Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 02.09.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, February 9, 2009 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the February 9, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:09 p.m.), Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner, Ruben Hurin, City Attorney, Gus Guinan; Assistant Public Works Director, Art Morimoto; and Senior Civil Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Vistica to approve the minutes of the January 26, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, as submitted. Motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent, Commissioner Terrones abstaining). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker noted that the notice for 1325 Cabrillo Avenue (Agenda Item 2c) included a reference to a Special Permit for a basement; the notice is in error, as a basement is not proposed as part of the project. There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Requested that the Commission consider opening the study item regarding the Storm Drainage Measure for public comment. Provided a copy of Commissioner Terrones letter regarding the matter. ■ Also requested that the project at 1461 Balboa Avenue (Agenda Item 2b) be removed from the Consent Calendar. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. STORM DRAINAGE MEASURE UPDATE — PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFF CONTACT: ART MORIMOTO CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 Assistant Public Works Director, Art Morimoto provided an update regarding the Storm Drainage Measure. Commission comments: ■ Asked how the fees are calculated for school sites (Morimoto — calculated in the same manner as for residential properties; no properties are exempt). ■ Clarified that the fee is based upon the amount of impervious surface on the property; how is the amount of impervious surface determined (Morimoto — representative lots were selected from aerial photos, and an average was developed. An appeal process is provided if people feel the impervious surface is calculated too high for their property). ■ What is the minimum that a property owner may need to pay (Morimoto — has not yet taken that into account. In the future, a process could be developed to allow a property owner to reduce impervious area and permit a recalculation of the fee based upon the reduction). ■ Would be helpful to tell residents why all of the roadwork that has been done that includes pipes is not the same as storm sewer work; the perception is that the work may not be done efficiently. ■ Asked what groups have received the presentation (Morimoto — Rotary; Masonic Lodge; First Presbyterian Church; Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission; others). ■ Suggested a mechanism that permits a greater fee to be assessed if impervious surface exceeds the average (Morimoto — will review new development plans as they come through the City process; this will permit a potential adjustment of the fee based upon actual conditions on the lot). ■ Would like the City to amend the rule that requires ground water to be pumped into the storm water system. 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. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Item 2b (1461 Balboa Avenue) was removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. 2a. 1417 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE FOR RECREATION PURPOSES (TRENT AND ANNE WRIGHT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WINGES ARCHITECTS. INC.. ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 2c. 1325 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND TONY LEUNG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 2d. 1024 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED C-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A USE SIMILAR TO A DANCE ACADEMY (DANCE/PILATES STUDIO) (DOUG MCINTOSH, APPLICANT; GLORIA C. CONTI TRUST PROPERTY OWNER; JD ASSOCIATES. DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN 2e. 1812-A MAGNOLIA AVENUE, ZONED C-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 FOR A CHILDREN'S TUTORING CENTER (GRACE KO, APPLICANT; JOHN BRITTON, PROPERTY OWNER; AND LINCOLN LUE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN In light of the current economic conditions, it was suggested that the City consider an amendment to the Municipal Code to permit the opportunity for permit extensions for a third year. Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of the Consent Calendar, excluding Item 2b, based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner A uran. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2b. 1461 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (VIVIAN AND AMANDA LARKIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JACK MCCARTHY, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated February 9, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Jack McCarthy, 5339 Prospect Road, San Jose; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Expressed concern that the doors at the rear are quite costly, and could lead to revisions; also concerned that windows were at the gutter level on the second -story. Clarified window trim details. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Bill ?, 1457 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Expressed concern about storm water drainage. A storm water drainage report was to have been provided; wondered how the project can move forward if no one has reviewed the hydrology. ■ Noted a property a few houses away that pumps water continuously into the storm water system. ■ What type of drainage will be installed? ■ The street was continuously disturbed due to continuous construction; would like a condition of approval that the dumpster for the project be placed on the property, not on the public street as it will damage the new asphalt on the street. Jack McCarthy responded: Noted that the ground water was found to be at a depth of 12-feet in the front and 6-feet at the rear. Indicated a willingness to work with the Civil Engineer to seek approval to design a system that will permit some of the water to flow back to the aquifer before being pumped into the storm water system. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 Could place the sump pump inside the structure; the system would meter out a flow on a periodic basis. Additional Commission comments: Noted that the type of storm water catchment described by the applicant could also be used for irrigation for the property; similar in nature to a cistern. Strongly urged to use interlocking paver system for the driveway; should be assembled with aggregate that would permit water to percolate through the surface. Will need to be certain that the Building Division will allow leader water go to the system as well. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 27, 2009, sheets 1 through 6 and L1.0; 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, if approved by the Public Works Department, the applicant shall install a storm water drainage system that permits retention of a portion of storm water runoff in an underground storage area that can allow percolation of some of the water back into the aquifer prior to pumping to the storm drain system; and a portion to be used for irrigation purposes. The sump pump shall be installed within the building on the property; 4. 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; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 5, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's December 15, 2008 memo, and the Fire Marshal's and the NPDES Coordinator's December 8, 2008 memos shall be met; 6. that a licensed engineer shall prepare and submit a soils report which shall include groundwater investigation on this site; recommendations contained in the report shall be reviewed and implemented as approved by the Building and Engineering Divisions; the soils report shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of a building permit; 7. that the project shall include an emergency generator with battery back-up for the sump pump; the emergency generator shall be included on the project plans prior to issuance of a building permit; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction 51 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 10. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 15. 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; 16. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 17. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 Asked if the findings of the soils report could affect the Commission's decision (Meeker— if it affects the design, the project would be brought back for review). Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 3. 1537 AND 1543 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REGARDING SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR EXISTING REDWOOD TREES RELATED TO TWO, NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANTAND PROPERTY OWNER) (67 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated February 9, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty -Six (46) conditions were suggested for consideration for 1537 Drake Avenue; 45 conditions were suggested for 1543 Drake Avenue. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Expressed concern that $15,000 may not be a high enough value to replace more than one tree. Suggested that if more than one tree needs to be replaced, the applicant shall agree to replace additional trees beyond what is covered by the $15,000. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; represented the applicant. ■ The applicant has agreed to allow the City to hold the $15,000 for a period of 5-years. ■ Noted that Commissioner Brownrigg's recollection of the facts was accurate. ■ The trees are healthy today; the maintenance program will ensure that the trees will remain healthy. ■ Were faced with unknowns 5-years ago; the work was done correctly, are at a point where guaranteed maintenance should be required. ■ Understands the Commissioners concerns regarding the potential for a tree to die now, then another later; can reluctantly agree to replenish to $15,000 amount if drawn upon. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Asked how the City would determine the cause of death of a tree? Hopes that the fees paid with the current application have covered the cost of all the time needed to negotiate the compromise. Supports denying the applicant's request. Additional Commission comments: Requested that the language in the revised condition be clarified to ensure that it is determined that any tree death can be determined to be linked to construction activities. Should the last sentence from the original Condition 33 remain in the revised condition (Guinan — not necessary to address a cause of action. The proposed letter of credit is irrevocable; the bank 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 would be bound to issue a check to the City if a tree dies. Will craft an agreement with the applicant to clearly address the rights and obligations of each party). There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions; also adding that the wording of the letter of credit and any supporting documents be forwarded to the Planning Commission as an FYI: 1537 Drake Avenue that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2007, sheets A.1, A.4 through A.6, U.1, 1-1.1, S.1 and D.1 through DA, and date stamped June 7, 2007, sheets A.2, A.3, AAA, AAB, A.5A, A.5B and 1-1.0; and that any changes to the structure including but not limited to foundation design, height, building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building or to the tree protection plan or tree trimming shall require review by the Planning Commission and an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. 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; 4. 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 and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; 5. 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; 6. that the conditions of the City Engineer's April 8, May 31, June 4, August 15 , August 30, and October 15, 2002, June 27, 2005, and June 18, 2007 memos, the Fire Marshal's September 3, 2002, June 23, 2005 and June 18, 2007 memos, the Chief Building Official's August 5, 2002, June 27, 2005 and June 15, 2007 memos, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002, and June 27, 2005 memos, the NPDES Coordinator's June 27, 2005 memo, and the City Arborist's September 3, 2002, and April 3 and May 21, 2003, and April 13, 2007 memos shall be met; 7. that any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by the project arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 8. that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 9; use of all hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 9. that as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lot 9; 10. that construction of the house and attached garage on Lot 9 shall be completed through Lot 10 at rear of Lot 9; 11. that heavy construction materials and equipment shall not be delivered to the site or stored at the front of Lot 9 in the designated driveway area; 12. that at no time shall any equipment exceeding 18,000 LBS be allowed to be within 30 feet of the currently fenced off Redwood Tree Grove protection zone; 13. that prior to the placement or use of any motorized equipment within 30 feet of the currently fenced Redwood Tree Grove protection zone, a protective layer of mulch one foot deep with 3/4 inch plywood on top, shall be installed and inspected by the project arborist to avoid further soil compaction of the area; post construction the protective plywood and mulch may be removed as approved by the project arborist; 14. that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; 15. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 16. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed along the left side property line between the driveway and property line to meet current code standards; local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department; and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of the project arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 17. that the new sewer connection to the sewer main in the street shall be installed along the left side property line to City standards as required by the development; 18. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 19. that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 20. that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections to the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 21. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 22. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 23. that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues which may arise during construction; 24. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the Community Development Director and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 25. that no installation work on the driveway or landscaping on the site shall occur until the timing, design, method of construction and materials have been approved by the City Arborist, and the project arborist shall be on the site continually to supervise the installation of the driveway and to make adjustments based on any root impacts identified during the process of construction; the construction activity shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist during construction for compliance with the approved materials and method of installation; it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to notify the City Arborist when construction of the driveway on Lot 9 is to begin; 26. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City Arborist; and that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10, except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; 27. that special inspections by the City Arborist, to be funded by the property owner, shall include being on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; and that the special inspections by the City Arborist shall occur once a week or more frequently as required by the conditions of approval and shall include written documentation by the project arborist that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; and that the City Arborist shall also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 28. that under the observation of the City Arborist, all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required by the City Arborist; and that if any roots greater than 2 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the project arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve that the requirements of the building code are still met; and that if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 2 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the project arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 29. that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation, the report shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; and if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 30. that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the project arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans revised if any roots of 2 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 31. that no fencing of any kind shall be allowed for the first 65'-0" along the side property line between Lots 9 and 10; 32. that for tree maintenance the property owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the protected Redwood grove during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5- year post construction maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure; including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended by the City Arborist based on site studies and experience during construction; and that the property owner of record shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discusses the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction (issuance of an occupancy permit) on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; 33. a. The property owner shall provide evidence of an "irrevocable letter of credit" in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, that: 1) provides for funding in the amount of $5,615 to cover the cost of 5-years of ongoing maintenance of the Redwood grove present at 1537 and 1543 Drake Avenue, as outlined in Mayne Tree Expert Company's February 3, 2009 proposal addressed to Community Development Director William Meeker; payment for the annual cost of the required maintenance may be from the letter of credit by the property owner upon notice to and approval by City; the letter of credit will be reduced by the amount of the annual invoice provided by Mayne Tree Expert Company for the performance of said services, upon submission of a copy of the invoice to the City of Burlingame Community Development Department; and 2) provides for an additional $15,000 to be held for a 5-year period beyond the completion of project construction (i.e. certificate of occupancy/final inspection); the City may draw upon the $15,000 if any tree fails due to construction -related activities during this 5-year period; if drawn upon the property owner shall replenish the amount back to the $15,000 level, which shall be maintained through the conclusion of the 5-year term; at the conclusion of the 5-year term, remaining funds shall be released to the property owner by the City. b. The $118,780 cash deposit currently held by the City of Burlingame shall be released to the property owner upon certification by the City Arborist that the construction -related mitigation measures in the conditions of approval have been completed; confirmation that certificates of occupancy/final inspections have been granted for the homes constructed at 1537 and 1543 Drake Avenue; and submission of proof of an irrevocable letter of credit, in favor of the City, as outlined in items 1) and 2) above. In the event an irrevocable letter of credit cannot be obtained by the 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 property owner; the amount of the cash deposit released by the City shall be decreased by the amounts stated; the remaining funds on deposit shall be placed in an interest -bearing account at a rate not to exceed the current LAIF ("Local Agency Investment Fund") rate. 34. that for purposes of these conditions the project arborist is a certified arborist hire by the property owner/developer; a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 35. that before issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: a. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; b. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and -possible criminal prosecution; 36. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 37. that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather -proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 38. that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 39. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lot 9, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for the development on Lot 9 has been finaled and an occupancy permit issued; except for modification of the protective fencing as approved by the City Arborist in order to install the driveway on Lot 9; 40. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 41. that the property owner shall maintain throughout construction a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 42. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall ensure maintenance of the supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 43. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall ensure maintenance of at least four (4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a "Tree Protection Fence", "Do Not Alter or Remove" and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 44. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lot 9 shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 9; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; 45. that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly basis, the City Arborist inspections as required by the conditions of approval on Lot 9 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this on -going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; C. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 and approval of the five year maintenance plan/program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and that this same account may be used for a licensed arborist inspector on lot 9 selected by the City Arborist and approved by the Community Development Director. 46. that prior to the final inspection, the applicant shall work with the property owner adjacent to Lot 9 to determine the type of fence and/or landscaping to replace the existing brick pillars separated by grape stake fencing. 1543 Drake Avenue that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2007, sheets A.1, A.4, A.5, U.1, 1-1.1, S.1 and D.1 through DA, and date stamped June 7, 2007, sheets A.2, A.3, AAA, AAB, A.5A, A.5B, A.6 and 1-1.0; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. 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; 4. 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 and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; 5. 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; 6. that the conditions of the City Engineers' May 31, June 4, August 30, and October 15, 2002, June 27, 2005, and June 18, 2007, memos, the Fire Marshal's September 3, 2002, June 22, 2005, and June 18, 2007 memos, the Chief Building Official's August 5, 2002, June 27, 2005, and June 15, 2007 memos, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002, and June 27, 2005 memos, the NPDES Coordinator's June 27, 2005, memo, and the City Arborist's September 3, 2002, and April 3 and May 21, 2003, and April 13, 2007 memos shall be met; 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 7. that any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by the project arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 8. that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 10; use of all hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 9. that as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lot 10; 10. that construction materials shall not be staged on Lot 9; all heavy equipment and materials shall be staged along the right side of the property on Lot 10; 11. that at no time shall any equipment exceeding 18,000 LBS be allowed to be within 30 feet of the currently fenced off Redwood Tree Grove protection zone; 12. that prior to the placement or use of any motorized equipment within 30 feet of the currently fenced Redwood Tree Grove protection zone, a protective layer of mulch one foot deep with 3/4 inch plywood on top, shall be installed and inspected by the project arborist to avoid further soil compaction of the area; post construction the protective plywood and mulch may be removed as approved by the project arborist; 13. all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; 14. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 15. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed along the right side property line to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of the project arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 16. that the new sewer connection to the public sewer main shall be installed along the right side property line to City standards as required by the development; 17. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 18. that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 19. that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 20. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 21. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 22. that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house and/or accessory structure or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues which may arise during construction; 23. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the Community Development Director and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 24. that the driveway shall be designed to be pervious material as approved by the City Arborist, and installed according to approved plans with the supervision of the project arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist; 25. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City Arborist; that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10, except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; 26. that the driveway on Lot 10 shall be constructed of pavers set in sand, with a maximum cut below grade of 10 inches and a base compaction determined by the project arborist and approved by the City Arborist; that if any roots greater than - 2 inches in diameter are encountered during grading for the driveway on Lot 10 and must be cut to install the driveway, the situation shall be documented by the project arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to cutting any roots; and that if at any time the project arborist on site or the City Arborist feels the number of roots to be cut to install the driveway on Lot 10 is significant, a stop work order shall be issued for the site until the City Arborist determines whether it is necessary to relocate the driveway; 27. that special inspections by the City Arborist, to be funded by the property owner, shall include being on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; that the special inspections by the City Arborist shall occur once a week or more frequently as required by the conditions of approval and shall include written documentation by the project arborist that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; that no materials or equipment shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously approved by the City Arborist; and that the City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 28. that under the observation of the City Arborist, all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required by the City Arborist; that if any roots greater than 2 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the property owner's on -site arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 change and approve that the requirements of the building code are still met; and that if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 2 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the project arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 29. that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; and that if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 30. that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the property owner's arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans revised if any roots of 2 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 31. that no fencing of any kind shall be allowed for the first 65-0" along the side property line between Lots 9 and 10; 32. that for tree maintenance the property owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the protected Redwood grove during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year post construction maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the April 28, 2003 Mayne Tree Company report as well as such additional recommendations as the property owner shall receive from a certified arborist; and that the property owner of record shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discussed the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction (issuance of an occupancy permit) on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; 33. a. The property owner shall provide evidence of an "irrevocable letter of credit" in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, that: 1) provides for funding in the amount of $5,615 to cover the cost of 5-years of ongoing maintenance of the Redwood grove present at 1537 and 1543 Drake Avenue, as outlined in Mayne Tree Expert Company's February 3, 2009 proposal addressed to Community Development Director William Meeker; payment for the annual cost of the required maintenance may be from the letter of credit by the property owner upon notice to and approval by City; the letter of credit will be reduced by the amount of the annual invoice provided by Mayne Tree Expert Company for the performance of said services, upon submission of a copy of the invoice to the City of Burlingame Community Development Department; and 2) provides for an additional $15,000 to be held for a 5-year period beyond the completion of project construction (i.e. certificate of occupancy/final inspection); the City may draw upon the $15,000 if any tree fails due to construction -related activities during this 5-year period; if drawn upon the property owner shall replenish the amount back to the $15,000 level, which shall be maintained through the conclusion of the 5-year term; at the conclusion of the 5-year term, remaining funds shall be released to the 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 property owner by the City. b. The $118,780 cash deposit currently held by the City of Burlingame shall be released to the property owner upon certification by the City Arborist that the construction -related mitigation measures in the conditions of approval have been completed; confirmation that certificates of occupancy/final inspections have been granted for the homes constructed at 1537 and 1543 Drake Avenue; and submission of proof of an irrevocable letter of credit, in favor of the City, as outlined in items 1) and 2) above. In the event an irrevocable letter of credit cannot be obtained by the property owner; the amount of the cash deposit released by the City shall be decreased by the amounts stated; the remaining funds on deposit shall be placed in an interest -bearing account at a rate not to exceed the current LAIF ("Local Agency Investment Fund") rate. 34. that for purposes of these conditions the project arborist is a certified arborist hire by the property owner/developer; a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 35. that before issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: a. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; b. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and possible criminal prosecution; 36. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition or the edition approved by the City and as amended by the City of Burlingame at the time a building permit is issued; 37. that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather -proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 38. that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 39. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lot 10, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for each development on Lots 9 and 10 has received an occupancy permit and the City Arborist has approved removal of the protective fencing; 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 40. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 41. that the property owner shall maintain throughout construction a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 42. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall ensure maintenance of the supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 43. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall ensure maintenance of at least four (4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a "Tree Protection Fence", "Do Not Alter or Remove" and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 44. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lot 10 shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 10; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; and 45. that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly basis, the City Arborist inspections as required in the conditions of approval of all construction and grading on Lot 10 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this on -going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and C. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and IN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/ program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and that this same account may be used for the City Arborist's selected licensed arborist inspector on lot 10 selected by the City Arborist and approved by the Community Development Director. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:09 p.m. 4. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, 3'/2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (ROBERT VAN DALE, EDI ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 9, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Alex Mortazavi, 20 Vista Lane; represented the applicant. ■ Any development on the lot will result in some kind of Variance. ■ The City Arborist required the protection of a tree within the interior of the lot; this resulted in a request results in a Variance regardless of the approach to development. ■ The method of height measurement requires measurement from the curb; most other cities require height to be measured with respect to the natural slope. ■ The majority of the home is one and two stories in height. ■ Attempting to preserve trees on the lot. ■ The Planning Commission requested that the home be placed further up the hillside. ■ The three neighbors at the top of the hill have objected to the design, but two are now withdrawing their concerns. ■ The neighbor to the left has been approached; have visited his property to see the potential privacy impacts; offered to build a 12' x 15' heavy redwood trellis that will protect privacy and block the view of the building. Also offered a 6-foot high fence along the property line. Extra plants will be placed 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 in the area at his discretion and will be installed in addition to the current landscape plan for the subject property. ■ The neighbor will be permitted to retain a driveway encroachment on the property. ■ The new house is situated in excess of 23 feet from the property line shared with the neighbor to the left; the City only requires a 7-foot setback. ■ Not sure what else can be done to respond to the neighbor's concerns. ■ Provided a view simulation. ■ The left neighbor's privacy is already impacted by properties developed in the unincorporated County area. ■ Also provided a massing model. Commission comments: ■ Noted that there will be a row of five trees along the left side of the house and along the driveway on the applicant's property to further shield the neighbor to the left. ■ Asked for clarification of where the proposed house is 3'/2 stories in height (Hurin — demonstrated on the model; includes the garage level that is semi -subterranean). ■ Like the project; the residence is in the correct location now. ■ How accurate is the driveway ramp modeled; what is the height of the retaining wall, and how will it be treated (Mortazavi — can be built with keystones with plants growing out of it; or possibly use a textured wall that will allow for plant coverage). ■ What is the ceiling height at the bedroom level (Mortazavi — 9-feet; must rise enough to bridge to the rear yard). ■ What is planned for the outdoor living space (Mortazavi — would like to have a waterfall using the retaining walls; natural landscaping will be used from bedroom area). ■ Have done a good job with the design. Public comments: Art Labrie, 2839 Adeline Drive; William and Justin Jarvis, 2835 Adeline Drive; and Wendy Ehrlich, 2833 Adeline Drive; Virginia Wright, 2811 Adeline Drive; and Steve Shefsky, 24 Vista Lane, spoke: ■ The perspective in the presentation showing his (Labrie's) property is misleading; the driveway will replace all of the trees along his property line. ■ Noted that the Planning Commission did not promise granting a height Variance. ■ Project requires a 33-foot height Variance (Cauchi — noted that the prior application was withdrawn and cannot be considered). ■ Will have a negative impact on his (Labrie's) property; will block sunlight and invade privacy. ■ The scale is not accurate in relation to his (Labrie's) property; should require story poles. ■ Noted the required findings for granting a Variance; requires a full investigation, including story poles. ■ His (Labrie's) property value will be lowered substantially by the new construction. ■ None of the findings for a Variance can be made. ■ The driveway will cause exhaust fumes to go into his (Labrie's) dining room and kitchen windows. ■ The hill is very unstable; just lost a tree due to ground saturation; what will prevent the ridge from sliding down? ■ Invited all of the Commissioners into his (Labrie's) rear -yard after story poles have been erected. ■ Enjoys the tranquility of the area; there has been massive construction in the area for over three years. ■ The County neighbor's project has impacted the stability of the area. 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 ■ New project would face into his (Labrie's) rear -yard; the project is out of character with the area. ■ Other development in the area has reduced sunlight to the neighboring properties. ■ Traffic on the street is horrible; will become more unsafe. ■ Losing all of the wildlife in the area. ■ There is no parking on the street. ■ The surrounding houses are lower than the subject site; there will be privacy impacts. ■ Feels that some portions of the house are greater than 30-feet above natural grade. ■ Encouraged restrictions on dirt hauling onto and off of the property. ■ Have view rights under the Hillside construction permit; story poles are needed to show true impacts upon views from the new construction. ■ Encouraged providing screening to obscure views of the new house. ■ Noted that the Shefsky house was built without any Variances. Alex Mortazavi responded: ■ Have a settlement agreement that allows structure to be built to an elevation of 256'; are far below that elevation. ■ Due to the siting of the residence, there cannot be shadow impacts, the sun sets behind the ridgeline. ■ The summer sun will be at a much higher elevation; the hill itself will cast shadows, not the house. ■ The adjacent building was built in the County jurisdiction; height measurement is to the finished floor; results in greater heights; his structure cannot cast shadows on adjacent homes down the street. ■ The majority of the homes are 7-feet from the property line; his garage door is approximately 31- feet of the property line with Labrie; a much greater distance than most homes maintain. ■ The structure does not rise to 30-feet above natural grade. ■ Have had a soils report prepared, including grading and drainage investigation; are engineering the development of the site; it is a misconception that the hillside will slide if the site is developed. ■ Have offered mitigation to address neighbors' privacy concerns. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Like the design and the position of the home; there is some concern about the design of the retaining wall, but it can be treated well. ■ The model helps to demonstrate where the home will be placed on the property; but story poles are needed to help show the relationship to other homes. ■ Perhaps a shadow study could be prepared; but believes that the applicant's representations about the shadow impacts are accurate. ■ Questioned whether the residents that are in the unincorporated County area can object to development in Burlingame; the applicant is taking many measures to mitigate privacy impacts (Guinan — the City cannot enforce legislative authority outside of its jurisdiction). ■ Story poles will be necessary to satisfy the neighbors' concerns; will provide clarity. Some concern about the size of the house; though the lot is greater than 20,000 square feet. ■ The sloping sight supports the Variance request. Difficult to place the house at a better location on the site; will always impact the neighbors in some way; the current sighting mitigates impacts. ■ Story poles are typically used to determine massing and view impacts; the massing is well done, and views will not be impacted. 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 ■ Would like to have more description of materials (e.g. window types, trims, siding, etc.). ■ The applicant was encouraged to make the project a sustainable design. ■ A section drawing showing the landscape screening to the downhill neighbors should be prepared. ■ Impacts upon shadows and views are a given in the hillside areas. ■ Views into adjacent properties are not typically demonstrated with story poles; usually addresses distant views; there is no need for story poles. ■ How much attention should the Commission pay to County residents; have required story poles to demonstrate massing and placement of structures for edification of nearby neighbors; would support story poles along the left elevation. ■ There appears to be confusion about the size of the structure (Hurin — the Planning staff determined that the total floor area was 6,087 square feet). ■ The applicant has gone overboard to address impacts upon the neighbor to the left. Alex Mortazavi responded: Noted that there are implications regarding the installation of story poles on the left side of the property; vegetation will need to be removed to allow installation of story poles. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue with direction to install story poles along the left side of the property; noting that the neighbor will be made cognizant of the removal of vegetation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of Motion: ■ Provide sections showing relationship of building and adjacent buildings, including landscaping. ■ If the neighbor on the immediate left and the applicant can agree with another solution without vegetation removal, then will accept a letter to that effect. ■ Should look at using a permeable surface for the driveway, and water management. ■ Be certain that construction equipment is kept to a minimum. ■ Concerned that the uphill neighbor could also have concerns; should also provide story poles along the rear. Commissioners Cauchi and Lindstrom agreed to amend the motion to include the installation of story poles along the rear elevation as well. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to install story poles along the left and rear elevations. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Auran dissenting). This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:19 p.m. 5. 1860 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED ECN — APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT GENERAL OFFICE SPACE TO MEDICAL OFFICE IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING (MARCO CHAVEZ, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND KRJ DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 9, 2009, with attachments. Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Seven (7) conditions were suggested 22 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 Commission comments: None. Marco Chavez, 1860 El Camino Real; represented the applicant. ■ Has incorporated many of the items requested by the Commission. ■ Has reduced the proposed conversion from 100% to 66%. ■ CalTrain is supportive of allowing him to rent the parking spaces needed. ■ 192 spaces exist on the CalTrain property; 67 spaces are directly in front of his property; will rent 12-24 of the spaces. The parking lot is seldom used due to the distance from BART and CalTrain. ■ Not opposed to providing the bicycle rack outside the building or inside the building. ■ There is a problem with providing more parking on the property; can't make many changes to the property based upon the change in zoning. Lifts would be unsightly. ■ Will inform new tenants to park at the CalTrain parking lot, or the parking lot to the south; can be a part of the rental agreement. Additional Commission comments: Asked if street parking is counted (Chavez — no). Noted that the available parking at the CalTrain lot is plentiful. Clarified that CalTrain will not provide a lease with the applicant unless City approval is provided (Meeker— suggested including a condition requiring parking agreement to be in place, and that the approval would terminate if the lease is not secured, or is terminated). Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke: Indicated that the bicycle parking needs to be in the building. Noted that Turner Construction received an agreement with CalTrain because approval for hospital was already in place. The only pressure that would ever be on the lot is that BART has begun charging for parking; could force more parking in the lot; though it is quite distant from the Millbrae BART/CalTrain Station. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: Should this item perhaps be sent by the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for review? Commissioner Auran moved to refer the applicant's request to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for their input regarding the potential impact upon parking at the CalTrain parking lot. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: 23 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 Concern that there is going to be more pressure on CalTrain for parking; there may not be enough parking for this conversion and BART users. The Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission should review the request and provide an opinion whether this would negatively impact BART/CalTrain parking. Asked if the request should have been referred to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission previously; what is its purview (Meeker— indicated that the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission has no purview over decisions of the Planning Commission. In this instance, the only connection is that the use of the CalTrain parking spaces is proposed as mitigation for the Variance request). Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion refer the request to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. The motion failed 3-4 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Lindstrom, Yie and Vistica dissenting). Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 28, 2007, base floor plans sheets Al, A2 and A3, and date stamped January 22, Rear Entrance Preliminary Access Design (site/parking plan), and that any changes to the floor area, use or parking which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Parking Variance; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 24, 2008, November 3, 2008 and March 5, 2007 memos, the City Engineer's March 8, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinators March 5, 2007 memo shall be met; 3. that the applicant shall secure a lease agreement with CalTrain for a minimum of 13 parking spaces in the nearby CalTrain parking lot, prior to implementation of the Variance approval. In the event that the lease agreement is not secured, or is secured and is subsequently terminated; the Variance approval granted herein shall become null and void; 4. that four (4) ADA compliant parking spaces shall be provided in the parking lot and that these spaces shall be accompanied by an ADA compliant ramp leading to the rear entrance of the building; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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 any construction on the building, 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 the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 24 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of Motion: Requested that staff obtain information from the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission regarding the use of BART/CalTrain parking in the vicinity of the Millbrae BART/CalTrain Station. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-2 (Commissioners Auran and Cauchi dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:46 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Vistica indicated that he would recuse himself from discussions regarding Agenda Item 6 (108 Arundel Road), since he lives within 500-feet of the property. He left the Council Chambers. 6. 108 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JO ANN GANN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND BEN AND VICKY HSIA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 9, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Jo Ann Gann, 244 Fulton Street, Redwood City; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Provide more detail regarding finishing (trim, roof type, etc.). ■ Complemented the design; massing is done well. ■ Clarify that new finishes will match existing. ■ On the front elevation the existing home has a nice composition; this is lost with the window seat box that is added; consider a shed roof over the bay window centered in the space. ■ Asked if the deck in the rear is being re -built (Gann — yes). Call out new materials for deck. ■ Call out the driveway material; would prefer pavers. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke: Good first blush at a design; it is clearly a remodel. Doesn't like the round chimney cap; is it necessary? There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. 25 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 Discussion of motion: Important to provide more detail, the owner is entering into a contract with the City that ensures that the project will be built as reflected on the approved plans. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:56 p.m. Commissioner Vistica returned to the dais. 7. 438 CUMBERLAND DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND BILL MYERS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated February 9, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Complemented the design. ■ Asked if the entire roof will be new (Geurse — yes). ■ The structure is close to adjacent neighbor to the rear; are the exterior lights new or existing (Geurse — new). Because the structure is so close to the adjacent neighbor, be certain that the lights do not glare onto the neighbor's property. ■ Is there a flat roof section (Geurse — yes, a flat, recessed roof area with a parapet because the massing will work better). Questioned if this is the right solution; the roof is a dramatic part of the design; would still likely be within the height limit (Geurse — thought it may be too large in comparison to other structures in the area). ■ On the balcony on the elevation on page A6, what is the finish over the balcony (Hurin — noted new decorative shed roof with metal bracing). ■ The dormers will be a bold statement; it is important to insist to the builder that they be built as planned with copper roofs. ■ Are wood windows to be installed within the dormers (Geurse — yes). ■ Clarify the design of transom windows. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke: Beautiful design, the application should be placed on the Consent Calendar. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. 26 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 9, 2009 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: Remind the contractor that it is expected that what is being approved will be built. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:06 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: Commissioner Auran's and Commissioner Cauchi's terms on the Commission are up in April. Applications for appointment to the Commission will be accepted through March 16, 2009. Reminder to advise the Community Development Director of attendance at March 21, 2009 annual Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting; and to return any suggestions for topics of discussion to the Director by February 13, 2009. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 2, 2009: None FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — January, 2009: Accepted XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 27