Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2003.05.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 27, 2003 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the May 27, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:07 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica (arrived at 7:08 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners: Commissioner Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 12, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The Safeway meeting minutes of April 28, 29, 30 and May 1, 2003 were scheduled for approval at the next Planning Commission hearing on June 9, 2003, when the changes had been received and made. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that item #8, 1550 Bernal Avenue, had been continued to a date uncertain. There were no additional changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1315-1317 MARSTEN ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS (DUKYON YOO, APPLICANT; LENO FRESCHET, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • can staff clarify number of parking spaces needed for the requested variance, is it four or five spaces; • would like to see a condition that the variance be applied only to this particular use and not to the property or any additional intensification of the site; • can the applicant address whether employees or customers will use the parking spaces; • it looks as if a loading zone on the street will be eliminated when the new curb cut is installed; has the effect of this been evaluated, can it be removed; • is there an existing problem to the traffic on Marsten Road caused by vehicles backing onto the street, area was not busy when a site visit was performed, but want to know if the City Traffic Engineer thinks that having vehicles back out onto Marsten Road from the required and tandem spaces will be a safety or congestion concern; • is there a side setback between the proposed tandem spaces and the building next door; if there is a setback it would be a great benefit for the area if the applicant were to install some landscaping, could consider an arbor next to the building to provide some interest on the site; • has the applicant considered off-site remote parking for the employees with a shuttle service to the site; and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 2 • the applicant should address more thoroughly the question about the hardship on the property for the requested variances. 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 7:19 p.m. 2. 856 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT (PAUL DIERCKS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SUZANNE DEHNE, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • applicant should consider adding more architectural detail to the garage so that it matches the character of the house; perhaps consider different garage doors and more rafter detail; and • the plan calls out four 24-inch box size Redwoods, they are large trees with extensive root systems, recommend planting just three Redwoods. This item was set for the regular action calendar after all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department and there is an available space on an the agenda. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 3. 836 MAPLE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE (GERARD MITCHELL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, JERRY DEAL, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • would like the applicant to explain if they considered the impact on the adjacent neighbor of a tandem garage. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department and there is an available space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. 4. 709-713 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR EXISTING NONCONFORMING CONDITIONS TO EXPAND AN EXISTING DUPLEX (JERRY WINGES, WINGES ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JACQUELINE DEPPIESSE, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Lewit presented a summary of the staff report. There were no questions regarding the project. The Commission commented that the requested changes are minimal and will not intensify the use of the site. Commission requested that staff condition the approval so that the variances would be tied to the proposed structure and be voided if the building envelope was expanded or demolished in the future. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 3 Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There was a request from the floor to call off item #5b, 1616 Rollins Road. C. Auran moved approval of item #5a, 2501 Hayward Drive, on the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 5b. 1616 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR PERMIT EXTENSION FOR AN APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR PARKING IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PETER O’HARA, PACIFIC PROPERTY ASSET MGMT., APPLICANT; NEAL MARTIN, PLANNER/CONSULTANT; SANJAYLYN COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 05.27.03, with attachments. Plr Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Peter O'Hara, property owner, was present to answer questions. The Commission asked the owner to explain what complications were encountered in trying to receive the necessary approvals from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Department of Fish and Game, and Fish and Wildlife Services, did the complications involve a specific species or were they bureaucratic. The owner explained that the project was required to get approvals from four public agencies, approvals have been granted from 3 of the 4 agencies the fourth approval is expected within the next couple of days. The owner assured the Commission that all of the conditions required as mitigation for the environmental document approved by the Commission could, and would be met with. The only change to the plans approved by the Commission was that the Department of Fish and Game required the elimination of two of the proposed parking spaces. CP Monroe noted that since the parking in the drainage easement is supplemental and does not include any required parking, the elimination of two parking spaces does not require a variance. In response to the public comments she explained that the zoning code allows supplemental parking in the drainage easement as a conditional use, required parking is not permitted because the easement occasionally floods and the spaces are not available during the flooding. Tim Sterling, 1617 Rollins Road, spoke with concerns about businesses parking in the drainage easements, unsure if the Burlingame Municipal Code allows businesses in the drainage easement, he owns a business at 1617 Rollins Road and feels that the parking uses in the drainage easement have a negative impact on the surrounding businesses. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to approve the extension of the permit for on year, by resolution, with the following original conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 4 January 17, 2002, site plan, parking plan, and grading and drainage plan, sheets 1 through 5; with the parking for the ambulance serve and their employees shifted to the south end of the site and 185 parking spaces for auto storage at the north end of the site, a fence shall separate the two parking areas and only the area to the north shall be used for auto storage without amendment to this use permit; 2) that the site shall be used for long term hotel/motel parking only for up to 185 vehicles to be brought to and from the site from hotel/motel employees and/or valets; the site shall not be used for airport self parking; personal vehicle owners are not permitted to bring their vehicle to the site to and from the site; 3) that the long term hotel/motel parking use on the subject property shall be subject to the regulations of resolution 87-2001 approved by the Burlingame City Council on July 23, 2001 requiring a business license tax on operators of commercial parking facilities in the City of Burlingame; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s March 12, 2001 memo shall be met; 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 6) the project shall obtain necessary permits to meet the standards of the required permitting agencies including: California Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Resources Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 7) the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Engineer and approved by the City Engineer before a grading permit is issued. All applicable requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including the following listed below; 8) the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system and the drainage ditch at the rear of the property; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil; 9) the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system and the drainage ditch at the rear of the property; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of the project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 10) off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 11) methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 12) all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 13) each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site; 14) that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters, then the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 – April 1); 15) as part of this proposal, the applicant shall replace the broken 21 inch stormwater drain that is located in the rear easement (behind 1600 Rollins Road, in front of the three PG&E towers), that is part of the subject property, with a new 21 inch re-enforced concrete pipe that will daylight at the rear drainage channel below the top of the bank in the drainage channel at a point in the channel approved by the City Engineer; 16) the site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 17) all vehicles to be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 5 stored on-site for long term hotel/motel parking shall not be moved during the peak traffic hours, and shall only be moved during off-peak traffic hours from 9:30a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the weekdays, with no time restrictions on moving vehicles on Saturday and Sunday; 18) a K-rail barrier shall be installed along the top of the drainage ditch. This barrier shall include 13 one-way ramps to allow the movement of frogs back into the drainage ditch, should they be trapped in the parking area; 19) all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; 20) the property owner shall provide access easement rights to the City of Burlingame for maintenance with the drainage easement. The City of Burlingame shall be held harmless for any property damage which might occur as a result of flooding within the drainage easement adjacent spur track right-of- way. The property owner shall repair, to City standards, the 21 inch drain line and extend it to the drainage channel; 21) the property owners shall prepare an access plan for the maintenance and repair for all the power towers on the site which shall be approved by the City Engineer and proper representation of PG&E before a grading permit shall be issued; 22) the improvements over the drainage channel shall not compromise the surface drainage flow to the drainage ditch at the rear of 1616 Rollins Road and shall not compromise the holding capacity of the basin during flooding. No fencing shall obstruct existing surface drainage into and through the easement from the adjacent parcels. All the vehicles shall be relocated during flood situations; 23) fencing shall be required around the site except where it might obstruct drainage during flooding in the drainage easement; and 24) if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during grading and construction, all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 6. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR TWO ATTACHED GARAGES TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT C. Keighran noted that she would abstain from voting for the project because she lives within 500 feet of the site and she left the chambers. Reference staff report 05.27.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-five conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission had the following comments: concerned about the health of the trees during excavation on the site for utility lines such as water, sewer and gas; can condition #17 be revised to also require a Certified arborist to observe and monitor excavation for those activities on site; and have differing expert opinions about the tree protection before us, is difficult to make a decision until we know better the location of the roots, would like to see the applicant perform an air spade root survey along the proposed driveway area for Lot 10. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, attorney representing the applicant, was present and made the following comments: it is the opinion of two qualified experts, Rick Huntington of Mayne Tree Company and the City Arborist, who have visited the site and performed exploratory digging since the study meeting, that the mitigation measures proposed will protect the Redwood trees; the applicant has been before the Commission time and time again, he has made all the requested changes to the design and agrees to the mitigation measures to protect the trees, it is a hardship for the Commission to require new City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 6 information at each successive meeting based on new information submitted by the neighbors at the eleventh hour, when they have had the last year and a half to comment; disagree with the practicality of condition #29, as worded it would require an arborist to be on site during any excavation or digging, even if the activity is 100 feet from the root protection zone; and questions the legality of condition #35, who will be chosen to determine the penalty fee, the condition is discriminatory because no penalty fee has ever been assessed to any other applicant for trees on any other project, as written the condition makes the developer responsible for paying this arbitrary fee for up to five years, without even a consideration if the death of the tree is a result of the construction on the site or some other cause, agree that a penalty fee is in order, but that fee should be known and only be applied if the mitigation measures put in place by the consulting arborist and by the City are violated by the developer. Joe McBride, landscape ecologist, 1611 Allston Way, Berkeley, spoke on behalf of Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue, noting: appears that 40% of some of the root systems for the Redwood trees will be covered by the foundation or driveway paving for the houses on Lots 9 and 10, which would prevent water and nutrients from being taken in by the trees; the sewer lines for the new homes must come in from the street and the excavation for these lines could encounter major tree roots and cause a great deal of damage to the health of the trees; the removal of the existing utility lines and foundation may also harm the trees and there don't appear to be enough safeguards in place to monitor this work; and would like to see that the root protection area established is based on the original dripline of the tree (based on the 12-foot limb extensions), which has been altered because the developer already trimmed the lowest and longest branches of the Redwoods. Commission asked: understand that the smaller surface roots are feeder roots and that roots larger than 3 inches in diameter are generally anchoring roots for the tree, in your opinion is there a threshold for the number of these surface roots that could be cut without damaging the tree? Maybe 30% of the surface roots could be cut. Are the driplines shown on the plans are accurate? The driplines shown on the plans are accurate and appear to reflect the conditions prior to the trees being trimmed. Would your opinion about the foundation covering the roots being a danger to the trees be altered based on the information that there is a high water table in Burlingame? Not privy to any specific soils information about the site on Drake, but a high water table would affect the water absorption behaviors of the trees. Rick Huntington, Certified arborist for Mayne Tree Company, representing the developer for the project, noted: dug along the path for the driveway on Lot 10, only exposed two roots that would have to be cut, didn't encounter any surface roots; concern over who may be chosen to do the appraisal of the trees required by condition #35, expert opinions and valuation can differ by a wide margin; and more exploration on the site to locate large roots is appropriate, but must be done carefully because the exploration could cause more damage than the actual demolition and construction. Commission asked Mr. Huntington: Saw your trenching on the site, is exploration comprehensive or could there be additional roots beyond the trenching; do you feel the pervious paver driveway proposed will allow adequate absorption pf water and nutrients by the Redwoods? Only additional digging on the site will indicate where roots might be; and the driveway is designed with a minimal compaction and it is his opinion that roots beneath the driveway will still be able to thrive. Would it be better for the house on Lot 10 to be moved further away from the trees? Impossible to answer because it is not known at this time exactly where the roots are located. Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, and Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, spoke: apologize for not submitting a response to the Mayne Report by her consulting arborist Barrie Coate, but she did not have enough time to review and pass on the most recent information submitted by the developer; have had the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 7 same concerns about the trees since the original project was submitted a year and half ago, have voiced these concerns to the Commission all along and disagrees with Mr. Hudak's comment that the neighbors repeatedly submit last minute comments and information; the staff report, conditions of approval and the information submitted by the developer still do not specify the extent of the pier and grade beam foundation; concerned mainly because the differences between the opinions by Mayne, the City Arborist, Barrie Coates and now Joe McBride are such large differences, for instance the recommended protection zones do not differ by one foot, but by about 7 or 10 feet; feel the Commission should follow the suggestion to do a root survey so that the project can be fully evaluated before the Commission makes a decision. Mr. Hudak responded to the various public comments: the mitigations required by the conditions of approval for the project already insure that demolition and construction will proceed slowly and cautiously with constant monitoring by Rick Huntington and the City Arborist; request that the Commission let the project proceed with the conditions in place, if the further investigations required by the conditions of approval reveal that the project cannot be built as proposed, then the developer will return to the Commission with alternatives. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: driveway on Lot 10 seems to be the major concern, but do not see evidence based on the available information that the health of the trees would be better served by moving the driveway to the other side of the lot, agree that the siting of the houses is the best design solution, but not sure that it is the best solution for the trees, and concerned about the grading plan for the site and it's affect on the trees. Commission asked the City Arborist: What is the risk assessment to the trees of the project as currently proposed? The mitigation measures in proposed are adequate to insure the protection of the Redwood trees; he would have grave concerns about the use of an air spade to further investigate the region around the tree because the investigation could cause damage to the trees. Driveway on Lot 10 seems to be the biggest threat to the health of the trees, will the feeder roots underneath the pavers for the driveway be able to survive, can nutrients from fertilizer get through the driveway? Believe the proposed driveway will still allow the trees to absorb the necessary water and nutrients, currently the City allows the replacement of concrete sidewalks adjacent to planter strips with trees with paver sidewalks and the trees in the planter strip are typically much better off. The trees could be fertilized in that manner. Might the roots raise the driveway and cause damage in the future? Based on experience with trees in the City planter strips, yes this could happen. Further Commission discussion: would like to condition project so that if there are any future problems with the house foundations or driveways, the houses will be fixed and the Redwood trees cannot be removed and the Redwood roots cannot be cut to solve the problem; would like to have a condition prohibiting the cutting of the Redwood tree roots or the laying of concrete for the driveway on Lot 10 if in the future the roots raise the driveway pavers; need to insure that any future owners of Lots 9 and 10 are fully aware of the conditions placed on each property, they must be called out particularly in the deeds for the houses; would like to see this project proceed, is it possible to allow demolition and construction to proceed while further investigation is done in the area of the driveway on Lot 10 that may affect the trees; would like to see the detailed landscape plan required by condition #33 to be submitted and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuing a Building permit; the plan should show proposed plantings within the tree dripline, proposed irrigation, lighting, mulching, etc.; could condition the project so that if further investigation by an air spade results in a problem that cannot be mitigated by flipping the driveway and the house on Lot 10, then the project must come back to the Commission with alternatives for development; concerned that if the driveway on Lot 10 cannot be built as proposed and the developer flips the house on that lot, would like to City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 8 see plans if house and driveway are reversed on Lot 10 because the house at the new location may encroach into the canopy of the trees. Commission continued: if condition #35 is appropriate and what measures might be taken by the City in the event that the trees are not preserved. The CA responded that he believes that it is legal for condition #35 to place a value on the trees based on their presence in the community, many cities currently use landscape bonds, the City of Burlingame currently enforces penalty bonds for damage to public trees or protected trees on private land, that he would recommend that the developer submit a security for the tree penalty prior to the start of demolition on the site, and that the conditions proposed add a stop work function, to which the Commission might add, that in the event that a stop work order is issued on the site, the project shall come back to the Commission for review. Additional Commission comment: the special permits requested for Lots 9 and 11 are justified because they reduce the size of the dwellings on those lots, the chart included in the staff report which compares the original proposal with the current proposal shows that the floor area of the dwellings on Lot 9 and 11 have been reduced by 15% and 17.5% respectively, and the total for the 3 lots by 8%, which is in line with the recommendations of the City Council, believe this reduction is the real progress in the project. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the conditions listed in the staff report plus and additional conditions to require further investigation for the driveway on Lot 10 to be done with an air spade, to make sure that any future problems with the house or driveway are resolved without damaging or removing the trees, and to amend condition #33 to require a full landscape plan approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of a Building permit. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Discussion on the motion: would like to add that condition #29 be amended so that the a certified arborist is only required to monitor the site during construction when the designated tree protection area could be violated, would like to require that the digging for the new utility hook-ups be monitored by an arborist, condition #35 should be modified to change the penalty fee to a security bond that the developer posts and gives up in the event that the tree health is compromised within the period of demolition, construction, or the post-construction 5-year period stipulated after it is determined that the ill effects are due to the construction or lack of maintenance on the site. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to all the proposed amendments to the conditions. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote to approve the project with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.5 and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheet L-1 for Lot 9; and date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 and A.6, date stamped April 2, 2003, sheets A.2, A.3 and A.5, and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheets A.4 and L1 for Lot 10; and date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1, A.3 and L.1 and date stamped April 2, 2003, sheets A.2, A.4 and A.5; and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building or the tree protection plan or tree trimming shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4) that prior City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 9 to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer=s April 8, May 31, June 4, August 15 , August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the Fire Marshal=s September 3, 2002 memo, the Chief Building Inspector=s August 5, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002 memo, and the City Arborist's September 3, 2002, and April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos shall be met; 7) that a conditional use permit shall be required before any demolition or construction is allowed on site; and that the three residences proposed on Lots 9, 10, and 11 shall complete the design review process and be approved by the Planning Commission before any demolition or construction is allowed on site; 8) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. All requirements of the permit shall be complied with; 9) that there shall no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lots 9, 10, or 11; 10) that no construction equipment or material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during demolition or construction on the site; 11) all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. There shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 12) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 13) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer's expense if necessary; 14) that the new sewer laterals from the three lots developed with the current application to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 15) that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 16) that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 17) that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the applicant shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 18) that the applicant shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe, from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue and through the back easements along Lots 9, 10 and 11, to a point ending at the southeastern property corner of Lot 9, with a 2-inch copper pipe, as directed and approved by the City Engineer; 19) the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way before receiving a Building permit; 20) that the applicant shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the applicant's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval, noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 21) that the contractor shall submit the “Recycling and Waste Reduction” form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan; 22) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 23) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 24) that the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before any demolition or construction takes place on the site; 25) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 26) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 10 the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 27) that before a Building Permit is issued an exploratory digging investigation using an air spade or other proper means along the path of the driveway for Lot 10 shall be conducted by a Certified arborist and monitored by the City Arborist to determine if the driveway can be installed as proposed; the results of the investigation shall be submitted in a written report by the Certified arborist for approval by the City Arborist; should the City Arborist determine that the investigation shows that the driveway should not be installed because it results in measurable damage to the Redwood trees, the developer shall revise the plans for Lot 10 , have a certified arborist evaluate the effects of the revision on the Redwood trees and their canopy, and the Planning Commission shall review and approve the proposed changes as an amendment to the original permits; and that no installation work on the driveway or landscaping on the site shall occur until construction of the dwellings and accessory structures is completed on Lots 9, 10, and 11; 28) that the protective fencing for the tree cluster at the front of Lot 10 and the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit; that the established root protection fencing shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction; that the established root protection fencing may be disturbed for the exploratory digging investigation for the driveway on Lot 10, but that during this investigation and during construction on the site the area disturbed by the investigation shall be protected in a manner recommended in writing by a Certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist; and that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on the three houses and the applicant is ready to install the driveway on Lot 10 and the landscaping on Lots 9 and 10 and until the City Arborist and Building Department inspect the site and approve removal of the root protection fencing in writing; 29) that driveway on Lot 10 shall be constructed of pavers set in sand, with a maximum cut below grade of 10 inches and a base compaction determined by a certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist; that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during grading for the driveway on Lot 10 and must be cut to install the driveway, the situation shall be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to cutting any roots; and that if at any time the certified arborist on site or the City Arborist feels the number of roots to be cut to install the driveway on Lot 10 is significant, a stop work order shall be issued for the site until the City Arborist determines whether it is necessary to relocate the driveway; 30) that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, grading for the driveway on Lot 10, during the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots 9 and 10, and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; and that a licensed arborist, approved by the City and funded by the developer, shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately; and that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the developer and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and the City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 31) that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for the foundations on Lot 9 and 10 shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches; and that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the pier shall be relocated; if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 3 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 32) that, based on root City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 11 locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the applicant shall submit a detailed foundation report for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation on Lots 9 and 10 prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 33) that the applicant shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; 34) that the fence post holes shall be hand-dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; and that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 35) Tree Maintenance: A. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on Lots 9 and 10, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the April 28, 2003 Mayne Tree Company report as well as such additional recommendations as the developer shall receive from a certified arborist; B. The developer shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discussed the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the developer shall submit an appraisal for each of the six (6) Redwood trees on the site from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the developer shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; 36) that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as and arborist; 37) that before issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the three (3) lots involved in the application identifying the six (6) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of each of the three lots and: A. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and possible criminal prosecution; and 38) 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 passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Keighran abstaining and C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:48 p.m. C. Keighran returned to the dais. Chair Bojués called for a five-minute recess. The Commission reconvened at 10:02 p.m. 7. 1415 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS AND FOR City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAVID DEWEY, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 05.27.03, with attachments. Plr Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Dave Dewey, owner and applicant, was present to answer questions. He noted that the existing garage has over 200 SF of storage and the proposed garage is only increasing the storage area by 40 SF. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented that the proposed request was for minimal storage in the garage and in visiting the site, it was obvious that the Monterey Pines in the backyard would make it difficult to build a two-car garage with side-by-side parking. C Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 2, 2003, Sheet A-1 and A-2; 2) that the 600 SF accessory structure shall be used for parking and storage only; shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes or as a second dwelling unit; and shall not include additional utility services and/or a toilet without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official’s memos dated March 24, 2003 memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 5) 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. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:12 p.m. 8. 1550 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE LAUGESON BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT (ITEM CONTINUED) 9. 1021 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER; RICHARD DWYER, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 05.27.03, with attachments. Plr Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, was present to answer questions. The Commission asked: will the tree have to be trimmed to build the proposed house, if the canopy will be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 13 affected the entire tree should be trimmed for balance and not just the area next to the proposed roof, has the applicant considered bringing the height of the house down further, house still seems tall in relation to the neighboring residences, plus reduced height would pull the roof away from the tree canopy, could the applicant reduce the roof pitch from 7:12 to 6:12 to lower the height by one foot and eliminate the special permit request, and will the site be graded to accommodate the house. The designer responded that the tree will probably have to be trimmed and the applicant would have a Certified arborist do the work, the height was already reduced by eight inches from the original proposal, but the designer would be agreeable to a condition that required a 6:12 roof pitch to further reduce the height of the ridge, the house was designed so that the finished floor sits 12 inches above the existing grade on the site so that no grading will be necessary. Bill Roberts, 1020 Cortez Avenue, and Andrew Styoa, 1024 Cortez Avenue, spoke regarding the project. They noted that they appreciated the changes to the project suggested by the Commission and made by the applicant, they feel the project will be an asset to the neighborhood, but still think the house is too tall in comparison to the surrounding residences. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: substantial changes have been made to the project, but feel the overall height still merits a look, the suggested change to a 6:12 roof pitch will not affect the aesthetics of the dwelling, disagree that substantial changes have been made to the design, brought up at the last meeting that this is a very special site and the interior lay-out of the house should take advantage of the creek views, this creek is an important open space, it is an asset to the neighborhood and the proposed design of the house adjacent to it doesn't take advantage of the setting, think that the project should go back to the applicant for a complete redesign. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with an added condition to require that the roof pitch be reduced to 6:12, which should reduce the overall height by about a foot and eliminate the need for the special permit. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Discussion on the motion: would the maker of the motion and the second agree to a condition requiring that the oak tree closest to the right elevation of the proposed house be trimmed for balance throughout by a Certified arborist. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the added condition. Further Commission discussion: agree with the comment that the house design does not reflect the uniqueness of the creek lot, would the maker of the motion also agree to a condition to reduce the first floor plate height from 9'-0" to 8'-8" to further reduce the height of the house. The maker of the motion agreed to the condition. The second did not agree to the condition. Further comment: the 9'-0" plate height is appropriate to the style of the house, the four inch difference will not substantially reduce the impact of the ridge height, feel that the interior layout of the house could be designed to better take advantage of the creek, but that the Commission's concern is with the exterior of the dwelling and that is well designed and appropriate to the setting. C. Vistica revised the motion to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 14, 2003, sheets A.1 – A.6, L.1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, 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, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that a new 6'-0" tall wood fence, with 1'-0" of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 14 lattice, shall be installed along the rear property line; 4) that the measures included in the tree protection plan, as shown on sheet L.1, date stamped May 14, 2003, shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit and shall be complied with during construction; 5) that twelve existing trees on site shall not be removed and the applicant shall have an arborist's report prepared which documents how each tree on the site should be protected during construction, this report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist and the contractor shall call for the Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a building permit shall be issued, and that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the arborist's report; 6) that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; and failure to comply with the tree protection measures shall result in a stop work order and review by the Planning Commission; 7) that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified arborist's report detailing a three year protection plan with post- construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing prior to building permit issuance; the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for three years after construction is finalled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the three-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the three-year period; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Official's, and Recycling Specialist's April 21, 2003 memos, and the City Arborist's April 24, 2003, memo shall be met; 9) 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; 10) 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; 11) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 12) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 13) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building envelope; 14) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 15) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 16) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 17) that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation; 18) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 19) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 15 traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 20) that fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are installed around the construction site as a barrier to prevent erosion and construction runoff into the stream; 21) that oils, fuels, solvents, coolants and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage by structures such as berms and roof covers; bulk materials stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage with berms and covers; equipment stored outdoors shall be stored on impermeable surfaces, shall be covered and shall be inspected for property functioning and leaks; all storage areas shall be regularly cleaned, including sweeping, litter control and a spill cleanup plan; 22) that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run- off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 23) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 24) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 25) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 26) that prior to the issuance of a Building permit, the applicant shall revise the plans to show a 6:12 pitch on the main dwelling and shall reduce the overall height of the dwelling to 30'-0" or less in height; failure to lower the height to less than 30'-0" shall require review by the Planning Commission; 27) that prior to a Building permit being issued, the applicant shall submit a written report from a Certified arborist, to be approved by the City Arborist, to address the balanced trimming of the protected size oak tree to the right of the of the dwelling; and that the recommended trimming shall be completed and inspected by the City Arborist before the scheduling of a final Building Department inspection; and 28) 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. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Cers. Auran and Brownrigg dissenting, C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:37 p.m. 10. 1505 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WILSON NG, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DEREK PRINCE, PROPERTY OWNER) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 05.27.03, with attachments. Plr Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Wilson Ng, applicant and designer, was present to answer questions. Commission noted that the window detail and eave detail shown on sheet A-12 are not accurate and must be revised before submittal for the Building permit to reflect what is shown on the elevations. The applicant responded that the details would be revised. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: this project is a testimony to the effectiveness of the design review process, the revised design is a great improvement over the original application. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 24, 2003, sheets A-1 through A-12 and sheet T-, including landscaping, and that any changes to building materials, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 16 exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's December 30, 2002 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 24, 2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's December 26, 2002 memo shall be met; 7) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. 8) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 9) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:43 p.m. 11. NEW REGULATIONS TO REQUIRE INCLUSION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IN NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH FOUR OR MORE LOTS OR THREE OR MORE MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS- CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report 05.27.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the ordinance noting that the changes that the Commissioners had suggested at the study meeting have been incorporated into the ordinance. These amendments include: adding a minimum unit size for affordable units; requiring affordable units to be consistent with the unit layout and construction materials of the market rate units; adding an incentive for very low and low income units of one on-site parking space per all one bedroom units (market rate and affordable in the project); providing 50% compact ratio as an incentive for projects which require more than 10 on-site parking spaces. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: feel that requiring one unit in a four unit project to be affordable is a stringent requirement, 25% of such developments while the requirement is only 8% (one unit of twelve units) of a project with 12 units; do not feel that the incentives offered are sufficient for a smaller development, does not seem to be sufficient to add parking to a small project. CA noted that affordable homeownership unit is $240,000 which is a fair price for a one-bedroom unit, rent would be $1,600 per month, ordinance is more of an expression that the city does not want all future units to be luxury. Important point this housing is for moderate income households as well, this is one of the most expensive places to live in the country; when subcommittee looked at the incentives felt that they may allow someone with a lot which would now City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 17 accommodate 4 units to add a fifth unit which could be affordable; complement Subcommittee and staff, feel that this is a good place to start with this type of regulation, can revisit in a couple of years and adjust, if necessary. Chair Bojués moved to recommend the ordinance as presented establishing regulations for inclusionary housing to the City Council for approval. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the proposed inclusionary zoning regulation ordinance to the City Council for approval. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10.50 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 12. 1444 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EDWARD AND ELIZABETH WATSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Una Kinsella , applicant and architect, was present to answer questions. She noted that she had worked with the owners to bring much needed detail to the rear elevation the existing dwelling. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented that the project was well done, the architect had done a great job in improving the existing rear elevation. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at the next available meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:57 p.m. 13. 2838 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A LOT WITH A SLOPE GREATER THAN 10% (MICHAEL GAUL, APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER, DESIGNER) (24 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked about the drainage on the site. SE Monaghan explained that the sewer would be required to be brought up to the level of the street at Adeline Drive, but that the surface stormwater run-off was allowed to drain down the site and because of the configuration of the neighbor's driveway, the run-off would be directed to a culvert under the Sister's of Mercy property. The Commission asked for clarification of the safety ramifications of the proposed 18% slope on the driveway. The SE commented that any driveway slope beyond 20% must be approved by the Planning Commission, the proposed slope is less then 20%, but still not accessible to a fire truck so the applicant is required to install fire sprinklers in the attic of the dwelling, any steepening of the slope on the driveway would not additionally impact fire access on the site; Commission needs to determine if the proposed slope is appropriate and practical for private access to the building area on site. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 18 Commission noted that the following concerns should be addressed in the environmental document: • evaluate a detailed erosion plan, including monitoring, for the grading of the site for the building pad and for the driveway; • the landscape plan should be evaluated for erosion control measures; • will the stumps of the removed eucalyptus trees be ground; if not how will they be treated; • the affect the removal of the eucalyptus trees will have on the views from surrounding properties; • the Sister's of Mercy have a trail on their property that they allow the public to use, how will the proposed development, and in particular the rear elevation of the house, rear property line fence and the landscaping, impact the views from the trail; • what tree protection measures are needed for the trees that will remain on the site; and • what is the proposed design and engineering required for the driveway, will there be retaining walls and how high will they be, will the height of the walls be sufficient to prevent runoff and soil erosion onto the roots of the remaining trees on the site. Commission also asked that staff or the applicant address the following issues on the plans and in the processing of the application: • story poles should be erected at the time the design of the house is finalized; • does the lower floor plan meet the 10% ventilation requirement; and • clarify on the plans exactly which trees will remain on the site. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Michael Gaul, applicant and owner, was present to answer questions. He explained to the Commission that he is proposing to remove the Eucalyptus trees so that he can develop the site, but the neighbors are in full support of removing the trees because of the potential fire hazard. He intends to reforest the site with native species such as Coast Live Oak. He commented that he would prefer to increase the slope of the driveway beyond 20% because that would allow the house to be built closer to the front of the property at Adeline Drive and thereby increasing the privacy on the site, as well as reducing the impact of the house on the trail on the Sister's of Mercy property. He noted that the exact number of trees to be removed will be determined by the engineering for the driveway and the plans will be revised accordingly. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission referred this item to a study calendar at a time when the revisions were made to the plans and the environmental document has been prepared. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:35 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 12, 2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the City Council at their meeting on May 19, 2003. She noted that the Council Budget Study Session was set for May 28, 2003, at 5:00 p.m. in the Lane Room at the Library. The public hearing for the ordinance which would change the appeal period was set by Council for public hearing on June 2, 2003. Cers. Brownrigg and Keele have been reappointed to full terms on the Commission which will expire in April 2007. - Committee to work with Broadway Merchants City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 19 CP Monroe reported on her meeting with the Broadway merchants and property owners. She noted that they would like to meet with her and a couple of Commissioners to discuss ways to adjust the regulations in the Broadway overlay zone to encourage filling the current vacancies on Broadway. Cers. Brownrigg and Auran volunteered. She will try to set up a meeting for Thursday, June 5, 2003. - Chair asked Staff to put Subcommittee assignments on the Planners Reports Chair Bojués asked that staff put a discussion of Subcommittee assignments on the Planners Reports for the next meeting. He asked the commissioners to think about what their choices might be and to call him if they wished to change. The Subcommittees are: North End/Rollins Road Planning Area, Bayfront Planning Area, Neighborhood Consistency (Design Review), and Housing Element Implementation. CP Monroe noted that both the advanced planning programs would be winding up by January but the Subcommittees would be involved in developing the implementing zoning. - Follow-up items Commission has discussed looking at guidelines for developing on lots adjacent to creeks or with protected trees and for development on emerging standard lots. These items were referred to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcomittee. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary APPROVEDMINUTES 05.27.03