that the issues have been resolved. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Too many small issues still needing to be resolved to have them come back as an FYI. Would be better to see the project be continued. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 8 Chair Sargent re-opened the public hearing to ask the applicant if they could meet the submittal deadline for the next Planning Commission meeting, on March 10, 2014. Applicant indicated that they could meet the submittal deadline – end of day February 28, 2014. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis moved to place the application on the Consent Calendar of the March 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-1. (Commissioner DeMartini recused, Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner DeMartini returned to the dais. Chair Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 5 (2509 Easton Drive) for non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers. 5. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS- BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (EMPORIO GROUP INC., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AITKEN ASSOCIATES, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, PROPERTY OW NER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 10, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Yie indicated that she had had a conversation with one of the owners of the project. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Dimitrios Sogas represented the applicant.  Met with neighbor at 2517 and have agreed upon mitigations for the deck and privacy issues.  There was no representation from the neighbor to the east; but did receive an e-mail from them in July 2012 expressing concern about a tree being removed that shouldn’t have been removed. Felt that what had been removed was agreed upon by the City Arborist. They since have expressed satisfaction with large, new trees being installed.  Apologetic about all of the changes that have been made during the construction process. All changes made were in an effort to make a better product. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 9 Commission comments:  Why wasn’t the tree that was removed in 2012 replaced at that time? (Sogas – believed that the tree that was removed was slated for removal. Was under the impression that all work was done correctly. Expected the professionals to interpret the planting and removal plan. Believes something happened in the marking process.)  Had encouraged stepping the deck down the hill, but simply cut off a corner of the deck. (Sogas – will install bamboo on the neighbor’s property as he has agreed to. A uniform deck is more useable.)  Doesn’t seem like the applicant gave up much in the solution. (Sogas – met with the neighbor and came up with a solution.)  What other solutions were proposed? (Sogas – didn’t explore changes, sought solutions.)  Asked for an explanation of why landscaping could not be placed on the applicant’s property? (Sogas – part of the deck is needed for a landing from the living space.)  If the neighbor is satisfied, that goes along way. The deck serves as a substitute for a rear yard in this instance since the yard is so steep.  Regarding the front patio; pavers are stacked like a wall and appears unfinished. Will finishing pieces be added on top of the wall? (Sogas – will consider capping the wall.)  Feels like the deck adds substantially to the enjoyment of the property.  Where the deck was reduced enhances privacy to the greatest possible.  As long as there is an approach to satisfying privacy concerns, the solution is acceptable. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Wishes that the solution to the privacy matter would have been on the applicant’s property. Neighbor wasn’t provided an option that would have required changes to the applicant’s property.  The way the lots are configured impacts privacy. Is OK for the neighbor to add landscaping. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 18, 2014, sheets L-1 through L-3 and A3, and date stamped December 5, 2011, sheets T1, C.0, A1 through A5 and GPC; 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones shall be established and inspected by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks Division to remove any protected-sized trees; 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 Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 10 5. 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; 6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor’s September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the Chief Building Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 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 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 11 15. 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; 16. 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; 17. 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 18. 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 Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Sargent recused, Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:17 p.m. Chair Sargent returned to the dais. 6. 707 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW TO ADD A NEW DETACHED ONE-STORY SECOND UNIT AT THE REAR OF THE LOT (ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he had met with the property owner prior to the design review study discussion. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Robert Baumgarten and Mary Dunlap represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Questions regarding the conversion of the recreation room back to the garage. (Baumgarten - will be providing two garage doors that will match the existing garage door. The apron to the garage will be improved. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 12  Will the gate to the garage be opened to allow access? (Baumgarten – will repair the gate, but will not be installing an automatic opener. Dunlap – provides a separation between the units. Meeker – can require changes that ensure that the gate can function as a vehicular access.)  What will be the driveway material leading to the garage? (Baumgarten – would add pervious pavers from the end of the concrete driveway to the garage.)  Requested window sill details, but are not included on plan. (Baumgarten – will match the existing. Dunlap – the new windows will match existing, will have a window sill with a small apron.)  Roof form and porch detailing helps.  Can add conditions to address the concerns. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Plans show a single garage door; would prefer two doors.  Feels the project is approvable with requests for illustrations of the garage doors and note regarding matching the existing window trim (sills) on the primary unit. Require an operable gate. Details of the new portion of the impervious-surfaced driveway. Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 13, 2014, sheets 1-3 and date stamped January 23, 2014, sheets 4-9; 2. that prior to the final inspection, the existing detached recreational building shall be converted back to a two-car garage; a new garage door shall be installed to allow access for two vehicles (side by side); illustrations of the garage doors and note regarding matching the existing window trim (sills) on the primary unit shall be provided on the plans, and the gate to the rear portion of the lot shall be maintained in operable condition; 3. 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); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second unit, garage or carport, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 18, 2013 and January 3, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s October 17, 2013 and January 6, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s October 30, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s October 17, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Division’s October 16, 2013 and January 9, 2014 memos 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 13 7. 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; 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, 2013 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; and 14. 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 Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 8:33 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 14 7. 1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FOUR- STORY, 10-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH BELOW GRADE PARKING (IRIS2 LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN A. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND PARKING VARIANCE B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had met with the property owner. Reference staff report dated February 24, 20214, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixty-six (66) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Toby Levy represented the applicant. Commission comments:  With respect to parking lifts, how will parking be assigned? (Levy – the four most expensive units will be assigned the stacked spaces.)  Concerned that the parking situation may get worse with six, two-bedroom units are sharing seven spaces. (Levy – there are other types of lifts that could be considered.)  Feels that there could be parking issues. (Levy – proposed parking consistent with the Downtown Plan.)  Would the applicant agree to providing additional lifts where possible? (Levy – will need to evaluate lifts to determine if it is feasible.)  Appreciates the plan for the trees along the property line. The likely height of the trees (20-feet) is not impressive, will not effectively screen roof equipment. Were other trees considered? (Levy – have tried to ensure that windows in the project do not align with adjacent windows on other properties.)  Would rather consider a variance request for the screening of mechanical equipment since the trees will not grow to a greater height.  Is the below market rate unit the smallest unit on the ground floor? Encouraged choosing another unit. (Levy – changed the location in response to prior Commission comments. Can choose a unit on the second floor instead.)  Is there another tree species that can more effectively screen the mechanical equipment? (Levy – questioned whether 100% blockage is encouraged.)  Would be concerned regarding reducing light on both properties.  There isn’t a guarantee of 100% privacy between buildings.  Thought the mass of the existing, proposed trees is perhaps too dense.  What would complement the design of the building best? (Levy – would like a thinner, Cypress-type tree. Wanted to ensure that something could be planted at a significant height immediately.)  Requested clarification of the limitations of the code relative to the lobby area. (Levy – paths to the exits must be maintained and non-combustible materials are only allowed.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 15 Public comments: John and Clarice Finnegan, owners behind the project on Almer Avenue; and Donna Walsh, 1427 Floribunda Avenue, spoke:  Were at the prior meeting to discuss the item.  Haven’t been contacted by the applicant or any members of the Commission since that time.  There is a foliage screen behind his cottage that has open sky above.  Initially objected to the underground parking.  Feels there may be noise at night from the lifts.  Became aware of the parking arrangement as of 7:30 p.m. this evening.  Object to the parking arrangement.  Floribunda, Almer and other streets are congested.  The project is designed to maximize the lot, but there is too much density on the lot.  Can’t object if the project meets code.  Wants to be certain that their concerns are also addressed.  Look at their one-story cottage that will be affected by the new project.  Objects to having eight cars up against the lot line.  Her light and view will be eliminated from her apartment.  Upset about the height of the building.  Will be looking at a wall. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Concerned about the scarcity of parking in the area.  Believes that the stacked spaces will be useable given that they will be assigned to individual units.  Hard to imagine that people from the new project will be parking on the street.  Wonders whether people may be have more of a tendency to use street parking if they just wish to run into their unit quickly.  There should generally be an open spot for an individual unit.  Since parking lifts have been approved for another project, would need to make a case not to approve it in this instance.  Doesn’t feel that the parking will impact the neighbors as it is subterranean.  Bike parking is also being provided.  Clarified service vehicle access. The applicant was able to comply with the requirement.  Should encourage more housing and affordable units.  Believes that landscaping should be in scale with the building.  Concerned about seeing the air conditioning units from remote locations.  Was hoping with the tree design to provide screening of the rooftop units.  Noted that the existing trees would have survived if the current design were not built.  Noted that the trees had been over trimmed and were not in good condition.  Asked if additional stacked parking could be provided? (Levy – can commit to adding more stackers across from the other stacked spaces – would add at least two more vehicles.)  Are electrical charging units being provided? (Levy – are installing conduit to accommodate the technology.)  Didn’t believe that the trees that were there were necessarily worth saving. The replacement trees are greater in number. May like to see something more leafy.  Encourage neighbors to work out solutions and bring them back to the Commission for consideration if necessary. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 16  Noted that tree removal permits only notice to adjacent property owners.  Is concerned regarding the issues raised by the neighbor in the rear.  Parking spaces will be below grade. No one could imagine that anyone can hear it because of transition of height at rear.  Developer has made an effort to transition the height as it moves to the rear to be sensitive to the adjacent property.  Agrees that at least one side of the rooftop screening should be required in the most visible location.  Seems that we don’t do enough to promote more units and more affordability.  The two extra stacked parking spaces should be provided.  Community Development Director Meeker clarified that the additional height sought by the applicant is allowed since the project provides an affordable housing unit. He further noted that the update of the housing element will include discussions regarding increasing housing affordability in the community. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, citing that the narrow lot width supports the use of parking lifts and further noting that the project will provide more than the minimum number of parking spaces, subject to the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 30, 2013, sheets A0.0 through A0.7, Boundary and Topographic Survey, L1.1 through L3.1 and A1.0 through A4.1; 2. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 3. that if determined to be feasible, the existing palm tree shall be relocated to the northwest corner of the site; the palm relocation, planting and maintenance specifications shall be followed as outlined in the arborist report prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants, Inc., dated May 16, 2013; 4. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be required from the Parks Division for removal of any tree on the property with a circumference of 48 inches or larger when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade; 5. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application; 6. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 71.55' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Floribunda Avenue (25.55') for a maximum height of 46’-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 13.38'; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 26.38’; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 37.38'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 48.38’; fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 59.38’. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 7. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 17 8. that the conditions of the Building Division memos dated October 25, 2013; August 16, 2013; June 12, 2013; February 26, 2013; the Parks Division memos dated October 31, 2013; August 14, 2013; June 17, 2013; March 11, 2013; the Engineering Division memos dated November 12, 2013; August 29, 2013; July 11, 2013; March 19, 2013; the Fire Division memos dated October 23, 2013; February 25, 2013; and the Stormwater Division memos dated November 1, 2013; June 11, 2013; February 21, 2103 shall be met; 9. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to establish the affordability of the one (1) below market rate unit required as a part of this project; the applicant shall also submit a below market rate housing plan which shall describe in detail the applicant's proposal for meeting the inclusionary housing requirements as required by Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; the applicant shall enter into an agreement with a third-party non-profit organization approved by the City to administer the program; 11. that the ‘service vehicle stall’ shall be marked on the service parking space and designated on the final map and plans, this stall shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the service vehicle stall shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 12. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the service vehicle stall shall be reserved for service vehicles or guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 13. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 14. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 15. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 16. that any security gate system across the driveway shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; 17. that the guest entrance gate shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 18. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 18 19. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 20. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 21. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 22. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 23. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 24. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 25. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 26. that this project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, the City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, and complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 27. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 28. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 29. that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 30. that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 19 31. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 32. that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to the street as determined by the Public Works Department; 33. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 34. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 35. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 36. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 37. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; and 38. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit issuance, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 39. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 40. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 41. 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; 42. 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; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Aesthetics 43. The project sponsor shall be subject to the design review process to evaluate the aesthetics of the construction of a residential condominium in the Downtown Specific Plan R-3 District. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 20 Air Quality 44. During construction, the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 45. The project sponsor shall implement the following GHG reduction measures during construction activities: a. Alternative-Fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment shall make up at least 15 percent of the fleet; b. Use at least 10 percent local building materials; and c. Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. 46. The project shall include a common facility for trash disposal, recycling, and composting as shown on the project plans date stamped December 30, 2013. 47. The project sponsor shall participate in all residential recycling and composting programs offered by the solid waste provider to multifamily residential customers. This shall include the composting program, currently offered as an optional service. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 21 Biological Resources 48. The applicant shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist. 49. Construction under the Downtown Specific Plan shall avoid the March 15 through August 31 avian nesting period to the extent feasible. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 7 days prior to construction. The area surveyed shall include all clearing/construction areas, as well as areas within 250 ft. of the boundaries of these areas, or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered, clearing/construction shall be postponed within 250 ft. of the nest, until the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. Cultural Resources 50. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. 51. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame. 52. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 22 Geology and Soils 53. The project sponsor shall submit a detailed design level geotechnical investigation to the City of Burlingame Building Division for review and approval. The investigation shall include recommendations to develop foundation and design criteria in accordance with the most recent California Building Code requirements. All foundations and other improvements shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer based on site-specific soil investigations performed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. All recommendations from the engineering report shall be incorporated into the residential development design. The design shall ensure the suitability of the subsurface materials for adequately supporting the proposed structures and include appropriate mitigations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 54. That the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station as required by the Fire Marshal prior to the final inspection for building permit. 55. That prior to demolition of the existing structures on the site, a survey shall be performed to determine if there is any presence of asbestos. The person who performs the survey must be Cal- OSHA certified. If asbestos is found, the BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) shall be immediately notified and the applicant shall comply with asbestos removal requirements. Hydrology and Water Quality 56. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: a. A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; b. Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets; c. Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; d. Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and e. The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. 57. The project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. 58. The project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 23 59. That all surface storm water runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards as adopted by the City of Burlingame. 60. That all construction shall be done during the hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on holidays. 61. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: a. Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). b. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. 62. That the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping area. Transportation/Traffic 63. The project sponsor shall obtain approval for a Parking Variance for satisfying off-street parking requirements with parking lifts. 64. Klaus #26061-190 (or comparable) parking lifts shall be installed in the garage of each residential unit, with the following conditions: a. The parking lifts shall be properly illuminated to provide safety for easy loading and unloading, while not causing excessive glare. b. Sound absorption materials will be used to minimize any excessive noise from the operation of the parking lifts. c. Signage shall be installed in each garage explaining the proper use of the lifts and emergency contact information for lift maintenance or problems. d. The applicant shall be required to work with the manufacturer during construction to review issues related to installation of the parking lifts and to receive operational and safety training of the parking lifts. e. The final design of the parking lifts shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 65. A minimum of sixteen (16) parking spaces shall be permanently maintained on the same lot with the building, including the spaces provided by the lifts accommodating four vehicles and the delivery vehicle space. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 24 66. Project sponsors shall provide adequate secure bicycle parking in the Plan Area at a minimum ratio of one bicycle spot for every 20 vehicle spots. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the application. The motion carried 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent) Chair Sargent moved to adopt a resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Discussion of motion:  None. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion carried 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 8. 537-539 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE TO ADD ONE UNIT TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX BUILDING (J. DEAL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BILL WONG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the subject property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Why not require an upgrade to parking in this instance? (Meeker – referenced his determination memorandum and noted that there is a conflict between two sections of the code. Parking is determined by the number of bedrooms for residential projects. The lifting of the two existing units without increasing their size, and that the project does not propose modifications to the detached parking garage; then code compliant parking is only required for the new unit.)  Concerned that the project may be contributing to the parking problems in the area. (Meeker – opined that the project is only a modification project that only requires the addition to comply with current requirements. There may be a parking deficit in the neighborhood, but the project does not intensify the problems in the neighborhood since the existing units are not being increased in size and the new unit will have compliant parking.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Andy Wong represented the applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 25 Commission comments:  Concerned regarding lifting up the home that is not in good shape. What is being done in terms of electrical and plumbing? Could get to a point that a new house would be built. (Wong – Will change items that are needed and retain what they can.)  Requested clarification regarding what would constitute a demolition that would trigger an upgrade to parking. (Meeker – explained that removal of greater than 50% of the exterior walls would constitute a demolition.)  Have done a good job of integrating the design of the existing and new portions of the structure.  Garage doors look better.  Likes the added 2x trim.  The photographs provided to establish neighborhood context support the material choices, however most of the examples provided would not meet current design review standards. What is proposed is consistent with the neighborhood.  Unified windows and divided lites give the house identity.  Not comfortable with the solid vinyl windows. Would prefer Fiberglas clad or aluminum clad windows.  Consider something similar to the Marvin Integrity line. Window grids should be substantial and have a depth that appears like an old-style window (simulated true-divided light windows).  Understands Director’s interpretation. Photo of carport in use helps to demonstrate that the carport is useable space. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 11, 2014, sheets A-1 through A-7 and L-1; 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 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 Building Division’s November 5 and December 12, 2013 memos, the Parks Division’s October 17 and December 16, 2013 memos, the Engineering Division’s October 16, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s October 17, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Division’s October 16 and December 23, 2013 memos 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 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; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 26 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; 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 the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 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 11. 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; 12. 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 13. 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 Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. The Commission recessed from 9:55 p.m. to 10:05 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 27 9. 1125 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO THE FRONT FAÇADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (STANLEY CHAN, APPLICANT; OLIVE GROVE CAPITAL LP ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER; MARCO FUNG, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty one (21) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Marco Fung represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Will the rear wall be painted? (Fung – yes.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: paint the rear wall. 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 13, 2014, sheets A0.01 through A3.02; 2. that prior to the final inspection, the rear wall of the tenant space (wall facing the service alley at the rear of the building) shall be painted a color consistent with the building façade along Lorton Avenue; 3. that this business location occupied by a full service food establishment, with 538 SF of on-site seating may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 4. that the 538 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall only be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 5. this full service food establishment may be open Sunday through Thursday, from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., with a maximum of 12 full-time employees and eight part-time employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; 6. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 28 7. that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 8. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 9. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 10. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 11. that seating on the sidewalk outside the food establishment shall require an encroachment permit and shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 12. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 9, 2013, January 14, 2014 and January 23, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s December 11, 2013 memo, the Engineering Division’s December 17, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s December 16, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Division’s December 11, 2013 memo shall be met; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2013 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 14. 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; 15. 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); 16. 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; 17. 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; 18. 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; 19. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 29 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 20. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and 21. 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 Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 10:13 p.m. 10. 960 DAVID ROAD, ZONED RR – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE STORAGE (KEVIN PETROVIC/FLIGHTCAR, APPLICANT; FRANK EDWARDS COMPANY, INC., PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES D. VALENTI, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  Difference between the prior and current applications is the number of spaces? (Gardiner – the plan represents the intended use of the site. Different in that the vehicles are stacked. Members of the public do not park the cars – hence the tandem parking approach.)  Are they in operation in Millbrae? (Gardiner – the base site for the operation can vary.)  Requested clarity regarding the approach to code enforcement on the property. (Gardiner and Meeker – provided an explanation. Kane – provided further clarity regarding enforcement protocols.)  What are the peak hours during which vehicles cannot be moved? (Gardiner and Meeker – believes the hours are 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Kevin Petrovic represented the applicant. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 30  Last application there were a number of concerns expressed, what has changed? (Petrovic – can’t guarantee the continued operation of the Millbrae facility, but is currently operating from that location.)  How was availability of spaces for 41 vehicles determined? (Petrovic – doesn’t believe that there has been more than 41 vehicles on the site previously.)  How does the business work? How is a car retrieved during the peak hours? (Petrovic – cars staged at the main lot prior to pick-up, in advance at the main site staging area.)  If a car is parked on David Road it is not generating income? (Petrovic – will have fewer cars at the David Road site in order to keep the revenue flow.)  What is the capacity at the main site? (Petrovic – 39 vehicles currently. A future new site will have room for in excess of 120 cars.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Not sure how it can be approved?  Want to teach them to be respectful of the rules. The list of conditions is pretty thorough, but not certain at what point the applicant will comply. The company does not seem to respect the neighbors or the community.  The applicant has violated the rules before they even had a permit in place.  Hard to make the finding that there is not an impact to the welfare of the community, given that there is a track record of non-compliance.  What has changed? Issue wasn’t that more parking spaces are needed. The concern was because the applicant doesn’t play by the rules.  There were allegations of trespassing on the part of flight car soliciting patrons from another parking location being solicited.  The reasons for the prior denial continue to exist.  Feels that the area is becoming more vitalized. The use may be better off in another location where related businesses exist.  Concerned that they perhaps should be given a chance.  The space can’t be used for anything else. Should be given a chance.  Doesn’t see that anything has changed to warrant approval.  There are no real specifics on how the site will operate; how things will flow on the site. Commissioner Sargent moved to deny the application based upon the statements included in the discussion (above). The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini. Discussion of motion:  Can’t make the finding that the application will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the community.  Doesn’t feel that the concerns in the prior application have been addressed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 31 Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 3-2-0-1 (Commissioners Bandrapalli and Yie dissenting and Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:34 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 2747 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW SINGLE-STORY HOUSE (RICHARD TERRONES, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; BURLINGVIEW LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Jacob Furlong and Carlos Rojas represented the applicant.  The downhill neighbor has raised no concerns.  Have consulted with the uphill neighbor.  Have installed story poles. Commission comments:  Likes the design.  Does the roof design intensify the view blockage? (Furlong – is possible. The butterfly roof is something that is desirable to the developer.)  Clarified that the siding projects out from the stucco.  Did the applicant go to the neighbor’s house to the right to observe impacts? (Furlong – visited the property and observed some impacts.)  Have proposed solutions been discussed? (Furlong – haven’t yet reviewed alternatives.)  Need time to consider alternatives.  The massing is appropriate for the neighborhood.  Have done a nice job of minimizing the bulk and mass of the structure. (Furlong – is open to further discussions with the neighbors regarding the project design.)  Review the gap between the roof elements. Public comments: Elizabeth and Graham Napier spoke:  Reviewed project today.  Commissioners are welcome to visit their property to observe the view impacts.  Impacts are significant.  The view is completely obliterated.  Though the current peak height is being maintained, the style of the roof intensifies the impact. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 32  Noted that the neighbor at 2754 is also present.  Noted that views are blocked from both levels of their home. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  View impacts need to be addressed further.  The design is appropriate.  Noticed that the mass of the building with the story poles appears closer. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. Discussion of motion:  Provide contact information for neighbors  Correct story poles to reflect revised design. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:54 p.m. 12. 1524 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY DECK (MARK BUCCIARELLI, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; MICHAEL AND BETSY BERMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Mark Bucciarelli represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Has the architect spoken to the neighbor? (Bucciarelli – had prepared an overlay of the existing deck with the proposed deck for the neighbor. She didn’t respond.)  There is a good sized tree against the house, will the tree be damaged by the construction? What will happen to mitigate the loss of screening? (Bucciarelli – the tree doesn’t help maintain privacy for the neighbor.)  How deep is the proposed deck? (Bucciarelli – about nineteen feet.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 33  Is there any reason that the deck can’t be made a bit more shallow? (Bucciarelli – wanted access from the master bedroom. Preferred having the stairs sited on the side proposed.)  Why is the deck so large? (Bucciarelli – is the applicant’s entertainment preference. The deck at the upper level will be an impervious surface. Wanted enclosure at the lower level.)  Seems very excessive for a second story deck.  Have plenty of space inside the lower level.  The lot is very large.  The outdoor deck is an entertainment space that can impact privacy. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Is a very large deck and could be enclosed as an interior room.  Would like to meet with the neighbor to determine impacts.  Visited the rear yard; as far as views into neighbor's property, the small deck on the right side outside the master bedroom, it looks to me that it looks directly into the neighbor's property, that would be a concern that needs to be addressed with the neighbor at 1520 Los Montes Drive. As far as the deck downhill, feel that if it were enclosed, it wouldn't change the issue at all.  Require story poles prior to determining potential neighbor impacts.  Without knowing if the size is truly an issue, won’t suggest a reduction.  Believes the applicant should look at design of deck closest to the master bedroom.  Surprised we're having a discussion on what constitutes too big of a deck when we just approved a deck that's close to this size on a hill, I hope we're consistent; don't have a problem with requiring story poles, don't necessarily have a problem with the deck, but need to see what the impact would be; concern with glass to rear at left, if it is something like glass looking into neighbor's yard, could address screening there and perhaps for neighbors on Alturas Drive, it's not the size of the deck but the impact on neighbors.  Not the size of the deck, but the impact upon the neighbors. Commissioner Sargent with story poles made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete; the applicant shall also install story poles that show the top of the deck railing. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:12 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 34 13. 1528 HOOVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS (JESSE GEURSE, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; JAMES HAGGARTY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Is a variance really required for the addition to the roofline above the existing first floor and entry? (Meeker – a variance is requested to maintain the existing encroachment.)  Requested clarity regarding what would constitute demolition of the structure. (Meeker – if the existing structure is removed, then a variance can be requested or the project should be built in accordance with current standards.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Jesse Geurse and James Haggarty represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Not crazy about the shed roof over the window above the garage.  Feels the columns above the base on the front entry may be too bulky. Should be supported by something wider.  Will the transition of the stone veneer below the bay window transition correctly?  What are alternatives to the shed roofs over the front windows?  Can a car be parked in the garage? (Haggarty – yes)  Look at the configuration of the chimney on the right elevation.  Concerned about the front setback. What will need to be done to secure the wall? (Geurse – the majority of the wall and roofline over the garage is all remaining as it is. Changing the hip roof to a gable is more of an encroachment into the front setback. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 35 Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:30 p.m. 14. 1349 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS (DARYL BUCKINGHAM, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; SONIA WADHAWAN AND DEEPAK CHUG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEW IT All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Bandrapalli indicated she had met some neighbors across the street. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Daryl Buckingham represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Will all windows on the house be replaced? (Buckingham: Yes. They will be wood windows that are clad.) Plans only specify “aluminum-clad window” but should specify material of window; for example “aluminum-clad wood windows” if that is what is planned. Determine what window type will be installed before coming back for action.  On the window on the right-hand side with the shed roof on top – will there be an issue with the roof below it? (Buckingham: It will be relatively close, but if you look at the previous front in the 1970s the windows had been placed in strange locations. Trying here to reorganize it and get it back to a shape that it would have been originally. The shed will work here.)  What is the material of the decorative vent underneath the gable end? (Buckingham – wood. Mostly wood horizontal slats with some base behind.)  On Sheet A3.1 questioned need for grids on the horizontal transom window on the first floor of the left side. Remove the grids on that window since they emphasize the long rectangle.  On Sheet A3 the rear elevation picture window, consider installing grids in the middle pane – carry across the picture window.  Leave the grids on the upper-level horizontal window on the left side elevation.  None of the new addition is encroaching into the declining height envelope. The only encroachment is the existing part of the house.  Have done a nice job blending the addition and retaining the character of the existing house.  What is the circle in the middle of the chimney? (Buckingham – the existing chimney has an unattractive extension that will be removed. Will then be installing a direct-vent fireplace and keeping the chimney for character.) Would prefer running the fireplace vent to the top of the chimney. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 36 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a 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 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:42 p.m. 15. 556 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW 25-UNIT CONDOMINIUM BUILDING (ROMAN KNOP, APPLICANT; DOMINGUEZ ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Bandrapalli noted that she met the maintenance worker while visiting the property. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated February 24, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description, and noted a received letter from the Homeowners’ Association at 1515 Floribunda Avenue. Questions of staff:  Would involving a design review consultant be something that could be discussed at this meeting? (Meeker: That is something that could be discussed at this meeting.) Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Carlos Dominguez and Roman Knop represented the applicant.  Inherited plans, worked on floor plans, but not the exterior elevations. Took the project over from another architect, who is no longer involved with the project. Commission comments:  Would prefer full-size plans for projects of this size.  Vinyl windows will not be approvable.  This design is so far off from the design guidelines that working with a design review consultant would be helpful. The massing needs to be worked on. Not sure what the justification is for maxing the building out to the full height. There needs to be much more articulation. In cases where height would be considered it would be to accommodate an element such as a tower that ties the whole building together. It’s not to allow the whole building to be blown up like a balloon to fill the volume – there has to be more justification to go up to that height, if at all.  Looks like a large hotel next to the freeway with the floors just copied one on top of the next. Not what we want to see in Burlingame.  Requested explanation from parking consultant regarding how the parking works. (Dominguez – is an automatic setup that is placed within a specific location. Entirely automated.)  What happens if there is more than one person arriving home at a time? (Dominguez – there is room for two vehicles to stack up. Takes less than a minute for a car to be retrieved. Knop - There is only one car at a time that is possible to park in a regular parking garage. Dominguez – all of the CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 37 parking spaces are ADA compliant. All spaces are full-size. Are leaving all of the trees in their original position.)  Doesn’t understand how the parking doesn’t result in a bottleneck. (Ward – presented overview.)  Stacking is a concern. How is traffic backing up onto El Camino Real.  How much water will be pumped out of the site? (Dominguez – explored 25-feet deep and had not located water.)  Are there backup generators for the parking? (Dominguez – will be back up generators.) Public comments: Bobbi Benson, 550 El Camino Real, spoke on this item:  Project will affect many in the area.  El Camino Real is busy and there are long waiting periods to pull out into it.  Expressed concern regarding flooding in the area – has had experience with flooding when pumps stop working.  There are back-ups onto El Camino Real morning and night.  Not enough setback from the adjacent building at 550 El Camino. There are decks, patios, and gardens at the fenceline.  Want to ensure that the project is owner-occupied only – not investment or absentee landlord.  Four stories would be reasonable; five stories is unreasonable. There is nothing taller than three stories in the entire 500 block of El Camino Real.  Proposed trees are too close to the property line.  Five-foot setback along El Camino Real to provide a pedestrian promenade and balance the buildings.  Prevailing winds are from north to south.  Request to power-wash the adjacent buildings after construction.  Will follow-up with a letter. Stan Distel, President of the Homeowners’ Association at 1515 Floribunda Avenue, spoke on this item:  Complaint regarding height of building.  Depth of garage is a concern with water intrusion.  Refer to letter submitted. Resident from 1515 Floribunda Avenue spoke on this item:  Oversized building for the neighborhood.  Will obstruct views.  Traffic and safety concerns.  Noise concerns.  Will stand out from the rest of the neighborhood. R-3 zoning specifies that maximum height can only be four stories. Three stories would be reasonable, four many be unreasonable, five stories is not acceptable. Elena Cherny, 1515 Floribunda Avenue, spoke on this item:  Looks like the project was slapped together to get the most out of the property financially.  Not enough thought and consideration given to neighboring properties.  There are a lot of water issues in Burlingame. 24-foot deep garage will become a sinkhole – it is not a multistory underground garage with horizontals, it is just a hole. It could become a hazard; could change how the groundwater flows and affect the neighboring properties.  Five story building amongst three story buildings is disrespectful.  There is no site plan that shows the relationship to the adjacent properties. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 38  Will provide shadow and light blockage on property at 1515 Floribunda, and shade swimming pools on two adjacent properties.  Traffic concerns on El Camino Real, will take more than the time noted to get vehicles in and out of the parking structure. What happens if electricity goes out, or malfunction in the equipment? Hazard having only one lift. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Has experienced heavy traffic on El Camino Real.  Feels the design is entirely inappropriate for the City. Doesn’t meet the Downtown Specific Plan design guidelines. It is a big box with windows and balconies stuck on.  Would like to see a listing of heights of existing buildings in the area. Commissioner Davis moved to refer the project to a design review consultant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  Expressed concern regarding circulation into and out of the parking with the proposed mechanical parking solution. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:25 a.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 18, 2014:  None. FYI: 2608 Hillside Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 12:26 a.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 24, 2014 39 Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary