Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112805PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 28 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the November 28, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran Osterling and Vistica (arrived at 7:08 p.m.) Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 14, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were amended: Item 4, hospital replacement review of specific issues, page 6, paragraph 3, add following Commissioner comment " that the public should be aware that the mitigation panel provides them with a way to make comments about the project and construction impacts as the project proceeds,"… C. Osterling made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica abstaining since he arrived during the discussion). (C. Vistica arrived at 7:08 p.m.) IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. VII. 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. 1A. ADOPTION OF THE 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR – CITY PLANNER: MEG MONROE 1B. 1532 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVE AND DENISE MAURO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 1C. 1801 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (ROGER HAGMAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT AND PEDERSEN AND PEDERSEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (20 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 2 1D. 1199 BROADWAY, SUITE 5, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR REAL ESTATE AND TRAVEL OFFICE (GARBIS BEZDJIAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Cers. Keighran and Brownrigg abstained from voting on 1532 Columbus because they live within 500 feet of the project. C. Deal abstained on 1199 Broadway because he lives within 500 feet of the project. C. Cauchi moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners’ comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and the Planning Commission 2006 Calendar and 1801 El Camino Real which passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The project at 1532 Columbus Avenue passed on a 5-0-2 ( Cers. Keighran and Brownrigg abstaining) voice vote; and the project at 1199 Broadway passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 21 CLARENDON ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SCOTT KUEHNE, SUAREZ- KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND TODD FRIEDMAN & MICHELE DOYLE FREEDMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report November 28, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Todd Freidman, property owner, represented the project, stating that the entire roof and all of the existing windows will be replaced; it was hard to come up with one window style, so the front of the house was treated as a separate design element; documents were submitted to Commission to provide further explanation and illustration; does Commission want the existing Mayten tree to be taken out? Commission responded that they are not going to require an existing tree to be removed, however, applicant should be aware that it has the possibility to become invasive. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the application for design review, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 16, 2005, sheets A1-A7, 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 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 3 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 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; 5) 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; 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's September 16, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's September 21, 2005 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 13, 2005 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's September 19, 2005 memos 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 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 10) 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. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review. The motion passed on a 7- 0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 3. 1213 MILLS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR GARAGE LENGTH AND FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (GRANT MOHR, APPLICANT & DESIGNER; AND GRANT & KELLY MOHR, PROPERTY OWNERS) (75NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she has a business relationship with the applicant she left the dais and chambers. Reference staff report November 28, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff if a man door could be placed on the east side of the garage? Staff responded that yes, a door could be placed on the east side of the garage, however, if there is any glazing in the door, it must be more than 10’ away from an adjacent property line. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Grant Mohr, applicant, property owner and designer, was available to answer any questions. Commission commented: • Side of garage is a long wall, a man door should be installed on the side of the garage facing the rear yard for extra access; should locate door more than 10’ from adjacent property line, then could do French doors; • Would be nice if left elevation was broken up on garage with French doors, a gable end and a half-column; • Show slight eave on right side, needs to be 3’ from property line; gutter has to go up against the building; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 4 • For on-site illumination it states in the Design Review Guidelines that light must shine down onto property and not onto neighboring properties; do not want a bright area at the end of the driveway; • What lighting is proposed for the front porch? This needs to be addressed on the plans; • Large tree like shrubs, Victorian Box or Bay Laurel of a medium scale, should be planted at the front to help frame the house; should be added to the conditions; one should be located at the front and one should be located at the driveway; and • Ordinances and the Design Guidelines will regulate lighting on the site. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with added conditions concerning landscaping, lighting and a double door area with a gable end and a half column off of the detached garage to break up the long wall of the accessory structure, and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 15, 2005, sheets 1 through 8, including wood windows with built-in simulated true divided lights on inside and outside of windows throughout; that a double door area with a gabled end and a half column similar to the front of the house shall be added to the left elevation of the detached garage; that all on-site lighting shall be consistent in style and designed so that the cone of light is contained on site; and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment; 2) that two large tree-like shrubs, Victorian Box or Bay Laurel, shall be added to the front of the property, one in front of the house towards the left and one at the driveway; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 16, 2005 memo and the Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal, NPDES Coordinator memos dated September 19, 2005 and the City Engineer’s memo dated September 22, 2005 shall be met; 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 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; 7) 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; 8) 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; 9) that during construction 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; and 10) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 11) 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; 12) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 13) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 5 irrigation plans at time of permit application; 14) 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; and 15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: great project; will help the street; what are the proposed changes to the landscaping? Will the rose bushes be affected due to lack of light? That two new large scale shrubs be planted in the front yard to help frame the house, one on the right hand side in the lawn area relatively close to the house and one next to the driveway; the rose bushes will barely get up to the level of the porch, there should not be too much shade for them; current proposed landscaping is not in keeping with the bulk of the house; could plant shrub more towards the left to avoid shade on the roses. Comments concerning the garage will really enhance the project. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 4. 1441 & 1445 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING FOR A NEW FOUR-STORY 17-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, AIA, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES, LLC C/O LITKE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (140 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report November 28, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ninety-four conditions which include the mitigations from the Mitigated Negative Declaration were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, represented the project; Michael Callan, landscape architect for the project, 1400 Rollins Road; Abraham Landis, 1547 Bellevue Avenue; Mark Engleman, 1435 Bellevue, # 105, Redwood Crest Homeowners Association, spoke. Applicant summarized the revisions made to the plans in response to the Commission's comments at study; Commissioners noted regarding revised plans that there is no closet in the bedroom in unit 5; that because of the orientation of the sun and the project, the depth of the fourth floor deck on the rear of the building will have a big impact on the light access to the building next door; clarified that what looks like balconies on the front of the building are actually decorative wrought iron grills; concern about the survival of the redwood tree at the rear, commissioner noted that with removal of the Cypress growing next to the redwood, the redwood will fill out; for safety, outdoor fire place should not be wood burning nor should a shed for storing wood be located in the public open space, gas with timed turn-off valves for grill and fireplace would be safer and more practical; feel that the structure is not placed correctly on the site, too close to the building on the right, driveway should be reversed and building moved to the left, this is so serious cannot support the project; common open space has a real sense of space but needs a sink with running water, a toilet, and the bridge needs to remain central to the open space and building but also should not be built against the redwood tree, be sure foundation of bridge protects redwood roots; two story below grade parking garage located next to a creek raises serious questions about sump pumps running 24 hours a day, where the water is pumping to so creek will not be contaminated, not want to see fossil pillows used to clean water; CP noted that the mitigations from the Mitigated Negative Declaration address these drainage and water quality issues, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 6 including various sump pumps, back up generators and drainage receptors, and the mitigations are implemented as conditions of approval; important that the sump pumps and emergency generators are sound baffled so that they cannot be heard by the neighbors or by the residents of the project; on the balconies on the southwest elevation the balconies are cantilevered from the cornice and look awkward, they should be moved to align with the balconies below and corbels added below the upper most balconies to visually attach them to the structure; the window pattern still seems monotonous, could be more interesting; the plans show the roof to be real slate, would not like to have a revision from this material later; SE Bell noted that it is important that the excavation for the garage and the parking is built in one season because of the creek, otherwise the hole should be properly shored to insure that it will not fail because of the proximity of the creek and adjacent development, the project should be bonded to insure this; there is limited opportunity to install big trees, would be nice to replace the Liquid Ambers on the street with a bigger, evergreen species, but that is up to the City; on the right side elevation should install "forest scale" tree to establish proper screening , Podocarpus on the left side should also be replaced with two "forest scale" evergreen trees, these would hide the limited space between buildings; Pittosporum along the right side property line should not be trimmed in order to provide the highest screen possible for residents in the adjacent building; check with Department of Fish and Game about what should be planted along the creek bank to stabilize it, at least filter fabric should be put on the bank and material planted through it, concerned about erosion during and after construction. Continued public comment: part of this building faces his condominium, will be all that is visible from all windows, now sees greenery; will reduce the value of his condominium; studies show this kind of change can have an effect on the mental health of older people; bought condominium 10 years ago, three story building, not expect visual impact of four story building next door. Redwood Crest Condominium would like to work with the developer on selecting the fence between the two properties, would like to leave existing vegetation at the front and start fence back some; concerned about the crooked telephone pole in the right-of-way at the front, would like it installed so it is up right now and in the future would like the service placed underground. Applicant noted they would work with the homeowners association on the selection of the fence between the two properties. Also noted that there is considerable existing vegetation on the property to the right side of the lot, plan to plant single trunk tree form Pittosporum along the shared property line on the right, it can grow up to 20 to 25 feet if it is not trimmed. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner's discussion: In their discussion the commissioner identified the following items to be included as conditions of approval on the project: • excavation of the garage, construction of the parking structure or proper stabilization of the excavated hole and all drainage facilities shall be completed in one season and a bond shall be required to insure that all this work is accomplished; • balconies on the southwest side shall be lined up, causing the fourth floor balcony to be shifted and corbels shall be placed below the upper most balcony to tie it to the structure, this modification should be reviewed by the Planning Commission to insure that the proportions work and the balconies are properly integrated into the design prior to issuance of the building permit; • the property owner or his representative shall meet with the home owners association at 1435 Bellevue and agree on a commonly beneficial fence design separating the two properties, it shall be the responsibility of the project to install and maintain this fence; • a sink with running water, a toilet, a gas grill and gas fire place shall be installed in the common open space for the convenience and enjoyment of the residents on site, for safety the gas fixtures shall be placed on timers, the use common open space shall be managed and maintained by the homeowners association; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 7 • the landscape plan shall include the addition of two forest scale evergreen trees on the right side and one forest scale evergreen tree on the left side at the rear of the site beyond the edge of the below grade parking garage; • there shall be a closet added to the bedroom in unit 5; • that the applicant and the City Attorney shall work to determine if a program can be developed to reserve the two affordable dwelling units in the project for economically qualified teachers in the Burlingame schools, including a ten percent reduction in the established rent because the tenants are teachers in the Burlingame schools, should a program be possible the applicant shall be required to implement the program; • that landscaping along the right property line shall be predominantly single trunk tree form Pittosporum and that these plants shall be allowed to grow to their natural form at a height of 20 to 25 feet; • that the entry from the building to the common open space shall be maintained at its central location as it is designed and shall be built around the existing redwood tree and in a manner approved by a licensed arborist to protect and maintain the roots of the redwood tree; • that no permits including demolition shall be issued for this project until the developer and contractor have prepared a traffic plan for trucks and parking for construction workers for all phases of the project from demolition to interior finish and landscape installation. C. Osterling moved approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that it was an adequate disclosure of the potential impacts of the project and that the mitigations identified and included as conditions of approval would reduce to levels acceptable to the community any potentially adverse impacts identified by the report. The motion was seconded by Chair Auran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting) voice vote. C. Osterling moved to approve the condominium permit and special permit for font setback landscaping for the proposed project at 1441and 1445 Bellevue Avenue with the 94 conditions of approval in the staff report, which include the mitigations from the Negative Declaration and the 10 conditions identified and added by the Planning Commission as noted in the minutes of the November 28, 2005 meeting and incorporated into the conditions of approval on the project, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 2, 2005, sheets P1 through P15, L1.0, L1.1 and L2.0, including the roofing material which shall be true slate; 2) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 77.32' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Bellevue Avenue (31.32') for a maximum height of 46'-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The second level garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 11.32'; garage level one finished floor elevation shall be elevation 21.32'; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 32.82'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 43.82'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 53.82'; fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 63.82'; and the top of ridge elevation shall be no more than 77.32'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 22, 2005, memo, the Chief Building Official's November 9, 2005, memo, the Fire Marshal's November 18, 2005, memo, and the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 8 Recycling Specialist’s November 14, 2005, memo shall be met; 5) that prior to issuance of a demolition and/or building permit, the property owner shall obtain all permits required or present notification from the agencies to the City that the permits are not required by State and Regional agencies including but not limited to the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board; 6) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 7) that ‘guest parking stall’ shall be marked on the five guest parking spaces and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; and that in addition to the five guest parking stalls, 37 parking spaces shall be available on site for owners, and none of the on-site parking shall be rented, leased or sold to anyone who does not own a unit on the site; 8) that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the five guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 9) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 10) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 11) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 12) that if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future, the gate shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 13) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 14) 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; 15) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 16) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 17) that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 18) that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 19) that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City’s noise requirement; 20) that the excavation of the garage, construction of the parking structure or proper stabilization of the excavated hole and all drainage facilities shall be completed in one construction season and a bond shall be required to insure that all this work is accomplished within that time frame the money shall be spent to secure the site; 21) that the balconies on the southwest side shall be lined up, causing the fourth floor balcony to be shifted and that corbels shall be placed below the upper most balcony to tie it to the structure, this modification shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission to insure that the proportions work and the balconies are properly integrated into the design prior to issuance of the building permit ; 22) that the property owner or his representative shall meet with the home owners association at 1435 Bellevue and agree on a commonly beneficial fence design City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 9 separating the two properties and that it shall be the responsibility of the project to install and maintain this fence; 23) that a sink with running water, a toilet with sewer connection, a gas grill and gas fire place shall be installed in the common open space for the enjoyment of the residents on site and that for safety the gas fixtures shall be placed on timer; and that the use common open space shall be managed and maintained by the homeowners association; 24) that the landscape plan shall include the addition of two forest scale evergreen trees on the right side and one forest scale evergreen tree on the left side at the rear of the site beyond the edge of the below grade parking garage; 25) that there shall be a closet added to the bedroom in unit 5; 26) that the applicant and the City Attorney shall work to determine if a program can be developed to reserve the two affordable dwelling units in the project for economically qualified teachers in the Burlingame schools, including a ten percent reduction in the established rent because the tenants are teachers in the Burlingame schools, should a program be possible the applicant shall be required to implement the program; 27) that landscaping along the right property line shall be predominantly single trunk tree form Pittosporum and that these plants shall be allowed to grow to their natural form at a height of 20 to 25 feet; 28) that the entry from the building to the common open space shall be maintained at its central location as it is designed and shall be built around the existing redwood tree and in a manner approved by a licensed arborist to protect and maintain the roots of the redwood tree; 29) that no permits including demolition shall be issued for this project until the developer and contractor have prepared a traffic plan for construction trucks and parking for construction workers for all phases of the project from demolition to interior finish and landscape installation; 30) that prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit construction plans to the Chief Building Official for review and approval; 31) that all structural design shall conform to the City of Burlingame building codes and, at a minimum, to the most recent revision of the California Building Code (which incorporates the Uniform Building Code), the California Building Code specifically details design and construction practices for structures subject to significant earthquake hazards; 32) that utilities shall be designed to provide sufficient flexibility to withstand the expected ground shaking induced during an earthquake; 33) that structural designs and construction procedures for foundation construction shall be completed in conformance to City of Burlingame seismic regulations and project specific professional design recommendations for seismic hazards made by the project Structural Engineer; 34) that prior to issuance of the first grading permit the applicant shall submit GeoForensics’ Geotechnical Investigation to the Chief Building Official and City Engineer for review and approval. The investigation has been undertaken to determine the presence and extent of expansive soil and provides foundation design, construction and grading recommendations. The recommendations in the report and any requirements imposed by the Chief Building Official and City Engineer shall be followed during construction; 35) that prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit construction plans to the Chief Building Official for review and approval that illustrate the mat foundation for deep basement parking, alternate foundation designs for near surface grade such as pier and grade beam systems with piers extending into underlying competent soils. Concrete slab-on-grade and walkways shall all be founded on properly compacted non-expansive fill; 36) that prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit construction plans to the Chief Building Official for review and approval that illustrate that pavement sections shall be properly designed to resist the effect of underlying expansive soils; 37) that prior to issuance of the first grading permit the applicant shall submit GeoForensics’ Geotechnical Investigation to the Chief Building Official and/or City Engineer for review and approval. The Investigation shall include boreholes completed in the area of the proposed excavations. The Investigation shall be used to develop recommendations for retaining walls and shoring of soils during construction; 38) that prior to issuance of the first grading permit the applicant shall submit a shoring plan to the Chief Building Official and/or City Engineer for review and approval based on the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation required by the mitigation listed directly above; 39) that all surface stormwater run-off around the building shall be required to drain to the street into the storm drainage system; 40) that clean subsurface ground water encountered during excavation and pier drilling shall be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 10 discharged into Ralston Creek, provided that discharge into the creek is approved by the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board; 41) that a subsurface drainage system shall be installed in the walls and/or foundation of the two-story below grade garage for the collection of ground water intrusion; this water shall be discharged into the creek, provided that it is approved by the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board; 42) that the finished parking area (garage) surface drainage and run-off shall be required to drain to the local sanitary sewer system because of the possibility of contamination from vehicles; this drainage system shall be connected to gas powered pumps connected to a self activating emergency generator; short floodwalls may also be required to prevent water from the creek spilling over into the below grade area; 43) that biodegradable fertilizer shall be used on-site due to the close proximity to Ralston Creek; 44) that minor stream flows shall be controlled by constructing a temporary dam in the creek bed and forcing the water to flow into a closed pipe, which shall extend past the dewatering zone of influence, also to be placed within the creek bed; dewatering of the basement and/or basement foundation excavations may be accomplished by installing pump(s) in shallow sump(s) in the excavation; water shall be directed to the streambed to flow into the diversion pipe; water discharge location will depend on the quality of the water; clean water obtained from the gravel drains located behind the garage retaining walls can be discharged into the creek where the creek channel is concrete lined; 45) that to minimize flooding and/or spillover of the creek during peak runoff, the existing concrete retaining walls beneath the apartment building at the southwest corner of the site, which will be exposed with the demolition of the apartment building spanning over the creek, shall be raised, as the western wall redirects the flow to a more northerly direction, and short floodwalls or earthen berms at the top of the open channel shall also be installed, as required, and the necessary permits shall be obtained for this work from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 46) that water that comes into contact with concrete during pier drilling or pouring shall not be discharged into the creek, and shall be treated on-site with treatment approved by the City Engineer, and shall be discharged as approved by the City Engineer; 47) that in order to minimize flooding in the excavation from shallow groundwater and spilling from the creek excavation for the below grade parking area shall be accomplished during the dry season, April 15th to October 15th; 48) that prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or construction permit, the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek and storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 49) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 50) that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 51) that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 52) that any site work including grading and landscaping shall be limited to the dry months, from April 15 to October 15; 53) That prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or construction permit protective silt fences shall be installed along the open channel of the creek; the protective fence shall be installed between the top of the creek bank and at least two feet below the top of the areas to be graded, and also no lower than the ordinary high water line; 54) that prior to issuance of a demolition, grading and building permit the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and shall provide a copy of these approval to the City of Burlingame; 55) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 11 the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit from the Burlingame Building Division; and all requirements of the permit shall be complied with during construction; 56) that all active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily, especially during the demolition and excavation phase of the project; 57) that water that may run off the site due to the dust control measures required shall not be allowed to run-off into Ralston Creek or into the storm drain system; 58) that sandbags shall be installed around the perimeter of the site to prevent water run off from the dust control activity from spilling onto the public right-of-way or on to adjacent properties; 59) that trucks to and from the site hauling soil, sand or other loose material shall be covered or that a minimum of two feet of freeboard shall be maintained; 60) that during construction soil stabilizers shall be applied to unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site; 61) that at a frequency required by the Engineer, the paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site shall be sprayed with water to keep these areas from creating dust; 62) that the public street shall be swept as required by the City Engineer with a water sweeper if visible soil materials are carried beyond the construction site; 63) that excavation and grading activities shall be suspended immediately if winds exceed 25 mph; 64) that sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff from the site to public roadways and into the creek; 65) that any demolition on this site shall comply with BAAQ MD Regulation 11, Rule #2, which governs the handling of asbestos-containing materials; this rule requires that a survey be done of all the building materials to be removed prior to commencement of any demolition; the property owner shall be responsible for having a professional on-site that is familiar with the implementation of Regulation 11, Rule 2 of the BAAQMD to supervision the removal or demolition of an asbestos containing materials; 66) that during demolition and construction all hazardous materials shall be stored, handled and disposed of properly; and that any coating or sealant to be used shall comply with the BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rules3 and 51 for volatile organic compound (VOC) content, which governs the application of architectural coatings and adhesive and sealant products; 67) That in order to reduce the occurrence of visitors in the below grade garage from entering a dead-end aisle with no maneuvering space to exit, a sign shall be posted near the guest parking spaces which directs visitors to the area designated for guest/visitor parking; all parking spaces in the below grade garage in the area of the dead end aisle shall be assigned directly to residential units on the site and shall be closely managed by the homeowners association; 68) that signs shall be posted at both ends of the ramp accessing the below grade parking warning pedestrians against the use of ramps for pedestrian travel; 69) that the proposed 30 foot driveway shall be reduced to 24 feet, or a size approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be shifted east, as shown on revised plans date stamped November 2, 2005; 70) that the circular driveway at the front shall have proper signage indicating that it is a one-way driveway with the entrance on the western driveway; 71) that the circular driveway at the front shall have yield signage at the end where it merges with the driveway that provides entrance and exit to the underground garage; 72) that the driveway elevation at the garage entrance shall be 12 inches above the gutter flow line on Bellevue Avenue or at an elevation approved by the City Engineer and the maximum driveway slope on the driveway shall not exceed 15 percent; 73) that all dumpsters located on the public street shall obtain the necessary encroachment permits from the City of Burlingame Public Works Department prior to locating the dumpsters on the street; 74) that all personnel involved with the demolition and/or construction of the proposed project at this site shall be required to park in the public parking lots and garage in the immediate vicinity; 75) that since all guest parking is provided in the below grade garage there shall be an intercom with a buzzer to each unit, and a keypad access shall be provided so each tenant can operate the security gate to the garage on demand (Transportation/Circulation); 76) that prior to issuance of a grading, demolition, or construction the project shall comply with the City's tree protection and urban reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist; 77) that the property shall apply for protected tree removal permits as per the City Arborist’s August 26, 2002 memo; 78) that tree protection measures shall be installed under the supervision of a licensed arborist prior demolition or construction and shall be inspected by the City Arborist; 79) That prior to demolition or construction any trees that will likely suffer City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 12 root loss or soil compaction as a result of this project shall be deeply irrigated and fertilized; and a long term maintenance plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City Arborist for approval; 80) that protected trees that will have soil fill or the construction of hardscape within their root zone as part of this project shall have a root aeration system installed prior to said fill or hardscape; and all hardscape shall be of pervious material; 81) that all trees which border any area where grading or soil compaction is likely to occur shall be mulched to depth of 8-16 inches or as required and approved by the City Arborist or as required and approved by the City Arborist; 82) that any trees located in areas where construction traffic is likely to occur shall be mulched to help reduced soil compaction as required by the City Arborist; 83) that soil siltation fences shall be installed and maintained to keep soil from disturbing areas out of the root zones of protected trees as required and inspected by the City Arborist; 84) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station as required by the Fire Marshal prior to the final inspection for building permit; 85) that any demolition on this site shall comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, which governs the handling of asbestos-containing materials; this rule requires that a survey be done of all the building materials to be removed prior to commencement of any demolition; the property owner shall be responsible for having a professional on-site that is familiar with the implementation of Regulation 11, Rule 2 of the BAAQMD to supervision the removal or demolition of any asbestos containing materials; 86) that during demolition and construction all hazardous materials shall be stored, handled and disposed of properly; and that any coating or sealant to be used shall comply with the BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rules3 and 51 for volatile organic compound (VOC) content, which governs the application of architectural coatings and adhesive and sealant products; 87) that all construction shall be done during the hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; these hours are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on holidays; construction activity that will result in L10 noise levels of 85 dBA or higher shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 88) that noise emission levels from construction and demolition on the site shall not exceed the values listed in table 4-6 of the City of Burlingame’s General Plan Noise Element; 89) that at no time shall the noise levels due to construction exceed levels greater than 90dBA; 90) that ground vibration levels 3 feet from the nearest occupied residential structures shall not exceed 0.1 in./sec. and vibrations shall be monitored during the demolition of the existing structures when concrete is removed, during the pre-drilling of holes for piles and when excavation is done closer than 30 feet from neighboring properties; 91) that a Construction Coordinator shall be appointed prior to issuance of demolition and building permits for this project; the name and phone number of this coordinator shall be provided to the neighbors and to the Planning and Public Works Departments; the Construction Coordinator shall be responsible to the most practicable extent possible to mitigate construction impacts; 92) that all internal combustion engines operating on this subject property shall be fitted with noise suppression mufflers; 93) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping area; 94) that the proposed 4th floor shall include noise attenuation measures to achieve an interior CNEL of 45 dBA, these features would include some or all of the following: stucco exterior, acoustical lining in exterior walls, a minimum of STC-31 windows or greater (STC-33 or STC-34 ), and proper mechanical ventilation; 95) that the contractor shall submit the “Recycling and Waste Reduction” form plan to the Burlingame Building Division that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream to be approved by the Chief Building Official and the applicant shall be required to document implementation of the recycling before a final inspection can be scheduled; 96) that all surface storm water runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards as adopted by the City of Burlingame and shall be directed as required by the Department of Public Works; 97) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the Public Works Department; 98) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 13 removed as directed by the City Engineer; 99) that storm water run-off shall drain from the site to the street into the storm drain system; 100) that clean subsurface ground water into the depressed parking area shall be pumped to discharge into Ralston Creek, provided that this is approved by the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board; 101) that drainage and run-off into the two-story below grade garage shall drain to the local sanitary sewer system due to the lower elevation of the parking areas and the possibility of contamination from vehicle drainage; 102) that the applicant shall prepare a water demand study for the proposed building prior to obtaining a building permit to determine the adequacy of the existing domestic water line to supply the proposed condominium building as well as the required fire sprinkler system for the building; if it is determined that the domestic water line needs to be increased the applicant shall replace the water line in the street to city standards as required by the City Engineer; 103) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 104) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the condominium permit and special permit for front setback landscaping for the project including the 94 conditions in the staff report and the 10 conditions added by the Planning Commission following the public hearing. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting) voice vote. C. Osterling made a motion to recommend the tentative condominium map and the tentative and final parcel map to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by Chair Auran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative condominium map and the tentative and final parcel map. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 5. 1504, 1508, 1512, 1600, 1604, 1608 & 1612 DAVIS DRIVE, 1701 & 1704-1706 ALBEMARLE WAY – FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN EIGHT-FOOT HIGH FENCE ALONG PROPERTY LINES SHARED WITH THE PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT 1783 EL CAMINO REAL (CHRIS FOLEY, ANTHONY BRUNO, WILFRED & NANCY HUANG, ADAM PATTERSON, NADER ALMASI AND SIMOUN GHASEMIAN, STEVEN & LEONIE WOHL, ABDULDEYYAN & RUKIYE SAFA, LATTA TRUST, AND GEORGIA DELROSSO TRUST, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) ( 9 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report November 28, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted that seven of the nine property owners in this area adjacent to the hospital site have joined with the hospital project applicant in this request. If approved the fence exception will be recorded with their properties; also included in this fence exception are the city right-of-way at the end of Albemarle Way and at the rear of the San Francisco Water Line Parcel where the water main enters the hospital property. Four conditions to be recorded with each property were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if it was possible to grant in "advance" fence exceptions to two properties which did not participate so that they do not need to come back to the Commission at a later date. City Attorney Anderson noted that fence exceptions are legal actions which are recorded with the properties; a recordation cannot occur without the owner’s permission and cannot be granted in advance. If the two property owners change their minds and work something out with the hospital for fence replacement, they could make a request of the city and come back to the Commission on the consent calendar. Commissioner asked if this proposed 8 feet was a minimum or a maximum. Staff noted that this would allow these property owners to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 14 build a fence up to 8 feet in height as measured from highest adjacent grade along their rear (or in the case of 1704-1706 Albemarle Way side) property line; and the fence would follow the change in slope along the 640 foot long area. What is the height of the existing new fence at 1701 Albemarle Way? Six feet. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Oren Reinbolt, project manager for the hospital reconstruction project represented the application; Simoun Almasi, 1604 Davis Drive; Steven Dambrosie, 1504 Davis Drive. Applicant noted that this fence design has been agreed to among the neighbors with the fence company, the project manager of the hospital project has stayed neutral, it will be a well designed fence of 7 feet of solid board with one foot of lattice, designed and built to last 40-50 years; if individual property owners do not want a fence the hospital replacement project will pay them $5000, the cost of each piece, in lieu of building them a rear property line fence; weather permitted they will build the first segment of fence the first week of January and if done in sequence the fence will be completed in 3-4 weeks, the last piece on the lot opposite Balboa where the water line is will not be completed until the water main in completed in February or March 2006. The piece across Albemarle may be delayed because of utility work nearby; currently they are installing a 36 inch storm drain which will be below the SF water line which they will begin installing next month. Would like to have the fence in place before they install the landscaping so that the fence does not have to be built from the neighbor's side. How will the gate at Albemarle work? Neighbors do not want it locked since they use this access as a short cut, someone has already used bolt cutters on the lock placed on the existing gate; before the gate is built, will need to clarify with the neighbors if this gate will be "open" or not; a number of the property owner have gates from their properties directly onto hospital property, they will continue to allow this. The fence posts should be 6 x 6 and pressure treated; believe that is the case. Comment continued: will not decide on whether to apply for a fence exception until the hospital responds to the letter I sent them last year; concerned that the immediate neighbors were not notified before most recent work began, particularly the removal of adjacent trees; daughter home studying on November 22 and there was dust everywhere, big machinery was working behind her house, Carole Groom said would send truck to water down grading but could do nothing about large machinery. Mitigation panel should meet once a week. Commissioner noted that by refusing to sign the letter for the fence exception property owner gave up the right to build an 8 foot fence which would increase the privacy of your property; do not need to build the fence at this time, if you want to build a fence without the exception the tallest fence you can build is 7 feet, you could agree now. Do not know if I will need the money for the fence to spend on window replacement, so did not sign. Helped coordinate neighbors , and owner at 1600 Davis has a gate in his fence directly on to hospital property which he wishes to keep; Commission noted that he would have work that out with the hospital project manager; be happy to have a gate for public use at Albemarle because it provides a short cut to BART; the fence posts will be 6 x6's and will be pressure treated; would like to have a uniform fence including 1701 Albemarle, it would look better over all, and the lack of consistency will be visible from his hour, currently that fence is six feet tall. Commissioner asked about the letter sent by a neighbor a year ago. Hospital project representative noted that it was a request for the hospital to purchase the property at 1604 Davis, was based on the project purchasing a property for them someplace else in Burlingame, keeping the existing tax basis and including moving costs. Cannot do that, but have had appraisal done and should know in the next several days the fair market assessment, then there is a process for resolving differences; it is hard to live next to a construction zone, willing to purchase but they are a not for profit corporation and cannot pay above the fair market value; feel they are close to being able to write a letter to the property owner at 1604 Davis. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 15 C. Brownrigg moved to approve a 8'-6" fence exception for 1504, 1508, 1512, 1608 and 1612 Davis Drive and 1704-1706 Albemarle Way, allowing 7'-6" of solid board fence and 1 foot of lattice on the basis that the construction of the hospital is a hardship which speaks for itself, and if the remaining two properties in this area wish to apply for the same fence exception they should be placed on the consent calendar for action; this action should be by resolution with the following conditions to be recorded on each property: 1) that the project shall be built at this property based on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 20, 2005, site plan and fence elevation, with a maximum fence height along the shared property line with the hospital of 8'-6" feet (7'-6" foot solid board and 1 foot of lattice); 2) that the applicant shall obtain a building permit for each segment of fence included in the fence exception from the Burlingame Building Department; 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 4) that this fence exception shall be recorded with each property affected. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Commissioner comment: would like to allow the remaining two property owners to come back to the consent calendar if they wish to request fence exceptions; concerned about the maximum/minimum 8 feet, because of the existing slope would like the fence exception to be 8'6" which would provide some tolerance for sloping conditions, it should be 7'-6" solid board and 1 foot of lattice would like the motion amended to include these two provisions. C. Brownrigg the maker of the motion and C. Cauchi the second agreed to the amendment to the motion. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to grant the fence exception for an 8'-6" fence, 7'-6" solid board, 1 foot lattice at the rear of the properties at 1504, 1508, 1512, 1600, 1608 , 1612 Davis Drive and 1704-1706 Albemarle Way and including the city right of way at the end of Albemarle and along the San Francisco Water property at Balboa, with the conditions on each property as noted in the staff report; noting that if the remaining two properties wish to apply for a fence exception they may do it as a consent item. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 6. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, ZONED C-1, C-3 & UNCLASSIFIED – REVIEW OF REFINED LANDSCAPE PLANS WITH RESPECT TO: 1) STREET LIGHT STANDARD DESIGN; 2) SIDEWALK/PATHWAY ALONG EL CAMINO REAL; AND 3) FIRE ACCESS LANE/PATHWAY ALONG SOUTH PROPERTY LINE (MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, APPLICANT, ANSHEN & ALLEN, ARCHITECT; AND PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT AND MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (201 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report November 28, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted that there were three items which at the last meeting the Planning Commission had asked the applicant to return to the Commission for further discussion: street light standards; pavement on the 20 wide fire access lane on the south side of the proposed hospital, and location of the sidewalk along El Camino Real. As noted in the staff report none of these issues need to be resolved before the building permit can be issued for the parking garage, they are all tied to other phases of the project; and some of the items, like the street lights, will need to be used through out the North El Camino corridor so should be carefully reviewed. The Chair suggested that some of these items might be referred to the Commission's Subcommittee for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan implementation. Commissioner asked what latitude there was in the width of the fire lane; CP noted that the Fire Department would need to be involved in both the selection of the material and the width, there were also maintenance issues associated with the options chosen. There were no more questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 16 Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Oren Reinbolt, project manager for the hospital replacement project; Jim Romer, architect for the hospital replacement project; Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. As staff report table notes, all three of these decisions are tied to phases other than the building permit of the parking garage, they need to be decided so that they can be incorporated into the plans for those phases, need to come back with the Fire Department for the fire lane, resin may or may not be affordable and may or may not meet the Fire Department's needs, there are other permeable, light colored asphalts for example; these street lights are a design independent of the lights on the hospital site, they will set a theme for the city, so hospital has no preference and would be happy to work with a committee of the Planning Commission. The project architect presented three options for the sidewalk location along El Camino Real, he noted that the surface grade was pretty well fixed by the requirements to cover the SF-PUD water line, also there is a meandering pathway up closer to the building, at a higher grade than the sidewalk which they intend to install, gave commissioners three schematic options for the sidewalk, which they discussed. Public Comment continued: do not want you to put off decision about the path (fire lane) behind our house, we are here tonight and if you put off you will decide without the neighbors participating; things we have wanted you have not done, would like to see you improve this pathway, want to look at a nice appealing path not a street; currently it is dusty, there is awful vibration from construction, you should not hold over or compromise on the pathway. Commissioner noted that there are other surfaces which would be aesthetically acceptable which is more reason to refer this to the subcommittee so everyone involved can understand. Feel that a 20 foot wide path is excessive; a traffic lane is only 12 feet, why does it need to be 20 feet wide? Should be a surface which percolates since there is a drainage problem from this site on El Camino Real where the present sidewalk ends. Have observed people walking in this area for years, observation is that a linear sidewalk will get more use; Caltrans has made a concerted effort to remove trees along El Camino so it is good to have them planted on the hospital property where they cannot remove them in the future. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Regarding the Fire Lane the commission needs to have more information, for the street lights need to see the best examples in the field, sidewalks are generally lineal and since there is an inner pathway which meanders there are choices for walkers in this area. C. Brownrigg made a motion to continue this item for additional information and have a subcommittee meeting devoted to these hospital issues so that the neighbors may attend. There was no second; and the motion died. Commission discussion: Subcommittee should have a representative from the Fire Department there so that their issues are understood, it can be an open meeting; in the evening. Chair Auran made a motion to refer the fire lane and street light standard issues to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Implementation Subcommittee for further consideration. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: CA noted that the sidewalk issue needs to be resolved sooner because the city must back up the hospital's application to CalTrans for a permit; the city must workout maintenance responsibilities which do not involve CalTrans before CalTrans will act. Chair Auran moved to have the subcommittee address the light standard and fire lane issues at a public meeting, including all responsible agencies. The second, C. Deal, agreed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 17 Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the fire lane and street light standard issues to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road subcommittee, to hold a public meeting including the Fire Department and other city agencies and to include the neighbors. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Discussion continued on the sidewalk: like options 1 or 2 which depict a more linear sidewalk, not see a lot of difference between these two alternatives, sidewalk is over so that trees can be planted between the street and the sidewalk for most of the way, curves at the ends are different. Is one allowed to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk? CA noted not in a business district, do not know how the area by the hospital is classified. How wide is the proposed sidewalk? Six feet. CP noted that the sidewalks in the Bayfront area are 8 feet. Hear the consensus that the primary sidewalk should be as straight as possible with the trees between the street and sidewalk and 8 feet wide to provide more room for mixed uses. C. Vistica moved to approve option 2 as the preferred location for the sidewalk with a width of 8 feet because it is a safer dimension for users. The motion was seconded by Chair Auran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve option 2 for the sidewalk alignment along El Camino Real with a paved width of 8 feet and landscaped as shown on option 2. The motion passed on a 7- 0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 2010 BROADWAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JAMES AND MARA FERRARO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT C. Deal recused himself from this item because he has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the dais and chambers. ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. James Ferraro, applicant and property owner, represented the project, stating that the design of the addition is sympathetic to the design of the existing house and to the neighborhood. Commission asked: the proposed slate roofing is an asset to the project, will it actually be used or will synthetic slate material be installed? If budget allows, slate material will be used. Will second story balcony on bedroom number 2 take away from neighbor's privacy? No; there is a wide separation between the two homes because of the backyards and because of a 15’ City easement that runs between the two properties. The mock-balcony at the front of the house off the master bedroom looks odd because it has no access, no door. Applicant stated this balcony is designed to be sympathetic to the lower balustrade and for design purposes only. Do the double doors on the rear elevation provide access to the utilities? Yes. Is the trim around the windows simulated stone trim or a Styrofoam trim? It will be a cement based product that will be as narrow as possible so there is not too much bulk around the windows and doors. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • The option to put in a door to access the balcony at the front of the house, or consider removing the balustrade and doing something different here to make the area look like a porch roof; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 18 • Needs a final decision on the proposed roofing material, real slate or some other material. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 8. 469 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GARY AND STACY O'GRADY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND KATRINA KUHL, ARCHITECT) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Katrina Kuhl, architect, represented the project. Commissioners made the following comments: • Basically a good project, just minor changes to the plans to bring it to next step; • Indicate the actual size of each window on the plans, indicate egress windows in bedrooms; • Change elevations to the ¼ inch scale size; • Revise the trellis over the garage, needs support or redesign so it looks as if it is supported, could be narrow; • All eaves should be stepped back and should be the same size; correct this in a number of places throughout the plans; • Clarify the location of the uppermost window shown at the rear; • The gutter needs to stick out on the west elevation roof line; the roof is engulfing the gutter; all gutters should be shown on the plans at this stage of the process; • On elevation number 2, the pocket in the soffit windows will look like a mistake, revise, may mean increasing the plate height and thus the height of the house; • Roof height of 30’ is ok; what is the second story plate height? Show the plate heights on the plans (7’-9”); could go over 30’ in height with a special permit application for architectural purposes and to frame the windows better; • The chimney shown on elevations 1 and 2 is different, make consistent; • Rear elevation 9” continuous overhang should show on side elevations; • Gutters not consistent on plans; gutter should show that it wraps around; • A lot of detail work is needed on the plans; the relationship between the eaves, roof and gutters needs to be shown; • Front elevation entry door seems cramped, do something so that it does not look like a back door; • Site plan showing existing neighboring houses is great and helpful; • Take one of the three proposed new 24” box size landscape trees in the rear and plant it in the front of the property on the right hand side of the driveway to reduce the visual scale of the house; and • There should be vines planted along the trellis area, identify what you will plant. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 19 C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the directed revisions have been made to the plans and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran 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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of November 21, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of November 21, 2005, noting that the application period for the Commission seat vacated because C. Keighran was elected to the City Council will close Friday, December 9, 2005, applications are available in the City Manager's office. The Council will appoint the interview committee at their meeting on December 5, 2005. CP Monroe also noted that DPW has just completed an Urban Water Management Plan for the city which evaluates the current water availability for the City and discusses how water shortages can be handled. She noted that the City Council would hold their regular meeting on December 19, 2005. There was a letter from a neighbor regarding 1453 Cypress. Commissioners expressed concern that inclusionary zoning was being misused, the purpose of relaxing requirements was so that applicants for multiple family developments could increase their densities, instead they are building bigger units, replacing fewer than they are removing, including affordable units. CA noted that the city's has hired an expert to give us some advice on local inclusionary regulations, because Burlingame is not big enough to have the vehicles for retention of these units that other communities have. A report will be made in the Spring - FYI – review of requested changes to an approved design review project at 1149 Drake Avenue. The Planning Commission approved the proposed changes to the project at 1149 Drake Avenue. - FYI – review of requested changes to an approved design review project at 1506 Alturas Drive. Commissioner noted that the proposal to change the side of this building will make it look odd and would be visible from the street. Suggested that the width of the chimney be changed from 2'-2" to 2'-6", that the right side of the chimney be extended straight to the ground (the angled projection removed) and that the lower roof on the right side be doubled in length to meet the flattened right side of the chimney. If appropriate the revised plans should be returned on the FYI calendar. In recognition that this was C. Keighran’s last meeting as a Planning Commissioner, the Planning Commission thanked her for her service and teamwork and wished Commissioner Keighran well in her new endeavor as a member of the City Council. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2005 20 Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved.11.28.05.doc