Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2001.07.02 Val HVI BURLINGAME w..m uwc° BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA July 2, 2001 1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Joe Galligan. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Rahn Becker. 3. ROLL CALL Council Present: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI Council Absent: None 4. MINUTES Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 18, 2001, Regular Council Meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Design Review, Side Setback Variance, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope and Hillside Area Construction Permit for an addition to the Single Family House at 1524 Los Montes Avenue, Zoned R-1 CP Monroe noted the applicant for 1524 Los Montes is proposing a first and second story addition to the existing two story house with attached garage at 1524 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1. This property slopes approximately 27 feet from front to rear property line. The addition would increase the floor area ratio from .24 FAR(2,883 SF) to .33 FAR(3,907 SF); the maximum FAR allowed on this lot is .41 (4,861 SF). With the proposed design, the existing attached garage would be retained with interior dimensions of 19 feet in width and 20 feet in length. The following exceptions are requested for this project: design review of a first and second story addition, hillside area construction permit for view blockage, side setback variance for 1'-10"on the right side of the lower floor(5'-2"proposed where 7'- 0" is the minimum setback required), and a special permit for declining height envelope on the second floor along the right side of the house (17 SF, 2'-0"x 8'x 6"). The Planning Commission received a letter from a neighbor who expressed concern about the impact on the view at the rear of his house from the extension of this house to the rear. The applicant provided pictures documenting that other houses between his and the nearby owner's extended further toward the rear than was proposed by this project. The commission expressed concern both at study and action Burlingame City Council 1 July 2,2001 about what the unique characteristics or hardships were on this lot to justify the side setback variance. In the end, although all the commissioners agreed that the architectural style of the house was consistent and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the variance finding issue was not addressed adequately for some of the commissioners. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Michael Berman, property owner of 1524 Los Montes thanked the Council for visiting the project site. Mr. Berman noted the property has not been renovated since the initial construction; the variance requested affects the south side of the home where they would like to add an additional bathroom. He submitted a list of findings for the variances. Requested Council grant the variance for a side setback so they could proceed with construction. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. All Council members visited the site and noted that no views were affected, that this house and others on the block were built with 5' side setbacks, that the proposed extension of the building in the setback would not be visible from the street, that the extension at the wall was consistent with the architecture of the house and within the utility of the interior of the house, and this site is not overbuilt with this proposal, 1500 SF of FAR is unused. Vice Mayor Spinelli made a motion to overturn the Planning Commission's denial of a design review, side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and hillside area construction permit for an addition to the single family house at 1524 Los Montes Avenue; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. Consider possible Ballot Proposals for the November 2001 Election Regarding (1) Continuing the 10% Transient Occupancy Tax Rate; (2) Continuing the General Business License Tax at $100 per year; and (3) Establishing a Commercial Parking Tax at the Rate of 5% of Gross Revenues Mayor Galligan noted he would not be participating in the discussion of the commercial parking tax due to his ownership in a similar business in a different city. CA Anderson noted on June 4 the California Supreme Court decided a case concerning Proposition 62; this Proposition was adopted by the voters of California in 1986 and was litigated for a number of years. In 1991 a series of appellate court decisions decided that Proposition 62, which required all taxes go to the voters before being imposed, was unconstitutional. In reliance on that decision, the Burlingame City Council decided to adopt an increase in the transient occupancy tax from 8%to 10%, which was consistent at that time with what most of the cities on the Peninsula were imposing. In 1992, the City of Burlingame adopted a business license tax revision,which increased business license taxes from $50 to $75, and then to $100, and also imposed some additional business license taxes. However, Proposition 62 did not die in 1991. Instead it came back in two forms; one is Proposition 218 which was a correction made by the Howard Jarvis Association to address the defects that the appellate court had seen in Proposition 62. Concurrently, the California Supreme Court was presented with a case where they affirmed Proposition 62 and said it did apply to cities; the question then became at what point did it apply. For the past six years, cities and the Howard Jarvis Association have litigated this issue. Most cities assumed that the statute of limitations was probably three years from either the adoption of Proposition 218 or from the decision that affirmed Proposition 62. However, the California Supreme Court decided this was not the case and adopted neither the opinion of the Howard Jarvis Association nor the opinion of the League of California Cities and decided there is no statute of limitations and that a tax, no matter how old, that is subject to Proposition 62 can be challenged as long as it is still being collected by a city. That puts at risk the two ordinances that were adopted by Burlingame in 1991 and 1992. There are other cases pending regarding Proposition 62; charter cities are taking the position that July 2,2001 2 Burlingame City Council it does not apply to them, but has not been decided. There are more legal arguments that can be made that would make it inapplicable to certain taxes based on Proposition 218's passage. Staff believes, however, this puts a significant amount of the City's general fund at risk; recommends placing the business license tax and transient occupancy tax increase on the ballot in November before the voters of Burlingame. It would address the issues presented by the California Supreme Court and the City would not have to wait to find out if our taxes are going to be invalidated by another court opinion. The transient occupancy tax was increased from 8%to 10% in 1991 and generates from $2.4 to $2.8 million per year; this increase has gone to finance much of what has been improved at the bay side in the last ten years. The recommendation from staff is a ballot measure be placed on the ballot to validate the 2% increase and keep the transient occupancy tax at 10%. The second issue is the business license tax; an increase of$50 to $100. This tax generates approximately$400,000 per year and is basically equal to or less than most business license taxes in the surrounding area. Recommend placing this ballot measure before the voters in November to keep the business license tax rate at $100 per year. Regarding the third issue, in 1992 a new tax was adopted that placed a gross receipts tax of 5% on airport parking facilities located in the City, which generates approximately $260,000 per year and applies to just a few operations in town. Staff is concerned about this because of the nature of way it is imposed; it is imposed not only on a parking facility, but a parking facility that serves the airport and may give rise to some legal fallibilities within the ordinance. Because of that, staff is recommending that we redraft that ordinance so it applies to businesses that constitute a commercial parking business. It would not apply necessarily to a business that offers paid parking as part of the business; it would have to be a predominant part of the business. For example, there can be a commercial parking facility where a certain amount is charged per day; the business can also offer detailing or other amenities but the business itself would really be a parking business. If it is shaped that way, it would not apply to a valet parking operation in a restaurant or a hotel that charges for parking. The fourth issue is that there are a number of minor changes in the business license tax imposed in 1992; staff recommends those revert to the 1992 rates and not be put on the ballot as they are extensive and confusing and some are out of date. Finally, staff recommends that Council consider how to shape a ballot measure; in order to pass a ballot measure it is important to make it clear to the voters exactly what they are voting on. Recommend that there be at least two different measures, one for the transient occupancy tax so it's clear that that applies to a certain business, and secondly, a measure concerning business license taxes that might or might not include the commercial parking enterprises. CA Anderson noted this is the first of the two public hearings that have been scheduled; the second public hearing is scheduled for July 23 at 9:00 a.m. Also recommend this be brought back to the July 16 Council meeting for additional discussion. The decision to have two or three measures on the ballot can be made as late as July 23. If given direction, staff will return on July 16 with draft proposals for Council's review. Council comments: Have had many changes in the hotel usage of the lots that are required for the number of rooms, should be addressed. Staff recommended this is Council's decision, but recommended not to include the hotels in the parking tax. The City of Burlingame does not tax business on the basis of gross receipts, unlike most cities on the Peninsula. The problem with putting a hotel and Burlingame City Council 3 July 2,2001 parking tax together is that the business pays $100 and some part of the business pays on gross receipts; makes more sense to separate those out. A hotel is generating tax in and of itself from the transient occupancy tax. A department store such as Abercrombie and Fitch is generating a sales tax on Burlingame Avenue, whereas a commercial parking facility pays no taxes to the City other than the $100 business tax fee. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Council members stated they felt the transient occupancy tax should be a separate ballot measure; it is a significant and important part of the City's revenue and of all of the issues, the simplest to comprehend and could get confused combined with one of the other issues. Council gave staff direction to move forward on drafting the ballot measures. c. Adoption of ORDINANCE 1657 Amending the Municipal Code to Conform Claim Requirements to Government Code Section 935 and Municipal Code Section 4.14.010. CA Anderson explained that in reviewing the claims filing requirements of the City, there is some confusion among Municipal Code sections. Chapter 4.15 provides a straight-forward, one-year requirement for claims that are not otherwise governed by the State Tort Claims Act. However, two other sections contain variations. It is recommended that the claims requirement process be clarified, and all claims not governed by the Tort Claims Act required to be filed no later than one year following accrual of the claim. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to adopt the ORDINANCE 1657 amending the Municipal Code to conform Claim Requirements to Government Code Section 935 and Municipal Code Section 4.14.010; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. A summary of the notice will be published by the City Clerk. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Don Corey, 833 Alpine, concerned about the eucalyptus windbreak along the train tracks between Oak Grove and Broadway. Bernie Borok, 1475 Lincoln, would like Council to review the situation regarding leaf blower noise. Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, would like better communication between the City and the citizens of Burlingame who do not read newspapers, watch cable TV or use the internet. There were no further comments and the public comment period was closed. City Manager Nantell stated in response to Mr. Anderson's comments that Council has increased resources in the newly adopted budget in an effort to take proactive steps to inform the citizens of Burlingame. In the fall, staff will be conducting citizen surveys as well as sending out an annual report to help the community understand what has been accomplished and the issues the City is looking at the coming year. It is a challenge to get the community involved; it is a frustration at times to do the amount of publicity we do and not be able to get the attention of the community, such as the Housing Element Workshop that was widely publicized in which only four citizens attended. Council's support July 2,2001 4 Burlingame City Council of additional resources in the Clerk's office as well as the resources to do more civic engagement is a step in the right direction. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Introduction of Ordinance Establishing 2001/02 Water Rates Assistant City Manager Becker noted water rates are reviewed annually following preparation of the proposed budget. The proposed consumption rate increase of 3.7% is caused by an estimated 5.0% increase in the cost of water purchased from the San Francisco Water Department, and the need to continue funding the five-year capital improvement program for the water system. The recommended transfer from the water fund for capital improvements is $550,000, up from $450,000 in 2000-01; noted at the May 17 Council meeting, DPW Bagdon presented to Council the updated five-year capital improvements plan. The plan showed total estimated capital improvement needs for the water enterprise of$23 to $50 million. Over the next five years, the city is expected to spend $7 million on water projects, and does not include the anticipated improvements needed for the entire Hetch Hetchy system. The present capacity for capital funding at current rates is only$550,000. A comprehensive financial plan for these capital improvements will be done this coming year. A component of this plan will probably be significant increases in the water rates over time plus a possible use of general fund reserves to assist this enterprise. The water fund currently carries a$1 million loan from the general fund. Mayor Galligan requested City Clerk Musso read the title of the proposed Ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the Ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to introduce the proposed Ordinance, seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan requested City Clerk Musso publish a summary of the proposed Ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. b. Introduction of Ordinance Establishing 2001/02 Sanitary Sewer Rates Assistant City Manager Becker noted that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations require that operation and maintenance costs for the city's sewer enterprise be paid from the sewer rate with a specific method for calculating the rate based on flow and loading. For the determination of the rate, the revenue required was reduced by the estimated amount to be received from Burlingame Hills and Hillsborough. Their respective flows and loadings were removed from the program. The primary reason for the rate increase is to continue accumulation of funding for the capital improvement program for the sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant; noted at the May 17 Council meeting, DPW Bagdon presented to Council the updated five-year capital improvements plan. The plan showed total estimated capital improvement needs for the sewer enterprise of$25 to $50 million. A comprehensive financial plan for these capital improvements will be done this coming year. A component of this plan will probably be significant increases in the sewer rates over time plus a possible use of general fund reserves to assist this enterprise. Mayor Galligan requested City Clerk Musso read the title of the proposed Ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the Ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to introduce the proposed Ordinance, seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan requested City Clerk Musso publish a summary of the proposed Ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. Burlingame City Council 5 July 2,2001 c. Introduction of Ordinance for Installation of a Stop Sign at the Intersection of Trousdale Drive and Quesada Way DPW Bagdon noted the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission considered a petition circulated by residents. One issue raised as a result of the petition was the need to add stop signs for access to Trousdale Drive from side streets. Based on this concern, staff developed traffic counts and speed information for various areas, including the intersection of Quesada Way and Trousdale Drive. Staff recommended that the stop sign be considered by the TSPC as it met the traffic volume warrant. Although there is a low traffic accident history and there would be increased braking noise and gas use, staff believes that the benefits of a stop sign outweigh these concerns. The stop sign would provide a more controlled flow during peak traffic periods, especially for eastbound traffic which backs up as many as ten vehicles in each lane. Also, the stop sign would better facilitate pedestrian crossings. Therefore, staff supports the Commission recommendation. Mayor Galligan requested City Clerk Musso read the title of the proposed Ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the Ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to introduce the proposed Ordinance, seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan requested City Clerk Musso publish a summary of the proposed Ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approve RESOLUTION#73-2001 Authorizing Agreement with Hilton Farnkopf and Hobson to Study and make Recommendations in Connection with Solid Waste Collection Rates ACM Becker recommended approval of RESOLUTION#73-2001 authorizing the agreement with Hilton Farnkopt and Hobson. b. Approve RESOLUTION#74-2001 Ratifying Agreement with San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau for Performance of Services and Activities of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and Approve Form Agreement with Participating Cities CA Anderson recommended Council adopt RESOLUTION#74-2001 to ratify agreement with San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau to provide the services and activities required by the San Mateo Tourism BID, and approve form agreement with participating cities. c. Review and Renewal of Amusement Permit for Fanny & Alexander, 1108 Burlingame Avenue and 303-305 California Drive CA Anderson recommended Council review the existing permit for Fanny&Alexander and renew the permit for six (6) months because the establishment is still evolving and has just recently opened its addition along California Drive. d. Special Encroachment Permit for a Wooden Picket Fence at the Back of the Sidewalk at 833 Alpine Avenue July 2,2001 6 Burlingame City Council DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve the special encroachment permit for a wooden picket fence in accordance with the drawings, permit and conditions noted in the staff report. e. Special Encroachment Permit for a Garage Wall that Extends 3-3/4" into the Public Sewer Easement at 1420 Bernal Avenue DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve the special encroachment permit for a garage wall which encroaches 3-3/4" into the rear sewer easement in accordance with the drawings, permit and conditions noted in the staff report. f. Appointment of Peter Martindale and Mary Warden to the Parks & Recreation Commission as Youth Commissioners Acting Parks &Recreation Director Randy Schwartz recommended Council appoint Peter Martindale and Mary Warden to the Parks &Recreation Commission as Youth Commissioners for the 2001/02 year. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilwoman O'Mahony attended the celebration honoring Joseph and Victoria Cotchett, the Housing Element Workshop, the Celebration of Life Memorial of Marianne Riddle, the Memorial of Eleanor Nettle, a trustee of the Community College District for 33 years, and the committee meeting regarding the ballot measure for November. Councilman Coffey attended Commerce and Coffee, Mike Nevin for Assembly candidate breakfast, Leadership for San Mateo Council, participated in the Maiden of the Morns, Council of Cities meeting,participated in San Mateo's Wine Walk, the OLA Men's Club meeting, and the Housing Element Workshop. Vice Mayor Spinelli attended the Housing Element Workshop and the Council of Cities meeting and Wine Walk in San Mateo. Councilwoman Janney attended the Coffee and Commerce meeting and attempted to attend a scheduled meeting with hotel representatives and the Mayor, which did not occur. Mayor Galligan attended Commerce and Coffee, also attempted to attend the same scheduled meeting as Councilwoman Janney with the hotel representatives, IHN Child Center Opening at 1720 El Camino Real, Leadership Graduation, celebration honoring Joe and Victoria Cotchett, Police/Fire/Recreation Night, 75th Anniversary for First Presbyterian Church, OLA Men's Club meeting, and met with staff regarding the proposed ballot measure. 10. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 11. NEW BUSINESS Councilwoman Janney suggested the meeting be adjourned in Marianne Riddle and Eleanor Nettle's memory. 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Burlingame City Council 7 July 2,2001 • a. Commission Minutes: Library Board of Trustees, May 22, 2001; Beautification, June 7, 2001; Traffic, Safety and Parking, June 14, 2001; Parks &Recreation, June 21, 2001; Planning, June 25, 2001 b. Letter from Eric G. Mendell, 235 Park Road, regarding the Council's commitment to finance artificial turf at Burlingame High School c. Letter from Mary Stair regarding excessive noise due to leaf blowers d. Letter from Lee Breult, 125 Barkentine, Foster City, e. Letter from Gerald Arrigoni, Burlingame High School, accepting the offer for artificial turf and thanking Council for their help Council adjourned to closed at 8:05 p.m. 13. CLOSED SESSION CA Anderson noted Council met in closed session to discuss three matters; a claim by CS2A regarding a motor vehicle accident. Council instructed CA Anderson with regards to a possible settlement. The second matter concerned a personnel matter which is confidential between the City Manager and the Council. Third, the Council discussed the pending litigation with regard to Judy Gladys, which is now before the San Mateo Superior Court and instructed the City Attorney and the Civil Attorney representing the City, Charles Dyer, regarding the pursuit of that case in the trial court. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. in memory of Marianne Riddle, Eleanor Nettle and Eleanor Armstrong, a former Deputy City Clerk for the City of Burlingame. Ann T. Musso City Clerk July 2,2001 8 Burlingame City Council 21TY ; iBURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME REGULAR MEETING-MONDAY,JULY 2, 2001 CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PAGE 1 OF 2 BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 (650)558-7200 0� O.)J3 z [hit, / // J SUGGESTED ACTION 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of June 18, 2001 Approval 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each a. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Design Review, Side Hearing/Action Setback Variance, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope and Hillside Area Construction Permit for an Addition to the Single Family House at 1524 Los Montes Avenue, Zoned R-1 b. Consider Possible Ballot Proposals for the November 2001 Election Hearing/Direction Regarding: (1) Continuing the 10%Transient Occupancy Tax Rate; (2) Continuing the General Business License Tax at$100 per Year; and(3) Establishing a Commercial Parking Tax at the Rate of 5% of Gross Revenues c. Adoption of ORDNANCE Amending the Municipal Code to Hearing/Action Conform Claim Requirements to Government Code Section 935 and Municipal Code Section 4.15.010 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS At this time persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Introduce ORDNANCE Establishing 2001-02 Water Rates Introduce b. Introduce ORDNANCE Establishing 2001-02 Sewer Rates Introduce c. Introduce ORDNANCE to Install a Stop Sign on Trousdale Drive at Introduce Quesada Way 8. CONSENT CALENDAR- Items on the Consent Calendar are acted on Approve simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action are requested by a council member. a. RESOLUTION Authorizing Agreement with Hilton Farnkopt to Study and Make Recommendations in Connection with Solid Waste Collection Rates b. RESOLUTION Ratifying Agreement with San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau for Performance of Services and Activities of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and Approve Form Agreement with Participating Cities W&" BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME ,V1.1 REGULAR MEETING-MONDAY,JULY 2,2001 CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PAGE 2 OF 2 BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 (650)558-7200 c. Review and Renewal of Amusement Permit for Fanny&Alexander, 1108 Burlingame Avenue and 303-305 California Drive for Six Months d. Special Encroachment Permit for a Picket Fence at the back of the Sidewalk at 833 Alpine Avenue e. Special Encroachment Permit for a Garage Wall Extending 3-3/4 inches into the Public Sewer Easement at 1420 Bernal Avenue f. Appoint Peter Martindale and Mary Warden to the Parks & Recreation Commission as Youth Commissioners 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library Board of Trustees, May 22, 2001; Beautification, June 7, 2001; Traffic, Safety and Parking, June 14, 2001; Parks &Recreation, June 21, 2001; Planning, June 25, 2001 b. Letter from Eric Mendell, 235 Park Road, regarding the Council's decision to finance artificial turf at Burlingame High School c. Letter from Mary Stair regarding leaf blower noise d. Letter from Mr. Lee Breault regarding the Veterans of Foreign Wars Community Award Program e. Letter from Burlingame High School Prinicipal Gerald Arrigoni thanking Council for city's offer of financial assistance in providing a synthetic turf field at BHS 13. CLOSED SESSION a. Threatened litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)): Claim of CSAA for vehicle damage b. Personnel matter(Government Code § 54957): one matter c. Pending litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a)): City of Burlingame vs. Gladysz, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 412328 14. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE:Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities,please contact the City Clerk at(650)558- 7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall,501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—July 16,2001 BURUNGAME `RATED JUNE b. UNAPPROVED MINUTES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA June 18, 2001 1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor Joe Galligan. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Previously said during the Financing Authority meeting. 3. ROLL CALL Council Present: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI Council Absent: None 4. MINUTES Mayor Galligan noted on page 5 of the minutes of June 4, 2001, on the fifth line down, the word "concerns" should read "concerts." Vice Mayor Spinelli asked that the first line of page 5 of the same minutes be changed to state that he attended the Shinnyo-en Bridge of Friendship lunch. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the minutes of June 4, 2001, seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved by voice vote 5-0. Councilwoman Janney moved approval of the Minutes of the June 5, 2001 Budget Study Session, seconded by Councilman Spinelli, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan pulled from the Consent Calendar item 8c) and asked that it be added to item to Public Hearing item 5a). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. 2001/02 Budget Public Hearing (1) RESOLUTION#55-2001 ADOPTING 2001/02 BUDGET AND RESOLUTION 56-2001 SETTING APPROPRIATION LIMITS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII (B) OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (2) RESOLUTION 57-2001 ESTABLISHING INTERNAL SERVICE AND RESERVE FUNDS IN 2001/02 BUDGET (3) CONSIDER REQUEST FROM SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR PURCHASE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF FOR BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL FIELD (4) CONSIDER REQUEST FROM BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING MOWING LARGE TURF AREAS City Manager Nantell noted that the Council has discussed the capital improvement and general operating budgets at several study sessions, and highlighted that the budget is $68 million, with $31 million for Burlingame City Council June 18,2001 Unapproved Minutes 1 general fund activities and $13 million for enterprise funds of water, sewer, golf center and waste, and $22 million in capital improvements. The total budget is up $13.7 million or 25% over the previous year, mostly due to a$10 million capital improvement program to reconstruct the Public Works corporation yard. He discussed the creation of internal service funds and reserve funds necessary to deal with anticipated future needs,particularly for public works vehicles, fire apparatus, roof and heating/ventilating system replacements, and computer systems. Reserve funds are set up for possible community emergencies, the possibility of employee retirements, a performance recognition program and a half million dollar contingency reserve to handle any unanticipated expenditures in the operating budget throughout the year. With regard to item 8(c), CM Nantell described the annual contract with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber's request for additional funding for a new brochure that would describe restaurants and shopping in Burlingame to be distributed at hotels. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing on items 5(a) and 8(c). Georgette Naylor and Tim Auran of the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce told the Council that in response to the need to place the new brochures in hotel rooms rather than just in distribution racks, the Chamber was requesting $35,000. This would allow for publishing the brochure twice a year; approximately 200,000 copies would be published each year. No one else wished to testify on the two items, so the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Coffey moved to adopt Resolution No. 55-2001 adopting the 2001/02 budget amended with the additional funding of$35,000 for the Chamber from the contingency reserve and Resolution No. 56-2001 establishing the appropriation limit for 2001/02 pursuant to Article XIII(B) of the California Constitution. Councilmember O'Mahony seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. Councilmember Janney moved to adopt Resolution 57-2001 approving the establishment of internal service and reserve funds, seconded by Councilmember O'Mahony. Motion passed 5-0. Acting Parks &Recreation Director Schwartz described the request of the San Mateo Union High School District for the City to provide funding assistance to install an artificial surface on the Burlingame High School (BHS) football field. The cost would be approximately$640,000. Because the District cannot afford that capital cost, the proposal is for the City to advance this sum to the District. The District would then reimburse the City by crediting the City approximately$22,000 per year against the City's maintenance and operating contributions for the Aquatic Center for a period of 10 years. In addition, AYSO and the BHS Boosters Club would contribute a combined amount of$10,000 per year over that same period. The new surface would increase use of the field on a year-round, safer basis. Council comments: Want to ensure community use of the rebuilt field. Wish to keep back practice field in mind, but District needs to address main field first. Councilmember Janney moved to amend the 2001/02 budget resolution to provide the requested funding for the BHS field, seconded by Councilmember O'Mahony. Councilmember O'Mahony asked the maker of the motion to accept an amendment to the motion that the funding for the field be taken from the transient occupancy tax reserve, which was accepted. The motion passed 5-0. Acting Parks &Recreation Director Schwartz then described the Mayor's request that the Parks Division provide the Council with an estimate of the cost to the City of providing maintenance of the large turf areas as McKinley and Roosevelt Schools that are owned by the Burlingame Elementary School District. Staff estimated that this would require the addition of one half-time position to the Parks Division, which could be accomplished by expanding a proposed half-time position to a full-time position in the 2001/02 budget. Vice Mayor Spinelli moved to amend the 2001/02 budget resolution to provide the additional funding for a full-time position to provide maintenance of the large turf areas at the two elementary schools. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Janney, and passed 5-0. June 18,2001 Burlingame City Council 2 Unapproved Minutes b) RESOLUTION 71-2001 APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY OF NOT TO EXCEED $15,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL LEASE REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE THE CORPORATION YARD PROJECT; AUTHORIZING ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS RELATING TO THE LEASE FINANCING WITH THE BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY AND APPROVE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS Assistant City Manager Becker explained that the proposed resolution would affirm the City's participation in the financing of the corporation yard as was adopted by the Burlingame Financing Authority in its meeting earlier this evening. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There being no one asking to speak, the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Spinelli made a motion to approve RESOLUTION#71-2001 approving the issuance by the Burlingame Financing Authority of not to exceed $15,000,000 aggregate principal lease revenue bonds to finance the corporation yard project; authorizing all necessary actions relating to the lease financing with the Burlingame Financing Authority and approving necessary documents; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c) APPROVAL OF BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PARKING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND FINANCING STRATEGY FOR A PARKING GARAGE ON LOT J Director of Public Works Bagdon and Bill Hurell of Wilbur Smith Associates presented the second part of the parking study following the first part presented in February 2000. The study recommends a 4-phase program to reconfigure parking rates, increase parking meter rates, and consider construction of a new parking structure at Lot J to be financed by the parking meter charges. The study has been discussed at a number of public meetings and forwarded by the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission. Public comments have indicated opposition to changing the time limits on meters on Burlingame Avenue. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. David Peterson, 905 Paloma Avenue, felt the parking problem is due to employees parking in the downtown area and would like to see some type of permit parking for employees implemented. Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way, suggested if a parking garage is built, staff should consider permit parking instead of free lots. Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, is concerned about the measurability of the effectiveness of change on behavior; monitoring is in phase four but building of the garage is in phase three; Mr. Cohen suggested these phases be switched. Cliff Woods, 234 Primrose Road, expressed support for raising the parking rates; feels most of the problems are with employees parking downtown. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, noted he is a supporter of more parking downtown; concerned that new plan will cause employees who work in Subarea A to be forced to park around the periphery, which may place a burden on the property owners in Subarea B; now might be an appropriate time to study this potential problem. Carolyn Mieay, 730 Crossway Road, realizes there is a parking problem in Burlingame but does not want parking meter costs doubled or time decreased on meters. Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue, encouraged Council to consider other sources of mitigating the parking problems before a large parking structure is built in the downtown area. Anna Marie Holland Daniels, 515 Howard Avenue, also has concerns about building a large structure without exhausting other alternatives. Ralph Osterling, 1361 Columbus, noted parking is an issue and supports the plan,but would like to look at a comprehensive approach to the community's civil, commercial, residential, and parking needs in the downtown area, pointing to the Carmel Plaza in Carmel as a possible reference. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Director Bagdon told the Council that staff would return with the proposed increases in meter rates and changes to encourage employee parking in lots on the perimeter of the Burlingame Avenue area by the end of calendar year. Further consideration of the parking structure will be postponed until the City has a chance to evaluate these efforts. Burlingame City Council June 18,2001 Unapproved Minutes 3 d) ANNUAL REVIEW AND RENEWAL OF AMUSEMENT PERMITS: ALIBI BAR. AMERICAN BULL BAR, BEHAN'S IRISH PUB,BURLINGAME STATION BREWERY, CALIFORNIA BAR AND GRILL, CARIBBEAN GARDENS, DICEY RILEYS' IRISH PUB, FOUR GREEN FIELDS, GOLDEN CHINA, GRANDVIEW, HYATT HOTEL, MAX'S OPERA CAFÉ, MOON MCSHANE'S, PARAGON, PARK PLAZA HOTEL, SHERATON GATEWAY HOTEL, STEAMERS BY THE BAY (EMBASSY SUITES) City Attorney Anderson noted this is an annual review process in which Council has a chance to look at the previous years performance by the 18 establishments that hold amusement permits. The permits define the operation with regard to entertainment the establishments offer. Fanny and Alexander was inadvertently omitted from the agenda and CA Anderson requested this item be placed on the consent calendar for the next Council meeting. Request the other 17 amusement permits be extended for another full year. Fanny and Alexander has just opened their addition on California Drive and recommend that their permit be extended for six months; management still trying to get a handle on how to manage the crowds. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the one-year extension of amusement permits with conditions for Alibi Bar, American Bull Bar, Behan's Irish Pub,Burlingame Station Brewery, California Bar and Grill, Caribbean Gardens, Dicey Rileys' Irish Pub, Four Green Fields, Golden China, Grandview, Hyatt Hotel, Max's Opera Café, Moon McShane's, Paragon, Park Plaza Hotel, Sheraton Gateway Hotel, Steamer's By the Bay(Embassy Suites); seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e) APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL WITH AN ADDED CONDITION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1441 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED 4-1 City Planner Monroe described the August 2000 approval of a special permit for height and design review for a new home at 1441 Bernal. During construction, the City learned that changes to the approved home had been made without City approval. The property owner then submitted plans with the changes already made for Planning Commission consideration. The changes included removal of a deck, addition of a window, addition of roof elements, altered trim, and addition of a door. During the Commission's hearing on the changes, the neighbor at 1445 Bernal objected to the curb cut for the new home's driveway extending to the front of her property. The Commission found that the changed driveway was not accurately shown on the plans and eliminated a planting strip that had been approved in the original application. The Commission approved the changes on the additional condition that the owner of 1441 Bernal install the planting strip as shown on the original plans and remove the curb cut from the front of 1445 Bernal. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Linda Frye, owner of 1441 Bernal, stated that she was being harassed. The design review process kept contractors from making changes on site. The City approved the curb cut and if the City wants it changed, the City should pay for it. Ms. Frye was worried about disturbing the neighbor's wall. The larger driveway protected the wall and no one had mentioned the planting strip before. Mary Packard, 1445 Bernal, felt that removal of the new driveway might undercut her wall. She just wanted the curb cut removed. Mark Robertson, architect for the owner of 1441 Bernal, felt the house had been built well. There was no further public testimony and the hearing was closed. In response to questions, CA Anderson explained that the Planning Commission condition required the property owner to remove the curb cut and if the owner felt the City was liable for the problem, a claim June 18,2001 Burlingame City Council 4 Unapproved Minutes • could be filed with the City for reimbursement. The City does not construct curb cuts; those are built by the owners' contractors to City standards. Council comments: Councilmembers O'Mahony and Spinelli felt property owner and contractor should follow rules and approved set of plans. Councilmembers Coffey and Janney felt the driveway looks fine and the width is needed; not sure how a narrow planter strip would work. Mayor Galligan believed that most homes in neighborhood have planter strips, need to protect design process; he suggested ending planter strip where distance between house and property line narrows. Vice Mayor Spinelli moved to uphold the Planning Commission decision to require the planter strip and correct the curb cut, with the planter strip to end where it affects a vehicle maneuvering between the house and the side property line. Councilmember O'Mahony seconded, and the motion passed 3-2 (Coffey/Janney dissenting). 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Panzer, Shelter Network, thanked Council for their continued support of the non-profit organization. Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, noted the teen center committee has worked hard to arrive at where they are today; four options have been reviewed for placement of the new recreation facility; wanted to know if the committee will be allowed to gain more information from the architects or move on with the recommendation from the recreation committee. If the further studies are approved,who is going to give the architects direction and will any committee members be actively involved in the study. Too many unanswered questions surrounding the new facility. Suggests a survey be conducted of Burlingame teens and parents to determine the needs. Steve Warden, 736 Acacia Drive, noted both his children have been involved in the ongoing process of working to build the teen center; heard many points from a member of the Washington Park Society at Art in the Park that were not supported by the facts, such as the City is planning on building a 47,000 square foot building for teens only at a cost of up to $20 million. Would like to see everyone back away from the non-productive rhetoric regarding this issue and let the committee make its recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Commission and ultimately the City Council. Steven Baum, 2121 Adeline, explained a summer basketball program that started three years ago; there are 300 kids signed up with a large waiting list. Feels there is a strong need for a multi-use facility in Burlingame. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Galligan requested Council hear item 7c) due to the long length of the meeting. c) STATUS REPORT FROM TEEN RECREATION FACILITIES COMMITTEE CM Nantell noted a committee was appointed to review the issue of where to locate a facility that could best respond to the facility needs for teenagers in this community. The Committee is made up of people with various perspectives; asked them to come back to the Council with a recommendation by June 18, and if they could not come up with a recommendation, they were requested to give Council a status report. Charles Voltz and Ed Larios, Co-Chairs of the Committee, explained the committee has worked hard and long on this issue. Building consensus takes a long time, especially with a group that is passionate about their positions and feelings; to get the kind of consensus that will create a bonding type of pattern as the committee goes through the process so they can get on with what needs to be addressed. The next step from the Committee is receiving information back from the consultant that will be hired and then return to Council with a recommendation. a) PRESENTATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS DPW Bagdon noted that staff has been working with the consultants for over two years to identify the short and long term needs of the wastewater treatment plant. Over$19 million of needs; the first phase of needs totals $7 million,which includes reliability, capacity and process improvements. A State revolving loan should be available to assist in funding a very significant portion of the first phase. Burlingame City Council June 18,2001 Unapproved Minutes 5 • Mike Britten and Rick Chan of Carollo Engineers made a presentation of scope, phasing and financing strategy for the project. Key regulator impacts and project benefits were also discussed. Staff will return to Council with the loan agreement by the end of the year. b) INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONFORM CLAIM REQUIREMENTS TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 935 AND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.15.010 CA Anderson explained that State law allows the City to establish claim filing requirements for claims not encompassed within the State Tort Claims Act. The City has those requirements,but they are somewhat inconsistent. The proposed ordinance would conform the requirements,requiring those claims to be filed within one year of accrual. This could save the City money in the future. City Clerk Musso read the title of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Janney moved and Vice Mayor Spinelli seconded the waiving of further reading of the ordinance. The motion passed 5-0. Councilmember Janney moved to introduce the proposed ordinance. Vice Mayor seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. The City Clerk was directed to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least 5 days before proposed adoption. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a) RESOLUTION 59-2001 APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR STORM DRAIN PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS, CALIFORNIA/GROVE AREA, PHASE 3 —CITY PROJECT NO. 9829 Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended that Council approve RESOLUTION 59-2001 approving a professional engineering services agreement with Bibb and Associates, Inc. in the amount of$157,913. b) RESOLUTION 60-2001 AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH KELLING NORTHCROSS NOBRIGA FOR FINANCIAL PLANNING SERVICES Assistant City Manager Becker recommended approval of RESOLUTION 60-2001 authorizing the agreement with Kelling Northcross Nobriga for Financial Planning Services. c) APPROVE RESOLUTIONS 61-2001 AND 62-2001 AUTHORIZING 2001-02 AGREEMENTS WITH (1) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND (2) PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER Executive Assistant Weber recommended Council adopt RESOLUTION 61-2000 approving agreement with Burlingame Chamber of Commerce [with funding provisions approved under item 5], and RESOLUTION 62-2001 approving agreement with Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center. d) RESOLUTION 63-2001 ACCEPTING PENINSULA AVENUE RESURFACING PROJECT —CP-9921(2) Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended Council accept the Peninsula Avenue Resurfacing Project by approving RESOLUTION 63-2001 in the amount of$522,187.74. e) RESOLUTION 64-2001 AWARDING BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ROLLINS ROAD & SKYLINE BOULEVARD RESURFACING PROJECT—CP 8023(2) Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended that Council approve RESOLUTION 64-2001 awarding the resurfacing project to G. Bortolotto and Company in the amount of$1,341,396.05; and that staff be authorized to issue change orders up to 31% of the construction work. I) RESOLUTION 65-2001 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR BROADWAY STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS NORTH SIDE, 1190 TO 1454 BROADWAY CONSTRUCTION TO June 18,2001 Burlingame City Council 6 Unapproved Minutes J.J.R. CONSTRUCTION AND RESOLUTION 66-2001 APPROVING CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO NOVA PARTNERS, CITY PROJECT NO. 9511 Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended Council approve resolutions for the Broadway Streetscape Improvements, North side, 1190 to 1454 Broadway: a) RESOLUTION 65-2001 awarding a construction contract to J.J.R. Construction in the amount of$849,243.95; b) RESOLUTION 66-2001 approving a consultant agreement for construction management services to Nova Partners in the amount of$73,800. g) RESOLUTION 67-2001 ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND TROUSDALE DRIVE RESURFACING PROJECT—CP 9921 Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended Council approve RESOLUTION 67-2001 and accept the California Drive and Trousdale Drive Resurfacing Project in the amount of$640,308.59. h) LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PROPOSED BYLAWS AMENDMENT TO INCREASE DUES TO IMPLEMENT LEAGUE GRASSROOTS NETWORK City Manager Nantell recommended approval of the League bylaws amendment; this amendment will implement a statewide Grassroots Network to protect local control and reduce the likelihood of city revenues being taken by the State. i) WARRANTS AND PAYROLL, MAY, 2001 Finance Director Becker recommended approval of Warrants 76342-76800, excluding Library check #76756-76800, duly audited, in the amount of$2,247.687.30, Payroll Checks 137516-138329 in the amount of$1,359,202.04, and EFT's in the amount of$343,362.69 for the month of May, 2001. j) FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A 9-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 808-820 EL CAMINO REAL, RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS K, L, M, AND N, BLOCK 6, MAP OF BURLINGAME TERRACE—PM 98-1 Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended Council approve the final parcel maps subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. k) RESOLUTION 68-2001 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH SAN MATEO COUNTY FOR STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM SERVICES IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended Council approve RESOLUTION 68-2001 authorizing the agreement with San Mateo County for Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Services in the City of Burlingame. 1) RESOLUTION 69-2001 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAYS IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended Council approve RESOLUTION 69-2001 authorizing an agreement with the State of California for maintenance of state highways in the City of Burlingame. m) REQUEST TO CANCEL AUGUST 6, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING AND APPROVAL TO SCHEDULE A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING FOR JULY 23, 2001 City Clerk Musso recommended Council cancel the August 6, 2001 Council meeting and schedule a Regular Council meeting for July 23' Burlingame City Council June 18,2001 Unapproved Minutes 7 n) FOLLOW UP TO THE PRESENTATION ON THE DRAFT COMPACT FOR A SUSTAINABLE BAY AREA AND APPROVE RESOLUTION 70-2001 COMMITTING THE COUNCIL TO FURTHER STUDY City Planner Monroe recommended Council adopt RESOLUTION 70-2001 committing the City to further study the ten commitments that are the core of a Draft Compact for a Sustainable Bay Area. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilwoman Janney attended the San Mateo Union High School District Adult School graduation and the SamTrans Board of Director's meeting. Vice Mayor Spinelli attended Art in the Park and the Airport Roundtable meeting. Councilwoman O'Mahony attended Fred Heron's retirement party, Art in the Park, OLA picnic, and the installation of Lion Jack VanEtten as President for 2001/02. Councilman Coffey attended the Sports Hall of Fame, City School Liaison meeting, Art in the Park, OLA picnic, toured a Japanese Coast Guard boat, Chamber Board meeting, Traffic Alliance meeting in Daly City, Land Use Commission meeting, and the installation of Lion Jack VanEtten as President for 2001/02. Mayor Galligan attended the opening for the learning center at 1409 Chapin, City Liaison meeting with the school district, visited St. Catherine's Church while they were housing some homeless families, installation of Lion Jack Van Etten, met with Safeway, St. Catherine's golf dinner, Chamber Board of Directors meeting, the Sports Hall of Fame,played in Farm Bureau Golf Tournament, Art in the Park, OLA picnic, and joint service luncheon. All Councilmembers attended the budget study meeting. 10. OLD BUSINESS Vice Mayor Spinelli noted the "No Parking" sign in front of Peninsula Hospital is missing and would like the Police Chief to follow up on having the sign replaced. 11. NEW BUSINESS Councilwoman Janney noted that Mayor Galligan was the recipient of the Wade Macomber Award. Mayor Galligan set the appeal hearing for 1524 Los Montes for the July 2, 2001 meeting. 12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Parks &Recreation, June 4, 2001; Planning, June 11, 2001 b. Department Reports: Police, May 2001; Finance, May 31, 2001 c. Letter from George Stallos, 1705 Floribunda, thanking Parks &Recreation for the help with the Burlingame Senior Softball Memorial Day Tournament d. Flier from Burlingame Planning Department regarding Housing Element Workshop being held June 23, 2001, 9:00 a.m., City Hall e. Letter from Mrs. Beary, 2001 Ray Drive, regarding noise from leaf blowers 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Aim T. Musso June 18,2001 Burlingame City Council 8 Unapproved Minutes STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM# 5 a MTG. DATE 07.02.01 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED G Cn n ._ J' 6n BY � Jam( ll' DATE: JUNE 26,2001 APPROVED t d FROM: CITY PLANNER BY 04 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A ESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 1524 LOS MONTES AVENUE, ZONED R-1. RECOMMENDATION City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action on any item of this request should include findings. The reasons for any action should be stated for the record. Action should be taken by resolution. Action alternatives and the criteria for findings for the various requests are attached at the end of the staff report. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project on June 11, 2001, and voted 2-2-3 (Cers. Osterling and Bojues dissenting, Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent)to deny the applicants requests. In their action the commission noted that there is no problem with blocked view, the design is appropriate, the issue is the side setback variance and the fact that there are no findings, physical hardships on the property to justify the variance. Commissioners in favor of the variance noted: the design of the house is enhanced by extending the side wall into the required side setback and the house was built with a side setback which does not comply with current zoning code requirements. Commission discussed the option of continuing this item to the next meeting to allow the applicant to revise the project to eliminate the side setback variance or to identify some physical hardships on the property to justify the variance. The motion to continue failed; so the original motion to approve, which also failed stood, and the project was denied on a tied vote. In order to pass a motion must receive a majority of the votes of the seated commissioners, in this case three votes. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing a fist and second story addition to the existing two story house with attached garage at 1524 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1. This property slopes about 27 feet from front to rear property lines. The addition would increase the floor area ratio from .24 FAR(2,883 SF) to .33 FAR(3,907 SF);the maximum FAR allowed on this lot is .41 (4,861 SF). With the proposed design the existing attached garage would be retained with interior dimensions of 19 feet in width and 20 feet in length. The following exceptions are requested for this project: • Design Review of a first and second story addition; • Hillside Area Construction Permit for view blockage; • Side Setback Variance for 1'-10"or the right side of the lower floor(5'-2"proposed where 7'-0" is the minimum setback required); and • Special Permit for declining height envelope along the right side of the house (17 SF, 2'-0"x 8'-6" along the right side extends beyond the declining height envelope line). The Planning Commission received a letter from a nearby property owner who expressed concern about the impact on the view from the rear of his house by extending this house further toward the rear of the lot. The applicant provided pictures documenting that other houses between his and the nearby owner's extended further toward the rear than was proposed by this project. The commission expressed concern both at study and action about what the unique characteristics or hardships were on this lot to justify the side setback variance. In the end although all the commissioners agreed that the architectural style of the house was consistent and compatible with the existing neighborhood,the variance finding issue was not addressed adequately for some of the commissioners. ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives and Criteria for Findings Monroe letter to Sidney Hoover, June 19, 2001, setting appeal Betsy Haugh letter to Burlingame City Council Members, June 12, 2001, requesting appeal Planning Commission Minutes, June 11, 2001 Planning Commission Staff Report June 11, 2001 with attachments Public Hearing Notice for Appeal Hearing, mailed June 22, 2001 Resolution • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE,AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review, side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope, and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition at 1524 Los Montes Avenue,zoned R-1,Michael Berman and Betsy Haugh, property owner, APN: 027-046-090; WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on June 11, 2000 at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was apppealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on July 2, 2000 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said design review, sidesetback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and hillside area construction permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review, side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and hillside area construction permit are set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, ANN MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2"d day of July, 2001, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: AB SENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and hillside area construction permit. 1524 LOS MONTES DRIVE effective July 2, 2001 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 31, 2001, Sheets AO through A5, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's May 5, 2001 memos shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. . RESOLUTION NO.72-2001 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review, side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope, and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition at 1524 Los Montes Avenue, zoned R-1, Michael Berman and Betsy Haugh, property owner, APN: 027-046-090; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on June 11, 2000 at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was apppealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on July 2, 2000 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said design review, sidesetback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and hillside area construction permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review, side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and hillside area construction permit are set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 11019 '4 4 OR I, ANN MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of July, 2001, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, 0`MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE-' ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 0,444d.Lfibt CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and hillside area construction permit. 1524 LOS MONTES DRIVE effective July 2, 2001 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 31, 2001, Sheets AO through A5, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's May 5, 2001 memos shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Action Alternatives and Criteria for Findings— 1524 Los Montes Page 2 1524 Los Montes Action Alternatives and Criteria for Findings ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission;when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff; applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Action Alternatives and Criteria for Findings— 1524 Los Montes Page 2 SPECIAL PERMIT CODE CRITERIA The planning commission may grant a special permit in accord with this title if, from the applicant and the facts presented at the public hearing, it finds: (a)the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or additional are consistent with the existing structure❑s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish material and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d)Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city❑s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR AN HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Code Sec. 25.61.060: Review by the planning commission or city council shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. CITY BURLI}NGAME 4111 q S ,q RATiD JYN[q The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650)558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650)696-3790 June 19, 2001 Sidney Hoover Architects Sidney Hoover 500 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Dear Mr. Hoover, At the City Council meeting of June 18, 2001, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your application for design review, side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and hillside area construction permit. This application was to allow for a first and second story addition at 1524 Los Montes Drive,zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held on July 2, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, NliAlUn re- Margar t Monroe City Planner smg I524LOSM.acc c: Michael Berman and Betsy Haugh City Clerk HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNC -k 4\ , k PLEASE SET THIS APPEAL HEARING ��JJCUJ��J���\ FOR 1524 LOS MONTES FOR JULY 2 ,�! N ovk S 2001 . THANK YOU. W`7 ' ` ANN T. MUSSO - ( ,u e/ CA CITY CLERK qH-oto (050. e� 3uone I2.) 7.o 01 duel► ame G t-�.l �u�►c� I Items s 11 C 1 I W i wI yob e, Road 13uvllIcxrvi-e-, C q -o t o Pe vov of Imo- CoLkv'c ( MewIloeY‹. vvavvte, 13eAy tAmlig (WA T) --ouel v\i'Th V'►'`'1 1AckcIlooJAd Micka-e.1 BeAiAJouni aky\ --1-\71;1_, ovVvue,v- o. 1�2 0367 Mo vti-es 1)6\ Li& v l i virvine Lease a.1kovJ \dk - t) SeiRic oc, bcf- Ye�uesfi (V Q.1 Sv`"e-- 11 2Q0 i ISI twto i rg Govvi wt'�ss 1 b v1 a,eCCciOVI de-vAkt i r� ()Luc CyP I i ratio n -ar jc4T71 (eV etA1 . ±Inev- YeVeSt `� `f�u� i-�e-gym be Saeed DVA `I, Dzu M e-i .5 g s Q ean.d a. fc Jihl�{ z, 2_00 1 j .V-- *W. y0wW CM171-ec-7y OJAA Coon Y'e- aV-c-1` Re7eC;q2iAlly sullo vwtfed, ��� , v3h • City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2001 plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 1, 2001, sheets A.1 through A.6 and L-1, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's May 14, 2001, memos shall be met; 4) that if required by the Public Works Department, a retaining wall shall be constructed along the east property line within the 1'-0" setback from the left side property line to the proposed driveway; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m. 6. 1524 LOS MONTES DRIVE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE,AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(SIDNEY HOOVER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL BERMAN AND BETSY HAUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 6.11.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Sidney Hoover, designer and applicant, and Michael Berman and Betsy Haugh, owners, were present to answer questions. Mr. Berman spoke addressing the letter from Mr. Cho at 1540 Los Montes Drive concerning a blocked view. He noted that 1540 Los Montes Drive was separated from the subject property by three residences; the bay views from the residence at 1540 Los Montes Drive face east and the subject property is located to the north of 1540 Los Montes Drive; and the subject property has residences on either side that extend at least 8'-0" beyond the proposed addition, so the proposed work will not be visible to 1540 Los Montes Drive. Mr. Berman noted that Mr. Cho is an absentee landlord and that the family renting the residence at 1540 Los Montes Drive did not register any complaints about a blocked view. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission Discussion: at the design review study session the Commission noted that there must be extraordinary circumstances or a physical hardship on a property to justify a variance, on the variance form the answer to this question states "there are no extraordinary circumstances", cannot approve a variance where no justification has been given; the plans are well and done and the design will complement the neighborhood; however, there is no physical hardship to the property to justify a variance;the design of the house is enhanced by extending the side wall into the required setback; the hardship on the property is that the house was built with a side setback that does not comply with current code requirements; the integrity of the design is dependent on the variance; the owner has demonstrated that the proposed addition does not block any views. C. Keighran moved to.approve the project,by resolution, with the conditions listed in the staff report. C. Auran seconded the motion. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2001 Acting Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 2-2-3 (Cers. Osterling and Bojues dissenting and Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). Commission comment: there is no problem with a blocked view, the issue is the side setback variance. The declining height exception is all right, fits the design. The applicant should resolve the side setback issue and return to the next meeting. C. Osterling moved to suspend the previous motion and continue the project for two weeks so the applicant can address hardship on the property and justification for the side setback variance. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Discussion on the motion: do not want to see this project prolonged; asked of the CA, if the applicant wishes to appeal the decision, what are his options? CA Anderson noted that if the motion to continue passes, the applicant cannot appeal to City Council, the Commission must act on the project, if the motion to continue fails, and there are no other motions, the previous action stands which was a denial because of the split vote. The applicant can appeal the denial to the to City Council. • Acting Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue. The motion failed 2-2-3 (Cers. Keighran and Auran dissenting and Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga and Vistica absent). The project was denied based on the failure of the motion to continue to pass and the split vote on the previous motion. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 7. 1228 BERNAL AVENUE—ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(JAMES DELIA,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 6.11.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Michelle Delia, owner,was present to answer questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues noted that the modification to the porch results in a better over-all design so 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 Building Department date stamped January 30, 2001, sheets 3, 3.1, 5 and Li, and on the plans submitted.to the Planning Department and date stamped December 15,2000, sheet G and on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 16, 2001, sheets 1, 2 and 4;with the proposed ceiling height of 12'-0"in bedroom# 1;with the proposed detached garage with an eave extending l'-6" at the west elevation and a barge rafter extending l'-6" at the east elevation, an overhang at the front of the garage which measures 1'-6", and a side setback of l'-6"; and with the proposed porch showing four full columns extended to a 3'-0" wood shingle wall enclosing the porch and with a 19'-8" front setback; 2) that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to the permit; 3) that any changes to the:size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a 5 , . . . Item# L Action Calendar . 4,-,.act..77:44.2, **. - ) kc, e• .: ''''Ved„....0:-...ff.s,,,..Vjzietti:.,-,;......,;• 1,1111,,„..'• !...,.,,,,it:::-..:,:or.., Ni.14 soir14, ' • it.':,,,Lo....' tr:_._41kat,,..4,41Nieli.-4'4.- ;•.•-•.•)4,4,!-.'• '..414-iiirrlibr4-I I-. A... wilv t.^..oupp,q,,ivitipsj„, iii,..;•47‘,..cs,. 6-,.• ''.9,': .i'''-iWt '#'''`.....1 i' 'AV --0,V el !0 i...,alsi, c•t '. ki?! i.ir.:,:froli.:31.1*.,".,:,...., *--l'ellee-r- .)el, ,t,r,,,5 4./.44.0rAter11,,,40„Alift to,A-4-kkIrtt-iii.• ••/--q-4-1, 0-* ''''''' N ,' ,stp ,&11#.4v#,,,,dak•,....i.,.0!1".„-77...4116,4;i:S -.ea. - ,,,,..,7,1:,...,„.3,,ket&i.---'..1,'',- ,:tiii .4t'Af');;-.7.0.1!•'.:t.:,-...7.,?,1:::..ki- ,.'. 4' • ... . • I:, •Ak'Y.4-1.-''.0;rq314.21.4 i'Z'''3..4101:.i.',:t,,,:.,"4iif•!,--' d....0.'cr,,••.4.,.-'VV.-.,.,:itif-.. :1,6,14::: .4' ''.-11e: 4;',,:4it...a,cq4%..:.4toii.ott2°''' ]!:.,"!,,i2;-__Vife,4,*ii ,!:.,.-72,:: r 1,,,,,,..._ .. •1 T ., , , , .:,...i Vii:1,,- ir. I-.1 if 1 l' . 4 -t t.,gi.-_r•;- 4 ta. ''..'/! :.. •,:•..!.,..!• ;42: °''', ,,4.........,}4.,,-q .;,;-,w.,,,,.-.;i;-_!.3.:. ,i,,..,eili. -ic vi --.iipilit..".-:„.„,„.,,, • ..,•7•,,_11.,-iz-tfie :?,--f, „ic.,...,:ttl,,,,*:-..4-7,%,„,cooft',.v.,4,1--"xv,tir: ...-.,-41-tlyi -•.• l‘riV;i-lail-;; TAyeti.', . ' • .- .t.'littAtt'''41Lit • ty tUfleAttlf-9tar..4 ..;.14:_ i .11 '-.$".-4- •!... :4,,,.. --4 ,„).,%,- , -,...,),:,...:,....:, 4.--*if', .. ..: -- "P''' -,v A' — '• '?!., .,...3-e:7-,•.0-04- :11n•-;44*'...k4;''' ..4A-0.").0. c,-.- .. -,.......,.. "4•°_,- • .. '4.cc. ;...h.r , -„,.../,.--,..- - '..i.K.S4'fii.l. Jo ,I.;!:,-• --........ ..-ri.N 4 '' L.1. 4 ,:;eld S. _ _ 1{51.•-MA-. r (,..i 0,, .......,,•„4...:„.1 -----,--,- '':( r''''' ' -Lf1.1 t,''`''•'.--':f'''-'-'' /'' '1 3''l - ''''''''' e • ,,, - I g e•. ,. .. .4'.:11''.:::".:h'i'IfilM.' :WITI:,:i.5', r,.i Te'f*. ;;P1'..,7., :r•li,'t:....? ' '41'1. ,:•:::‘.,' ,..' ..:,..2'..r , ..,,s.. ..:..,. '44-',1-,344, .1*,L3:.-,,ist§T!,,::,.',,ii TAi...-.S,:4=A-.11A.'i,-. ,,, .,,-• -- ' -. i, .....- .;441-1,,,A.qitt ,itg!....,--i:..I;:..,.; 1c1:4-.*-iirt4'z'w, .;- ..'!'' . ":- ,:.., -- =---.,11 1'''A:lf.fflifiifitrei.iati7V .,-' 14;1. '-i....i., 'IP ' ;;'','.4-1,:',':**".-',:: , ....'-',„..-..'..: -, , ine474-vIcimar,,, ,,' ' .•t,4-i -:', ,:-qt•,. :-': , • :-,. , -:-..,... :lit.. . ;''• .5:,-'.1,.....,i--,-,',_Sn'ArSSM ''. '''' .-. :'.;•1). '''.. - .'-'• ;',%,',.. -V.. -: . ..- t. ''P.j'.4,-'.fY;t-,-.......-17-i7,-*L-..pto• z:. v,z,,,, .. ..t,.4 • -- ' i, , : .::, _... .... 1,.;'','• AilV.,17-,5),ANH:"" 4.4., t.ftrnrZ."..r.i'',.f.:441:4,,i, ,...... ‘ . ,.te,,. )4-'" ,,:,-.- , -. •. '''e,,'';',"?.....4., clooffmk:',4-1,„!.,41.;12:::-A -1,,Itslice.,...,,,,,,,,ii„.-,4s....-7,-7-1-.; ,,.,,,, . ., , .,... .e.,...41,,,,i,.,,,)Dt..), -, :,-"O. '.•t, ljinP°$•Vetr-g4;1,,IWI.VZ,Vica,,..- 0:1114:14r14e;:ste,;;' ;,.. --,:i.....;,:r,f.1-4.0, *,21'r:. .tik.j.47-41, 74,41,...01441,,,A44444,...,:aloorwi.r.*41-1-14.w.yirt.-4.,--te...7..: 00, -=-wie,-,-,kkfd456szi.-,k4-,A-yLarw.-'f,, '''ll'C'44'441•V'M:P:4I-'41Z,-.T.l.l'f-.:^4-'.fi---,,:F."'f.::'1';=:.';:,::,-1'41:-'1'.,Y-4 l'"g''''!!:':''''''';':.,C.i"."',i1:;:1,i.:;: .;;:li,,:.!,:".1;',.;M.s.e1;7:•-•`-',5Z.L.,:ta;."=,!,,,,!".-:?„..qi; 7::,-14,17--S-Ar':"'I'::1;;-;:i4'1.1..14'...t.,,tii-'3q..4: 4.,::,z,:*,(dtvkf.,e,y•tUni-.‘1,--M.I''',1;,4:F.,:fike:44,';'ri.)-42.,;:Z:7;q:-41-4114,1i.?tiii-q.e.',,nr,-g. .::.,:'..-;fqlri.n:'rZ-F '1"..:, :,in ;;i:;;I'.:4„,'e...g,..:-:.:PIZ,;ev'S'a,S1,71:1',F$J----er.,*r it*'.-,14.•: ‘..V.'i'P'....'tl,lfr,',',V:,4;•;!..fe.,`-'4'.:.ztt•-41':'..0;••t'11-0-,i, ----,--;",..N,....--..i..-,-,',"-41.l'-^,ligq,"%t",•;,..,%'14.A.'4.;.”1--,,,V.--..",t7i,:-'. ,,,,i 0,,,,,,,.,7.. .`,.-,..v.,,,-ei-r.,,..,..;fly,1-7,,,,,,,,,,,z...:A..-,,,4,,,,vai,r--,:i./..t.F.,..,:',.-.,...,44, ?; _.,--.' .',7r..,'',.:'. ,-.4....41q 4..,3ift•-01,",---(.,14.s..q.4'.,,,,,.;:',4*ki.i..',. .....4.•:...uh.k.,...".,..kt.i4.,--q.-4..-..1'0.-z.,1•..'-',-,..."4,-----,--.---- - --r••- PROJECT LOCATION 1524 Los Montes Drive • Item# Action Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review,Side Setback Variance, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope,and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address:1524 Los Montes Drive Meeting Date:06/11/01 Request:Design review,Side Setback Variance and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a first and second story addition at 1524 Montes Drive,zoned R-1(C.S.25.28.040,C.S.25.54.020 and C.S.25.51.010) Property Owner:Michael Berman and Betsy Haugh Applicant/Designer: Sidney Hoover Architects,Sidney Hoover APN:027-046-090 General Plan Designation:Low Density Residential Lot Area:11,753 SF Date Submitted:April 30,2001 Zoning:R-1 CEQA Status:Article 19.Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 Class 1-(e)additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50%of the floor area of the structures before the addition. May 29,2001 Design Review Study Meeting:On May 29,2001,the Planning Commission reviewed this project for design review(see attached 5/29/01 Planning Commission minutes).The Commission noted that the proposal has an overall nice design. Concerns expressed by the Planning Commission included the following: • What is the exceptional hardship on this property; • There is an inconsistency on cover sheet,different surveyor and engineers listed; • North and south elevations need a window to break up the blank walls and make friendlier,the interior could benefit from light on all sides,16 feet of a 2-story blank wall is not consistent with the Commission's previous approvals;and • Drawing 3,sheet A-4 shows an inconsistency on the deck section and plan,ground floor is closer to French doors than shown(4'). Current Project Revisions(May 31,2001 plans):After the May 29,2001,Planning Commission design review study meeting,the applicant submitted revised plans(date stamped May 31,2001). The following revisions were made: • Cover sheet revised to list surveyor correctly; • Deck section on sheet A-4 revised to be consistent with the floor plans showing the lower floor extending 4 feet next to the French doors; • Two windows added on the south elevation,one in the guest bedroom on the lower floor and one in the master bedroom on the upper floor;and • One window added on the north elevation in the kitchen. Summary:The applicant is proposing a first and second story addition at 1524 Los Montes Drive,zoned R-I. The existing two-story house now contains 2,883 SF of floor area(0.24 FAR),including an attached two-car garage. The subject property slopes from the front to the rear,with a difference of approximately 27 feet between the front and rear property lines. The proposed 1,024 SF addition would add a foyer,kitchen,master bedroom and deck on the main living level,and would add a study and a guest bedroom on the lower level. The main floor deck would result in a covered terrace on the lower level(which is counted toward the overall FAR). The addition would increase the floor area of the remodeled house to 3,907 SF(0.33 FAR),where 4,861 SF(0.41 FAR)is the maximum allowed. The existing attached two-car garage would be retained. The interior dimensions of garage measure 19' W X 20'D,and under C.S.25.70.030(1)(d)shall be considered to provide two covered off-street parking spaces. Design Review.Side Setback Variance,Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope,and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1524 Los Montes Drive Therefore the off-street parking requirement is met. The applicant is requesting the following for this proposal: • Design Review for a first and second story addition; • Hillside Area Construction Permit; • Side Setback Variance for 1'-10" for the right side of the lower floor (5'-2" proposed where 7'-0" is the minimum setback required); and • Special Permit for declining height envelope along the right side of the house(17 SF,2'-0"X 8'-6", along the right side extends beyond the declining height envelope). PROPOSED EXISITING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front:Lower flr N/A N/A 15'-0"or block average Upper flr No change 17'-9" 20'-0" *2'-5" Side(left): 8'-6"proposed addition 7'-0" Side(right): '5'-1" *5,-1„ 7'-0" Rear: 1st flr 110'-0" 120'-0" 15'-0" 2nd flr 110'-0" 115'-0" 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE: 23.2% 18.6% 40% (2,730 SF) (2,195 SF) (4,701 SF) FAR: 3,907 SF/ 2,883 SF/ 4,861SF/ 0.33 FAR 0.24 FAR 0.41 FAR 2 covered(19'-0"x 20'-0") 2 covered(20'-0" x 20'-0") PARKING: No change + 1 uncovered + 1 uncovered HEIGHT: 28'-8" 10'-6" 2 1/2 stories 30' whichever is less DH ENVELOPE: =Special Permit Meets requirement See code Required *existing nonconforming condition Side Setback Variance (5'-2" proposed on the right side first floor where 7'-0" is the minimum setback required); and 2 Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope (17 SF, 2'-0"X 8'-6", along the right side extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff Comments: See attached. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 2 Design Review,Side Setback Variance,Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope,and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1524 Los Montes Drive 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties;and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings for a Variance:In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant,and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health,safety,general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics,mass,bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Findings for a Special Permit:In order to grant a Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property(Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass,scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line,facade,exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city;and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements,and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit:Review of a hillside area construction permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec.25.61.060). Planning Commission Action:The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 3 Design•teview,Side Setback Variance,Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope,and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1524 Los Montes Drive 31,2001, Sheets AO through A5, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's May 5, 2001 memo shall be met; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Keylon Planner c: Sidney Hoover Architects, applicant and architect 4 ROUTING FORM DATE: April 30, 2001 TO: City Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal K Recycling Specialist Sr. Landscape Inspector City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review, hillside area construction permit, special permit for declining height envelope and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at 1524 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-046-090. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, May 7, 2001 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1524 Los Montes Drive 11/4s -�- i t Reviewed By: `-~ Date of Comments: .5 7--• 6 ityofBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29,2001 Chairman Vistica made a motion to place this itthfi on t• regular action calendar at a time when •. above revisions have been made and plan checked. s motion was seconded by C. Keighr. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the mot'• to place this item on the regular action . dar when plans had been revised and.checked by staff, directed. The motion passed on a roll •. vote 4-2-1 (Cers. Bojues, Dreiling dissenting and C. L aga absent). This action is advisory an• it appealable. This item concluded at 10:09 p.m. 9. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIV ONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR ' SIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN A ' • CHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AN P COND STORY ADDITION (JO•' • MATTHEWS A ' TECTS, APPLICANT AND ARC CT; SAMUEL AND ELAINE . G, PROPERTY 0 ERS) CP Mo• .e briefly presented the project descrip . There were no questions of staff Chairman Vistica opened the public co •,, t. Jack Matthews, architect, prese e project and explained that he took over the previous project i tried to preserve the privacy of the ighbor to the north,reduced the second floor to three bedroo • . d reduced the size of the garage. Commissioner comments. • Noted a pine on the left, will that be retained . • so will it be significantly tri . . • Landscap- . an shows mostly deciduous tree andscape architect should loo o larger scale everg < s on Skyview, no redwoods; • Pr..: ct has come a long way from prey'• design; and • evision works well with the neigh. ood. There were no other comments the floor and Chairman Vi . closed the public hearing. C. Bojues made a moti• r '`o place this item on the con calendar. This motion was se .ed by C. Osterling. Comment o.<,''otion: compared with the ,; al submittal this is a big improv; ent. Cha' .n Vistica called for a vo • in the motion to place this item • e consent calendar. The motion •• ed on a voice vote 6-0-1 ' . uzuriaga absent). The Plannin: ' •mmission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item co uded at 10:16 p.m. 10. 1524 LOS MONTES DRIVE — ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE,AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SIDNEY HOOVER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MICHAEL BERMAN AND BETSY HAUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. It was noted that this project requires a Hillside Area Construction Permit , which was left out of the staff report and will be added when the application returns to the Planning Commission. There were no questions of staff. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29,2 ` r r Chairman Vistica opened the public comment: 'Sidney Hoover, 500 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, architect for the project was available for questions. The applicant stated that the existing structure was built prior to current regulations, they want to keep the existing footprint and roof pattern. They want to extend the master bedroom in the simplest manner and preserve the simple form of this 1950's house. Commissioners comments: • Commission noted the request for a side setback variance and asked what is the exceptional hardship on this property? • Inconsistency on cover sheet, different surveyor and engineer, who did survey? • North elevation needs window to break up wall, make friendlier. • South elevations also needs window. • Drawing 3, A-4 shows an inconsistency in the deck section and plan,ground floor closer to French doors • than shown (4'), please correct; Blank walls are a concern, could benefit from light on all sides, 16 feet of a 2-story wall is not consistent with Commission's previous approvals, adding windows on side elevations would benefit inside and outside, look at higher windows, make elevation come alive; • Overall nice design, north elevation is a blank stucco wall, needs a window; and • South elevation also is blank, only two windows over a long expanse, another windows added would be neighbor friendly. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Vistica closed the public hearing. C. Osterling made a motion place this item on the regular action calendar when the revisions have been made and checked by staff This motion was seconded by Chairman Vistica. Comment on motion: do not just add token windows, look at the fenestration, maybe even look at the lower floor, could be a benefit to the interior character to explore light from various side of the house, not just the rear. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised and checked by staff as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Luzuriaga absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:31p.m. X. PLANNER REPO - Rev' of City Council re meeting of May 21, 2001. onroe reviewed t aiming related items from the C• cil meeting. Commission a noted the need to revise the m- sership of the Neighborhood Co. . tency Subcomm' :.Noting that CP should contact Deal to see if he would like to r esent the public this committee and the Chairman contact C. Luzuriaga and ask him ' e would like to ift from alternate to regular me • . It was also noted that to follow : . from the last ommission meeting, the Commis 'ri should address a subcommittee to -view the Safeway project. Chairman Vistica sug:: ed himself, and Cers. Dreiling and és with C. Osterling 13 /��CIT • 44 BURLINGAME i CITY OF BURLINGAME • t4.W APPLICATION TO TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of Application:<Special Permit X Variance Other Project Address: 1524 Los Montes Drive, Burlingame Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 027-046-090 APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: Sidney Hoover Architects Name: Michael Berman and Betsy Haugh Address: 500 Montgomery Street Address: 1524 Los Montes Drive City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94111 City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone (w): 415-434-8046 Phone (w): (h): (h): 650-375-8204 fax: 415-434-0704 fax: 650-375-8140 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Sidney Hoover Architects Please indicate with an asterisk * the Address: 500 Montgomery Street contact person for this application. City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone (w): 415-434-8046 (h): fax: 415-434-0704 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Remodeling to single family residence: addition of new kitchen, master bedroom and bath, study and guest bedroom. New deck and metal stair. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to th, best of my . •wledge and belief. 40 4 Is- '/ Applicant's Signat re Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Pro.•rty I er's Sig Zature Date ---FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Filed:_ y/3o/o1 Fee: $10'45".00 RECEMVE1- Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: APR 3 0 2 0 01 CITY OF BURLINGar1 L PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF -URLONGAM[E • VARIANCE APPLICATIONS The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. This property is similar to adjacent down-slope properties. The proposed addition where a variance is requested is at the rear of the present residence. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances related to this property. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship , might result from the denial of the application. The existing residence was built to original setbacks. One of the proposed additions only slightly encroaches into the current setback requirements and to fully comply would force the master bedroom to over towards the only available deck area off the living room and kitchen. The architectural intent is to continue the simple existing side walls and existing roof forms without complicated variations contrary to the residential style. The master bedroom would have a very awkward and unusable plan if the setback was strictly enforced. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health,safety,general welfare, or convenience. The majority of the proposed additions are at the rear of the residence. No increase in roof height is to be requested. Only one side of the plan is affected by the new setback requirements and only a small portion of that addition would be outside the current required setback requirement. Both adjoining properties are two story at the rear. Views from the adjacent properties are not significantly impacted by this proposal. The existing architectural character of the residence and the neighborhood will not be affected. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics,mass,bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? 1. The project maintains the single family character of existing residences along the street. 2. The adjacent houses are two story at the rear,one of which projects further back from the street than the proposed project addition. 3. The project maintains the same exterior materials as the original house with the exception of new wood frame windows and French doors replacing the aluminum windows and doors. It is proposed that enhanced eave trims be installed and that the dated and false brick skirting at the street side be eliminated. 4. The mass of the house will be the same from the street. Some of the other houses along the street are considerably more massive. lr ;' . C -z: TOF BURLING•. , . BY ',SPECT ;+ ON .. 1 PE1 MI f APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. The proposed additions are extensions of the existing plan (for the master bedroom addition) or are matched around the only area for an upper deck with views to the bay and lower gardens. No change in roof height is proposed. Similar materials are proposed for the roof and walls. Similar ranch house designs are located along the street. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line,facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The roof line, the facade in general and the exterior stucco materials are the same as the original house. (see original drawings) The elevations carry on the existing eaves, wall lines and roof shapes. All these additions are similar to other houses along the street which were built at the same time. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The proposed project will be below the allowable FAR for the site, the heights are below those for the area, the materials are consistent with adjacent residences. No change is proposed in the driveway or garage facilities. The additions are consistent with those of the adjacent . properties. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. No trees are located within the proposed new footprint. Four new 24" box trees are scheduled to be planted on the property as part of this remodeling. RECEIVED APR 3 0 2001 SPECPERM. CITY OF BURLINGAME PI ANNING DEPT. CITY OF BURLINGAME _U' 4 " PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINS.A IE 501 PRIMROSE ROAD V •7; BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL:(650)558-7250 1524 LOS MONTES DRIVE Application for design review, hillside area construction permit, special permit for declining height envelope, and side setback PUBLIC HEARING variance for a first and second story NOTICE addition at 1524 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-l. (APN: 027-046-090) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, June 11, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed June 1, 2001 (Please refer to other side) - CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applicat on and•plans for`this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at thea Planning,'Depaituient at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. w If you challenge the sublecrpdpplic tiot} s) in court,`you may be limited to toq raising only,those.issue ]: u or:some net else raised at theLL,public hearing, described in the notice pr rittea 9a espondeicedelivered to the city at or prior to the;public&h aang 1 Property owners who recpi snetiiw-. e responsible for informing their tenants abofit this-notice br cldttt tial information, please call (650) 558-7250. 'T hank you. 10-ii ,, ry Margaret Monroe. :} s %' r • City Planner "� � - i,,`` ate, ,. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE,AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED,by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review, side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope, and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition at 1524 Los Montes Avenue, zoned R-1, Michael Berman and Betsy Haugh,property owner,APN: 027-046-090; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 11, 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW,THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said design review, sidesetback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and hillside area construction permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review, side setback variance, special permit for declining height envelope and hillside area construction permit are set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. ACTING CHAIRMAN I, Joseph Bojues , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of June, 2001 ,by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption,design review,side setback variance,special permit for declining height envelope and hillside area construction permit. 1524 Los Montes Drive effective June 18,2001 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 31,2001,Sheets AO through A5,site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s)or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's May 5,2001 memos shall be met;and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame.