Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.03.11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, March 11, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the March 11, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Davis, Gaul, Sargent, Terrones, Cauchi and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; City Attorney Gus Guinan; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the February 25, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:  Page 1, Roll Call; Delete “Lindstrom” and “Cauchi” from those present.  Page 2, Item 1 (355 Lexington Way), Commission comments, first bullet; replace “is asking” with “might be asking”.  Page 3, Item 2 (1312 Capuchino Avenue), Commission comments, first bullet; after “French doors” revise to read “to exit from the living room onto the front porch”.  Page 3, Item 2, (1312 Capuchino Avenue), Commission comments; at the end of the second bullet add “additional FAR may be allowed for an uncovered porch in the future”.  Page 3, Item 2 (1312 Capuchino Avenue), Commission comments; at the end of the ninth bullet add “a good solution that fits with the neighborhood”.  Page 3, Item 2 (1312 Capuchino Avenue), Commission comments, eleventh bullet; delete “options elsewhere on the building” and replace with “and provide additional square footage for the porch if not covered”.  Page 4, Item 3 (1800 Trousdale Drive), Commission comments, seventh bullet; revise to read “Either provide something with more texture than tile and grout, or provide a block that has spacing between it to provide a positive and negative effect in order to break down the massing of this element of the building”.  Page 6, FYI for 1505 Sherman Way, first bullet; at the end of the first sentence add “regarding the play area”. Motion passed 7-0-0-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 2 V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. Commissioner Terrones announced that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 1 (Burlingame Intermediate School Master Plan), as he has a business relationship with the school district. He left the City Council Chambers. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. PRESENTATION OF THE MASTER PLAN CONCEPTS DEVELOPED FOR BURLINGAME INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL AT 1715 QUESADA WAY (ADVISORY ONLY - NO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION REQUIRED). Stuart Grunow, Dreiling-Terrones Architecture; presented the proposed master plan for Burlingame Intermediate School; three alternates were presented. No action was required of the Planning Commission. Commission comments:  Asked about the solar panels that are shown on the bleachers. (Grunow – considering using solar panels as a screen to shade the bleachers. Still requires further study.) There is another building within the center of the site that could also be appropriate for solar panels.  There may be other opportunities for panels on other large roof expanses on the property.  Will work be completed during school time; or at off periods? (Grunow – will impact the operations of the school at times; there will be temporary space brought onto the site, as needed.)  Asked about the lane along the south side of the site; will it be made wider? (Grunow – will be straightened and widened for two-way traffic.)  Where does the staff park? (Grunow – showed the locations on the site plan.)  Asked about the parking at the front of the property. (Grunow – primarily visitor and staff parking.)  Encouraged use of solar panels as much as possible given the long-term benefits to the community. (Grunow – the District has allocated funds for solar panels; it becomes a question of the best location for their installation.)  Asked if the Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission has been consulted regarding circulation? Takes a long time to get through the intersections, particularly at Trousdale Drive. Wonders if a traffic signal may be a solution. (Grunow – have not met with the Commission. There is another crosswalk planned in the area at Trousdale and Quesada.)  Are the alternates really phasing proposals? (Grunow – the board hasn’t voted on the plan yet, but the goal is to attempt to complete all improvements.)  Suggested finding ways to allow roof water to get back into the aquifer on the site.  Is the current library in pretty good shape? (Grunow – no, the roof is leaking. The space is being used to its maximum capacity. Are seeking a more flexible space that will meet the needs of the students and the teachers.) This item concluded at 7:29 p.m. Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 3 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Chair Gaul indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 2 (1417 Vancouver Avenue) as he is the project applicant. He left the City Council Chambers. 2. 1417 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW ATTACHED GARAGE AND NEW SECOND STORY DECK ABOVE THE GARAGE (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARTINA SERSCH, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 11, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Vice-Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Donna Gaul, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  The proportions of the project are better with the reduced height of the carport; creates a better front elevation.  On Sheet 5, the proposed front elevation shows the railing height higher than the top of the ridge; then on another page it shows it below the ridge. (Gaul – will correct on the drawings; it is supposed to be higher.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 19, 2013, cover sheet and sheets one through six; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 4 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 26, 2012 and July 31, 2012 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2012 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s August 13, 2012 memo, Fire Marshal's July 30, 2012 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's July 30, 2012 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 5 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion:  None. Vice-Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Gaul recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. Chair Gaul returned to the dais. 3. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 25-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (BEJHAN RAZI, CAMELLO INC., APPLICANT; CHATEAU TROUSDALE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND TOBY LEVY, LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 11, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-two (52) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Toby Levy, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Is the Bluestone going to be blocks? Will grout joints be visible? (Levy – is a veneer with 1 ½ inch thickness. Grout joints will not be very large, but the difference in the stone pattern will create variety. The grout will likely be recessed.)  Likes the changes that have been made; particularly at the community room and at the cornice.  Asked if the horizontal elements at the ends of the hallways (in the middle of the front elevation) will remain a detail? (Levy – yes , they will remain; they’re shown on the elevations, except on the rear. Reviewed the pallet and eliminated the cement board; will be Hardy board with a different texture.)  Feels that the change to the cornice element has made the building appear lighter.  Can’t believe that the prior project was approved.  Does the cornice wrap around the left side of the building? (Levy – yes.)  Believes the right-side elevation could benefit from the cornice treatment as well. (Levy – not averse to it, but didn’t feel it would be necessary.)  Piece of sunscreen element at the front of the building which extends onto the bays looks a bit odd, look like a “finger hook”; should revisit and bring back as an FYI if changes are made. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 6 Additional Commission comments:  The project is much improved.  Doesn’t feel that the right elevation is a problem, particularly since Peninsula Health Care District may be proposing a project on the adjacent property. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 30, 2008, sheets A0.0, A0.31, C-1, C-1.1, G0.1, G0.2, A1.1 through A1.9, A2.1, A3.0, A3.1, A3.2 Alt; A3.3 through A3.7, A4.0 and A4.1, Ground Floor Landscape Plan and Podium Level Landscape Plan; 2. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 117.58'' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Trousdale Drive (42.58') for a maximum height of 75'-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections; should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that the backflow prevention device and post indicator valve (PIV) shall be located and screened by landscaping so they will be hidden from both the street and project residents; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 27, 2008, memo , the Fire Marshal's April 2, 2008, memo, the City Engineer's April 2, 2008, March 5, 2008, December 29, 2005 and August 24, 2005, memos, and the Recycling Specialist’s August 8, 2005, memo shall be met; 7. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $12,593.70, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 7 10. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $12,593.70, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; 11. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to establish the affordability of the three below market rate units required as a part of this project; the applicant shall also submit a below market rate housing plan which shall describe in detail the applicant's proposal for a third party to meet and manage the inclusionary housing requirements as required by Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; the applicant shall enter into an agreement with a third-party non-profit organization approved by the City to administer the program; 12. that 'guest parking stall' shall be marked on the three guest parking spaces and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; and that in addition to the three guest parking stalls, and one service vehicle parking stall, 54 parking spaces shall be available on site for owners, and none of the on-site parking shall be rented, leased or sold to anyone who does not own a unit on the site; 13. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the three guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 14. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 15. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 16. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 17. that the security gate system across the right side entrance driveway shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 18. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 19. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 8 20. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 21. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 22. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 23. that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 24. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 25. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City’s noise requirement; 26. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 27. that in lieu of meeting the requirement specific to fire apparatus access required by Section 902.2.1, Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by Burlingame Municipal Code 17.04, the project applicant shall extend the required Class I Standpipe outlets to garage stair landings in accordance with fire department approved locations, and install Quick Response Sprinklers throughout the garage; (Land Use, Fire Dept) 28. that the proposed project shall comply with construction standards and seismic design criteria contained in the Building Code as adopted by the City; (Geology and Soils; Building Division) 29. that before construction of the proposed project, per the Building Code, the project applicant shall obtain a site-specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive, liquefiable, or compressive soils) and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including provisions to reduce the effects of expansive soils. The recommendations made in the soils report for ground preparation and earthwork shall be incorporated in the construction design. The soils evaluations shall be conducted by registered soil professionals, and the measures to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions must be applied. The design for soil support of foundations shall conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33; (Geology and Soils, Building Division) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 9 30. that a site-specific evaluation of soil conditions required by the City shall be completed as part of the building permit process and shall contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the project site that would become an integral part the construction design. Recommendations shall be included in the excavation and construction plans for the proposed project; (Geology and Soils, Building Division) 31. that although the proposed project would be exempt from preparing and implementing a project- specific SWPPP, because the City of Burlingame is a member of the STOPPP, the proposed project shall obtain coverage under STOPPP’s Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit and comply with performance standards set forth by STOPPP’s Stormwater Management Plan. The City Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.14; Ordinance 1503 Section 1; June 20, 1994) would also be applied to the proposed project. In addition, the project applicants shall perform the following actions as uniformly required conditions of project approval, as identified by the City’s NPDES Coordinator upon submittal of project applications to the City: • Implement appropriate stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to minimize pesticide usage in accordance with the City’s New Development/Redevelopment Landscaping Fact Sheet. • Incorporate applicable structural source control measures to minimize stormwater pollutants in accordance with the City’s Model List of Structural Source Control Measures. • Identify the responsible party who would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the permanent post-construction stormwater treatment measure(s). Prior to issuance of a final building permit, submit a completed, notarized Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement; (Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Works Department) 32. that the proposed project shall comply with City grading requirements specified in Section 18.20 of the Municipal Code; (Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Works Department) 33. that the proposed project shall comply with the City’s Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.17.001; Ordinance 1476 Section 1; January 4, 1993), thereby reducing the amount of project site runoff polluted by landscape chemicals; (Hydrology and Water Quality; City Arborist) 34. that the project applicant shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; (Air Quality; Building Division) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 10 35. that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and traffic management plan that defines how traffic operations would be managed and maintained during each phase of construction. The plan should be developed with the direct participation of the City of Burlingame. To the maximum practical extent, the plan should: • Detail how access will be maintained to individual properties where construction activities may interfere with ingress and egress. Any driveway closures shall take place during non- business hours. • Specify predetermined haul routes from staging areas to construction sites and to disposal areas of agreement with the City prior to construction. The routes shall follow streets and highways that provide the safest route and have the least impact on traffic. • During construction, require the contractor to provide information to the public using signs, press releases, and other media tools of traffic closures, detours or temporary displacement of left-turn lanes. • Identify a single phone number that property owners and businesses can call for construction scheduling, phasing, and duration information, as well as for complaints. • Identify construction activities that must take place during off-peak traffic hours or result in temporary road closures due to concerns regarding traffic safety or traffic congestion. Any road closures will be done at night under ordinary circumstances. If unforeseen circumstances require road closing during the day, the City of Burlingame should be consulted; (Traffic; Public Works Department) 36. that in order to improve the ability of vehicles to turn from the lower level ramp to the driveway, the project has been revised so that the west driveway is 12 feet wide; (Traffic, Public Works and Planning Departments) 37. that the proposed project driveways shall be secured with an automatic gate system that would allow delivery vehicles to enter and exit the driveways with an opener. The entrance gate shall also provide an intercom system that would allow delivery vehicles to call from the entrance. Furthermore, rolling dumpsters shall be acquired by the project applicant, which can be maneuvered outside of the parking garage to the curb, to facilitate garbage pickup from Trousdale Avenue; (Traffic; Public Works Department) 38. that the project applicant shall include in the proposed project a bicycle parking area that is 12 feet by 21 feet, in the lower level of the parking garage, as indicated in the site plan which is sufficient space for approximately 25 bicycles; (Traffic; Public Works and Planning Departments) 39. that the removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys shall be required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 11 nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; (Biological Resources; City Arborist) 40. that the trees proposed to be removed shall be evaluated by a licensed arborist whose report shall be reviewed by the City arborist to determine whether they are “protected trees” per Section 11.06.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code and whether a tree removal permit is appropriate. If any trees proposed to be removed are protected trees, the City Arborist shall make a determination regarding the removal and replacement of these trees. As the proposed landscaping plan includes the planting of 16 new trees, the City Arborist may determine that the proposed landscaping plan is sufficient and no other replacement trees are required. • The Municipal Code includes the following requirements regarding replacement trees. • Replacement shall be three 15-gallon size, one 24-inch box size, or one 36-inch box size landscape tree(s) for each tree removed; and • Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two 24-inch box size, or two 36- inch box size landscape trees for each tree removed; and • Replacement of a tree may be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists on the property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance; and • Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the director and shall be based on the species, location and value of the tree(s) removed; and • If replacement trees cannot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be made to the City. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree-planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree planting; (Biological Resources; City Arborist) 41. that the project applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and protecting the existing on-site trees to be retained. The following specific actions shall be followed to maintain the health of the remaining trees: a. Any pruning shall be done according to the direction of a certified arborist and all pruning shall comply with International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter Standards or other comparable standards deemed acceptable to the City Arborist. b. Any abandoned utility lines (water, electrical, etc.) in the root zones (radius of ten times the trunk diameter) shall be cut and left in the ground to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. c. Any surfacing material inside the root zone shall be pervious and installed on top of the existing grade. As an example, pervious pavers are acceptable provided the base material is also sufficiently pervious. Base rock containing granite fines is not sufficiently pervious. d. Temporary construction fencing shall be erected to protect the retained trees of a size to be established by the City Arborist. The fencing shall be placed at the perimeter of the root zone unless the pavement is supervised by a certified arborist. The fencing shall be in place prior to the arrival of construction materials or equipment. e. The landscape irrigation shall be designed to prevent trenching inside the root zones of retained trees. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 12 f. Supplemental irrigation shall be provided during construction. Approximately 10 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter should be applied at or near the perimeter of the root zone every two weeks during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall on average). g. Retained trees shall be thoroughly mulched with a 3-inch layer of bark chips with the exception of a 6- to 12-inch area around the base of the root collar, which must be left bare and dry; (Biological Resources, City Arborist) 42. that as required by BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, the proposed project shall implement preventative measures during demolition and removal of all asbestos containing materials (ACMs) to prevent emissions of asbestos into the air. The proposed project shall also remove and dispose of all asbestos and PCB-containing materials according to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations and comply with the Cal/OSHA guidelines for worker safety during removal; (Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Building Division) 43. that the project applicant shall abide by its declared building height as specified in the FAA determination for the proposed project. The project applicant shall also ensure that construction equipment for the proposed project (e.g. cranes) shall not exceed the maximum height restriction specified in the San Francisco Airport Land Use Plan for the project site; (Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Planning Department) 44. that if markings or lighting are to be included in the proposed project, the project applicant shall ensure that they are installed and maintained according to FAA guidelines; (Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Planning Department) 45. that the applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control devices (e.g. mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g. surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), all of which would not require major equipment redesign. a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: • Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; • Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; • Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and • Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 13 e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible. f. The project applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. g. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site; (Noise; Planning, Public Works) 46. that the project applicant shall incorporate the following practice into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor. The project applicant shall require that loaded trucks and other vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals; (Noise, Building Division) 47. that the project applicant shall include in the final project design noise insulation features that would effectively maintain interior noise levels of 45 dBA or less; (Noise; Planning and Building) 48. that the existing sanitary sewer on site shall be examined by the City after project construction to evaluate the pipe’s condition. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe is substandard or if the pipe has been damaged by project construction, the pipe shall be replaced or repaired by the project applicant to the City Engineer’s satisfaction; (Utilities and Service Systems; Public Works Department) 49. that if the project applicant does not provide a 12-foot wide driveway, the project applicant shall be required to purchase maintenance equipment for the City that can access the on-site sewer easement through the proposed 9.5-foot-wide driveway; (Utilities and Sewer Systems; Public Works Department) 50. that per the City’s Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Requirement, the project applicant shall submit a waste reduction plan that demonstrates that at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition waste can be recycled; (Utilities and Service Systems; Building Division) 51. that the project applicant shall design and locate all exterior lighting so that the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting elements is kept entirely on the project site on or below the top of any fence, hedge, or wall at the site’s property line, as required by the Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or residential areas). All wall mounted up-lighting shall be excluded from the proposed project. All project lighting shall comply with requirements of the California Energy Commission and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for illumination levels; and (Aesthetics; Planning and Building) 52. that the following provisions shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to address the potential to encounter currently unknown cultural resources: a. Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall receive environmental training that will include discussion of the possibility of buried cultural and paleontological resources, including training to recognize such possible buried CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 14 cultural resources, as well as the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are encountered. b. Retain Project Archaeologist. Since the project area contains a portion of one recorded Native American archeological resource, and other previously unknown prehistoric or historic cultural deposits may be encountered elsewhere in the project site during excavations, the City shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant meeting federal criteria under 36 CFR 61, and who has expertise in California prehistory and urban historical archaeology. c. If potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be suspended and alteration of the materials and their context shall be avoided pending site investigation by a qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant retained by the project applicant. The immediate vicinity wherein work shall be suspended shall be approximately 50 feet from the discovery or within an appropriate distance to be determined by the archaeologist or cultural resources consultant. Construction work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been given an opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered. d. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, and if avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical excavation of those portions of the site that would be adversely affected. The plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non-redundant archaeological data to address important regional research considerations. The work shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall be accomplished in accordance with current professional standards and shall not recommence until this work is completed. e. The project applicant shall assure that project personnel are informed that collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project is prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources can include nails, bottles, or other items often found in refuse deposits. f. If human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In general, these provisions require that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The most likely descendant of the deceased Native American shall be notified by the Commission and given the chance to make recommendations for the remains. If the Commission is unable to identify the most likely descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be re-interred with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem. (Cultural Resources; Planning) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 15 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:54 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 1017 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DOMINIC AND AGNES LAI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 11, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. James Chu, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Is there a balcony on the front elevation? (Chu – no.)  The symmetry of having one column in the front threw him off; additionally, the stone chimney looks a bit heavy; perhaps another material would be better. (Chu – the fireplace is not that visible as it is in the back off of the family room.)  Can the porch be made larger? Are at the maximum FAR. Have a very large master bedroom and family room; appears very massive; could modify this area to provide more relief on the elevation and to free up area to be applied to the front porch. (Chu – A larger, more useable front porch would require an additional 250 square feet.)  Could potentially have a porch that isn’t covered.  Encouraged the applicant to consider the front porch to be a gathering place; make the entry into the porch a bit larger without increasing any other aspect. Could consider widening the sidewalk as it approaches the porch. (Chu – there is a patio adjacent to the driveway, plus a private gate. Concerned about reducing the size of the master bedroom; this is not a spec home.)  Appreciates building a single-family in an R-2 zone.  Consider moving the a/c unit back under the window at the nook.  Commended the floor plan showing a shared bathroom between two bedrooms.  Look at adding a column, partial column or knee brace on the side of the porch that doesn’t have a column; will make it look more finished.  With respect to the fireplace, feels that the proportion of the fireplace may be a bit off; consider making the base a bit wider so that it appears to be sitting on something substantial. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 16  Find a way to make the porch more substantial without taking floor area away from the interior of the space. Hard to encourage it without considering the square footage issue.  Will the applicant look at the landscape plan to attempt to reduce hardscape? (Chu – will review.)  Seems that the nook should be closer to the kitchen to be more usable; its location may make it a redundant space. Public comments: Darcy Fields, Burlingame; spoke:  Has an engineer reviewed the plans to see if the site can support the project? (Commissioner – a soils report will be required prior to building permit issuance.)  Is there any way to control the dust while the house is being constructed? (Commissioner – BAAQMD will regulate the site during demolition to ensure impacts are mitigated.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:17 p.m. 5. 1675 SKYLINE BOULEVARD – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A NEW TEMPORARY FIRE STATION CONSISTING OF A FIREHOUSE BUILDING, FIRE STATION OFFICES AND AN APPARATUS BUILDING (MARK GRAHAM, G2 SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CITY OF BURLINGAME, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 11, 2013, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Mark Ladas, Central County Fire Department; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Requested clarity regarding comments in the letter from the architect; will the City of Burlingame experience reduced costs with the merger? (Ladas – yes, roughly $1.8 million.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 17  Is it the intent to remove the temporary structures when the new building is to be built? (Ladas – the apparatus building will stay, but if the project is successful, then the temporary structure will be removed.)  Noted comments from the City Arborist; is there a reason why the replacement is not one-to-one? (Hurin – will speak to the Arborist and seek clarification.)  What will happen to the fire station on Hillside Drive? (Ladas – will remain vacant until it is determined that the pilot program is successful.) Will the California Drive station be eliminated? (Ladas – no.)  Will a traffic study be completed? (Hurin – there are minimal trips anticipated in and out of the site.)  How many trips out of the site? (Ladas – four or five times per day.) Public comments: Barbara Delbon, Burlingame; Don Delbon, Burlingame; Brendan O’Brien, Burlingame; spoke:  Lives at 1672 Skyline Boulevard; believed that the land was not supposed to ever be built on and would remain an open space as it was watershed property. (Meeker – indicated that the property was a remnant from the construction of Interstate 280. Hurin – the fire station is allowed as a conditional use per San Mateo County’s RM (Resource Management) Zoning District. Meeker – the property does not lie in the watershed. The County has asked the City to process all entitlements because the City owns the site, though located within the County’s jurisdiction.)  Will there be traffic signals at the location?  Will there be sirens that they do not have currently?  Why build temporary buildings, then tear them down and build new buildings?  The idea of having a neighbor across the street is of concern.  Wants to know the reasons why this is proposed? Is there a savings to the City of Burlingame? Not really opposed, but needs more information. (Meeker – described the benefits to the merger and the proposed temporary station.)  Would like to look at the viability of installing a traffic signal at the location. Responses from Ladas:  No plans for signage or a signal in front of the station.  All circulation of vehicles will occur on the site, there will be no need for signalization. Additional Commission comments:  Why build a temporary station, then move to a permanent station?  Will the Fire Department be able to provide the same level of service?  Would appreciate a correction to the letter of explanation provided by the architect and provide this information to the neighbors along the street.  Is there any interest in exploring residential development of the property?  The temporary station will not likely be visible from the street. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 11, 2013 18  None. Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:38 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 4, 2013:  Noted that an ordinance regulating the use of single-use carry-out bags was introduced by the City Council. The ordinance would adopt the County of San Mateo’s regulations by reference, with the County becoming responsible for enforcement. If adopted, the regulations will become effective on April 22, 2013. FYI: 117 Costa Rica Avenue - review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  Accepted. FYI: 1032 Cortez Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project:  Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log – February, 2013:  Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary