Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062804PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 28, 2004 6:15 P.M. Council Chambers SPECIAL STUDY SESSION I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the June 28, 2004, special study meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. II. 1783 El Camino Real, zoned Unclassified and C-3. Presentation of Revised Project to reconstruct Mills- Peninsula Hospital and a new medical office building (Project Planners: Karen Kristiansson/Maureen Brooks) Oren Reinbolt, Project Manager, for Sutter Health and Todd Tierney, architect with Anshen and Allen, presented the revised project. They focused on the outcome of the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed project and the issues addressed by the two alternatives identified in that document. Then they showed how their proposed Alternative C and the Revised Project were designed to address the identified significant and unavoidable environmental issues. The core of the presentation, using diagrams and model was focused on the Revised Project which is the project being addressed in the Recirculated Draft EIR to be released on June 30, 2004; and is now identified as the "preferred project". They identified the main features of the Revised Project and answered questions about the arrangement of buildings, parking, landscaping, relocation of the San Francisco Water Main, and changes to the "skin" of the building. In discussion the architect noted that with the reorientation of the project (hospital rotated to the south side of the site) the medical office building takes on a more prominent role along El Camino Real. For this reason they are continuing to work on the articulation and massing of that structure as well as on the skin of the office building and hospital. He noted that the parking garage located at the corner of the site at El Camino and Trousdale would be partially below grade surfacing to make the entry of the Hospital and Office building level with the parking on the top deck of the garage. The security center would be located in this area as well, with visibility of the main entrances of the office building, hospital and parking garage. Key in the new design is the direct pedestrian access from El Camino Real into the office building and hospital, including a direct pedestrian connection from the SamTrans bus stop, convenient to employees and patients at both the hospital and medical office building. The presentation closed with a note from the City Planner that the Recirculated Draft EIR would be available at the Library, Planning Department and on the City's Web Page on June 30, 2004. A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission to take oral comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR at the regular Planning Commission meeting on July 26,2004. The City will accept written comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR through August 13, 2004. At the end of the review period a Response to Comments document which will include responses to all the comments on the original Draft EIR and on the Recirculated Draft EIR, will be published. As soon as this document is available and circulated, the Planning Commission will hold its action hearing on the project. This is expected to be in September or early-October. Notice of this meeting will be published. Chair Osterling thanked the presenters for their presentation and the pubic for their attendance. He adjourned the meeting to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting at 7:05 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 2 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 28 , 2004 – 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the June 28, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:08 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Chair Osterling noted that there was a correction to the minutes of the June 14, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission in the first line, "Vice Chair Auran called the meeting to order." The minutes were approved as corrected. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1755 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE (W.L. BUTLER, APPLICANT; JASON BELL, CARLILE COATSWORTH ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT; GRANT RIGGS, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: staff report indicates that visitors come in groups of about 50, how many times a day does this occur? Need a clearer statement about the physical hardships unique to this property to justify the variance being requested; unclear about the present parking demand on site during operating hours, please clarify, take additional counts after the business has opened; does the original parking variance run with this use? This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 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. 2a. 2108 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (ERNIE AND PHYLLIS BODEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; 2 STUDIO ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 3 consent calendar. Commissioner asked to have this item taken off the Consent Calendar and a public hearing held. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 2108 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (ERNIE AND PHYLLIS BODEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; 2 STUDIO ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Auran noted that he would recuse himself from this item since he lives within 500 feet of the project site. He left the chambers. Reference staff report June 28, 2004, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Ernie Boden, property owner, represented the project. He noted that he and his family have lived in this house for 23 years, the redwood tree has continued to lean more on the garage, lifting up the floor; the garage and house were built in 1920, got a parking variance for the addition in the 1980's because of the location of the redwood tree; because of progressive damage now want to build a one car, attached garage, remove part and reduce the existing detached garage to a shed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: reason called off the consent calendar was the variance to floor area ratio requested is needed because of retention of storage shed; no problem with design review, attached garage or side setback requests; don't see the hardship for the FAR caused by retaining the shed. Asked CA if granting a FAR variance in this circumstance would create a precedent. CA responded very limited precedent if the findings were clearly stated to relate to the particular circumstances on this lot. Commissioner noted this request is not to add a new garden shed, but reduce the existing garage to preserve the redwood tree, that justifies leaving the remainder of the garage, it is a special circumstance. C. Keighran agreed that this is not a new shed structure, the applicant is making the site better for the tree and providing a new garage, the tree is the exceptional hardship which creates the need for the exceptions to the code so move by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report, to approve the design review, special permit for attached garage, side setback and floor area ratio variances. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Maker and second to the motion agreed to amend the motion to tie the floor area variance to the tree, if the tree is removed the floor area ratio variance will be void. Comment on the Motion: because of the tree location the applicant is almost being forced into attaching the garage which causes a reduction in the FAR allowed on the lot. A single car garage is still possible at the rear of the site so the garage does not need to be attached. If the garage were detached at the rear of the lot all the variances and special permit would go away; with garage and shed 220 SF over FAR, with detached garage about 19SF over FAR. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the applicant's request including the shed. The motion failed on a 2-4-1 (Cers. Bojués, Keele, Vistica, Osterling dissenting; C. Auran abstaining) roll call vote. CA noted that the motion stands denied. Commissioner comment: can make an alternate motion; feel that a detached garage can be put in the corner City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 4 where the existing garage is and should direct applicant to redesign, could deny without prejudice with that direction; CA noted that a denial without prejudice is not appropriate if the applicant needs to make some substantial change. If the problem is FAR or lot coverage, applicant could reduce the size of the shed by 20 SF, this would mean taking an additional 18 inches off the structure; CA noted can't take action tonight because there is no arborist report defining impacts on the tree. Chair Osterling made a motion to continue this item until the applicant has prepared and submitted an arborist's report on the impact of the proposed project shed and attached garage, location of a new detached garage in the rear yard, and the long term impact of the tree on a new detached structure in the rear yard as well as on the remainder of the shed. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until an arborist's report has been prepared and reviewed by the City Arborist. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting; C. Auran abstaining) voice vote. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. The action is not appealable since the item was continued. 3. 1440 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED TANDEM GARAGE (JAMES BREEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RANDY GRANGE, ARCHITECT) (79 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14, 2004 MEETING) Reference staff report June 28, 2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, and James Breen, property owner, represented the project. Noted that they need two covered parking spaces but the location of the tree means that the covered parking needs to be provided in tandem; the street in front is flat, so to prevent flooding inside the garage need to raise the floor, that raises the plate height, cannot pump because flows right back into the property. Want to use existing location of garage and extend back into the rear yard, added the "L" off the parking area for aesthetics, didn't want to push the front of the garage too far back on the lot, it would be inconsistent with the other garages on the block. Commissioners asked: how do you plan to use the tandem garage, City doesn't allow for required because inconvenient? Wife returns home earlier and leaves later in morning so works for them. Mentioned that not go back too far, structure is one foot from rear property line? Was referring to front of the garage, match location of front of other garages on block so look the same. Why do you need 14 foot width, city standard is 10 feet interior clear with one foot for walls, 11 feet? Need extra space to get in and out of car plus 4 feet, put exterior wall by drain pipe at tree, widest can get is 14 feet without affecting tree. Drain pipe to where? Pipe to back yard, low point where water ponds when it back flows from the street, in a significant rain get 3 to 4 inches of water, in 1995 storm got one foot. Did you speak with your adjacent neighbor who sent a letter? No. Have you read the letter? Issue seemed to be the trellis, can work out replacement with the contractor, problem with view. Problem seems to be with the structure, going the length of the yard, the mass and height and the impact on neighbor's property, how can you reduce these impacts? Don’t know; am confused by his comments. Would you explain photo 5 b? Picture of neighbor two doors north, combination of structures exceeds the 28 foot length. Does water pond there? Floods some on the neighbors property on both sides, the property with the picture is in flood zone B and has less ponding. Do you use your existing garage for two cars? No, cannot use the garage at all, it is open to the elements, rats and vines. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 5 Could reduce the number of exceptions by taking off 3 feet on the sides and reducing the storage 26 SF, this would affect the mass and bulk and be a better solution. You mention several properties with similar accessory structures, on site visit I only saw one, did I miss something? Neighbor to south has shorter garage with structure to side ,same idea as the look he is proposing. That garage looks like a standard garage? Not if you add in the temporary structure next to the garage. Problem seems to be with the number of requests, best idea seems to be to shorten the structure and make consistent with code requirements, can you do that? OK if it is the only alternative, know there are a lot of exceptions, but problem with water run off is an issue so need to raise the garage floor and this will affect the plate height, would like to park two cars without affecting the protected tree. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: • Usually the City Engineer is adamant about taking all roof drainage to the curb, in this case we do not seem to have a good report from the City Engineer, also there is no arborist report, feel that the application is incomplete; • most concerned with the size, would like to see maximum 600 SF, with the width reduced; • if narrower, still long, impact on neighbor, would like to take out second parking space and reduce length closer to standard. C. Brownrigg concluded that the applicant needs to resolve this and address these items with redesign and return to the commission, including the requested information from the City Engineer and an arborist, so moved to continue this item. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: could deny without prejudice, so with clear direction, would not slow up action as much. Maker of motion and second agreed to amend the motion to deny the application without prejudice as long as the resubmitted project includes an independent arborist's report reviewed by the City Arborist which addresses the impacts on the tree and tree protection measures and the applicant works with the City Engineer on the drainage issues and incorporates whatever is required. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the amended motion to deny the application without prejudice and direct the applicant to redesign the project after completion of an independent arborist report which has been reviewed by the City Arborist and agreement with the City Engineer on how to address drainage. The returned project should be scheduled when the plans have been checked by staff and there is space on the Commission agenda. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 4. 1035 CHULA VISTA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY (SANDRA B. JIMENEZ, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARK DELEON AND RENATO MERCADO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 6/28/04, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Sandra Jimenez, 71 Haight Street, San Francisco, and Mark DeLeon, Ray Drive, represented the property, noted that the applicants are in agreement with the proposed condition, which states that if the property were sold, the interior of the building would be remodeled to a four-bedroom house, the floor plan as proposed is institutional in nature, with four bathrooms which are City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 6 ADA accessible; she noted that the residents of the facility would be no longer driving, the only car at the site would be the van providing transport for the residents. Because the facility would be small, visiting will be scheduled so that residents would have visitors only once a week. Generally, residents only have visitors on holidays and birthdays, and usually the family takes the resident to their home. She feels that a one car garage will be adequate, there are many apartments and homes on the block where the residents have more than one vehicle and they park on the street. Commissioners asked the applicant: How many prospective residents do the applicants have now? Ms. Jimenez noted that there are none now, can't start the business without getting the licensing from the State, and can't get the license without obtaining the City approval. Commissioners asked what the exceptional circumstance are which justify this parking variance. Ms. Jimenez noted that in order to construct a second story to avoid the need for a parking variance would be cost prohibitive for the owners and is therefore not feasible. Are there other care facilities like this one in Burlingame? CP Monroe noted that yes, there were several now. Will there be visits to the site from physical therapists, speech therapists, or other medical personnel? Applicant noted that the two people who will be on site are the administrator and a caretaker, the administrator would take the residents to their medical and other appointments in the van. While the administrator is gone in the van, a volunteer will be driven to the facility to stay with the residents in the administrator's absence. The volunteer is a relative of the owners, is elderly and cannot drive, so will always be dropped off. Commissioners asked if the applicant had considered a four-bedroom facility. Ms. Jimenez noted that they did consider this option, but decided that since most residents would want a private room, it would be in the best interests to have six individual rooms. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners asked the City Attorney about the circumstances under which the Planning Commission can consider the application based on economics, understand the concern with the applicant of the added cost of elevators for a second story addition, but also concerned with the site design; have an added concern that the applicant is constrained financially, worry that the economics of the project might not work out, then the residents of the facility will take the brunt. CA Anderson noted that every City has a different approach on how economic concerns are handled, the Planning Commission has the right to take into account costs, can also take into account that this is a needed service. Whenever there is a planning application, in this case it is a parking variance because they are proposing 6 bedrooms, Planning Commission can weigh all the factors that would go into making a decision and address in findings. Commissioners commented that the applicant is trying to push the limits to get six bedrooms, could conform to the code with 5 bedrooms and a two-car garage; concerned with the enforcement of the conditions, if the applicant sold without converting to a residence, the burden would fall on the new owner, the variance runs with the land. Commissioners asked if this facility could be converted to a different type of care facility, such as drug rehab without any further approval. CA Anderson noted that the conditions specify that the variance is for senior care, so that is all that would be permitted without amending the permit. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the single story addition and single car garage shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 7, 2004, sheets AB1, AB2, A1 through A3, and GA1, site plan, floor plan and building elevations, with six bedrooms to be used as a senior residential care facility for up to six adults, and that upon sale of this property this parking variance shall become void and on-site parking as required by the City Code at that time shall be provided on-site before the sale is completed; 2) that the detached one car garage shall never include a kitchen, bathroom or be used for sleeping purposes and shall only be used for automobile parking; 3) that at a time when the senior residential care facility ceases to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 7 operate from this site the property owner shall notify the Planning Department; the property owner shall obtain the necessary permits and remodel the interior of the building to reduce the number of bedrooms to no more than four, which would only require one covered parking space and the on-site parking requirement shall be met; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official’s memos of May 24, 2004 shall be met; 5) that the facility shall obtain and maintain continually all of the required operating license(s) from the State of California and comply with all requirements of the Burlingame Fire Department; 6) that notice shall be given to the City upon change of ownership of this property, and that all of the changes required in conditions number 3 and 4 above shall require a demolition permit and shall be inspected by the Burlingame Building Department; and 7) 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. Vistica. Commissioners noted that the conditions of approval would safeguard that the variance would run with this use, there have been no concerns regarding this proposal raised by neighbors, and particularly concerning a parking impact. Other Commissioners noted that they didn't agree, this is in a residential rental area, neighbors don't necessarily endorse, only property owners are notified, this is packing in too many bedrooms, if cost is that much of a concern, then what level of care will the clients get; also a concern with the site design and parking concerns; agree that there does not seem to be anything that satisfies the hardship finding, project could be made to conform to code, there are options there, think we are being sandbagged on the number of caregivers that will need to come, the area already has inadequate parking, should be redesigned so that the facility is not a burden to the neighborhood. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed on a 2-5 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Auran, Osterling dissenting) vote. C. Brownrigg made a motion to deny the application without prejudice, with direction to the applicant to come back with a project which conforms to the on-site parking requirement. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 5. 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LONG-TERM AIRPORT PARKING INTERIM USE (PAUL SALISBURY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, BOCA LAKE OFFICE, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (13 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 6/28/04, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked to clarify an item on the environmental checklist regarding noise, "potential significant effect" is marked on the checklist regarding noise impacts, is this mitigated to an acceptable level. CP Monroe noted that with mitigation the impact is not considered significant. Does the City have energy conservation requirements for the on-site lighting in the parking lot, to use a lower intensity, energy efficient light source? No, the City requirement requires that light cannot spill onto an adjacent property, but a lower intensity light source and an energy saving lumen level would meet that requirement as well. The landscaping shown on Sheet SK-1a shows 15- gallon trees a minimum of 20 feet apart, shouldn't that be the maximum. CP Monroe noted that the applicant will respond to this question. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Paul Salisbury, Blunk DeMattei Associates, 1555 Bayshore Highway, architect representing the applicant, he noted regarding the tree spacing, he had worked with the City Arborist on the tree species to use, and the City Arborist had recommended that the trees be spaced City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 8 twenty feet apart based on the root structure so they would not be crowded at maturity. This is an interim use, but some of the trees on the north side of the property might survive the ultimate construction on the site. Commissioners noted that since this is an interim use and we may be looking at a 5 to 10 year life span, would like the trees spaced more closely to provide an adequate screen in the early years; and asked what species were identified on the north side of the property. Mr. Salisbury noted that there are four types of trees identified by the City Arborist that will survive in this environment, and that specific species in each location have not yet been chosen. Commissioners noted that it can be included in the conditions of approval that the City Arborist review the landscape plan and plant selection and spacing that is submitted for the building permit. Mr. Salisbury noted that the site lighting has not yet been designed, it has to be adequate for people to feel safe and secure, but will keep it as low as possible and will make it energy efficient to the extent possible. Commissioners noted that the report from the traffic consultant included information on shuttle pick up and drop off, why is this not shown on the plans. Mr. Salisbury noted that the owner has not yet resolved the method of operation, it is more likely that the van will take people directly to where their car is parked and there would be no need for a pick up and drop off shelter. If it is necessary to have a shelter, the structure and site circulation can be reviewed as a part of the building permit process, whether or not the owner chooses to use a shelter is an operational issue. Jonathon Wu, President of the Anza Parking Corporation, operators of Anza Parking at 615 Airport Boulevard, noted that he realizes the applicant has followed the guidelines, but does not understand given current market conditions why the owner would put this amount of money in building 350 parking spaces when revenues from airport parking have dropped significantly in the last few years. When revenues for operators are short, the City's revenue is also short, concerned that this will become a park and fly lot for the adjacent hotel, don't think the access should be shared with the hotel; how would the use as park and fly promotion be policed, if that happened, the City would not be getting revenue because the parking is part of the room charge. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners commented on the concept of the park and fly, how do we regulate. CP Monroe noted that we have had a problem in the past with hotel rooms sold with free long-term parking, it can't be done if they use required parking, this lot would not be required parking. CA Anderson noted that a number of these parking spaces would most likely be used for a park and fly program, it could be done because this is not required parking, the problem would be in enforcing the parking tax, it is hard to sort out what is paid for parking and what is for the room. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the long-term airport parking facility use shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 22,.2004, sheet Sk.1a and date stamped September 2, 2003, sheet Sk.2a; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s July 30, 2003, memo and the City Arborist's June 17, 2004, memo shall be met, which includes planting 5-gallon Frazer’s Photinia spaced four feet apart, with proper irrigation, in front of the security fence along Airport Boulevard; 3) that drainage from paved surfaces, parking lot and driveways, shall be routed to catch basins that are equipped with fossil filters (sand/gravel filters) prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning all filters twice each year as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 – April 1) and shall submit to the City and have approved a plan for filter/drain maintenance; 4) that the long-term airport parking use shall be operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day with a maximum of 350 parking spaces, and no auto maintenance, auto repair, auto washing or enclosed van storage shall take place on site nor shall the use of any number of parking spaces be contracted to a single City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 9 user or corporation without amendment of this use permit; 5) that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for any on-site flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the City harmless from any claims arising from such problems; 6) that the landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuing a building or grading permit for this project; 7) that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained by the property owner including but not limited to weed control, pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalks and bike path, and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain a visual barrier and the approved landscape design; 8) that this use permit for long term airport parking with the conditions listed herein is a temporary use and shall expire on June 28, 2009 (5 years); 9) that the parking lot lighting shall be energy efficient to the extent feasible to provide adequate light for customer safety; 10) that the applicant shall work with the City to establish an agreement regarding how the parking tax is collected if the parking spaces are used in association with a park and fly hotel room or other promotion program in association with the adjacent hotel or any office, hotel or other use; 11) that prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities, the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval of the City’s NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) administrator; the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program; 12) that if archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery should be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find; accidental discovery of archaeological deposits could require additional archaeological investigations to determine the significance of the find; 13) that if human remains are encountered during project construction, the San Mateo County Coroner’s Office will be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, will notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination regarding the individual’s “most likely descendant” who will then make recommendations for the disposal of the remains. The Native American Heritage Commission will mediate conflicts between the project proponent and the most likely descendant. Accidental discovery of human remains could require additional investigations to determine if other graves are present; 14) that a site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation shall be prepared that assesses the impacts of proposed project modifications to the levee on levee stability and any fill on site. The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a California Certified Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer, and shall include an analysis of expected ground motions along the San Andreas fault in accordance the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (Title 24) additions. Expected ground motions determined by a registered geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design as part of the project. The final seismic considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Burlingame Structural and City Engineers before grading permits are issued; 15) that the project storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the STOPPP NPDES permit, including all provisions to the C.3 requirements, to reduce long-term water quality impacts from potentially contaminated runoff. The project sponsor shall provide a plan for long-term operations and maintenance of the oil and sediment separator or absorbent filter systems including but not limited to the operating schedule, maintenance frequency, routine service schedule, specific maintenance activities, and the effectiveness of the water treatment systems. The performance of the filters shall be monitored regularly by the project applicant or a third party to determine the effectiveness of the water treatment and conclusions reported to the City. To further help minimize and prevent the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system, the project sponsor shall implement Best Management Practices and source control measures that shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, regular street sweeping by mechanized equipment, proper clean-up of soil debris following landscape work or small scale construction, available trash receptacles, regular trash collection and the application of absorbent material on oil and fuel leaks from automobiles; 16) that during operation of the project, the project sponsor shall implement a program for regularly collecting and properly disposing of litter and debris that may accumulate on the project site; 17) that order to maintain the existing on-site well for potential use for any future long-term development on the project City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 10 site, the well head elevation shall be modified if needed in accordance with proposed project grading and construction plans and a new well vault shall be installed in accordance with San Mateo County water well standards to prohibit infiltration of storm water contaminants and prevent potential damage to the well casing; 18) that the applicant shall require the construction contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the least noise-sensitive times of the day and week (Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; none on Sunday and holidays); 19) that the applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to maintain it in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet; 20) that applicant shall require contractors to turn off powered construction equipment when not in use; and 21) that the use and 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. Osterling. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 6. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON FINAL DRAFT NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. (281 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report 6/28/04, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed the highlights of the plan, the proposed changes to land use and the design concepts proposed for the El Camino Real corridor and the Rollins Road area. There were two letters submitted regarding properties within the plan area, suggesting changes to the density and height limits at the Rollins Road/Broadway gateway; and to the height limits for residential properties on Ogden Drive. CP Monroe commented that the plan contains Community Standards to be used to measure the impacts of any future projects, and noted that the plan includes a General Plan Amendment for the hospital properties to incorporate the properties along Trousdale which will be used for access into the site or expansion of hospital support services. These parcels would change their land use designation from "Office Commercial" use to "Institutional, Other" for the hospital use, and the design guidelines on El Camino Real revised to encompass the design proposal of the Revised Project. Commissioners noted that we now have inclusionary zoning with a density bonus to encourage affordable units, one of the key incentives was to offer increased height, we now allow additional height by special permit, how would this work if the plan limits the height to 35 feet? CP Monroe noted that this issue would have to be resolved in the zoning, this area will require a new zoning classification, now the 35-foot height limit is a review line with the opportunity for taller buildings through the conditional use permit process, we may want 35 feet to continue to be a review line with a maximum height set that also acknowledges the aviation limit from San Francisco International Airport which affects this entire area in varying degrees. Commissioners noted that it would be important to make this change in height limits in the plan throughout the El Camino Real North Area. Commissioners noted that we were looking at the possibility of allowing increased residential densities across from the hospital and close to the Millbrae BART station, parking is often the driving factor in determining density, can we look at decreasing the parking requirement on properties close to transit, consistent with the Housing Element concepts, we have set a 50-unit per acre density in the plan, but the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 11 parking requirement would limit the actual density to be achieved. CP Monroe noted that this is something which could be considered in the implementing zoning which be done once the plan is adopted. Commissioners also asked about the Adrian Road Auto District concept which was discussed at some extent during the plan process. At a previous City Council meeting, a Councilmember brought up that there may not be interest by auto dealers in this area, because the primary Auto Row is still on California Drive; has there been actual interest in this concept? CP Monroe noted that there is no interest from the existing dealers on California Drive in moving to this area, but interest has been expressed from auto dealers from outside of the area. Commissioners asked why the FAR for the auto dealers on Adrian Road was set at 0.15, this would preclude parking garages for car storage like we see now on California Drive, is that the intent? SP Brooks noted that the sites in this area are larger and the concept was to have open storage on the lots, with a small building to serve the auto dealer use. Commissioners asked about the concept of the 35-foot height review line in the zoning code, where does that come from? CP Monroe noted that the 35-foot height review line was established in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts in the 1970's and most structures since that time have been built at no more than 35 feet. Many of the properties across from the planning area along Ogden Drive were built since then and are about 35 feet tall. However, a number of the buildings in the area zoned C-3 located between Ogden and Magnolia were granted exceptions and are taller than 35 feet. Because the aviation limit varies greatly over this area and over the Rollins Road area as well, it would be appropriate to fix a maximum height limit in both parts of the planning area, as we now have in the R-4 zone, 75 feet in the El Camino Real North Area and 60 feet in the Rollins Road area, with a 75 foot maximum at the Rollins Road/Broadway gateway. The plan should note that any maximum height would be modified by the height restrictions of the FAA established for the airport. Commissioners expressed concern with the 0.5 FAR proposed in the Rollins Road area. SP Brooks noted this number was arrived at by determining the maximum footprint on lots in different uses which meet on- site parking requirements. Commissioners felt that this FAR may not provide the encouragement for new development if existing structures already have a higher floor area ratio, might want to look at how we provide encouragement, one way might be to have a review line at 0.5 FAR and a maximum at 1.0 FAR. Could also look at parking requirements and parking space dimensions to provide more flexibility in design. Regarding the gateway at Rollins and Broadway, Commissioners noted that we wanted to see a landscaped statement at the gateway, so would like to encourage a taller structure to be able to use more area for landscaping, would also note that the ultimate design at this intersection will depend on the reconfiguration of the proposed Broadway interchange, so we will need to see how that will impact this concept. FAR for the gateway should include a review line and a maximum as well as an incentive for combining lots. Chairman Osterling opened the public hearing. Merry-Lee Musich, 325 El Cerrito Avenue, Hillsborough, owner of property at Burlingame Plaza, noted that she would like to request that the Commission consider adding medical offices as one of the uses allowed within the Burlingame Plaza subarea, and noted that many doctors are seeking a retail setting for their business, she thought it was appropriate at this location across the street from the Peninsula Hospital, the new entrance to the hospital will be at Magnolia, which is the street which runs along the back of the shopping center; she thought that medical uses would be appropriate in the shopping center because: 1) Burlingame Plaza offers abundant parking for visiting patients and shoppers, offering convenient one-stop for office visits and shopping; 2) including medical offices would have no adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood; 3) doctors are reliable long-term tenants which would help retain the viability of the commercial property; and 4) the community surrounding Burlingame City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 12 Plaza is not residential but is mixed use, including medical offices. She also expressed concern with the proposal to build mixed use structures at the corners of Burlingame Avenue adjacent to El Camino Real, noting that new buildings would block visibility of the shopping center from El Camino Real, and tenants of the new buildings would use the shopping center parking. Bruce Balshone, 500 Airport Boulevard, representing the owner of property along Ogden Drive, noted that they are happy with the change made in residential densities which allow up to 50 units per acre, but expressed concern with the height limits in this area, a 35 foot maximum height is proposed; in order to give incentives for affordable housing, need to give options which will allow more density, increasing the allowable height would do that, when looking at transit-friendly development near major transportation facilities, you need to look at the parking requirement, what we have now in the code was put in place in the 1970's, but some of the older properties in this area were built before that and may be 50 feet tall, don't want the plan to preclude discretion regarding height and parking. Eileen Chow, one of the owners of the property at 1206-1220 Rollins Road, wants to express support for and agreement with the points made in John Ward's letter; the key point is the proposed floor area ratio (0.5 FAR), the property at the corner is only 20,000 SF, this would allow only a 10,000 SF building, people won't go to the expense of improving their property if the proposed density is lower than what exists on the site now, there are other buildings in the area that were recently built that have a higher floor area ratio, the new building at 25 Edwards Court with parking on the lower level probably has an FAR closer to 1.0; the Commission should look at what is existing, if future owners want to improve, they may be discouraged because they are already over the allowable FAR, they won't want to change. Art Michael, 1 Farm Lane, Hillsborough, owns property in the drainage easement under the high-tension lines between Rollins and Adrian Roads, would like to have the Auto Row subarea extend to include this drainage easement, the only possible use for that property given the drainage easement and the high power lines is for parking, could provide support parking for uses on either side. There were no further public comments and Chairman Osterling closed the public hearing. Commissioners asked if the analysis for the traffic flow for the Specific Plan took into account the revised design for the Peninsula Hospital project. Planning staff noted yes, that these two projects have been coordinated. The traffic consultant working on the plan is the same consultant reviewing the traffic for the Peninsula Hospital EIR which has been helpful. Commissioner found that after all this time reviewing the plan, not a lot of change is proposed, should make sure there is enough flexibility in density and height to encourage planting of trees and creation of affordable housing that is permanently kept at an affordable level; would like to see 35 feet be the review line height and could go up from there to the flight limit from the airport; agree with comments regarding FAR, height and the ability to plant more trees; especially at the Rollins Road/Broadway gateway, we want a statement with a taller structure and more landscaping, could limit the lot coverage to make sure there is adequate landscaping; would like it flexible in the plan so that the zoning will have the broadest capability and ability to provide incentives; for density at this gateway, would like to see a 1.0 FAR review line, and an incentive of up to 2.0 FAR for properties that are combined to achieve more landscaping and better traffic access and circulation. The heights of existing buildings in the Broadway corridor are as tall as 75 feet, would like to see something similar for an entrance statement; could also have a maximum height of 75 feet if lots are combined to create a larger building site and comply with FAA overflight limitations. Commissioner discussion continued: For the rest of the Rollins Road industrial core area, would like to see a 0.5 FAR review line with a maximum FAR of 1.0, the criteria for higher intensity should be based on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 13 traffic generating characteristics and intersection impacts of the use, consistent with the use designated in the plan, if the use meets the criteria established, could have a higher FAR. There was some interest expressed by a large scale retailer in the Rollins Road area, has there been any additional interest in this type of use. CP Monroe noted that there has been no other interest expressed. She also noted that when the Bayfront Specific Plan was first adopted in 1981, the Traffic Analyzer extended to the intersection of Broadway and Rollins Road because there was concern that if the industrial area built out, particularly if the land in the drainage easement were used for required parking for adjacent uses, this intersection would shut down. Therefore, we haven't allowed the drainage area to be used to provide required parking for adjacent uses. Commissioner comments: The General Plan identifies this drainage easement area as open space, also the issue of red-legged frog habitat in this area which has become a concern, we are required to notify the property owners of the red-legged frog habitat, might want to consider allowing the area which is not habitat in the drainage areas to be used for required parking, in exchange for developing the creekside trails proposed by the plan. C. Keighran moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Final Draft North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, with the following revisions to the plan: ‰ that the height limit along Ogden and Marco Polo Way and throughout the El Camino Real North Area shall be revised so that there is a 35 foot review line, with a maximum height of 75 feet to be used as an incentive to provide permanent affordable housing and more landscaping as long as the FAA requirements are met. ‰ that medical uses shall be allowed in the Burlingame Plaza subarea, above the first floor only and subject to obtaining a conditional use permit. ‰ that properties included in the Rollins Road/Broadway Southern Gateway, and designated for Commercial uses shall have a 1.0 FAR review line, and densities up to 2.0 FAR will be considered as an incentive to consolidate parcels to achieve more landscaping as a gateway feature and to allow for better traffic access and circulation. ‰ that the height for the Rollins Road/Broadway Commercial Gateway properties shall be up to 75 feet, similar to other properties in the area and that 35 feet shall be a review line for the remainder of the Rollins Road area with a maximum height of 60 feet as modified by the FAA overflight limitations. ‰ that for industrial and other allowed uses within the Rollins Road area, there shall be a review line of 0.5 FAR; and that an FAR of up to 1.0 will be considered based on the traffic generating and intersection impact characteristics of the proposed use. ‰ allow the drainage easement between Rollins and Adrian Roads to be used for required parking if it is on the same parcel as the proposed use, and if a creekside trail or habitat area, as shown in the plan, is developed as a part of the project. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Planning Commission's action is a recommendation to the City Council so the decision is not subject to appeal. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. The Planning Commission took a 5 minute break and resumed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 14 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1224 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BERNARD CORRY, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, represented the project. Proposed project is 100 SF under the maximum FAR; setback on the right side is 2'-6" greater than the minimum 4' required; building is well below the maximum height; fits the neighborhood well. Commissioners asked: see a lot of Tudors in this neighborhood, who decided the style. Designer noted that he did. Will the project have true divided light windows throughout? Yes. What is the decoration on the front of the garage. Designer noted originally had a dormer, but it required a conditional use permit, so modified it to a vent which conforms to the code but dresses up the front of the structure. Like the open area off the living room and the entry patio. There were no further questions from the floor or commission, and the public comment was closed. C. Bojués noted that this is a nice design, and made a motion to place this item on consent calendar at a time when the project is ready and there is space. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to place the item on the consent action calendar. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:08 p.m. 8. 1512 HIGHWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JASSON DURHAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J & M DESIGN, DESIGNER) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Jasson Durhan, property owner, represented the project. Gene Condon, 1308 Mills Avenue, neighbor also spoke. Property owner noted that the existing garage is close to the required dimension, it would be a big job to widen it to get the required dimension. This building has been abandoned a long time, the neighbors are in favor of fixing the house up. Commissioners discussion with applicant: how closely did you look at the city's residential design guidelines, they refer to consistent architectural style throughout the structure, this did not happen with this design. Applicant noted that his computer program was not very sophisticated, the elevations do not look the way the finished house will look, front door will have a copper roof which extends up into the wall behind. Exterior lacks variation, has a single plate line all the way around. Front elevation has some nice design features, but there are none on the other elevations, need to add to sides particularly the right and left. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 15 C. Bojués noted that this applicant needs some guidance and made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer to get major assistance. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Commissioners noted the following items to be considered as a part of the substantial revision of the design: • Need to achieve consistency within the architectural style by addressing: the two story roof plate, the flattened roof slope, the bay window which creates a two story straight tower and should be broken up. • Look at the existing houses on Highway Road and take the design elements/concepts from them; they are not about the design being proposed. • Should have true divided lights throughout the house. • The entrance should be redesigned. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to send this project to a design reviewer for a substantial redesign. The motion passed 7-0 on a voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 9. 1516 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOSEPH MOORE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SEAN CONNOLLY AND HANNAH KLEIN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran recused themselves because they live within 500 feet of the proposed project. They left the chambers. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Joe Moore, architect 756 Kansas Street, San Francisco, represented the project noting that the design emphasizes entry ways, beamed porches, columns and railings. Commissioners and architect discussed: nice front elevation with new divided lights, what about the windows on the rest of the house? Keep existing, no divided lights because of cost. Tudor design detail on the front, why not extend to the rear? Put the money into the front façade, at the rear have a beamed cantilever over the rear deck, rear vent . What is the plate height on the first floor? About 9 feet and a few inches. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Auran made a motion to return this project on the consent calendar for action. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: Project is OK as it is, it is well resolved with mass and bulk, would like to see applicant incorporate issues discussed; architect should look at the details before resubmittal for consent action. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to place this project on the consent calendar for action after the architect has reviewed the details discussed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Keighran and Brownrigg abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. C. Brownrigg returned to the dais. C. Keighran remained outside of the room since she lives within 500 feet of the project at 1413 Balboa Avenue. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 16 10. 1413 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; THOMAS O'CONNOR, PROPERTY OWNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran noted she had a personal interest in this property and recused herself from this action. She remained outside of the council chambers. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Seamus Busby, applicant, 1224 Cabrillo, and Jerry Deal, designer, represented the project. Designer noted that the room off the garage was mistakenly noted as a bedroom, it is intended to be a family room. Discussion with commissioners: hard architectural style to work with, could an edge of tile be placed on the flat roofed portion of the building? Tile is hard to match, will do if can match, if can't thought it would be better without. Why so little detail on the right side? The right side is existing and no work will be done there. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Bojués noted that the design is good and made a motion to put this item on the consent calendar for action. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to put this item on the consent calendar for action when there is room. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran abstained). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:35 p.m. C. Keighran returned to the dais. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of June 21, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of June 21, 2004. She noted that the Council had agreed to a joint study session with the Planning Commission to study the Final EIR and Peninsula Hospital project on August 30, 2004. Commissioners agreed. Staff will set up the meeting. - Minutes of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meeting of June 22, 2004, were distributed. Commission discussed briefly the concept of merging the residential design guidelines and zoning regulations and suggested to staff that they approach Jerry Deal who worked on the original guidelines for assistance, if he was willing, and to work with the subcommittee on this project. Commissioners also discussed ways to clarify direction to the design reviewers. - Chair Osterling recognized out-going Chair Bojués, thanked him for service as Chair of the Commission for a year and presented him with a chocolate gavel. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2004 17 XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\06.28.04.unapprov.doc