Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.08.06.PC MinutesCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 8, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the May 8, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erica Strohmeier City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. ROTATION OF OFFICERS Chair Auran thanked the Planning Commission for supporting him during a great and busy years which included Bayfront and North Burlingame/Rollins Road zoning, the project to replace the hospital, the addition to the garden center, and an election cycle. He passed the gavel to Michael Brownrigg who will be the Chair for 2006-2007. Chair Brownrigg thanked C. Auran for being an excellent and impartial chair and for his dedication and even handed and expeditious running of Commission meetings. IV. MINUTES The minutes of the April 24, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were amended by C. Auran, page 5, item 1 first bullet "Have there been complaints about this property parking issues on this street over the years; the minutes were approved as amended on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent) voice vote. V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. VI. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VII. STUDY ITEMS Chair Brownrigg commented that study session items are not open to the public, that it is expected that all Commissioners visit all the sites on the agenda prior to the meeting and that if a Commissioner misses the meeting then they listen to the tapes from the previous meeting of all items carried forward. 1. 1840 OGDEN DRIVE, ZONED TW – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR A NEW, 4-STORY, 45- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH TWO LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING (ALEX NOVELL, BURLINGAME HILLS MANOR, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER AND TOBY LEVY, LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 2 Commissioners asked: ƒ clarify procedure if Public Works does not agree with the 17% driveway slope and a change is needed; would the change come back to the Commission for review? ƒ clarify build-to line and if anything on this site is at the build-to line; seems as though everything is between an 11’ and 14’ setback; ƒ would it be a problem to bring the building up to the build-to line; ƒ what will the final color of the copper panels be; want samples of material and color; ƒ what is the life expectancy and upkeep of the cedar planks that run through the design, will they be a maintenance problem; ƒ landscaping seems to lack character; needs to be a lot of landscaping to off-set the brick façade or need to create more texture to the building; provided example of building in Palo Alto with stone features that make the building stand out, good alternative; ƒ why is the piece of building placed along Ogden where it is? Could it be moved north? This could alleviate a curb-cut issue; ƒ landscaping at pedestrian entry and at service vehicle parking is important and needs more attention; ƒ more information is needed on how they plan to treat the transformer at the main entry and back- flow preventors as well; should be screened or put below grade; ƒ would like to see what type of brick is intended, veneer, whole brick, etc; need to provide window details and fascia detail including material and a profile; profile should show the edge of the window and how it meets the cladding; ƒ what is the reason for the varying floor-to-floor heights; ƒ how will oil separation be provided for sump pumps? ƒ can applicant get this project on the LEEDS roster? What is he doing to make the building more “green”; ƒ the build-to-line issue is a critical aspect on the Ogden side of the building; design has a walk up nature to units on Ogden side; if build-to lines are encouraged, stoops should be encouraged to be maintained because they help with the street frontage; ƒ how do you plan to monitor and run the inclusionary/affordable unit program; ƒ how is equipment going to be screened on the roof? What will be seen from above; ƒ would like to see a restroom facility and hot and cold running water around the trellis and picnic table areas in the courtyard facility; ƒ in reference to site amenities, would like landscaped area on Ogden to remain a useable landscape space for play activity with a bench; would help this area to be less static; and ƒ need to determine how the intention of the build-to-line is to be accomplished; not the best time to determine if porch constitutes a build-to line; on Sunrise project, porch defined by a trellis structure, did not constitute a build-to line; if project is not changed regarding the build-to line, it will be noticed as a variance. Staff responded that the applicant has put porches and ramps at the build-to lines but that they are all less than 30” above adjacent grade and are not considered structures in the zoning code; bringing the building to the build-to lines could change the underground parking structure; the Commission needs to determine if the front setback build-to line does create a variance or do front porch areas and walkways count towards build- to line; and the applicant chose to follow the new TW zoning regulations. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the questions have been addressed and the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. The item will be scheduled when there is space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 3 2. 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO EXPAND AN EXISTING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (TIM MULLER, FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, APPLICANT; WESLEY FUKUMORI, ARCHITECT; GREEN BANKER, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ƒ the building was approved at a time when they could provide on-site parking spaces; do we have an in-lieu fee that we can charge for the parking space? ƒ can a condition be set to require the applicant to keep the correct time on the clock; believe there may be such a condition now which is not being met; ƒ are there any parking complaints related to this building and its uses; ƒ this use permit should be tied to a financial institution; no conversation of the space to another office should take place without an amendment to the permit and the parking variance; ƒ the banking use provided here is less intense than other banking no tellers behind counters with lines; and ƒ could argue that only one ATM creates loitering. Staff responded that there is no parking in-lieu fee for this part of the city, that the Commission could ask applicant if there is another way to mitigate the variance and he might volunteer an in lieu payment, and that the Commission could tie this application to not having more than one ATM machine. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. VIII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on 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 Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. C. Auran asked that item 3d, 433 Chatham Road be removed from the consent calendar. There were no other requests. 3a. 608 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRIS AND DERRIE RONAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3b. 1625 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATT MEFFORD, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAN AND EILEEN CONWAY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 3c. 1111 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B – APPLICATION FOR HEALTH SERVICE City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 4 USE (SKIN TREATMENT) (KEITH RALEY, DEMALOUNGE, APPLICANT; VIVIAN DWYER, DWYER DESIGN, DESIGNER; SAEED ESMAILTALAI, PROPERTY OWNER) (41 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBIN HURIN C. Auran moved to approve the consent calendar, items 3a, 608 Concord Way, 3b, 1625 Howard Avenue, and 3c, 1111 Howard Avenue, by resolution with the findings and conditions in the staff reports. The motion was seconded by C. Deal Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the three items remaining on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3d. 433 CHATHAM ROAD, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING TENNIS CLUB (JEFFREY TSU, APPLICANT; PENINSULA TENNIS CLUB, PROPERTY OWNER; GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP, ARCHITECT) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Vistica recused himself from this action because he is a member of the club, he stepped down from the dias and left the Council Chambers. ZT Strohmeier presented the staff report. C. Auran noted that he called this item off the consent calendar because the tennis club is a wonderful community institution and has been in the community for 73 years, and for that time has been informally sharing parking with Burlingame High School; he felt that this was an opportunity for them to get a parking agreement with the High School for use of the 10 parking spaces on the school site next to their facility. There were no other questions or comments to staff by the Commission. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jeff Tsu, member represented the Tennis Club at 433 Chatham Road. He noted that he had asked the Principal of the High School for a written agreement for their use of the 10 parking spaces, the Principal could not write such an agreement and referred him to the San Mateo Unified High School District. Yesterday got an indemnity agreement for the club to use the spaces during the construction which is occurring on the high school site, but not for permanent use. The High School District is comfortable with the current informal arrangement, which includes their occasional use of the Tennis Club facilities. Commissioner noted that parking is not usually a problem for the Tennis Club, which has been there 73 years, but the club is not legally entitled to use the school parking and if the club members should not be allowed to use the parking it would put a burden on the residents on Chatham Road. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners commented: the only issue noted was parking, the hold harmless agreement they have during construction is the agreement the club should have permanently; if loose use of high school parking should have to come back to the Planning Commission; agree that it would be nice to have the agreement in writing, but they have been using the school's parking for 73 years. C. Deal moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit for proposed improvements to an existing tennis club at 433 Chatham Road by resolution with one added condition, that if the tennis club looses the right to use the parking on the Burlingame High School site, this application shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and with the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 5 shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 24, 2006, Pool Area Renovation Schematic Plan with Conceptual Planting, and date stamped February 21, 2006, sheet L2.1, showing the maintenance of three tennis courts, a swimming pool and a hot tub;2) that the tennis club shall only be open seven days a week during the daylight hours and depending upon weather conditions, with a maximum of 3 full-time employees; that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that any intensification of the current use on the property shall require a parking variance; and should the use of the site ever change, parking to code requirements for that use shall be provided on site and should the tennis club ever loose the use of the parking spaces on the Burlingame High School site, the conditional use permit for the tennis use shall be automatically reviewed by the Planning Commission ; 4) that the tennis club use shall be limited to its existing building areas, outdoor tennis court areas and outdoor pool and pool deck areas; 5) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official’s February 23, 2006, memo, the City Engineer’s February 24, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's and Fire Marshal's February 27, 2006, memos, and the NPDES Coordinator’s February 28, 2006, memo shall be met; and 6) that the existing and proposed landscaping shall be installed as shown on the Pool Area Renovation Schematic Plan With Conceptual Planting, date stamped April 24, 2006, and that all areas of landscaping shall be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system on a timer and shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times; 7) that during all grading and construction, the property owner shall be required to control dust by watering the site and complying with all the San Francisco Regional Air Quality Control Boards permit requirements; 8) 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; 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; a construction recycling plan shall also be issued and any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit which shall not be issued until a building permit has been issued; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 11) that during demolition of the existing facilities, site preparation and construction of the new facilities, 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; 12) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; and 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit for the Tennis Club with the additional condition that the conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission should the club members ever loose the ability to use the Burlingame High School parking lot. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Vistica abstaining, C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 4. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, C-3 AND UNCLASSIFIED – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR THE PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT TO ALLOW EXTENDED CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR THE PARKING GARAGE PHASE OF THE PROJECT (MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, APPLICANT; PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT AND MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (245 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 6 Reference staff report May 8, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted the City Council's approval of the Urgency Ordinance regarding temporary extension of construction hours for the hospital and their suggested observations to the Commission. She also noted that the Municipal Code and Urgency Ordinance set the parameters within which the Commission may amend condition 94, should they choose to provide a place to begin. An amendment to condition 94 was suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted that the commission had been charged to determine the appropriate amendment to condition 94 (hours of construction) and can choose among the current hours in condition 94, the longer hours allowed in the current Municipal Code and the extended hours allowed by the Urgency Ordinance. In any case the extension requested is for a limited time, May 15 through August, to expire September 1, 2006. Staff noted that the Council added a provision to the Urgency Ordinance that the hospital report about compliance with whatever hours are allowed to the Planning Commission every 30 days from commencement of the work. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Oren Reinbolt, project construction manager, represented the applicant, 1783 El Camino Real. He discussed briefly the findings of a study about hospital construction costs in California including the causes of major cost escalation particularly 'construction congestion’ which is unique to this market at this time. Currently they are not affected by this since Turner Construction has been under contract to them for 5 years, but if that agreement is broken, their costs will increase substantially and they will need to revise the project significantly. He noted the remaining steps to get through to bind Turner, they include finishing the parking garage and its access on time, holding down the cost of the project to what was funded by Sutter Health by getting the permits from the State on time, and the Hospital district needs a public vote on the building. Asked for broader hours in the Urgency Ordinance request because at the public hearing neighbors felt less concern over Sunday than they expected and Sunday adds flexibility if get off schedule, already had the extra hour on Saturday that they lost because it was not within the current municipal code hours of construction, and neighbors not feel that working until 7 p.m. weeks days is a problem, but working from 7 - 9 p.m. is a big deal; these neighbors represent the lightening rod for the construction hours and would like to work to the limit acceptable. Extended hours are needed so that they are able to make up lost time by changing the way the floors of the garage are poured; can do quiet concrete finish work during the extended hours 7 -9 p.m. because need two 7 hour shift when pour and finish concrete; don't think the neighbors south of the site will hear anything; want the flexibility to do two things: this is a giant project to live next to, trying to make impact minimal; try to set cycle time so that only need the extra 2 hours on Thursday, and finish concrete only after 7 p.m.; complaints need to come directly to him and he will air them with the Mitigation Monitoring Panel and if deemed appropriate tonight will report to the Planning Commission. Commissioners asked will concrete finishing be the only activity during the extended hours, 7-9 p.m., no heavy equipment with bells will be backing up, applicant noted if work on Sunday there may be some heavy equipment, and some concrete pumping to 7 p.m., pumpers will access site from Trousdale and El Camino. Commission asked, originally you were approved to work 63 hours a week, now you aske for 88 hours, a 40% increase, what is suggested here is 25% hours more than the original, is that enough to make a time recovery; applicant noted that the key is being able to reduce the cycle time by pouring the garage floors in thirds rather than quarters. What other construction will be occurring besides concrete? Will work on electrical, utilities, the at grade entrance roadway from Trousdale into the garage, but the cycle of pour is the limiting factor, would like flexibility to use extended hours once a week on any week day in case the cycle gets off schedule. Your request is the Municipal Code construction hours plus 7-9 p.m. on Thursday? Yes. Comments from the public: Terry Hubner, 1708 Davis Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Kevin Nelson, 1654 Albermarle Avenue; Steve Dambrosie, 1504 Davis Drive; Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive; Christo Daskalakis, 836 Fairfield Road owner of 1700-1702 Albermarle Drive. Have a letter from 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 7 families to submit, concerned that it is clear what happened at the Council meeting, Sunday construction is a big deal, try to be fair allow Sundays or evenings, prefer evenings. Concerned about the Mitigation Monitoring Panel because it did not notify the neighbors about this issue until April 20, 2006; anticipating 5 months with no windows open, evening and Sunday noise, need more quiet time, project just begun, how do we know that they will not come back again when construction gets behind; because neighbors could not meet with Mitigation Monitoring Panel did not have an opportunity to come up with a solution, before this meeting the Planning Commission and Council need to get the Mitigation Monitoring Panel going so address concerns; if we had a choice of faster to get the project over sooner, majority would prefer extra 3 months and keep the construction hours in the conditions of approval; concern that the trucks will exit behind the houses on the west end of Davis during the extended hours for the next several months, Commission should require that all trucks be covered all the time and that no deliveries be made after 6 p.m. Unclear in the staff report whether the entrance is included with the construction of the garage for the extended hours. Small group of residents have to continue to come back to the city, this is a request to save $200,000,000, would like the hospital to mitigate the neighbors’ problems caused by construction by providing them with compensation such as installing double pane windows, Sutter has money are considering another new hospital in San Carlos; should be a condition if the conditions are changed or removed the neighbors should be compensated. Clarify that this will not be extended hours from 7-9 p.m. every day; feel should grant on a 30 day basis and see if they comply, then extend another 30 days; would like to have experience of extended hours and review. This change is not what the city and neighbors agreed to, this is much worse, and will affect our quality of life, it’s a bad precedent this early in this project, fought hard for the current conditions, did not get compensation should have through the Mitigation Fund which also did not address the hospital mitigating noise and dust. Complained to Carole Groom about replacement of trees at the end of Albermarle in February and about several things since, each time told nothing could do; have not raised my rents in four years, concerned about the impact of the extended hours to tenants, especially those there all day, hospital should provide money to assist in replacing windows. Applicant responded: this will not be a precedent for requests to extend construction hours, will not be repeated once they start on the hospital construction, we are close, once have the prime under contract do not have to worry, but the next 60 days are a critical phase. Commissioner asked when the trees will be installed along the property line on Davis Drive. Applicant responded within 30 days, had a delay on covering the SF water line because of the wet soil. Given present weather feel can issue a reliable schedule to neighbors on a bi-monthly basis, should be pretty accurate for the next 90 days. Commissioner asked about the Mitigation Monitoring Panel. Applicant noted that he needs timely reporting of problems so can track down, neighbors should call hospital switchboard and ask for the administrator on duty, and note complaint, the administrator will call the construction team person on duty who can check right away; got a complaint this week end about three trucks through the Ray Park neighborhood, they were hospital service trucks not construction trucks, Carole Groom contacted all the people who do normal operations of the hospital and told them this route was not acceptable. Time line for the extension of hours has been less than a month since identified the issue, notified the members of the Mitigation Monitoring Panel, hand distributed memo to all the neighbors, and have had two public meetings. Don't want to work outside approved hours, am asking permission; in general the public process is working. Need to coordinate with the rest of the hospital operations. If quiet activities can be done on Thursday evening, what non-quiet activities will be done on Sunday, can you limit access to Trousdale on Sunday and Thursday evenings? Could limit to Trousdale and El Camino, with no construction truck use of Marco Polo during this time. Would like flexibility in what day of the week we can use extended hours in case get off cycle. Can Sunday be stipulated for quiet work only? Not if a pour is needed, also need to get the access road built and occasionally that will require equipment; this is the piece of the road at grade into the parking garage, need City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 8 to remove part of the SF water line and create a drainage retention basin, there will be a lot of stuff under that road. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: City Council has looked to the Planning Commission to define this action; value making this decision tonight because if delay no point in change, also there is still an appeal period; clarify asking week-days 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and one night 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.; CA noted that letting the applicant choose one night each week for extended hours would not be enforceable; asking Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Sunday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., don't see that they will use all this time; feel that the argument to increase hours is valid, to deny is a disservice to the community, lot of rain, like the project to be kept on track, what asking is OK since it is for a limited length of time; if this develops into a pattern of requests we will know right away, if they violate this it will be harder to get something in the future; could not foresee this, unique rainy period, to not address now will compound the delay into the next rainy period; need to get information back to the Mitigation Monitoring Panel and the community with issuance of a schedule which documents what will happed now without the increase in hours and what will happen with the recovery schedule, to increase community understanding. If not extend hours it will be a disservice to the community, cuts will reduce quality and what can expect for landscaping and affect neighborhood; project well run to this point, not a request based on mismanagement. C. Vistica moved to approve the amendment to condition 94 as noted in the staff report with hours of construction extended to September 1, 2006, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Weekdays, adding 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursdays with work activity limited to quiet construction activities, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays, and that the Mitigation Monitoring Panel shall notify the neighbors if there will not be a pour on Thursday; and including the other items proposed in the staff report about notification of the compliance and notifying the neighbors about the construction schedule, by resolution including all the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 10, 2004, Sheets A0.01 through PS7, including topography, grading, utilities, landscape plans, floor diagrams, site plans, phasing plans, site section, elevations, parking structure plans, etc., and as shown on the perspective drawings of the Pedestrian View along El Camino Real at Medical Office Building and the View from Davis Drive Property to the South date stamped November 10, 2004 as they may be refined pursuant to Condition #5; (Planning, Building); 2) that the project shall include a hospital with a floor area of not more than 441,000 square feet and a medical office building with a floor area of not more than 150,000 square feet; (Planning, Building); 3) that the project shall provide a minimum of 1,490 parking spaces, with 809 spaces in the parking garage and no more than twenty (20) percent of the required parking shall be in compact parking spaces; (Planning, Building); 4) that construction shall be carried out in the phases described in the Environmental Impact Report and the phasing plans dated September 10, 2004; (Planning, Building, Public Works); 5) that the approved exterior design of the hospital, medical office building and garage shall be further refined by the applicant pursuant to Planning Commission and City Council direction, and the refined designs shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit for the parking garage; if the City Planner determines that the submitted exterior designs are inconsistent with the exterior design approved by the Commission and City Council, the design shall be forwarded for review and approval to the Planning Commission; in any event the emerging and final design of the medical office building, hospital and parking garage shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their information; and that any material changes in floor area, design, or use shall require City approval of an amendment to this use permit;(Planning); 6) that the applicant shall record an access easement between the Mills Peninsula Health Services property at 1811 Trousdale Drive and the adjacent Peninsula Hospital District property to the south before closing the El Camino Real access to the existing hospital, and that prior to issuance of a building permit for the garage, the applicant shall record an City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 9 access easement or otherwise demonstrate legal irrevocable access for construction and parking ingress and egress between the merged Mills Peninsula Health Services properties along El Camino Real and the Peninsula Hospital District property to the west, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney; (Public Works); 7) that an application shall be submitted and recorded for a lot line adjustment for the exchange of 35 feet of street frontage along Trousdale Drive from the east side to the west side of Magnolia Gardens Care Center between Mills Peninsula Health Services and Magnolia Gardens Care Center prior to the issuance of a building permit for the parking garage; (Public Works); 8) that the two parcels with frontage on El Camino Real that are owned by Mills Peninsula Health Services shall be merged and the map recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for the parking garage; (Public Works); 9) that prior to issuance of a building permit for the medical office building, the three parcels remaining after compliance with Condition #8 shall be merged, the map shall be recorded, and the zoning shall be changed to Unclassified for the resulting parcel; (Public Works); 10) that if the actions described above in Condition #9 and all prerequisite conditions are not complete within five years of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the City shall review and modify the Conditional Use Permit as appropriate; (Planning); 11) that no building permit shall be issued to any structure whose required parking is on a separate parcel;(Building); 12) that any improvements for the replacement hospital structure shall meet all requirements of California law and shall be approved by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development; (Building, Planning); 13) that within three years of completion and occupancy of the new hospital facilities and medical office building, the existing hospital structure and its support facilities shall be demolished and all on-site and off- site improvements completed, inspected and approved by the city; (Building, Planning, Public Works); 14) that no later than the last phase of hospital construction (demolition of the existing hospital), the applicant shall meet with the property owners in the Davis Drive neighborhood to discuss whether or not the proposed landscaped area and improved pedestrian access from Davis Drive to the hospital site, which is shown on the approved plans, shall be provided or the site shall be used for an alternative use; and that if the parties cannot agree, the issue shall be decided by the Planning Commission; (Planning, Neighborhood); 15) that any future development on the 4.15 acre undeveloped area to be left for future use or disposition by the Peninsula Hospital District shall require a conditional use permit from the City of Burlingame and shall be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act; (Planning); 16) that the applicant shall apply for and receive approval, including required permits, from all other regulatory public agencies as necessary and required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the parking garage, including but not limited to the California Department of Transportation, the San Francisco Water District/ SF PUC, the Federal Aviation Administration, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, the San Francisco Air Quality Control Board, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, and San Mateo County Transit Authority; (Planning); 17) that in the event of any discrepancy between adopted EIR mitigation measures for the project and these conditions of approval, or between any of these conditions of approval, the most stringent requirement shall apply; (Planning); 18) that the applicant shall pay for and designate an appropriate area to locate a significant piece of public statuary, art or fountain in the gateway area along El Camino Real at a location no further south than the medical office building approved by the Planning Commission; this proposed art work shall be selected and reviewed using a process with public input developed by the City for the selection and placement of public art and shall be installed at the time of the final landscaping and hardscape on this corner of the site; the public art shall be substantial enough to become a focal point for the gateway and site and to help mitigate the location of the parking structure; the applicant shall pay to install the artwork and maintain it after installation; (Planning); 19) that the surface parking area which is a part of the lease agreement for this development should be available through good faith negotiations with the lessor and hospital operator to facilitate future development of the remaining 4.15 acre site by the Peninsula Hospital District and reduce the extent of surface parking on the total site; required parking for the hospital can be met after CEQA review by joint use of an appropriately located and sized multi-level parking structure by amendment to this conditional use permit; (Planning); 20) that neither City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 10 the hospital or medical office building nor any other use on the site shall charge employees, clients, patients or visitors for the use of on-site parking without an amendment to the conditional use permit, for which the application shall include traffic and circulation studies documenting the impacts of a pay-for-parking program on the site access, on-site circulation, use and shift of use of on-site parking, impact on access to and from any part of the site, and any possible impact on off-site and on-street parking in the vicinity of the hospital and medical office building; (Planning); 21) that the applicant shall develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the hospital and medical office building which shall be approved by C/CAG and the City of Burlingame consistent with C/CAG requirements, and that the required facilities for the TDM program shall be included in the plans for each facility prior to filing the plans for the new hospital structure with the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development or issuance of a building permit for the parking garage, whichever comes first, and shall be installed and/or implemented prior to occupancy of each structure; (Planning); 22) that the applicant shall do a baseline study and then monitor parking usage quarterly throughout construction, and if the monitoring reports, resident complaints and/or staff observations demonstrate that parking for this project is occurring off-site, the hospital shall propose modifications on-site to address the increase above the baseline which shall be approved by the City Engineer; and the approved necessary changes shall be implemented as soon as feasible by the hospital operator; (Planning, Public Works); 23) that following the completion of construction and occupancy of the replacement hospital, the applicant shall monitor parking usage quarterly for the first three years; if any quarterly study indicates that the on-site parking required is inadequate, the applicant shall identify solutions in consultation with the City Engineer and shall implement the approved improvements in a time frame established by the City Engineer; (Planning, Public Works); 24) that no construction traffic shall use the Davis Drive access to the hospital, and no employees associated with the construction shall use the Davis Drive entrance to the site or shall park on Davis Drive or nearby residential streets; (Public Works, Neighborhood); 25) that to monitor the effectiveness of traffic access, circulation and parking during the entire construction period, including construction trucks and equipment, the applicant shall hire an independent traffic consultant to conduct a baseline parking and traffic study prior to the start of garage construction and to update the study quarterly during each critical phase of construction, and the baseline and intermediate studies by the traffic consultant shall be reviewed by the City Planner prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage; and that the applicant shall resolve any unanticipated problems identified through these traffic and parking studies and/or by the City Engineer within 15 days; (Public Works, Planning); 26) that the recycling deposit for the demolition of the existing hospital structure that is required pursuant to Condition #96 will be retained until the Davis Drive entrance is closed and landscaped to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Arborist, and that the City may use these funds to close the Davis Drive entrance as required; 27) that the applicant shall include language in all construction documents prohibiting all construction traffic from using the Davis Drive entrance; (Planning); 28) that the applicant shall provide a plan for traffic control for each phase of construction, to be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the next set of permits required for the project; (Public Works); 29) that at no time shall any person connected with the operation of the hospital direct, order or encourage parking off- site, and the hospital shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that staff and employees park on the site itself in the parking provided pursuant to this approval; (Public Works, Planning, Neighborhood); 30) that the relocation and reconstruction, including paving and striping, of the Magnolia Gardens Care Center’s required parking (west side lot) shall be done prior to the time that the construction entrance at Magnolia/Trousdale is built, with the final provision of a total of at least 26 on-site parking spaces for Magnolia Gardens; (Planning, Building); 31) that existing parking on the east side at the Magnolia Gardens Care Center shall not be demolished or restriped until the new west side lot parking is in place, construction of the west side lot shall not commence until the City has approved all required permits, and all construction shall be completed within 90 days;(Planning, Building); 32) that use of the fire access lane on the south side of the property shall be limited to pedestrians and emergency vehicles only; (Planning); 33) that trucks shall City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 11 not be left more than 48 consecutive hours on the hospital site, either at the loading docks or in the parking areas; however, this condition shall not apply to a truck that is directly attached to the technology dock; (Planning); 34) that the hours for delivery at the hospital loading dock off El Camino Real shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays; these hours do not apply to non-routine delivery of medical equipment or consumable medical supplies that are required for urgent or emergency use in the following 24 hours; holidays are defined in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 13.04.100; these hours shall be posted in clear public view and each vendor shall be notified of the hours of delivery; (Planning); 35) that the applicant shall install and/or replace streetlights along the project frontage on El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive, and the size, design and location of the streetlights shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and shall have CalTrans permits prior to installation; (Public Works); 36) that the hospital operator shall permanently maintain an off-site supply warehouse to be used to stage deliveries to the hospital in smaller trucks for the duration of this permit, and that if this warehouse supply system is materially altered, the hospital shall pay for an independent traffic analysis of the change in the number and size of trucks used for deliveries, and shall provide appropriate mitigation as determined by the Planning Commission by amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; (Planning); 37) that the hospital shall inform and require all vendor trucks to use El Camino Real and city- designated arterial streets and not to use adjacent residential streets (collector or local) in traveling to or from the hospital, and failure to comply shall result in a review of the use permit; (Planning); 38) that the applicant shall pay the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee based on peak hour trips generated by the hospital and medical office building; with the fee for the hospital paid in two installments, one-half at the time of city approval of the project and one-half before demolition permits are issued for the existing hospital building; and the fee for the medical office building paid in two installments, one-half within 90 days of City Council certification of the Final EIR and one-half before the final inspection is scheduled for the medical office building; (Planning); 39) that the applicant shall replace the bus shelter on El Camino Real as directed by SamTrans and shall obtain all approvals for adjusting the location of the bus stop from required agencies prior to installing the curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements on the El Camino Real frontage of the site; (Public Works); 40) that, because of the importance of providing continued access to the Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center from Trousdale between El Camino Real and Magnolia, the applicant shall prepare a traffic study to modify the left-turn movement/lanes into the hospital site to retain the existing left-turn pocket on Trousdale eastbound into the Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center, and, working with the City Engineer, determine how these changes can be most safely implemented including modifications to the mitigation monitoring plan which will clarify and improve access to both the hospital and shopping center; the identified solution shall be incorporated into the roadway improvements on Trousdale to be installed by the applicant; (Public Works); 41) that the applicant shall design, install and pay for any and all necessary upgrades to traffic signals including at Trousdale/Magnolia and El Camino Real/Trousdale intersections, as well as roadway restriping, and other transportation improvements required by the project, as described in the project plans dated September 10, 2004, the EIR for the project, and in the transportation Mitigation Measures set forth below; (Public Works); 42) that traffic signal plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for all changes to traffic signals due to the project, and the plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to implementation pursuant to encroachment permits; (Public Works); 43) that prior to issuance of the demolition permit for the existing hospital building, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security acceptable to the City Attorney to cover the estimated cost of installation of a single traffic signal at the new Trousdale Drive emergency/staff entrance, which improvements, if necessary, shall be installed within three years of the date the security is provided. The applicant shall conduct traffic counts at the Trousdale/emergency entrance intersection approximately twelve months after the start-of-service date of the new hospital to determine whether the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices peak hour signal warrants are met or exceeded at the new entrance, and if so, the applicant shall pay for the cost of installing said traffic signal improvements to City City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 12 standards and requirements. In the alternative or in combination with improvements at the Trousdale/emergency entrance and if determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, the applicant shall pay for the cost of installing appropriate traffic control improvements at the intersection of Trousdale and Ogden or Marco Polo Way, provided that in no event shall the applicant be responsible for total costs, construction or installation greater than the dollar amount of the security provided for the one traffic signal; (Public Works); 44) that a State Heliport permit shall be issued by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, for the replacement helipad prior to the issuance of a building permit for the medical office building; (Planning); 45) that the helipad shall be operated within the criteria of the State Heliport Permit and that no more than eight helicopter trips shall arrive at the hospital within any single month, with a maximum of 24 trips per year and that the only exception without amendment to this permit shall be in the event of natural or declared emergency; (Planning); 46) that helicopter service to the site shall cease during construction as required by the Federal Aviation Administration and the CalTrans Division of Aeronautics; (Planning); 47) that the primary helicopter flight path shall be the approach from the northeasterly direction over the intersection of El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive as shown on the Flight Path Layout dated September 29, 2004, prepared by Heliplanners Aviation Planning Consultants, and that the westerly flight path arc shall only be used when strong wind conditions prevent the use of the primary flight path; helicopters shall not use the westerly flight path arc without Planning Commission review and approval except in emergency situations; (Planning); 48) that before the Peninsula Medical Center is identified and/or licensed to operate as a regional trauma center, the Planning Commission shall review and rule on any physical changes caused, including changes in helicopter and emergency service vehicles, and determine how the implementation of these changes will have the least impact on the safety and environment of the residents and businesses in the area; (Planning); 49) that curb and street elevations and detailed driveway profiles, as well as driveway transitions, for each phase of work shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of construction permits for that phase of work; (Public Works); 50) that detailed plans for the curb, gutter and sidewalk realignment at the Marco Polo entrance shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the commencement of work on the entrance and in the Marco Polo staff parking lot and that the driveway at Marco Polo Way shall be redesigned to be perpendicular to the street to provide safe sight distance for vehicles exiting from the parking lot, and the design shall be approved by the City Engineer before issuance of an encroachment permit; (Public Works); 51) that all changes required within the right-of-way of Trousdale Drive for this project shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works pursuant to the encroachment permit process and approved for each phase by the Department of Public Works prior to implementing each phase; (Public Works); 52) that any damaged asphaltic concrete pavement along the project frontage on Trousdale Drive, El Camino Real and Marco Polo shall be repaved to pre-project conditions; (Public Works); 53) that, for each phase of construction, the applicant shall post a performance bond payable to the City of Burlingame for an amount sufficient to construct all required improvements for that phase of the project which are located within the public right-of-way including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, road way construction, utilities, traffic signals and street lighting to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to issuance of any permits for that phase; (Public Works); 54) that detailed plans for the modifications proposed to the medians along El Camino Real shall be reviewed and approved by CalTrans and the Burlingame Department of Public Works pursuant to the encroachment permit process and approved for each phase by the Department of Public Works prior to implementing each phase; (Public Works); 55) that the applicant shall, at its own cost, design and construct public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphaltic concrete pavement, street furniture and other necessary appurtenant work along the El Camino Real frontage of the site, Trousdale Drive between El Camino Real and the Magnolia Gardens Care Center property, and the entrance at Marco Polo Way in compliance with the streetscape guidelines in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, and the improvements shall be designed by a civil engineer, approved by the City Engineer, and installed by the project, and that the design of these improvements shall City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 13 be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit for the parking garage; (Public Works); 56) that the applicant shall submit detailed plans for the loading dock entrance on El Camino Real, including a complete dimensional layout, to the Department of Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit for the medical office building;(Public Works); 57) that the hospital shall design in and employ water conservation measures as adopted for the region or specifically by the City during construction and operation; ( Planning ); 58) that the applicant shall submit detailed plans for the proposed new water connection and sizing to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the building permit for the parking garage, and shall incorporate any on-site or off-site improvements deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works; (Public Works); 59) that prior to the issuance of the building permit for the parking garage, the applicant shall provide plans as approved by the San Francisco Water Department for the realignment of the SFPUC water line, including details of tie-ins and turn-outs, and all work associated with the realignment shall be coordinated with the Department of Public Works; (Public Works); 60) that, before issuance of the building permit for the medical office building, the applicant shall submit an updated sanitary sewer analysis of the public sewer system at the project site to assess the project flow effect of the proposed new sanitary sewer connection to the Department of Public Works, together with anticipated demands on the sanitary sewer system and the 1740 Rollins Road pump station, and shall incorporate any on-site or off-site improvements deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works; (Public Works); 61) that the applicant shall relocate, restore or replace any City facility affected or damaged by the project, or of insufficient size, and shall replace any such facility in kind; (Public Works); 62) that prior to issuance of the building permit for the parking garage the applicant shall submit detailed plans to address storm and surface drainage on the site which identify potential impacts on CalTrans, the adjacent neighbors and the City’s storm drain system, and shall comply with NPDES requirements to keep as much drainage on-site as possible, and shall incorporate any improvements deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works; (Public Works); 63) that, for each phase of construction, the applicant shall submit detailed plans for all City utilities in public rights-of-way adjacent to and affected by the work to the City Engineer, who shall approve the plans prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of the project; (Public Works); 64) that all irrigation systems and plantings shall follow the City’s water conservation guidelines and each facility within the project shall be appropriately metered as determined by the City Engineer; (Public Works); 65) that all on-site catch basins and drainage inlets shall be protected during construction so that no debris can enter them, and all catch basins shall be stenciled with a City-provided stencil; (Public Works); 66) that the applicant shall submit an overall site drainage and erosion control plan for approval prior to the issuance of the building permit for the garage, and the plans shall conform to the guidelines and requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program; (Public Works); 67) that, for each phase of construction, the site drainage and erosion control plan shall be refined and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of the project; (Public Works); 68) that the hospital shall store a minimum of 30,000 gallons of water for firefighting, plus an additional 150 gallons of drinkable water per licensed bed on the site at all times; 69) that the hospital shall work with the Burlingame Police Department to identify and inspect installation of appropriate security surveillance devices along the all pedestrian pathways including the fire access lane, and the effectiveness of these devices in providing security shall be reviewed jointly each year, with improvements made as necessary; (Police Department); 70) that a safety and security measures shall be installed over or around the cooling towers and that there shall be an alarm system and surveillance provided for oxygen storage bunker; (Planning Department, Building); 71) that a pedestrian access way that is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act shall be provided from El Camino Real to the main entrance area of the hospital and medical office building; (Building, Public Works);72) that all work shall be done in conformance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Building, Public Works); 73) that pedestrian access along all street frontages shall be provided continuously throughout construction and shall comply with ADA requirements; (Pubic Works); 74) that a set of plans clearly showing the division between the portions of the project that are under the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 14 jurisdiction of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and the portions that are under the jurisdiction of the City of Burlingame shall be approved by both OSHPD and the Burlingame Building Official and provided to the Building Official before plans for the medical office building shall be accepted by the Building Department for plan check; (Building); 75) that the applicant shall verify compliance with the California Building Code for building type, occupancy group, allowable area, allowable area increases, height, sprinklers, property lines or assumed property lines, exiting plan, accessibility, and minimum plumbing facilities according to Appendix Chapter, Table 29-A, for both the parking garage and the medical office building; (Building); 76) that all improvements for the Medical Office Building and garage shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; (Building); 77) that Fire Department access shall be consistent with Section 902 of the 2001 California Fire Code, including clearly identified fire lanes and curb parking restrictions consistent with the Burlingame Municipal Code Section 17.04.025; (Fire); 78) that canopies and vegetation along fire lanes shall maintain clear heights of 13’6” to provide clearance for fire and emergency equipment; (Fire, City Arborist); 79) that turn radii and surface support capabilities of fire lanes shall accommodate the largest fire department apparatus within San Mateo County and fire lanes shall not exceed sixteen (16) percent in slope at any point; (Fire); 80) that fire flow requirements shall be consistent with Appendix IIIA and IIIB, and fire sprinklers shall be provided for all structures over 2000 square feet, with consideration for fire sprinklers being applied to fire flow reductions to be negotiated with the Fire Marshal, and additional considerations shall be made to ensure roof tip standpipes achieve a minimum pressure of 100 psi at the outlet; (Fire); 81) that fire pumps shall be diesel driven or have secondary power supplied by emergency generators with an on-site fuel supply of 48 hours of more;(Fire); 82) that Fire Department connections for standpipes and fire sprinkler systems shall be located within 50 feet of a fire hydrant;(Fire); 83) that a post indicator valve shall be provided for each separate building and so located as to be at least two-thirds the height of the building away from the building, and control valves and separate shut-off valves shall be provide for each floor of each building and electronically monitored;(Fire); 84) that fire alarm annunciation shall be identified by each smoke compartment and/or by each floor for buildings equipped with a fire alarm system (required for all buildings in excess of 20,000 square feet), and that activation shall clearly identify the location of the device and remote annunciation shall be visible from the exterior of the building, in a location to be approved by the Central County Fire Department;(Fire); 85) that the applicant shall receive approval by the Central County Fire Department for the location of the fire control room in the hospital structure, and the fire control room shall be clearly shown on the floor plans, prior to issuance of a building permit for the medical office building; (Fire); 86) that any land area which is to remain undeveloped and not specifically landscaped as shown on the approved plans, including the 4.15 acre area to be left for future use by the Peninsula Hospital District, shall be hydro mulched and planted with materials which will meet NPDES erosion control requirements and shall be properly irrigated and maintained with ground cover until the use of the land changes; (Public Works); 87) the applicant shall submit a report from a certified arborist citing measures to be taken to protect trees during construction, particularly the redwood grove behind the Magnolia Gardens Care Center, and that report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit for the garage and that protection shall be installed for each phase of construction as required by the City Arborist before grading and/or building permits are issued for the phase of work; (City Arborist); 88) that planters with irrigation shall be installed as approved by the Planning Department and City Arborist on the upper roof level of the parking garage as shown on the landscape plans before an occupancy permit shall be issued for the garage, plant materials shall be approved by the City Arborist; and vines shall be planted at various locations at the base of the parking garage structure on both the El Camino Real and Trousdale sides to break up the mass of the building and blend it into the gateway landscaping and design at this corner and along these street frontages, the City Arborist shall review the selection of vine and its irrigation and proposed maintenance program; (Planning, City Arborist, Building); 89) that the landscaped setback areas along El Camino Real and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 15 Trousdale Drive and along the entire south property line parallel to Davis Drive shall be irrigated and maintained by the hospital operator; (Public Works) ; 90) that the approved landscape plan for the site shall be further refined in the following stages by the applicant pursuant to Commission direction prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit for (1) the construction of the new emergency/replacement entrance to the existing hospital, (2) the installation of the San Francisco water main on the south side of the property, (3) the construction of the new main entrance and parking garage (to include landscaping construction detail along Trousdale and El Camino Real street frontages) and (4) the demolition of the existing hospital (landscaping of the remainder of the site); and the refined plans at each of these stages shall include detailed tree protection measures including long-term maintenance programs, and planting, irrigation and hardscape plans and shall be submitted to the City Planner and reviewed by the City Arborist who will make recommendations, the plans will then be forwarded to the Planning Commission for information; during each period of construction the City Arborist shall inspect the site for compliance with the approved installation plan; if the project landscaping causes an unusual level of inspection by the City Arborist, the costs for inspection shall be reimbursed by the applicant to the City; (Planning, City Arborist); 91) that truck deliveries, pick-ups, collection of trash and other wastes and other truck service noise- generating activities shall be prohibited prior to 7:00 am and after 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sundays and holidays or as stated in the Municipal Code, Section 10.40.039; (Planning, Neighborhood); 92) that the testing of the emergency generators shall be limited to once per week or the minimum required by law, whichever is more frequent, and if possible, shall occur between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays only; (Planning, Neighborhood); 93) that the oxygen storage tanks adjacent to the loading dock shall be filled no more than three times a week, and only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.; (Planning, Neighborhood); 94) that because of the impact on the residential neighborhood along the southern property line of the hospital site, there shall be stricter construction hours imposed for this project; construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, the hours of 8:00 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and holidays as defined in CS 13.04.100; the construction noise restriction in the condition shall not apply to work done within the building after it is fully enclosed; prior to 9:00 a.m., work should be focused on the northern portions of the site and the buildings; except that for the period of May 15, 2006, through August 31, 2006, construction hours shall be extended, only for construction on the parking garage and new main entrance to the replacement hospital, to the following: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Wednesday and Friday; 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Thursday; 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday; and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday; and that during the hours between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, only "quiet" construction activities, as determined by the City Engineer, such as concrete finishing and form removal and reinstallation shall occur and that during the extended hours on Thursday and Sunday, access to the construction site shall be limited to El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive; that the temporary extension of construction hours only for the parking garage and portion of the new main entrance to the replacement hospital to serve the parking garage shall end on September 1, 2006, and all construction activity shall then conform to the construction hours originally approved with the adjustment of Saturday hours to be consistent with the City's current Saturday construction hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., construction hours for other days shall be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and there shall be no construction on Sunday; that within 10 days of the Planning Commission action the applicant shall mail to all property owners and residents in the standard noticing area of the hospital replacement project established by the City, a notification of telephone numbers to use to make complaints regarding construction hours, that to insure maximum compliance the notice shall encourage complaints to be made at the time the problem is occurring, that a daily/hourly log shall be kept of the complaints including any action taken, and that the mitigation panel shall meet each 30 days following the Planning Commission action to amend the conditions in order to review the complaint log and resolution of each complaint, and the panel shall report its findings and any corrective actions they recommended to the Planning Commission at the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 16 Commission's first meeting each month; failure to follow this compliance and review process or documentation of continued failure to adhere to the hours of construction or other negligence shall result in the immediate review by the Planning Commission of the condition of approval to extend construction hours; the applicant shall provide by the fifth day of each month, by mail, to each property owner and resident within the City's standard noticing area for the hospital project, a schedule of the construction activities for that and the next month, this notice should include the twenty-four hour contact number for complaints and shall encourage complaints to be made at the time the problem is occurring. 95) that the applicant shall submit to the City a recycling plan for each structure to be approved prior to issuance of the demolition permit for that structure, and a site inspection for compliance shall be required prior to each new phase of construction; (Building); 96) that a recycling deposit and compliance report shall be required for each phase of the project; (Building); 97) that the hospital and medical office building shall have a recycling plan approved by BFI and the City and shall continuously recycle as much of their waste stream as is possible and insures the public health; (Building); 98) that during construction and demolition of the existing hospital, at the direction of the City Engineer, the applicant shall evaluate the operation of the Marco Polo/Trousdale intersection whenever a traffic safety/operation problem is identified by the City, and the applicant shall install whatever interim solution the City Engineer determines to be appropriate for the duration of the phase of construction or the event causing the problem; (Public Works, Neighborhood); 99) that the Davis Drive access to the hospital shall be open only to hospital staff during construction and when demolition is occurring; the Davis Drive access shall be regulated by kiosk with security officer or by card actuated gate between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily; outside of these hours the entrance shall be closed by a gate or chain; the use of this staff access shall be monitored prior to any construction to establish a current baseline of the use and then quarterly during construction; should the usage during construction exceed 100% of the current baseline usage, the applicant shall review with the City Engineer ways to reduce the level of use; the determination of the City Engineer may be appealed to the Planning Commission; should the staff gate access prove to be inadequate or exceed the 100% of current baseline and become a neighborhood nuisance the applicant shall meet with the neighbors and the City Engineer to discuss appropriate and safe alternatives, the City Engineer shall determine an appropriate and safe the alternative solution, and the applicant shall install or construct the necessary facilities; (Public Works, Neighborhood); 100) before the end of 2004, the applicant shall undertake a feasibility and cost study for undergrounding and connecting to the houses the electric and any other utilities currently placed along the shared property line between the hospital site and Davis Drive and, provided it is possible and economically feasible to underground just the utilities behind the north side of Davis Drive; and based on the conclusions of the feasibility and cost study, the applicant shall work with all the affected parties to determine if the utility work is feasible, how the costs to underground would be shared and its effect on landscaping; all of the affected parties must agree on the program and the timing for accomplishing the work in the context of the landscaping and other construction and operations on the hospital site; (Planning, Neighborhood); 101) that the applicant shall investigate the feasibility including P.U.C. approval of moving the San Francisco Water Line Easement along the rear of the properties facing Davis Drive north to increase the planting area between the property line and easement to at least 15 feet, the City Engineer shall review the study and shall determine the viable setback; however that setback shall be no less than 10 feet at any point except where the existing line connects to the new line at Balboa extended; (Public Works, Neighborhood); 102) that the applicant shall build a wall or fence between the rear of the Davis Drive residences and the replacement hospital’s landscaped areas along the southern property line of the hospital, the wall or fence shall be built at a location and of a common design agreed to by all parties; if the parties cannot agree the Planning Commission shall select the location and type of wall or fence prior to the completion of the installation of the San Francisco Water Main in the new easement; (Planning, Neighborhood); 103) that the landscaping within the area between the rear of each of the property lines on Davis Drive and the San Francisco Water Line Easement shall be selected by each property owner from a palette of trees and shrubs provided by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 17 applicant and approved by the City Arborist, with each property owner receiving individual assistance from the project’s licensed landscape architect; selection of all trees and shrub sizes shall be based on achieving the design intention of the landscape plan including the maximum growth in a reasonable time given the species, location including utilities and landscape objectives, and any discrepancies between property owner and applicant shall be arbitrated by the City Arborist; the applicant, with permission, shall install trees on private property if it is determined that such planting is a reasonable or better way to address the wind or visual impacts caused by the project; the entire planted area on the hospital site shall be irrigated with irrigation in place within 30 days of planting, and the landscaping shall be installed as soon as the segment of the water line along the hospital’s south property line is installed unless it is necessary to wait for a better planting season or timing as determined by the City Arborist; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood); 104) that the parking lot landscaping on hospital property at the southern property line west of the San Francisco Water Line Easement shall be selected by each adjacent Davis Drive property owner from a palette of trees and shrubs provided by the applicant and approved by the City Arborist, with the objective of providing a 20 foot tall vegetative screen for the property line fences and to extend the overall pattern of landscaping for the replacement hospital site; this landscaping and its irrigation system as approved by the City Arborist shall be installed in a planter area no less than 4 feet in width on the hospital side of the replacement property line wall or fence; the plant size at installation shall be based on achieving the design intent of the landscape plan including the maximum growth in a reasonable amount of time given the species, location including utilities and landscape objectives, disputes shall be resolved by the City Arborist; planting and irrigation shall be installed no later than the second phase of construction of the replacement hospital; and that the applicant shall provide individual landscape consultation to each property owner in order to determine the best solution for screening along the hospital property line, with mutual agreement this could include plantings on the private property side, if it is agreed that it is the best location to achieve the landscape goals for the location; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood); 105) that because the maintenance landscaping is so important to achieving the growth goals and to the quality of the hospital project, the property owner shall be required to provide intensive professional maintenance of all landscaped areas and to maintain all irrigation systems in operating condition, failure to do so shall result in Planning Commission review of the use permit; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood); 106) that if the eucalyptus trees at the end of Albemarle Drive cannot be retained, the applicant shall investigate relocating them within the planting area between the hospital’s southern boundary and the San Francisco Water Easement; if this is not a viable option as determined by the City Arborist, the applicant shall with the cooperation of the City plant a tree variety selected by the City Arborist, at a size selected by the City Arborist, which will achieve at height of at least 25 feet in six years and a maximum height of at least 60 feet, irrigation shall be provided to this cluster of trees and they shall be planted with irrigation when the water line installation is completed and before a building permit is issued for the medical office building; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood); 107) that the area on the north side of the San Francisco Water Main Easement adjacent to the replacement hospital shall be raised with the approval of the P.U.C. by an earthen berm and planted with a massing of redwood trees and other varieties of tall growing trees and shrubs which will grow to a height to screen the view of the lower and closer portions of the new hospital structure from view of the near by residents; the selection and various sizes of plant material and trees as well as the irrigation system, shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to installation, no trees installed shall be smaller than 24 inch box size, and this landscaping and its necessary grading shall be installed before issuance of the demolition permit for the existing hospital structure; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood); 108) that the design of the grading and landscaped area between the replacement hospital and the rear of the properties along Davis Drive shall include drainage which will retain all surface and subsurface drainage on the hospital site and which will accommodate as necessary existing natural surface and subsurface drainage now occurring from adjacent private properties; the City Engineer shall approve all site grading and drainage plans affecting this area prior to commencement of the work to relocate the San Francisco Water Main; (Public Works); 109) that City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 18 the applicant shall evaluate the impact of the proposed hospital structure on the wind velocity and turbulence on the properties adjacent to the south property line of the hospital site, this study shall be completed by the mid-point of Phase Two of the construction (installation of the San Francisco water line) so that landscaping along the southern property line east of the Davis Drive access can be adjusted to mitigate any changes to prevailing wind velocity or turbulence caused on the adjacent properties, landscape consultations with individual property owners shall include this information and address the wind issue; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood); that noise levels of the future cooling towers will not exceed the noise levels of the existing cooling towers during full operation along the southern property line of the hospital. The baseline ambient and design criteria is to be defined as an hourly measurement during a 24-hour continuous measurement period. In addition, the ambient is to be defined as the L10 as required in the General Plan; (Planning, Neighborhood); 111) that the future ambient noise of the project shall be designed to not exceed the existing baseline ambient by more than 3 dBA during full operation along any property line of the hospital. The baseline ambient and design criteria is to be defined as an hourly measurement during a 24- hour continuous measurement period. In addition, the ambient is to be defined as the L10 as required in the General Plan; (Planning, Neighborhood); 112) that the applicant shall adhere to all NPDES and air quality requirements throughout construction, and shall meet with homeowners or tenants at their request and provide individually negotiated and reasonable on-site mitigation for observed impacts of dust and particulates from the replacement hospital construction, landscape installation or demolition of the existing hospital; (Public Works, Building, Neighborhood); 113) that during the construction of the replacement hospital, the demolition of the existing hospital and the final landscaping of the site, parking on the Peninsula Hospital site shall be limited to employees, staff, patients, patient visitors and construction workers only during the hours of their employment on the site; on site parking shall not be used for off-site parking for any other facility or service and shall not be used by any employee, staff, or member of the community for extended parking when they are not on the premises; (Planning, Neighborhood); 114) that for the duration of the project construction and any use of the site for a hospital and medical office building, no on-site parking required by the municipal code or by city approval for staff, employees, or users of Peninsula Hospital shall be leased, loaned or otherwise obligated to any other user or business; (Planning, Neighborhood); 115) that the south tower of the hospital facing Davis Drive shall be clad in translucent spandrel glass with a low reflectivity rating (reflectance out) of 9% to limit the amount of interior light emitting to the exterior, and that all hospital rooms above the third floor level facing the Davis Drive side of the property shall include interior design which shall encourage occupants to stand back at least 3 feet from the window, all windows shall be provided with blinds or coverings, and glazing shall reduce light transmission at night; (Planning, Neighborhood); 116) that, if feasible given the location of protected trees, the agreement of adjacent commercial property owners to the north, the amount of grading/fill required to achieve appropriate slope and the approval of the PUC regarding appropriate protection of the San Francisco water line and its facilities in the area as determined by the City Engineer, to reduce the heavy truck traffic immediately adjacent to the single family residences on the south side and west end of Davis Drive during the phase of construction which includes the demolition of the existing hospital, there shall be a truck entrance to the site established and maintained from Marco Polo Drive, in addition to the existing Marco Polo staff entrance; and should it be feasible and necessary during other phases of construction for more than two days a week for heavy trucks to stage or access the site from Marco Polo the applicant shall provide a second access to Marco Polo sooner; if this additional entrance causes a relocation of staff parking on site, the applicant shall submit a plan to the City Engineer for approval to show how this parking will be accommodated elsewhere; the approved plan will be implemented immediately as directed by the City Engineer; (Public Works, Neighborhood); 117) that prior to removal of hazardous materials and demolition of the existing hospital, the applicant shall meet with the neighbors to discuss the methods of removal to be used, the precautions being taken, the timing of the various activities, and how possible impacts on their properties can be cooperatively addressed; (Public Works, Building, Neighborhood); 118) that the applicant City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 19 shall propose a mitigation monitoring panel composed of District, applicant, City, and neighbor (including both residential and commercial) representatives to coordinate issues regarding compliance with conditions of approval and mitigation measures as well as neighborhood concerns and questions. The applicant shall also appoint a single point of contact to respond to questions and complaints regarding the construction and operation of the hospital under this approval. The proposed panel and contact process shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage; (Planning); 119) that the applicant shall establish a mitigation fund to address concerns of immediate neighbors regarding issues such as dust, noise, and landscaping during construction of the project. The proposed mitigation fund and process shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage; (Planning); 120) that the project sponsor shall install planters at the upper deck (roof level) of the El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive sides of the garage upon completion of garage construction; (visual quality; Planning) (VQ 1.1); 121) that the project sponsor shall agree to develop and implement a Construction Visual Improvements Plan that would make visual improvements to construction zones within a given construction phase and between phases if the zone is not scheduled for construction activity or will remain unused for a period greater than six months; construction zones subject to this mitigation measure shall be defined by the City Planner, and shall consider the size of the area, the nature of the construction activity, and the proximity or visibility of the area to public vantage points or residential uses; the Construction Visual Improvements Plan shall be implemented by the project contractor(s) and must be approved by the City Planner; the intent of the plan is to aesthetically improve portions of the project site that would remain unimproved for an extended period and screen the construction zone from view by passersby along the public streets and sidewalks, or to make the zone usable for MPHS employees, patients, and the public; possible improvements in the plan include, but are not limited to, the following (if timelines other than six months are specified below, the shorter of six months or the time specified below shall apply): a) the project sponsor shall clear a construction zone of construction debris and remove construction equipment whenever construction is not anticipated for at least two weeks; b) if a site is a construction zone, but no construction activities are scheduled for more than one month, the project sponsor shall be responsible for regular garbage removal and watering of any existing landscaping; c) the project sponsor shall ensure fencing is removed or visually treated around construction zones that front onto El Camino Real, Trousdale Drive, Marco Polo Way, or Davis Drive in a manner deemed acceptable by the Chief Building Official, in order to promote safety, connectivity through the site, and pedestrian friendliness; d) if a site is not in use as a construction zone for more than six months due to demolition or construction of a structure, the project sponsor shall improve the site with landscaping (e.g., trees, shrubs, and groundcover), passive recreation/open space facilities (e.g., benches, picnic tables), decorative fencing and/or seating walls, and pedestrian and bicycle routes that connect to adjacent open spaces; pedestrian/bicycle networks shall be defined by and to the satisfaction of the City Planner; e) the project sponsor shall install all landscaping as early as possible to decrease visual impacts of construction; (visual quality; Planning, Building) (VQ 6.1); 122) that the project sponsor shall be responsible for lengthening the left-turn pocket on northbound El Camino Real (to westbound Trousdale Drive) from about 180 feet to 375 feet; this improvement would eliminate left-turning vehicles from blocking traffic flow along northbound El Camino Real and satisfy the queue storage requirement; note that under cumulative conditions, a lengthier turn pocket (475 feet) is required, as described in Mitigation Measure TR-12.1 below; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.1); 123) that the project sponsor shall be responsible for converting the eastbound through lane on Trousdale Drive at El Camino Real to a shared left-through lane; the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the existing dedicated left-turn lane to provide 145 feet of storage (a 35-foot extension) for vehicles turning left; the left-turn pocket (145 feet) and the extra capacity in the shared left-through lane (about 380 feet) would be sufficient to accommodate the 400-foot queue length; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.2); 124) that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the southbound left-turn pocket on El Camino Real at Trousdale Drive an additional 100 feet; this measure City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 20 would require the removal of a portion of the median strip; this measure is necessary because, by adding project traffic to the other turning movements at this intersection, signal green time is taken away from the southbound left-turn movement; longer turn storage is needed; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.3); 125) that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the eastbound left-turn pocket on Trousdale Drive at Magnolia Avenue to 175 feet; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.4); 126) that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the westbound left-turn pocket on Trousdale Drive at Magnolia Avenue/Main Entrance to 175 feet; adequate distance is available between the main entrance and the El Camino Real intersection to accommodate the left-turn pocket requirements identified in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2 and this measure (in a back-to-back configuration) plus a 20- to 60-foot taper; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.5); 127) [DELETED (see Conditions 41 and 124)]; 128) that the project sponsor shall implement an attendant parking program to increase the parking supply during critical phases of construction; the project sponsor shall fully fund a mitigation monitoring program (Program) that will enable City of Burlingame to monitor parking demand on a quarterly basis throughout the critical phases of construction; the Program shall also provide an alternative that could be quickly implemented should the monitoring show that the parking deficit remains; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 9.1); 129) that the project sponsor shall adjust the property line and construct the proposed replacement parking area at the northwest end of the Magnolia Gardens Care Center property prior to demolishing existing parking area and both property line adjustments may occur on the same map; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 9.2); 130) that the project sponsor shall complete the roadway improvements needed to mitigate the project traffic impacts (i.e., Mitigation Measures TR-2.1 through TR-2.5) before the end of Phase 2, to ensure that construction traffic would have a less-than-significant impact; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 10.1); 131) that the Revised Project with cumulative development would result in LOS E operations on the El Camino Real/Trousdale Drive intersection during the AM & PM peak hours; one turn lane is insufficient to accommodate this high turn volume; the project sponsor shall be responsible for ensuring that sufficient capacity is available by converting the eastbound Trousdale Drive through lane to a left-through lane, which would require the signal to operate in a split phase scheme in the east-west direction; converting this lane would improve operations to LOS D, reducing this impact to a less-than-significant level; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 11.1); 132) that the project sponsor shall be responsible for lengthening the left-turn pocket on northbound El Camino Real (to westbound Trousdale Drive) from about 180 feet to 475 feet; this improvement would eliminate left-turning vehicles from blocking traffic flow along northbound El Camino Real and satisfy the queue storage requirement; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 12.1); 133) that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the southbound left-turn pocket on El Camino Real at Trousdale Drive an additional 100 feet; this measure would require the removal of a portion of the median strip; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 12.2); 134) that the project sponsor shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor, and these practices shall be provided to the City Planner for approval prior to the issuance of building permits; a) maximizes 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) prohibits unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; 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, hotels, and outdoor recreation areas, are City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 21 avoided as much as possible; include these routes in materials submitted to the City Planner for approval prior to the issuance of building permits; f) designate a noise disturbance coordinator who will be responsible for responding to complaints about noise during construction; the telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and shall be provided to the Burlingame Planning Director; copies of the construction schedule shall also be posted at nearby noise- sensitive areas; (noise; Planning, Public Works, Building) (NO 1.1); 135) that to reduce particulate matter emissions during project demolition and construction phases, the project sponsor shall require the construction contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); the project sponsor shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: a) cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; b) water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily; c) use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; d) pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas; e) sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork phases of construction; f) provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site; g) enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non- toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); h) limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; i) install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and; j) replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; (air quality; Public Works, Building) (AQ 1.1); 136) that Mills-Peninsula Health Services (MPHS) shall retain a qualified environmental specialist (e.g., a Registered Environmental Assessor or similarly qualified individual) to inspect existing buildings subject to demolition for the presence of asbestos, polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs), mercury, lead, or other hazardous materials; MPHS shall submit the report to the City prior to demolition, together with an explanation of how the project will address any issues identified in the report; if found at levels that require special handling (i.e., any building material containing 0.1 percent asbestos, paint that contains more than 5,000 parts per million of lead, or any building materials known or suspected to contain PCBs or mercury), MPHS shall manage these materials as required by law and according to federal and state regulations and guidelines, including those of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), BAAQMD, California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), County of San Mateo Health Services Agency (CSMHSA), and any other agency with jurisdiction over these hazardous materials (hazardous materials; CSMHSA, Building, Planning) (HM 1.1); 137) that in the event that contamination is visually discovered during construction activities, MPHS shall be required to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment; this investigation shall involve the collection and analysis of soil and groundwater samples as directed by the site assessment consultant; sampling shall extend at least to depths proposed for excavation, and samples shall be tested for elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, or lead, if any; soil and/or groundwater samples shall be collected throughout the project site as directed by the site assessment consultant; this assessment shall be completed by a Registered Environmental Assessor, Registered Geologist, Professional Engineer, or similarly qualified individual prior to initiating any further earth-moving activities at the project site; if it were determined by sample collection and analysis that petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, or lead is present in soil and/or groundwater samples, the impacted materials shall be segregated and stockpiled separately from non-impacted soils throughout the construction phase; if deemed necessary by the local oversight agency, some impacted materials shall be mitigated prior to construction; soils with elevated petroleum hydrocarbon, VOC, or lead concentrations may require excavation and off-site disposal; soils with concentrations above regulatory threshold limits for petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, or lead shall be disposed of off site in accordance with California hazardous waste disposal regulations (CCR Title 26) or shall be managed in place with approval of DTSC, CSMHSA or the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board; (hazardous materials; CSMHSA, Building, Planning) (HM 2.1); 138) that in the event that contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered, MPHS shall comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities regulatory City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 22 requirements for hazardous materials/waste health and safety plans; the Site Health and Safety Plan shall establish policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from potential hazards posed by residual contamination issues at the site; the plan shall include items applicable to site conditions, such as: identification of contaminants; potential hazards; material handling procedures; dust suppression measures; personal protection clothing and devices; controlled access to the site; health and safety training requirements; monitoring equipment used during construction to verify health and safety of workers and the public; measures to protect public health and safety; and emergency response procedures; if petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the soil or groundwater proposed for the use of backfill or disposal, the handling and disposal of the contaminated soil or groundwater shall be governed by the applicable local and federal hazardous materials regulations; (hazardous materials; Public Works, Planning, CSMHSA) (HM 2.1); 139) that in the event that runoff induced by the Revised Project implementation would enter the Caltrans storm drainage system under SR-82, the project sponsor would immediately contact Caltrans for necessary review and approval; (hydrology; Public Works, Caltrans) (HY 1.1); 140) that the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent polluted runoff from flowing into public drainage facilities during construction of the proposed facilities; the SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution in storm water runoff during construction; the SWPPP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Burlingame and other appropriate agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), prior to issuance of any grading or building permit; (hydrology; Public Works); 141) that the project sponsor shall submit an application to the City of Burlingame’s Parks and Recreation Department Director for a tree removal permit and meet the replacement requirements of the Tree and Vegetation Ordinance (Municipal Code, Title 11.06.020); included with the permit application shall be a landscaping plan that illustrates species, numbers, and sizes of replacement trees; (biological resources; City Arborist, Building) (BR 1.1); 142) that the project sponsor 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; 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) (BR 1.2); 143) 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 shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity; survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey; therefore, if vegetation or building removal is not started within 21 days of the survey, another City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 23 survey shall be required; 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 nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; (biological resources; City Arborist, Planning) (BR 2.1); 144) that the project sponsor shall revise the preliminary planting plan to give preference to native trees; suggested native tree species, subject to approval by the City Arborist, include California sycamore, box elder, Monterey cypress, and Monterey pine; (biological resources; City Arborist, Planning) (BR 3.1); 145) that the project sponsor shall include methods of water conservation in the Proposed Project’s buildings and landscaping; these methods shall include, but not be limited to the following: a) install water-conserving dishwashers and washing machines, and water-efficient centralized cooling systems in the hospital and MOB; b) install water-conserving irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation and automated irrigation systems); c) design landscaping with drought-resistant and other low-water-use plants; d) install water-saving devices such as water-efficient toilets, faucets, and showerheads; (utilities; Public Works, Building) (UT 5.1); 146) that the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts: a) if potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity (within approximately 50 feet) 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; 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; b) if the find is determined to be a 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 archeological or cultural consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports; such reports shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources 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; c) 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; d) 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 24 Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem. (cultural resources; Planning) The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Commission comment on the motion: support motion, people more likely to be away during the summer, encourage the hospital to work within these hours; closest distance to the garage is 570 feet, beyond the limit that commissioner required by the state to recuse from a vote, most of the noise this far away will come from El Camino and an occasional airplane; hospital will serve the region, it is important to the greater community. Would like to add a condition to limit site construction access during the extended hours on Thursday and Sunday to El Camino Real during the temporary construction. Maker of the motion and second agreed. Ask applicant to think about procedure, concern about neighborhood impact, significant opportunity cost if applicant creates uncertainty, more than money would like to see some monitoring by first Commission meeting in June, will value the way they develop a program for the neighbors to report and they respond; city is being flexible; those savings or some portion of them will accrue to the benefit of the city, would like to discuss this at the first meeting in June. Would like the applicant to report performance regarding hours of construction at the first Planning Commission meeting each month during the temporary extension of construction hours. Feel that there was a lapse with the Mitigation Monitoring Panel and the applicant, want the neighbors informed first. Would like to see some neighbors help Mr. Dambrosie out. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the amended motion to amend condition 94 (hours of construction) for the hospital replacement project. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 5. 755 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMITS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND FOR A NEW OFFICE IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JONATHAN FELDMAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ANN STOWE & MICHAEL CELICEO, PROPERTY OWNERS (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 8, 2006, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jonathan Feldman, architect, 29 Park Hill Avenue, represented the project; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke. Applicant noted he would answer questions. Commission asked about the removal of the overhang on the east side of the garage; architect noted that it was cut back to conform to code; Commission noted could add a barge rafter at the front of the garage would look like an overhang but meets code - sounds like a good solution; will the skylights be tinted? - will do if asked, not intend to; Commission noted that the dormer over the stair at the front has a lot of glass, window and skylight - want to add light inside the two floors, larger the opening between the floors the more light provided; only egress from the garage is the garage door, can you add a man door think code requires it, see no reason not to have a man door. Commission concerned about allowing a toilet in a detached structure often leads to creation of living quarters down the road, should limit waste line to 2 inches which would allow a sink but no toilet - applicant wants a toilet so not have to go back into the house and disturb people. Reason not allow toilet is so that living uses which belong in the house are provided in the house, the accessory structure is not intended to be a part of the living environment, using it for living especially on property lineimpinges on the neighbors. Applicant feels he has addressed the neighbors near the garage by removing all the skylights and openings in the garage visible to the neighbors, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 25 there will be no light seen, need to accommodate people working at home. Could add a basement and put the office there in the house. Remind Commission of the application where an accessory structure was allowed to be used to support a disabled resident fifteen years ago and now owner wants to continue using it as living space, accessory structures are for accessory uses, should not be used as living spaces. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: commend revisions made by the applicant and architect, but feel that use of the accessory structure for an extension of living quarters which could extend late into the night beyond normal office hours is an encroachment on the neighbors and not an appropriate activity in an accessory structure. C. Vistica noted that the design review process worked with this application, use of accessory structure as home office is OK with more people working at home it is helpful to be away from the house so moved by resolution with the amended conditions that a man door be added for egress on the side of the garage away from the property line, a barge rafter be added to the front of the garage on the property line side to balance the appearance of the roof overhangs, and that all skylights be tinted, and with the fourteen conditions of approval in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling with the added condition that there be no toilet in the garage structure. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment to the motion. Comment on the motion: not concerned about the use of the garage with this applicant but in the future once the toilet is installed; this is different from the situation on Albermarle since this garage is well integrated into the design, more potential for use as a second unit; cannot support unless the waste line is limited to 2 inches which is too small for a toilet; there is a storage area next to the proposed toilet which could easily serve as a shower stall; not want the change in use next to the property line and impact the neighbor's recreational use of their rear yard. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions which exclude a toilet in the garage, modify the garage design by adding a barge rafter next to the property line and a man door, and requires tinting of all skylights. The motion was denied on a 2-4-1 (Cers. Auran, Deal, Osterling and Terrones dissenting, C. Cauchi absent). The Chair called for another motion. C. Deal moved noting that the garage is an accessory use to the house and not intended to be used as an extension of the living quarters in the house, that the garage is in close proximity to the neighbors and late night use on the property line will infringe on the neighbors, so he moved to approve the project by resolution with the added conditions that all the skylights be tinted; that a man door be added for egress from the garage; that a barge rafter be added to the property line side of the roof of the garage to visually balance the eaves; that a toilet not be allowed in the accessory structure and any waste line to the accessory structure shall be limited to a maximum of 2 inches and with the conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 25, 2006, A0.0 through A4.2 and EXST.1 and EXT.2, site plan, floor plan, building elevations, landscape plan (on site plan),that all skylights shall be tinted to reduce the diffusion of light at night, that a barge rafter of sufficient length to balance the overhangs on each side of the structure shall be installed on the property line side at the front of the garage, and that a man door shall be added to the side of the garage interior to the rear yard for a second egress from the garage structure, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the office attached to the detached garage shall not exceed 132 SF in area; 3) that the detached garage shall only be used for parking and an office and shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes and shall never include a kitchen or any kind of cooking facility; 4) that the bathroom in the detached garage shall contain only a toilet and sink (no shower or tub) and shall not exceed 22.5 SF and shall be served by a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 26 water line no larger than ¾” and a sewer line no larger than 3”; there shall be no toilet allowed in the garage structure and no waste line larger than two inches shall be allowed in the garage accessory structure or within the area used for an office; 5) 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 6) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7) 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; 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that the height is consistent with what was approved by the Building Department; 10) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Fire Marshall and NPDES Coordinator's memos dated December 22, 2005, memos shall be met; 11) that demolition or removal of the existing structures or any part 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; 12) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 13) 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; and; 14) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions which exclude a toilet in the garage, limit any waste line to serve the garage or office area in the garage to a maximum of two inches, modify the garage design by adding a barge rafter next to the property line and a man door, and requires tinting of all skylights. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 6. 37 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FRED STRATHDEE, F.R. STRATHDEE ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; DON AND LORRI MCCARTHY, PROPERTY OWNERS (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 8, 2006, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Fred Strathdee, architect, 147 Westly Drive, San Carlos, represented the project noting that he responded to comments from the last meeting. Like the fact that you straightened out the front porch, on the right elevation the pitch could be increased to 6:12 on the gables and adding a wood vent would reduce the amount of stucco on this side; should be sure that the driveway is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 27 permeable material/blocks built on a sand base - this should be added as a condition; why were the headers over the windows removed - architect noted it was to match the existing, what about decorative downspouts, - we are moving back to those originally shown; is all the stone veneer new, if so should be noted on each elevation - architect noted he would; still issue with gable on the left elevation, with revisions still doesn't continue through all the way to the back, left side could also use a belly band; are the windows French casement with mullions dividing, if so should be noted on all elevations of the plans, should be sure how emergency egress is going to be met from the sleeping areas using these windows. There were no more comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that the changes discussed will increase the consistency of the design throughout the house, so he moved approval of the project by resolution with the following amendments to the conditions that the driveway shall be built of permeable material set on sand, that a belly band shall be extended along the left elevation, that wooden vents shall be installed on the front elevation dormers, that the decorative down spouts shown on the original plans submitted shall be included in the building plans, the pitch of the dormers on the singe floor roof on the right shall not be changed and vents do not need to be added; that the French casement windows shall be designed so that they accommodate emergency egress from all sleeping areas, and that all the stone veneer throughout the project shall be matching and of the new type proposed on the plans, and with the conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 16, 2006, sheets A.1 through A.5, and sheet L-1, with all windows to be new simulated true divided light windows in the house and garage, except that the driveway shall be built of permeable material set on sand, that a belly band shall be extended along the left elevation, that wooden vents shall be installed on the front elevation of all dormers, that the decorative down spouts shown on the original plans submitted shall be included in the building plans, the pitch of the dormers on the single floor roof on the right shall not be changed and vents do not need to be added; that the French casement windows shall be designed so that they accommodate emergency egress from all sleeping areas, and that all the stone veneer throughout the project shall be matching and of the new type proposed on the plans, and that any changes to building materials, and all changes to exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, 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, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) 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; 5) 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; 6) 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; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Recycling Specialist, and the NPDES Coordinator's memos dated March 24, 2006 shall be met; 8) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 9) that demolition or removal of all or part of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 28 been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 10) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions addressing installation of a permeable driveway built on sand, adding a belly band on the left elevation, installing wooden vents on the dormers on the front elevation, installing the decorative downspouts shown in the initial plans, retaining the pitch of the roof on one story portion of the right elevation, being sure that the egress requirements are met from sleeping areas, and replacing all the stone veneer on the house with new stone veneer. The motion passed on a 6-0-0 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. 7. 1255 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (CHRISTOPHER & ANITA KENNON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., DESIGNER (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Auran recused himself from action on this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. Reference staff report May 8, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted the review history of this site. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, 39 W.43rd Avenue, represented the project. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. He noted that he felt that it was clear what they are trying to do now, redesign increased the floor area by 40 SF which was used to increase the porch, porches are now 300 SF total. Commissioners noted that this was a great improvement over the first project; suggest that pink Creap Myrtle will not bloom well at the location shown, might change species to an evergreen like Pittisporum or Bay Laurel, 36 inch box size; this is a large house but now it works better, removing the double arch at the front porch and making it a single opening would reduce the visual mass; minor inconsistencies in the drawings, on the right elevation it is hard to see the gutter, assume it is to look as it does on the front -2 architect noted yes; it is unfortunate that the existing mature trees, especially the holly, will be removed; why are you building a house so close to the maximum size - need room for family to grow into. This is a different house than saw before, it is 64 feet long, two times as long as any other house on the block, but incorporated a lot of Commission suggestions, might try to position the house on the lot with the same orientation as the existing house, not boxy but still a lot of square feet which would read better if turned; porch is too narrow, 3.5 feet, to use to sit on, would help the house if it were deeper and longer. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted this project has come a long way, looking at it as if it were a new design, move approval by resolution with amended conditions that the Creap Myrtle be replaced by evergreen Pitisporum and architect shall look at changes to porch to open it up and lighten the front façade, although feel the porch is alright as it is, and with the conditions in the staff report as follows: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 29 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 27, 2006, sheets A.1 through A.7 and L1.0, except that the Creap Myrtle shall be replaced with 36 inch box evergreen pitisporum plants and the designer shall look at changes to the front porch to open it up and lighted the front façade; and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, 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 foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 4) 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; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) 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; 7) 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; 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 conditions of the City Arborist's October 19, 2005 memo, the Chief Building Official's October 13, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's October 17, 2005 memos, the Fire Marshal's October 18, 2005 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's October 21, 2005 memo shall be met; 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 11) 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; 12) 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; 13) 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; 14) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 15) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the amended motion to change the Creap Myrtle and take a second look at the opening for the porch. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Auran abstaining, C. Cauchi absent). Appeal provisions were advised. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. C. Auran returned to the chambers and his seat on the dais. 8. 1400 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 30 MASTER SIGN PERMIT AND SIGN VARIANCE FOR A NEW BLADE SIGN (CONNIE MORRIS BOVIS, APPLICANT; MARTIN DREILING/ERIC HOLM, CSS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECTS; THOMAS KOROS, PROPERTY OWNER (73 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the property. C. Terrones recused himself because of a business relationship with the applicant. Both stepped down from the dais and left the Council chambers. Reference staff report May 8, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that the location of the support members through the scroll work at the parapet of the building was an error in the original plans, and the applicant has revised the location of the supports. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Eric Holm, architect, represented the project. Tom Koros, property owner, 1400 Broadway, spoke. Proposed sign is based on the more historical blade signs on the street as documented in the pictorial survey done by staff. Most of the older blade signs predate the 1978 sign code. Commission asked how the sign would be lit, bright colors? Applicant noted would move toward dark colors. Seems as if it is intended to be bright. Yes. Sign blocks the scroll work from view, why not shift it over one column, it would be closer to the front door. Looked at, not seem proper scale, next to a curved column, this is the only building with curved columns on Broadway, want to put the sign on a part of the building where there is a bigger field. Did you consider shrinking the sign? The size and scale is based on the size of the letters which is the same as in other signs in the area, Broadway is a long word. Drove up and down the street and studied area, this is a pretty big sign, would encourage not to be too boisterous visually, stripes will be different colored lights with the Broadway lettering a different color, don't know if would recommend all that. Comments from the floor continued: bought the building after the Bank of America left, want to revitalize this gem, allowing more restaurants provided an opportunity for an appropriate use, there is a tree in front of the building which affects where signage can be seen, neon is used because the sign is a period aesthetic, can be good and bad, hope to open in August. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the master sign permit request and the sign variance for height on the primary frontage at 1400 Broadway by resolution with the conditions in the staff report as follows: 1 ) that the double-faced blade sign (74.2 SF, 37.1 SF each side) shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 31, 2006, sheets A1.1 and A4.1; except that the sign supports for the blade sign shall be located below the scroll work and cornice along the top edge of the building; 2) that the blade sign shall not contain animated, moving or flashing lights on the light bulbs, lettering or neon tubes; 3) that no additional signage shall be installed on the primary or secondary frontages of this building without approval of an amendment to the master sign permit by the Planning Commission; 4) that the master sign permit and variance for sign height shall only apply to the signs on this building and shall become void if the signs are ever demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; and 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the master sign permit and sign variance for height. The motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 (Cers. Deal and Terrones abstaining, C. Cauchi absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 31 Cers. Deal and Terrones returned to the Council Chambers and took their seats on the dais. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE AND FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FARHAD ASHRAFI AND DEBBIE DAUFMAN, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS; FRANK KNIFSEND, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. John Stewart, project architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, commented that a letter was written regarding the variances, wanted to reiterate that they are all very close to code requirements including only 4” off in garage depth and 2” off in side setback. The Commission made the following comments: ƒ has the existing foundation been analyzed? Can it support a second story without replacement? ƒ unit pavers in driveway should be built on sand to be permeable; ƒ second floor of right side elevation doesn’t read well, a 1’ projection is not deep enough to break up the plane, needs work along this side; solution along right side is not to just bump out the projection 2’; need to change roof lines; ƒ rear second floor gable end needs a wooden vent in the triangular area; can add a false vent at gable; ƒ is there a knee brace at the front above the porch, clarified open truss work; porch would look better if it were wider instead of the shingles continuing over; ƒ design looks like it was driven by the declining height envelope; ƒ chimney needs to be more distinctive, have more style; ƒ if electric/automatic gate is put in across driveway, an off-street uncovered full parking space should be retained on the outside when the gate is closed; ƒ stepping back massing along left side is good; ƒ side elevations are broad; design should take cues from neighbor to the right; ƒ roof element could come down to help break up the massing, break the roof line; ƒ existing elevations are needed, add to next submittal; and ƒ note casement windows on plans. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made, plan checked and there is room on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. 10. 110 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TINA CHENG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (65 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal noted that he would recuse himself from the item because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Tina Cheng, project applicant, 110 Clarendon Road, represented the project. The Commission made the following comments: ƒ think the project is off on the wrong foot, it is a huge house and has no consistency with the adjacent houses in the neighborhood; ƒ what’s the need for a three car garage; too big for neighborhood; ƒ have problem with removing the huge pine tree without the effort to design the house to keep it; large trees in the rear yard have a very large privacy effect for owners and neighbors; there’s no comparison in size between the two pine trees on the property; should get an arborist report and install tree protection measures during construction to protect the trees; ƒ like the house, like a Spanish style home in this area; likes the design; as you go north you see more Spanish style homes in this neighborhood; ƒ front entry area inside 36” wall could have French doors opening into it; ƒ proposed house makes a major statement; concerned with mass and bulk and to take the large pine tree out and build this house would be counterproductive; ƒ landscape plan should be provided to incorporate larger scale and more landscaping in the front yard, and an arborist report should be prepared for the protected trees on site; ƒ plans call for a concrete deck in the rear, seems a little out of place; and ƒ at the rear elevation next to/below the balcony, there is a narrow piece of roof tiles caused by the balcony on the second floor above; balcony should be revised so roof below can be better addressed. The applicant responded that they have three cars and would like to be able to park all of their cars in the garage; they are still thinking about keeping the pine tree and just trimming it back; there is another pine tree in the rear yard; the tree in the middle of the yard has large branches and the neighbors have complained about the pine needles. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, commented and presented a letter from Susan Schmidt, 112 Clarendon Road, Carl Burtus, 516 Bayswater Avenue: not concerned about shape and size of house, concerned about noise and obstruction of sidewalk during construction, hoping noise could be kept to a minimum during construction; could owners erect as high a fence as possible; house does not seem to fit into the neighborhood and is maxed out; doorway is similar to 2112 Easton Drive, which is a departure from what’s in the neighborhood; an arborist report should be provided for the removal of the tree; feels house is much too big and is out of character for the neighborhood; do not like it; concerned about asbestos, debris and dust flying off the house during demolition, construction workers have no consideration for the neighborhood; do not like the tree, wants it removed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission had further comment: ƒ this particular neighborhood does not have a lot of full sized houses; ƒ along Bloomfield there are Spanish style houses; how do we usher in the transition of the neighborhood? ƒ project does not work with adjacent properties because of its mass; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 33 ƒ applicant does not understand what we’re trying to do with our design guidelines; there is too much detail on this house, more than the existing houses in the neighborhood; ƒ this is a very deep lot, the house goes back further; concerned with right elevation; ƒ could drop or reduce bedroom number two and pull back the second story element from the street; would reduce scale visible from the street; ƒ second floor plate line could be broken up, varied or lowered somehow so that it is integrated better and the first floor plate height could be lowered in some locations; ƒ is it the right design for the right place? and ƒ surprised about comments of style of homes in this area; Spanish style and heritage is dominant in this area; find Spanish to work in this neighborhood. C. Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on motion: this is a difficult situation, the house is just not integrated into the immediate neighborhood very well, maybe some other architectural style would be more appropriate. There are problems with the lack of a landscape plan and an arborist report must be provided for protection of the pine tree. The three car garage is too much. Look at the house on Bloomfield, just north of Bayswater that’s under construction and see its impact on a similar neighborhood in transition. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining and C. Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. 11. 1824 BARROILHET AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PAUL AND MIHAELA HOWIE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER (38 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, project designer, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo stated that the original project included a mansard roof which did not seem to work, the roof plan has been revised and now the applicant is asking for a special permit in the revised proposal to raise the roof height. He also stated that the owners are partial to the colonial style and that they went with a standard Colonial front façade and they staggered the back part of the house. The Commission made the following comments on the project: ƒ the stairs going up to the second floor are winders and will have to be brought up to current Building Code standards because of the remodel and addition proposed on the second floor; ƒ existing garage seems too perfect, are the dimensions correct? ƒ the chimney is quite big and somewhat contemporary looking, come up with some Colonial character to the chimney, possibly a different material; chimney looks cape cod and is very tall; ƒ the wrought iron railing is all drawn to look as if it were a wood rail, this adds character to the building that otherwise is not there; ƒ concerned with full height double bay windows at the front and the front façade in general; front elevation is very massive; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 34 ƒ the house has Colonial elements, yet is not very Colonial; not sure you would see bay windows on a Colonial; ƒ commend owners for bringing in an architect but project still needs some work; ƒ effort was given to embrace the symmetry of the existing house; existing house has a low roof with a low plate height which now has a broad front elevation leading to broad side elevations; ƒ Columns holding up front balcony do not look right, narrow at top into cap, not visually substantial enough; ƒ Make sure wrought iron railing is drawn the way it is going to be built; the shown has bulk like wood; ƒ Could place three gables across the front to reduce mass and still be a Colonial; and ƒ Porch element has been lost in the redo, it would help to create a more human scale. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Terrones made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:10 p.m. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 1, 2006. CP reviewed the Council actions on the urgency hours for the hospital and the appeal of the project at 1416 Balboa which was continued to May 15, 2006. She also noted that Commissioner Vistica was reappointed for another term on the Planning Commission to end in April 2010. CA Anderson announced the next set of opportunities for the Commission to sign up for the State mandated ethics training. The Chair gave staff the revised seating chart for the Commission. Staff will rearrange the seats at the next meeting. - FYI: 216 Bloomfield Road – changes to approved design review project. The Commission had no comments and approved this request. - FYI: 2518 Hillside Drive – change to approved design review project. The Commission had no comments and approved this request. - FYI: 1715 Quesada Way – Hope Technology School operations update. The Commission had no comments and approved this request. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:20p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2006 35 S:\MINUTES\Minutes Template.doc