Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.12.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA December 8, 2003 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the December 8, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 24, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There are no study items for review. 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. 1. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2004, Project Planner Margaret Monroe Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Auran moved for approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report by resolution. Comment on the motion: Commissioner noted that because there are concerns about the City's budget, should the Commission consider foregoing the Commissioner's dinner? Commission noted that it understands that there are concerns with the budget, but the Commissioner's dinner is a great opportunity to encourage people to join the Planning Commission, this is the only time to thank those on all the City's Commissions for their hard work, would not like to take that away; consensus on the Commission is to have the dinner; should leave it up to the City Council to considering canceling the dinner. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 2 VIII. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 2. 1605 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GAIRD SCHLESINGER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; WILLIAMSON CHAVEZ DESIGN, DESIGNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Gaird Schlesigner, applicant and property owner, was present to answer questions. The Planning Commission asked about the proposed plate heights for the new house. Applicant noted that a 10-foot plate height is proposed on the first floor and a 9-foot plate height is proposed on the second floor. Commission asked the applicant to explain the hardship for the side setback variance. Applicant noted that there are no exceptional circumstances on the property for this request, originally thought it was a special permit. Commission noted that panels are proposed on the front elevation below the porch and asked why is the first floor so high above adjacent grade? Applicant noted that the intent was not to build a slab-on-grade foundation, would like to have steps up to the porch. Commission asked if the applicant considered adding dormers on the rear elevation to match the front elevation, would help to add more light into the rooms at the rear of the house. Applicant noted that the considered adding shed dormers at the rear of the house, but it would have caused the house to exceed the maximum allowable floor area ratio, the roof configuration would have to be adjusted and significant roof design changes would have to be made to the project to add dormers at the rear. Commission noted that the house could be made smaller to accommodate dormers at the rear. Commission asked if the applicant considered lowering the plate heights? Applicant noted that it was considered, but decided to propose the current plate heights in order to preserve the high roofline consistent with the Craftsman design, lowering the plate heights will flatten the roofline. Continued Commission discussion: Commission noted that this project is off to a great start, nice Craftsman style, a few changes would make this project fit better into the neighborhood. The proposed roof pitch is over 7:12, roof pitch could be flattened to 5:12 or 6:12 and still be consistent with the Craftsman style; see no justification for the side setback variance, applicant needs to address. Commission noted a concern with the sides of the house, sides are very flat with the exception of the bay window, often see cantilevered bay windows in Craftsman style, would add interest in the design. Commission asked if the applicant was proposing to do anything to the existing garage; no. Commission suggested that the applicant consider adding some exterior details to the garage to reflect the proposed Craftsman design of the house, do not want to see a contrast in the design. Commission asked what the panels below the porch would be made of? Applicant noted that the panels would be painted wood. Commission asked why shingles are proposed on the front elevation only. Applicant noted that shingles are proposed on the front elevation because it would be too expensive to have shingles on all sides of the house, the front elevation is most visible from the street, and because the visible side of the house is screened by trees and shrubs. Commission noted that breaking up the mass along the wall on the driveway side would help, leave 12 feet between the house and property along the driveway side, could shift house and add articulation on the other side. Commission noted that the landscape plan is too plain, suggest increasing the number of trees and adding larger scale shrubs, tall shrubs should be continued out to the street: suggested Maytenus tree at rear is very root invasive, should consider using another tree; landscape plan should add more interest and should compliment the architecture of the house, landscape plan should be more creative to enhance the front elevation. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 3 Lori Zimmerman, 1614 Forest View Avenue, Kim Utrata, 1609 Sanchez Avenue, expressed the following concerns: live behind the project site, concerned about potential loss of privacy and impacts from demolition and construction noise, house next door was just remodeled and had to live with 6 to 8 months of construction; concerned about noise during construction, City of Burlingame has a very liberal noise ordinance which allows construction seven days a week, can the City limit the construction hours so that this does not happen again. CA Anderson noted that there have been conditions placed on new houses to not allow construction on weekends; would appreciate limiting the hours of this construction; thought plans noted existing garage to be removed; no, existing garage will remain; have windows on right side of house, concerned that the value of her house will drop if side setback variance is granted, moving the house forward on the lot will reduce her view of open space on this property. Commission noted that the existing trees will provide a natural screen between the houses and that there will be a driveway along this side providing an additional 10 to 12 feet of separation; neighbor noted that there is no screening provided at the lower half of the trees, will still see through tree trunks from the first floor level. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the proposal: • Concerned about 10 foot plate height on the first floor and 9 foot plate height on the second floor, strongly suggest reducing the plate heights, there are many Craftsman style houses with lower plate heights and flatter roof pitches, lower plate heights will reduce the visual mass; • Bottom plate height could be higher than top plate height, incorporate sloped ceiling on second floor to achieve lower second floor plate height; • See no justification for the side setback variance and special permits, variance should be eliminated, this is a new house on a flat lot, like the bay window for articulation, suggest bring in the side walls and adding cantilevered bay windows along the sides for articulation; • Incorporate shingle siding on all four sides of the house, can use a combination of shingle and wood siding, perhaps shingle below the first floor line; • Proposed roof pitch is over 7:12, roof pitch could be flattened to 5:12 or 6:12 and still be consistent with the Craftsman style, would help to reduce the overall height of the house; • Applicant could offer to limit the construction hours to address neighbors concern, staff should include limitation of construction hours as a condition of approval for this project; • Materials should be consistent throughout the exterior of the house; • Should consider cantilevering pieces, such as bay windows, to add articulation along the sides; • Add details to existing detached garage so that it is consistent with the proposed Craftsman style house, needs to blend in with the proposed architecture; • Commission noted that the landscape plan is too plain, suggest increasing the number of trees and adding larger scale shrubs, tall shrubs should be continued out to the street; landscape plan should add more interest and should compliment the architecture of the house, landscaping should be more creative to enhance the front elevation; • Proposed Maytenus tree at rear is very root invasive, should consider replacing with another species tree; and • Cassette tapes of the comments and suggestions are available to the applicant, want to make sure direction and suggestions are clear. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 4 C. Keighran noted that the Commission has provided clear direction to the applicant and made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and checked by the Planning Department. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Bojués called for a voice 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 7:35 p.m. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITMES 3. 1401 CARLOS AVENUE – ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JAMES AND MARY SHANNON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Osterling recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. He stepped down from the dias and left the Council Chambers. Reference staff report December 8, 2003, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, architect, was present to answer questions, noted that after the project was denied without prejudice the property owner came to him with the previously proposed plans and Commissions' concerns with the project, created a simplified plan, reduce the mass and height of the building, design of house matches the recently approved detached garage which has a clipped roof design. Commission thanked the property owner for addressing the Commission's comments and making the corrections on the plans, complimented the architect for his work on the project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following twelve conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 17, 2003, sheets A-1 through A-6, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; 3) that prior to final inspection, the applicant shall plant three new 18-inch box size Chinese Elm trees in the front yard as shown on the Site Plan, dated stamped November 17, 2003; 4) 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; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that a licensed surveyor shall establish the second floor finished floor elevation of the new addition and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) 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 to the Building Department; 8) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 5 flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s November 24, 2003, memo and the Recycling Specialist's November 21, 2003, memo shall be met; 10) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 12) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling abtained). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. C. Osterling returned to the dias. 4. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING FENCES, TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR ARBORS IN THE FRONT YARD AND A CLEAN UP OF SIGNAGE AND PARKING REGULATIONS. PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report December 8, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Commissioner noted that on page 2 of the staff report there is a definition for "arbor", think it would be good to also have a definition for "trellis" as a comparison; CP noted that the definitions section of the zoning code currently defines "trellis", will be sure both are called to the City Council's attention. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Commission commended staff for preparing these changes so quickly, reduces the red tape for customers and also reduces Commission's time for review of these types of projects. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to recommend that the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance be approved by the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Visitca. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the change to the zoning ordinance by the City Council. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. 1420-1450 HOWARD AVENUE & 249 PRIMROSE ROAD – ZONED C-1, SUBAREAS A & B AND R-3 – TECHNICAL REVIEW OF AND COMMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL ON SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 TO THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE SAFEWAY PROJECT (RICHARD S. ZLATUNICH, APPLICANT AND SAFEWAY, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (135 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report December 12, 2003 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that the City Council’s direction was for the Planning Commission to review Supplement 2 to the Response to Comments document and make individual comments on whether the responses adequately address the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 6 environmental issues raised during the public hearing process. No vote should be taken because the commission has already acted on the project and Final Environmental Impact Report. Commissioners asked if the consultant who prepared the report was present to answer questions, staff noted that the city was at the end of the money to prepare the environmental document, if the commissioners would like to pose any questions regarding the issues addressed, staff would get the answers to them before this item goes forward to the City Council; when can we ask such questions, after the public hearing; clarify that the City Council asked the commission to comment on the adequacy of this report, CA commented that the Council understands the Planning Commission’s position on the project, would like comments on Supplement 2. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing noting that the commission would take testimony only on Supplement 2 to the Response to Comments document for the Safeway EIR. The Chair asked for a show of hands for the number of people who were there for Safeway and wished to speak. Looking at the number he noted that each speaker would have five minutes for their comments. The following members of the public spoke: Dan Anderson, 1728 Vernon Way; Tom Payne, 728 Concord Way; Carolyn Root, 1407 Montero; Rich Grogan, 1450 Columbus; Joseph Silber, Farringdon Lane; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater; Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon; John Root 1407 Montero; Jill Lauder, 449 Bloomfield; Steven Hamilton, 105 Crescent. The comments noted the following issues: project does not address pedestrian flow to and from the site, entrance on El Camino makes it auto oriented, people have to walk around to get from downtown to front of the store, the project is not integrated into the downtown area, access to the site is limited to three locations, shoppers and pedestrians have to cross truck traffic at front of building and on Fox Plaza Lane. Problem with traffic on Howard causing back up of cars and trucks on site in front of the store making pedestrians weave through queued traffic to get to store; not integrated with downtown, pedestrians from Burlingame Avenue need to cross trucks on Fox Plaza Lane to get to store, on Primrose must cross a wider Fox Plaza Lane made even wider because of the angle caused by the off set for the diagonal parking added on Primrose. Report did not respond to the aesthetic criticism, reviewer noted aesthetics are subjective and therefore would not respond, Safeway will build and move on and residents will have to live with results, residents want something that will contribute to their quality of life; propose a “Disney-esque” arch way at El Camino and Howard, makes no contribution to the gateway to the city, the proposed building is a negative, visually exposed to a sea of parking, see the backs of the buildings on Burlingame Avenue now screened from view (a benefit now), and development is out of scale with all the surrounding buildings; we have a chance to restore the proper scale on this site, smaller facilities like on Primrose. Chair Bojués noted that everyone could take the opportunity to submit additional comments in writing in the next couple of weeks if you feel that you need more than five minutes. Commission clarified that the EIR was prepared by a third party hired by the city, they have no affiliation with the Safeway corporation. CA confirmed this observation. Commissioner asked if the consulting firm was an extension of city staff. CA noted that was the case. Public Comments continue: concerned about Safeway regulating the hours of delivery themselves, should add a condition limiting truck deliveries to the site to given times; thought the analysis was weak because there was not enough time in the proposed hours of delivery to accommodate each of the trucks if they stayed for the average stay of 23 minutes; seems clear that a larger Safeway will result in an increase in the number of truck deliveries by the front door since the loading docks will not be available given the timing; important for the city to establish procedures now especially for trucks with more than 2 axels, regulation should have workable oversight and real penalties. Did not evaluate the traffic hazard created on Howard at Primrose with the signal at the intersection; show traffic delayed longer with signal would result on back up City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 7 on Howard almost to El Camino, problem for north bound traffic conflict with those turning left into Safeway, queue would block access and the same on south bound El Camino Real on to Howard; the queue area is sufficiently short it will be blocked by one large truck. This issue was omitted from the report so should reject the Supplement 2. Chair pointed out that the Commission was not going to vote on the report this evening, only comment. Public Comments continue: air quality analysis is based on a model with particulate data from the nearest station which is in Redwood City, indicates no problem now but the Air Quality Board is going to change the limit of maximum allowed particulates of this smaller size and then the existing Redwood City data probably would be in violation; there is no data to confirm that the air quality at the Safeway site is similar to that in Redwood City, important that this is a 24 hour store, the report focused on the K-line method which in his opinion is too approximate an answer; diesel particulate has been recognized as a serious air pollutant for the young and elderly, should do on-site monitoring to assess current state. Commission asked where the monitors should be placed could they be off the site; does not matter, its not just the number or size of the vehicles it’s the maintenance of each vehicle, which relates directly to the amount of particulate matter. Monitor could be placed on any second story that has access and available electricity; measurement is not expensive for total suspended particulate (larger material), take to lab to analyze sample, in case of smaller particles (ones of concern here) look at number per cubic foot of air. Commissioners asked if the air samples taken any where in the area would be the same, does it make a difference if the engines are running continuously, does it make a difference if the engines are large or small? Depends on profile, if the engine is tuned property at idle there would be no visible smoke, at acceleration it would need a different adjustment and there would be no problem; size of engine makes no difference it’s the maintenance of the vehicle and combustion chamber. Public Comments continued: concerned about the relocation of Lot L, the response is that there would be a net loss of 18 parking spaces within 100 feet of Fox Mall and a net gain of 22 parking spaces within 300 feet which is an acceptable walking distance; feel that Safeway is hijacking Lot L, taking it over, the new public lot is not proximate to existing businesses, why should Burlingame consider, should ask for money to compensate the merchants and public; everyone uses the rear entrance of Fox Mall, if that were closed as the property owner suggested he would do if the loading docks were adjacent to the back of the mall, the real distance to parking would be 500 feet; people will have to walk the distance of two football fields; we should be encouraging pedestrian access. There is still the failure to include the seasonal parking demand analysis, it is key to establishing the cost of replacement parking and the impact of the project on the rest of Burlingame; the city downtown parking study notes a 20% increase in short term parking demand in the fourth quarter based on sales tax, they adjust the parking demand model accordingly, why does the EIR not do the same? Three reason not do seasonal adjustment: grocery and drug do not have the same seasonal variation; not use the peak of the peak demand for determining parking demand but average daily usage between October 1 and January 1 (which does not address the peak between Thanksgiving and New Years which is much higher 20 or 22 %); and most people go to the grocery store once a week and will just buy more at holiday season. There was no study, analysis to document these conclusions. Can do seasonal analysis with information readily available from Safeway based on one car per one transaction; no reason not address, City Council needs to know facts to determine value of mitigation for the additional 75 parking space deficit. Report all but dismisses the impact of the building mass, want more than “good enough”; Sequoia Station in Redwood City turned its back on downtown and are now learning from their mistake; Safeway may leave if they do not get what they want, we need to be prepared for that event; item 8 finds no safety issues regarding walking on Fox Plaza Lane, it will not be inviting for pedestrians; know quality of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 8 surroundings has an influence on whether people use access, equal to distance traveled; pedestrian quality is inviting if it is safe, aesthetically pleasing, isolated from cars and trucks, the proposed Fox Plaza Lane will have none of these qualities, in fact the project is a Costco pedestrian experience and the design is superficial. There are three heritage trees on the site, they deserve to be preserved and protected. Report still fails to address the parking impact in town; the current stores are about 48,000 SF (not including Safeway’s basement) the proposal is 67,000 SF, increase is 19,000 SF; currently there are 205 on-site parking spaces for 48,000 SF, based on the EIR there will be 155 parking stalls for 67,000 SF , more store less parking; comment is that would be all right if the city changed its policy requiring on site parking for employees and they parking in other public parking; report does not address the true impact on parking. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments on the adequacy of Supplement #2: Staff noted that the City Council had asked for the individual comments from the commissioners, one approach might be to particularly comment on those responses to issues you individually raised. C. Keele: Need to look at this report in the context of the EIR review process, the role of the commission is to limit comments to the adequacy of the data and analysis in Supplement 2, are the issues addressed adequately. Understand that the EIR consultant is a "de facto" arm of staff, it is incumbent to divest comments from affinity with staff. Acknowledge that the EIR does not have to be perfect, not totally comprehensive, just adequate with mitigation measures. The other side is are there data gaps, omissions that render Supplement 2 inadequate. Regarding parking there is a problem with the analysis in Supplement 2, no new data, no new analysis, no more comprehensive mitigations. Does note that parking deficit is significant. If change parking then the mitigation measures are acceptable. Feel that the parking deficit is not addressed adequately. The report is inadequate in taking into account the impact on the relocation of Lot L if the rear entrance to Fox Mall is closed. There is a data gap in the pedestrian safety issue, not sufficient information on pedestrian safety flow, pedestrian safety patterns on site, not address clearly whether an increase in volume on Fox Plaza Lane would not create a significant impact, not account for the increase in vehicular traffic on Fox Plaza Lane. Think that seasonal demand variations in parking is a condition which should have been addressed; did not analyze true parking problem in the fourth quarter. Most troublesome inadequacy is data and analysis of air quality on site and nearby; not expensive to do an air sample on site or nearby, should have done, not modeled. Given situation should have used emerging standard as basis for analysis, Redwood City is not adequate data, Supplement 2 does not address the air quality impact on the individual from increased truck traffic on the site or nearby. Staff asked if the parking deficit was identified as a significant impact. Yes, because the consultant identified it, but no new data was provided to change the point and no new mitigation was included to take to a level below significant. C. Vistica noted: One point not addressed in the EIR or Supplement 2 is the qualitative issue of El Camino and the trees, this is a strong image and community value, without adequate job of assessing the impact of the project on that environment e.g. the proximity of the buildings, large trees, analysis of the impact on that image from the south end, needed additional visual analysis so could measure; concerned that the seasonal variation in parking was not addressed, throughout count street parking as part of the parking provided by the project, if that is included it would change city policy; City Council should note the certification of this EIR would limit possibilities to correct or use some options for revision of the project e.g. truck docks at the same location, do not want to limit the applicant’s ability to modify the project. Aesthetic quality may be subjective but the EIR can provide analysis for Planning Commission can make their own analysis of the information provided, not done. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 9 C. Osterling commented: public testimony enlightened me on what would happen with the signalization, inadequate evaluation to address Primrose/Howard and traffic entering and exiting Safeway; not address how closing the rear entrance at Fox Mall would affect pedestrian distances, how would this change the impacts of the project and parking on Burlingame Avenue; effect on public access problem. Need to look at visual impacts, number of trees in parking lot, scale of building, EIR does not address. C. Keighran noted: aesthetics page 4 in Supplement 2 determine that significance of visual quality is subjective, yes but can be based on qualitative research, need to focus on qualitative, look at Redwood City and their Safeway with its back to the commercial street, what are the cumulative impacts. Lot L is a major concern, concerned about the effect of the relocation on the convenience of parking for the community not Safeway. Now Lot L is centrally located, walk to Burlingame Avenue, relocate and will lose proximity to Burlingame Avenue; if the owner of Fox Mall closes off rear entrance the 300 foot distance away will increase to 600 feet, what would the impact of that be, people would not use the new Lot L and it would increase the parking problem on Burlingame Avenue. If Fox Mall’s rear entrance was closed it would increase pedestrian use on Fox Plaza Lane; the project will change the atmosphere on Fox Plaza Lane with heavy truck traffic, the parking on the street, and parking parallel to the sidewalk and dumpsters all need to be addressed. Need to incorporate deliveries, don’t know the number of trucks on Fox Plaza Lane, but have observed trucks backed up on Chapin parking in the middle of the street, need a delivery schedule strictly enforced to keep Fox Plaza Lane and the project user friendly for pedestrians. Seasonal parking demand was not included, it was discussed at the last public hearing, do not accept that the same number of trips year around, would like to see the data to prove it wrong, if people stay longer grocery shopping that would affect parking availability. C. Auran commented: believe that the document is adequate, it addresses the issues raised regarding the trucks on Howard and their affect on pedestrians; Safeway constitutes less than 50% of the deliveries, and most are in the morning. Regarding the intersection of Howard and Primrose, now there is one in and one out, with the project there will be a 40 foot wide street at Fox Plaza Lane and improvement to the in and out movement as well as new access at El Camino Real. Regarding particulate matter and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, larger trucks do not mean an increase in pollution, this is global matter; truck maintenance needs to be addressed region-wide not just with this project. Parking is a swap, people will park and do more than one errand from Safeway stalls the same as they do from the public parking, especially if there are entrances at the back of shop on Burlingame Avenue, so Safeway’s parking will support other businesses in the area. For quality of the walking environment Supplement 2 provides objective data for common discussion. The report notes that parking is insufficient and the parking impact is significant. Feel that on this basis the Supplement 2 report is adequate. C. Brownrigg commented: unfortunate that the consultants did not take the Commission’s comments more to heart, had they done so they would have added mitigations to make the project more palatable recognizing significant and unavoidable effects that were there in the judgment of many; because they found the effects to be less than significant the applicant does not have to do anything to address the problems. Commission’s vote on the project had to do with the site and location of the Safeway project, wanted a different location and smaller buildings. EIR is a sideshow in the overall review, not until the Council takes a position on the project will we get a new project. Want all this time and effort spent on getting a better project. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 10 Chair Bojués noted: agree with comments of Keele and Vistica, would add concern about the height of the proposed building, feel Council would benefit from a scale model of the project so that they can see it in three dimensions, if go forward would be a valuable tool. Commissioners asked: when the comments from tonight are gathered what will the City Council do; it was useful for the Commission to look at the EIR and project together. Staff responded, Council asked commission input on Supplement 2 because wanted to have commission comments on the entire EIR document in light of Commission rejection of the EIR,; originally staff brought both the EIR and project to Commission together because they did not feel that the regular citizen could distinguish between the EIR and the project. Chair Bojués thanked the public for their attendance and participation. He noted that the comments of the public and commission would be forwarded to the City Council; and closed the item. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. 6. REVIEW AND CONSIDER MODIFICATION TO OR SUSPENSION OF THE PROJECT AT 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE C. Keighran recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. She stepped down from the dias and left the Council Chambers. Reference staff report December 8, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-one conditions for Lot 9, forty conditions for Lot 10, and forty conditions for Lot 11 were suggested for consideration. CA Anderson noted that he could not represent the Planning Commission as legal counsel because he helped to develop the conditions of approval for the project, he can arrange for legal counsel if the Commission feels that is needed. Commissioner asked for clarification of what this project review is about and what are the alternatives. CA explained that when the developer violated the conditions of approval, the City responded by restructuring the conditions to make them less confusing by separating them out so that each lot will have its own set of conditions, this made the conditions more specific by lot, that the conditions for each lot be posted on a board at the site, require the developer to pay for a supervising certified arborist chosen by the City to oversee the developers' arborist. The intent is to make sure everyone understands what the rules are. CA noted that clarification is still needed on how the foundation pier holes will dug. Commission asked if the conditional use permit can be revoked altogether. CA noted that under California state law, the Planning Commission cannot revoke a permit which has already been granted unless it finds that the permit should not have been granted in the first place; CA also reminded the Commission that the permits run with the property regardless of who the applicant is; there was a misunderstanding of the finished floor elevation relative to the adjacent grade, pier locations and finished floor elevation does not work under the conditions imposed with the approved project. Commissioner asked if the City has had problems with this developer following conditions of approval on other projects in the past? CP noted that the only project he had a problem with in terms of compliance with City requirements in effect at the time of approval was one which he inherited from another applicant. Commission asked if the developer is overstretched in complying with all of the conditions of approval, does he have the time to devote make sure all contractors working on the project follow the conditions of approval? CP noted that staff was not qualified to answer for the developer. Cers. Bojués and Osterling noted for the record that the developer contacted them prior to the meeting to discuss the project. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 11 Continued Commission questions: Commissioner asked if the excavated area was backfilled because he could not clearly see the area on a site visit; yes, applicant backfilled area the day after it was excavated, area is located to the left and rear of the Redwood trees. Commissioner noted that he recalled requiring a plan showing the protective fencing and air spading around the Redwood trees, if the applicant complied with these requirements we would not have this problem today, have not seen a plan for the protective fencing, was air spading done? CP noted that a plan for the protective fencing was submitted by the applicant's arborist, but that air spading was not done. CA noted that the developer never reached the point of root investigation, the contractor jumped ahead and started excavating without the required root investigation. Commission noted that the pictures show exposed roots extending beyond the protective fencing and asked how far was the fence from the excavation? Plr Hurin noted that the excavation appeared to be approximately two feet from the fencing at its closest point. Commission asked how deep was the excavation and if staff had any pictures of the excavation? Plr indicated that the some excavated areas where clearly more than 20 inches deep, Planning staff does not have pictures of the excavation but noted that the applicant's arborist or the City Arborist may. Commission noted that the pictures submitted by a neighbor clearly show two strata of soil, the lower strata being darker. Commission asked if the protective fencing plan was reviewed by the City Arborist? Yes, the City Arborist reviewed and accepted the projective fencing plan and visited the site to make sure it was installed correctly. Commissioner asked what the reason was for revising condition #2 on Lot 9; wanted to make sure that when the three houses are separately sold the house designs on the three lots are consistent in scale and mass. Why was condition #29 on Lots 9 and 11 deleted? Condition #29 addressed the installation of the driveway on Lot 10 only. CA noted that condition #30b for Lots 9 and 10 regarding frequency of site inspection by a licensed arborist was revised so that it provides the flexibility for the City to require how often the site should be inspected. Commission asked why condition #31a requires a certified arborist on-site during hand digging; this condition requires that the developers' certified arborist be on site at all times to supervise the process and ensure the findings are incorporated; this condition was also revised to limit the hand digging for piers from a depth of 18 to 10 inches based on the developers' recommendation in the arborist report, if digging for the piers requires a greater depth it will be reviewed by the Commission, foundation type may change after further root investigation. Commission asked if there is a monetary fine associated with the stop work order; no, just prohibits the developer from doing any work on all three lots. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney representing Otto Miller, developer, and James Chu, project designer, were available to answer questions. Mr. Hudak noted that the developer is responsible for what happened since he is the "captain of the ship", did not intend or direct the excavation to occur, fully understood all conditions of approval for the houses, installed the protective fencing prior to demolition permit issuance, protective fencing was reviewed and approved by the City Arborist; demolition permit was issued after demolition requirements were met; next phase was to prepare the site, contractor was to fill in the empty swimming pool on Lot 11, was far enough away to not affect the Redwood trees; while waiting for fill material contractor decided to begin the clean-up on Lot 9, was unaware that the developers' arborist needed to be there during excavation, developer intended to start root investigation after Thanksgiving. Mr. Hudak also noted that of all the houses this developer has built in Burlingame and Hillsborough there have been no willful violations committed, unfortunately did not tell the contractor not to work on Lot 9, developer posted a $118,000 deposit with the City for the Redwood trees, the last thing he wants to do is damage the trees; certified arborist was not on the site at the time because excavation was not to occur yet, certified arborist assessed the roots and recommended that the excavated area be backfilled, contractor appeared to have over-compacted the backfill. The developer next met with City staff to discuss City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 12 how to proceed with the foundation type for the houses on Lots 9 and 10, do not want to redesign the houses now, need to conduct the air spading first to investigate the root system, will design foundation for houses based on what is found in the field; feel that the additional layer of supervision by an independent arborist and planner is an overreaction to the situation, but the developer is willing to cooperate if within reason; appreciate the conditions of approval being separated for each lot, construction of Lots 9 and 10 will be out of sequence with Lot 11, developer would like to complete construction on Lot 11 soon, offered revised language for conditions #31a and b and #27 in a memo provided to staff and Commission, do not want to spend time discussing the depth of the pier holes tonight since more information will be available after root investigation is completed by the certified arborist, then will know what type of foundation can be used. Commission asked why the air excavation was not completed? Mr. Hudak noted that it was not due to a misunderstanding of the condition of approval, it was due to poor communication with the contractor, contractor should have only been filling in the pool on Lot 11. Commissioner noted that while at the site noticed a tree stump at the front of Lot 10, was this tree ok to remove? Plr Hurin noted that the site plan indicates two trees to be removed at the front of Lot 10. Commission noted that by looking at the photographs 10 to 18 inches may not be deep enough to evaluate the roots for hand digging, may need to go deeper; Mr. Hudak noted that it depends on the location on the lot, hand digging will be done where practical, roots should be at surface. Commissioner noted that Redwood tree roots are shallow, it appears that the roots have gone through sand and hit clay, need to explore the root depth, engineer needs to look at root depth then determine what type of foundation can be used. Mr. Hudak noted that that the root exploration will be done with the City Arborist on site, then can determine if a pier and grade beam foundation is the appropriate type. Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, Rich Grogan, 1450 Columbus Avenue, Christ McCrum, 1540 Drake Avenue, Mark and Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue, John O'neal, 1516 Drake Avenue, expressed the following concerns with the project: apologized for submitted letter of concern today, hoped that the Commission would read it tonight, there is a lot information and misinformation needed to be brought forth, floored by the developer's actions, asked if City Arborist was present; no, staff tried to contact him today but was not available; after two years of trying to get the developer to protect the trees and avoid this from happening, Mayne Tree originally recommended that the development stay 20 feet from the Redwood trees, over time made allowances to protection, now have extensive root damage, important root system at risk; Commission needs to revoke or suspend current permits, would like to see a detailed arborist report done by an independent arborist and not by Mayne Tree, all new proposals and studies need new mitigation measures based on new plans, would like to see details of legal action against the developer, the contractor and Mayne Tree; floored to see backhoe ripping roots during excavation, watched as roots 5+ inches in diameter were snapped, told backhoe operator to stop, was told by contractor that the excavation was for the subfloor crawl space and that once finished with Lot 9 would go on to Lots 10 and 11, there was no miscommunication, this was not a clean up, excavation was for building pad on Lot 9; developer was gone all day during excavation, developer may have not told the contractor to excavate but the contractor had plans which called for a subfloor excavation on all three lots; was told by City Arborist that the developer's arborist new not to touch the site, City Arborist explained the requirements which needed to be met before any work commenced, called the City Arborist on Wednesday and told him that the excavated area was being backfilled, City Arborist indicated that the contractor may be filling in the pool and not the excavated area, called the City Arborist again to tell him that the contractor was filling the excavated area, building inspector confirmed, City Arborist noted that he was going to call the police; do not think Mayne Tree should be involved with this project, feel that the City Arborist is not taking this issue seriously; need to stop everything and do air spading, need to have independent arborist complete report, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 13 concerned with tree falling. Commissioner asked if the contractor was directed to dig? Neighbor noted that she didn't know for sure, but saw contractor on site with three sets of unapproved plans. Continued comment: asked Commission if they remember the situation with this developer on Poppy Drive several years ago, endangered an oak tree and cut it down, example of how developer was involved with not following conditions of approval on another site; need to now find out how roots were damaged, need to excavate by hand so C. Osterling can evaluate. C. Osterling noted that he would be interested in seeing the roots once the root exploration is complete, cannot comment on the roots because there is a conflict of interest, independent arborist will have to provide report on roots; approval of this project was issued prior to the proposed development at 1553 Drake Avenue, Commission needs to discuss properties as four lots, development on all four lots will greatly impact the neighborhood, development at 1553 Drake Avenue has not been resolved; when and how should there be consequences to the developers' actions; concerned with Mr. Huntington's arborist report, report indicates that roots to the north and west of the Redwood trees could have significant root loss, excavation occurred in these areas, need to pause, conduct root exploration and understand level of damage before allowing any construction on these sites; submitted six photos taken on November 26, package is incomplete, this is a four house multi-unit subdivision, need to review all four houses, concerned why contractor had three sets of unapproved plans on site, conditional use permit should be revoked because the circumstances have changed, need to considered the cumulative impact in accordance with the zoning code and CEQA, the developer's behavior is outrageous; feels that the developer is not overstretched because the project foreman lives at 1553 Drake Avenue, protective fencing was shoved out of the way during excavation and moved closer to the trees, protective fencing is moveable and the protective fencing plan is not adequate, Mr. Hudak talked about exploring the roots in the excavated area, the roots there were all removed with the excavation, swimming pool is 80 feet from the excavated area, pit varied in depth from 54 inches deep at its deepest point to 18 inches 50 feet away towards the rear of the lot, roots extend under utility easement and to 1529 Drake Avenue, many roots were severed; held up a 2'x4' piece of redwood and showed a damaged root from the site larger than 3½ inches in diameter, showed a 7 inch tall bottle for comparison, referred to photos submitted of damage to roots on site, also brought a larger root damaged by the excavation; feel that the developer, contractor and foreman willfully forfeited the right to develop on this property by their actions, developer cannot abide by the rules and should not be permitted to building in Burlingame. Commission noted that the root shown at the meeting was cut and asked who cut it? Neighbor indicated that this is only a portion of the severed root taken from the site, cut it at home so it could be brought to the meeting, also noted that the developer brought in additional gravel to the site two days after the stop work order was issued; came to public hearings for 16 months to preserve the neighborhood, have lived here for over 25 years, expressed considerable doubt that something bad would happen, this is a cost of doing business for the developer, he'll just pay his way out, developer builds the houses, makes a profit and leaves town, property owners have to live with the consequences, this is a pretty town to live in, but it makes no difference to the developer, something has to be done to stop this, has seen protective fencing moved several times, would like to see harsh penalties imposed; this is a disappointing situation, there are too many misunderstandings with the arborist, with the City, with the City Arborist, there are misunderstandings with what the distance should be from the trees to the protective fencing, depth of the excavated area, distance from the protective fencing to the excavated area, misunderstandings with the requirement to air spade, how deep the excavated area is and so on; this is not about the neighbors versus the developer, this is about the Planning Commission executing their responsibilities, Commission must bring resolution to this problem and interpret the rules, in addition to all of the misunderstandings there are too many data gaps on the Redwood trees, specifically need a certified Redwood tree arborist to serve as an City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 14 expert here; traffic issues have not been full resolved, looking to the Commission to provide leadership, they are the controlling body. Mr. Hudak noted that he has listened to the neighbors' and Commissions' concerns tonight, it would be most effective to have an independent certified arborist chose by the City on site as frequently as the City feels necessary, would like to work at solving this problem for the City and the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: need to clearly find the extent of the damage, there appears to be considerable damage but don't know how bad, independent certified arborist will assess and provide a report of damage, need more time to evaluate the conditions, can't decide on how to proceed with the project now until the investigation is complete. Commissioner asked if a certified Redwood tree expert is necessary? Commissioner noted that he doesn’t think that a Redwood tree expert can tell us more than Mr. Levison could (independent arborist recommended by the City), have worked with Mr. Levison in the past and feel that he is qualified; agree need to investigate damage to date, need to find out extend of excavation, need to have an analysis of conditions which would allow for a certain type of foundation; these actions undermine the confidence in the developer to abide by the conditions, need to assess the quality of conduct, need to get a clear picture of what is going on, feel that it was willfully done by the evidence presented; Commission needs to see legal advice regarding whether or not to suspend or revoke the permits granted, there is enough information now in the record; from day one the Redwood trees were an issue, developer was aware of this importance, and what resulted was possible damage to the Redwood trees. C. Keele moved to continue this item until the conditions and root damage have been properly investigated and until the foundation type for the houses has been developed. Comment on the motion: CA noted that he would find a law firm that could give the Commission legal advise about suspending or revoking the permits. Commission directed that the backfilled area needs to be uncovered under the supervision of an independent arborist. The Commission asked who is going to pay the independent arborist and any staff time associated with the project? CP noted that the developer would by responsible, this would also include an independent planner and building inspector if needed. C. Osterling noted that when the root excavation is opened up he would like to be at the site, suggested that developer should work under a plan during investigation and that this plan should be signed by the developer. Commission asked what happens if it is determined after the root investigation that the project is not buildable? CA noted that the plans as proposed are not buildable, if anything good came out of this situation is that the developer, based on the site conditions, will be able to design a foundation which will be buildable; would like to make it clear that the independent arborist is not obliged to approve this project, it is perfectly acceptable for the independent arborist to say that this project can't be built, he does not have to find a way to say yes; CA noted that the City does not have to give the developer design alternatives. Commissioner asked if there is a way to allow the development of Lot 11? CA noted that there may be a problem for the developer with phasing the construction on Lots 9 and 10, there may be a problem with material staging and access for Lot 9 and 10 if Lot 11 is developed and not available, the developer has asked if he could fill in the swimming pool for safety reasons; see no problem with allowing the developer to fill in the pool at this time so long as it is supervised. Commission asked if there were any penalties than can be imposed for backfilling after a stop work order was issued? CA noted that the next step would be to have a preliminary injunction issued by the superior court but that it is hard to do. Commission provided the following additional direction: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 15 • The developer is to pay for the independent arborist and planner chosen by the City; • Survey of roots and damage to be conducted; • Pool fill on Lot 11 to be completed only with proper supervision by a certified arborist; • The developer is to pay for any other personnel required to acquire the necessary data and complete the investigation; • After root excavation is completed, mapped and assessed, Mr. Huntington can make a recommendation to the independent arborist and City Arborist based on the site conditions; recommendations will then be reviewed by the independent arborist and City Arborist; • The independent arborist is to determine how much, location and the manner in which the current backfill is to be removed for investigation; independent arborist is to also provide method of root treatment; • Provide map on site plan showing location of roots; • Re-examine and determine location of protective fencing for roots, establish markers for perimeter of fencing, and regularly inspect protective fencing for compliance with plan; air spading could help in determining location of fence. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item until the information requested, including revised foundation plans, have been completed and reviewed by the City and arborist specialists.. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran abstained). This item concluded at 11:10 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of December 1, 2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of December 1, 2003. - FYI – Memo on Broadway Commercial Area Property Owner And Merchant Survey, November 2003. CP Monroe noted that that the property owner and merchant surveys were sent out and returned to the Planning Department. Conclusions were sent to the Planning Commission, City Council and posted on the website. This issue has been scheduled for discussion in January, 2004. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary S:\MINUTES\12.08.03.unapprovedminutes.doc