Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2008.05.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Tuesday, May 27, 2008 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES May 12, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. FROM THE FLOOR VI. STUDY ITEMS 1219 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area — application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for expansion of an existing food establishment (DES Architects and Engineers, applicant and architect; and David Armanino, property owner) Project Planner: Erica Strohmeier 2. 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive, zoned Unclassified — application for amendment to Conditional Use Permit to increase' floor area of the proposed Professional Office Building for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project (Mills -Peninsula Health Services, applicant; Peninsula Health Care District, property owner; and Anshen + Allen, architect) Project Planner: Maureen Brooks 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. 3a. 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1 — application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Parking Variance and Special Permit for a new basement for a first and second story addition to a single family residence (John C. Lee, applicant and architect; and David Zhang, property owner) (35 noticed) Project Planner: Erica Strohmeier (continued from April 28, 2008 and May 12, 2008 Planning Commission meetings) 3b. 1226 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 — application for a new, four-story 9-unit residential condominium project (1226 El Camino LLC, applicant and property owner; and Kirk Miller Affiliates, architect) (108 noticed) Project Planner: Ruben Hurin (continued from April 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting) a. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, and Parking Variance b. Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative and Final Parcel Map for Lot Combination 3c. 1425 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A — application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for a food establishment to change the hours of operation and number of employees (Laura Leff, applicant; and Gregory J. Gormey, property owner) (30 noticed) Project Planner: Ruben Hurin made available Page 1 will be m Any writingsor documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. ?P�;�� D � C 13 /S-41-1wdoz 7� COMMUNICATIONRECEIVED n AFTER PREPARATION OFSTAFFREPORT 1317 Cabrillo Avenue Agenda Item #8 - 05.27.08 PC Mtg. COMMUNICATION RECEIVE .4FTER PREPARATION OFSTAFFREPORT Dear City Council & Planning Commission Members: May 23, 2008 RE: Parking Problems with the new Hospital. First, I would like to thank all of the City Council and Planning Commissioners for their help with this large hospital project in the past. Mills -Peninsula (M/P) recently is asking for another floor to the MOB building which will house 25 more doctors probably seeing patients every 15 minutes and causing more traffic and parking problems. I am hoping that the Planning Commission will add more protections for the neighbors with the new M/P request especially with parking. Some back up information: The Planning Commission has been receiving a complaint log from M/P. On Feb 6, 2008, I sent a letter to the Mitigation Monitoring Panel and to the City showing written email proof that there were complaints that were not on the complaint log such as parking problems and etc. The neighbors are concerned and wonder if the employee of M/P can be keeping this log and if there is a possible conflict of interest. This same employee also told a member of the public at the last Panel meeting that she could no longer record the meetings. We understand that M/P has been trying to control the parking problems by putting notes on cars and recently using their security people. The security people have helped but when they stop checking the cars the problem starts to come back. We believe that it could get worse when they no longer have to keep control of the parking. Mr. Merwin, CEO of M/P, in a flyer to his employees said in part "We agreed to keep cars off the street'. With M/P new request we are hoping that you will put in more protections for the neighbors especially with the parking issue. Some suggestions have been that M/P might hire a full time person to monitor the area everyday to help control the problems. Another suggestion is to have M/P come back to the city if the problem continues which would leave the door open for the city to re -visit the issue if needed. I thank you for hearing our concerns and any help would be appreciated. Terry Huebner 650 692-3303 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California May 12, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the May 12, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. If. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Commissioner Vistica moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes ofthe Apri128, . 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: Page 1, Roll Call: delete "Osterling" Page 1, Minutes: change minutes date to `April 14, 2008" Page 2, Item 2, Commission Comments: revise first bullet to read: "Clarify the design of the accessory structure exiting the garage, looks too utilitarian, could have more characterto encourage use of the outdoor area". Motion passed 6-0-1 (CommissionerAuran abstaining). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Cauchi noted that Agenda Item 9 (2700 Summit Drive) has been withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant. V. FROM THE FLOOR Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; representing "Holiday Inn Express' and "Max's Opera Cafe'; thanked staff for its work on the proposed Sign Ordinance amendments, and suggested minor language changes to clarify the intent of the provisions related to non -conforming pole signs. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 22, THE SIGN CODE, TO EXEMPT CERTAIN POLE SIGNS IN THE SL DISTRICT FROM COMPLIANCE, AMEND HEIGHTSALLOWED FOR MONUMENT SIGNS IN THE RR, C- 1 AND C-2 DISTRICTS, AND CORRECT A REFERENCE REGARDING WALL SIGN AREA. PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Senior Planner Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 12, 2008. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 City Attorney Anderson described the options available to the Commission. Ken White, representing PHS/SPCA; indicated he was available for questions. He noted that PHS/SPCA intends to move forward with the project. Commission comments: Haven't denied an extension request in the past. Public comment: Oscar Braun, representing "Save the Bay"; Jennifer Renk, Luce, Forward, Hamilton and Scripps, attorney for PHS/SPCA; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke; "Save the Bay" has legal standing in the application; requested that a full public hearing be held on the requests. Cited documentation for non- compliance with disposal requirements of PHS/SPCA; "Save the Bay" would like to put theirconcerns on the record at a public hearing; the lawsuit referenced by Braun has no relationship to the PHS/SPCA request, the court has thrown out the suit; there is no reason to prolong the decision; removing the item from the Consent Calendar in effect caused a public hearing to be held this evening. CommissionerAuran moved to approve the application fora time limit extension. Motion was seconded by Commissioner. Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for voice.. vote on the motion and.it passed 7-0.. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:32 p.m. Commissioner Auran and City Attorney Anderson recused themselves from participation with respect to Agenda Item 3 (1316 Drake Avenue), and left the Council Chambers, 3. 1316 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MFF77Atr_n pReference staff report dated May 12, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker resented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Michael Kaindl, JD & Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant. Described photo montage and the revised plans. Noted that no objections from neighbors were raised at any public hearing. Commission comments: Revisions are acceptable; change to hip roof reduces mass; doesn't appear to be a three story structure. With respect to windows; clarify that they are to be simulated true divided light windows. Entry door; side lights and transoms; indicate that they will be leaded glass. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 9. 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; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division - before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. 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; and 14, 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Commissioner Brownrigg noted that he would vote against the motion, the Colonial style of architecture is too massive on this street. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg dissenting, Commissioner Auran recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. City Attorney Anderson returned to the Chambers 4. 1790 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ANEW BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JOHN C. LEE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID ZHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 28 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated May 12, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 5. 2707 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FORA FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (GILL AND JANE YEE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUEDFROMAPRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Reference staff report dated May 12, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: None Michael Kaindl, JD & Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant. With the proposed removal of trees, 60% of additional view will be granted to adjacent property once the addition is completed. Homes further up the hill will also benefit from tree removal. Commission comments: - Clarified that the double -trunk Eucalyptus trees and Black Acacias are to be removed as called out in the tree removal permit. Asked if the applicant has explored excavating the front entry piece; it will appear quite massive as designed currently and will be 15-20 feet closer to street. Concerned with the type of roofing material to be used; need to eliminate the patchwork effect that currently exists. Site is difficult to work with; there are places on the site where addition could be proposed with no impact to neighbors; the proposal is currently problematic due to view blockage. Would like to visit 2716 Martinez to determine view obstruction. Would like to see a design that brings the entire addition down 3-4 feet; the proposed location is the right location for the addition. The setback Variance is supportable. The addition could be stepped back to reduce impacts on neighbors, and eliminate the setback Variance. Consider a design with lower plate lines, different roof pitches, etc. to reduce or eliminate view impacts. Public comments: Lena Yen (representing parents who own property across the street at 2716 Martinez Drive); Leo Redmond, 2711 Martinez Drive; Gill and Jane Yee, 2707 Martinez Drive, project applicants; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue commented. Presented photographs illustrating view blockage from 2716 Martinez Drive; story poles give a better idea of the potential impacts, but are not that helpful; do provide an indication that there would be substantial impacts upon his distant views; blockage will be inadequately and incompletely helped by removal of the trees; should build to the code, no special treatment should be provided; submitted photos to demonstrate that views will be restored with addition and tree removal; asked if Mr. Yee submitted a project that can be acted upon; is there somewhere the Commission can go with the project in terms of 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; recalls questions asked of applicant at time of approval; porch and smaller garage with more yard; property has been sold and is not now what was guaranteed. Should require leaded glass windows on all sides. Have property owner honor the contract agreed to by prior owner; put in all elements. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Will the 2 x 4 trim look inappropriate with collector boxes and downspouts provided; consider reducing scale of these elements to conform to the window header scale. If removed, the installed steel downspouts will go to a landfill; shouldn't be using copper; consider allowing downspouts to remain, with collector boxes installed. Changing all windows to leaded glass is a lot of waste; look at it more from the street impact. Collector boxes can be installed as an embellishment. Would like to see the copper elements installed; would add another element; painted scuppers will result in lack of detail. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended -- conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 12, 2007, sheets A.1 through A.3, and A.6, March 28, 2007, sheet L1.0, and April 20, 2008 (Sheets FYI.1 through FYI.4), and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that leaded glass windows shall be installed on all elevations, as shown on the originally approved plans; rainwater collection boxes shall be installed on all elevations, and planter boxes and corbels (as shown on the originally approved plans) shall only be required on the front elevation; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 27, 2006 memo and January 3, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's November 29, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 28, 2006 memo, the City Arborist's November 30, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's November 26, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 27, 2006 memo shall be met; 4. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 6. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 7. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m. 7. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR REVISIONS TO A PREVIOUSLYAPPROVED 25-UNIT, SEVEN -STORY CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (PAUL BOGATSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND FORUM DESIGN, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 14 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated May 12, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-two (52) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: None Paul Bogatsky, 1469 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco and Warner Schmalz, Forum Design, 1014 Howard Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. • Described changes made. to plans since last review. _ Additional Commission comments Questioned the details of the options for the shear wall flanking front elevation. Questions about finishes. Asked about value of the 2 bedroom units. Consider devoting approximately %of open space to a play structure (applicant noted that they are marketing to an adult population; people downsizing from larger homes). Ensure that the trim materials will always appear as stone, and are not stuccoed over. Clarified that the limestone finish on the trim is made in a shop, not applied on site. Clarified that no Styrofoam trim materials will be used. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; asked if an alternative to the Italian Cypress is possible There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: The amendments are well founded. The Italian Cypress will work well on the site. Articulations in shear wall not working as intended, if they are removed it is okay; up to applicant. Commissioner 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 April30, 2008, sheetsA0.0, A0.31, C-1, C-1.1, GO.1, G0.2,Al. 1 through Al.9,A2.1,A3.0, A3.1, A3.2 Alt; A3.3 through A3.7, A4.0 and A4.1, Ground Floor Landscape Plan and Podium Level Landscape Plan; 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 12, that'guest parking stall' shall be marked on the three guest parking spaces and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; and that in addition to the three guest parking stalls, and one service vehicle parking stall, 54 parking spaces shall be available on site for owners, and none of the on -site parking shall be rented, leased or sold to anyone who does not own a unit on the site; 13. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the three guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 14. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 15. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 16. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 17. that the security gate system across the right side entrance driveway shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 18. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 19. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 20. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 21. 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; 22, that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 • Implement appropriate stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to minimize pesticide usage in accordance with the City's New Development/Redevelopment Landscaping Fact Sheet. • Incorporate applicable structural source control measures to minimize stormwater pollutants in accordance with the City's Model List of Structural Source Control Measures. • Identify the responsible party who would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the permanent post -construction stormwater treatment measure(s). Prior to issuance of a final building permit, submit a completed, notarized Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement; (Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Works Department) 32. that the proposed project shall comply with City grading requirements specified in Section 18.20 of the Municipal Code; (Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Works Department) 33. that the proposed project shall comply with the City's Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 18.17.001; Ordinance 1476 Section 1; January 4,1993), thereby reducing the amount of project site runoff polluted by landscape chemicals; (Hydrology and Water Quality; City Arborist) 34. that the project applicant shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non -toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; (Air Quality; Building Division) 35. that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and traffic management plan that defines how traffic operations would be managed and maintained during each phase of construction. The plan should be developed with the direct participation of the City of Burlingame. To the maximum practical extent, the plan should: Detail how access will be maintained to individual properties where construction activities may interfere with ingress and egress. Any driveway closures shall take place during non - business hours. Specify predetermined haul routes from staging areas to construction sites and to disposal areas of agreement with the City prior to construction. The routes shall follow streets and highways that provide the safest route and have the least impact on traffic. During construction, require the contractor to provide information to the public using signs, press releases, and other media tools of traffic closures, detours ortemporary displacement of left -turn lanes. Identify a single phone number that property owners and businesses can call for construction scheduling, phasing, and duration information, as well as for complaints. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 • Replacement of a tree may be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists on the property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance; and Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the director and shall be based on the species, location and value of the tree(s) removed; and If replacement trees cannot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be made to the City. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree -planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree planting; (Biological Resources; City Arborist) 41. that the project applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and protecting the existing on -site trees to be retained. The following specific actions shall be followed to maintain the health of the remaining trees: a. Any pruning shall be done according to the direction of a certified arborist and all pruning shall comply with International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter Standards or other comparable standards deemed acceptable to the City Arborist. b. Any abandoned utility lines (water, electrical, etc.) in the root zones (radius of ten times the trunk diameter) shall be cut and left in the ground to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. C. Any surfacing material inside the root zone shall be pervious and installed on top of the existing grade.,As.an_example, pervious pavers are acceptable provided the base material is also sufficiently pervious. Base rock containing granite fines is not sufficiently pervious. d. Temporary construction fencing shall be erected to protect the retained trees of a size to be established by the City Arborist. The fencing shall be placed at the perimeter of the root zone unless the pavement is supervised by a certified arborist. The fencing shall be in place prior to the arrival of construction materials or equipment. e. The landscape irrigation shall be designed to prevent trenching inside the root zones of retained trees. f. Supplemental irrigation shall be provided during construction. Approximately 10 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter should be applied at or near the perimeter of the root zone every two weeks during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall on average). g. Retained trees shall be thoroughly mulched with a 3-inch layer of bark chips with the exception of a 6- to 12-inch area around the base of the root collar, which must be left bare and dry; (Biological Resources, City Arborist) 42. that as required by BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, the proposed project shall implement preventative measures during demolition and removal of all asbestos containing materials (ACMs) to prevent emissions of asbestos into the air. The proposed project shall also remove and dispose of all asbestos and PCB -containing materials according to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations and comply with the Cal/OSHA guidelines for worker safety during removal; (Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Building Division) 43, that the project applicant shall abide by its declared building height as specified in the FAA determination for the proposed project. The project applicant shall also ensure that construction equipment for the proposed project (e.g. cranes) shall not exceed the maximum height restriction specified in the San Francisco Airport Land Use Plan for the project site; (Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Planning Department) 17 CITY OFBURLINGAMEPLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 12,2008 48. that the existing sanitary sewer on site shall be examined by the City after project construction to evaluate the pipe's condition. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe is substandard or if the pipe has been damaged by project construction, the pipe shall be replaced or repaired by the project applicant to the City Engineer's satisfaction; (Utilities and Service Systems; Public Works Department) 49. that if the project applicant does not provide a 12-foot wide driveway, the project applicant shall be required to purchase maintenance equipment for the City that can access the on -site sewer easement through the proposed 9.5-foot-wide driveway; (Utilities and Sewer Systems; Public Works Department) 50. that per the City's Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Requirement, the project applicant shall submit a waste reduction plan that demonstrates that at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition waste can be recycled; (Utilities and Service Systems; Building Division) 51. that the project applicant shall design and locate all exterior lighting so that the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting elements is kept entirely on the project site on or below the top of any fence, hedge, or wall at the site's property line, as required by the Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or residential areas). All wall mounted up -lighting shall be excluded from the proposed project. All project lighting shall comply with requirements of the California Energy Commission and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for illumination levels; and (Aesthetics; Planning and Building) 52. that the following provisions shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to address the potential to encounter currently unknown cultural resources: a. Prior to the initiation of construction or ground -disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall receive environmental training that will include discussion of the possibility of buried cultural and paleontological resources, including training to recognize such possible buried cultural resources, as well as the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are encountered. b. Retain Project Archaeologist. Since the project area contains a portion of one recorded Native American archeological resource, and other previously unknown prehistoric or historic cultural deposits may be encountered elsewhere in the project site during excavations, the City shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant meeting federal criteria under 36 CFR 61, and who has expertise in California prehistory and urban historical archaeology. C. If potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be suspended and alteration of the materials and their context shall be avoided pending site investigation by a qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant retained by the project applicant. The immediate vicinity wherein work shall be suspended shall be approximately 50 feet from the discovery or within an appropriate distance to be determined by the archaeologist or cultural resources consultant. Construction work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been given an opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered. 1. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, and if avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 Commission comments: None Kirk Miller, 442 Post Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. The theme of the building is similar to the Burlingame Library; windows are recessed with shadow lines. Major remaining issue is the front fagade. Described two alternatives for fagade treatment. Additional Commission comments: • The drawings are so flat that you don't have a sense for the materials. • Concerned that the base will be lost by the decline in the grade of the lot; may not be appreciated. • Prefer the arched entry. • Referenced 1512 Floribunda Avenue as a successful use of Spanish/Mediterranean architecture. • Clarify that windows will be aluminum clad wood windows. • Specify 4-inch recess depth for windows (from face of wall to glazing). • Specify the stucco texture; prefer a "Santa Barbara" style finish as opposed to sand finish. • The design of the balcony element over the entry is awkward; since it is not useable, eliminate it and create a combination of the two proposed elevations; use larger corbels under the balconies and pair the small corbels under the bay windows. ■ Clarify finish and ensure that a different finish (e.g. limestone) is used forthe "belly band" around the building, don't want to see foam trim covered in stucco. ■ Call out materials on all elevations. ■ Specify whether wood posts used on elements of the design are to be paint grade or stain grade and if they will be stained, would prefer a dark stain finish. Public comments: None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to address the items raised during the Commission's discussion; the item may be placed on the Consent Calendar when ready for review. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ORA HATHEWAY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ADIB AND SYLVIA KHOURI, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant. 21 City of Burlingame 51tern No. Conditional -Use Permit Amendments and Parking Variance Study -It - - Address: 1215 - 1219 Broadway Meeting Date: May 27, 2008 Request: Conditional Use Permit Amendments and Parking Variance for expansion of an existing food establishment (II Piccolo Caffe) at 1215 — 1219 Broadway. Applicant/Architect: DES Architects and Engineers APN: 026-193-280 Property Owners: Ronald and Elizabeth Roussey Lot Area: 3,560 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: C-1, Broadway Commercial Area History: On March 27, 1995, the Planning Commission approved a Special Permit and Parking Variance for expansion of a food establishment (II Piccolo Caffe) which required three additional parking spaces, at 1219 Broadway, Burlingame. The conditions of approval for that Special Permit and Parking Variance are included in the staff report. On April 24, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use PermitAmendment for an existing food establishment classified as a Limited Food Service Establishment in the Broadway Commercial Area at 1219 Broadway as required by Ordinance 1619. The conditions of approval for that Conditional Use Permit Amendment are included in the staff report. Project,.Description: The site is located in the middle of the 1200 block of Broadway. Currently, there is a limited food service establishment (II Piccolo Caffe) at 1219 Broadway (1,153 SF) and a vacant video rental store (Network Video) next door at 1215 Broadway (817 SF of retail + 177 SF of storage). With this application, the applicant is proposing to change the food classification of the existing food establishment from limited food service establishment to full service food establishment and expand into the adjacent retail space currently occupied by the video rental store. Staff would note that there is a separate one -bedroom unit on the same property that is attached to the existing food establishment and that is not associated with the proposed project. The proposed combined space would total 2,147 SF (1,970 SF of food establishment use, 177 SF of storage area). The full service food establishment will have approximately 806 SF of seating area where previously only 675 SF of seating area was associated with the limited food service establishment. The project includes interior remodeling, combining the two tenant spaces and renovating the existing fagade along Broadway. The entrance door will remain in its existing location along Broadway. The existing video store storefront and signage at 1215 Broadway will be removed and replaced with a new foldable storefront to match the existing food establishment's storefront at 1219 Broadway. The existing exit into the alleyway to the right of the food establishment will be relocated and recessed to comply with current building code requirements. A full service food establishment is defined as a business which sells food prepared indoors on the premise with a full menu and provides an indoor seating area of at least 250 SF. Operating criteria for a full service food establishment include most or all of the following: served by waiters to seated customers and where payment is made at the end of the meal; presence of a full commercial kitchen and commercial dishwasher; and food is served on ceramic plates with metal flatware and cloth napkins. The full service food establishment will have approximately 806 SF of seating area (715 SF indoor area and 91 SF outdoor area). Tables will be provided as well as eight (8) additional seats at the wine bar area. Currently, there are four full-time employees working at the food establishment seven days a week. In five years, the number of employees is expected to increase to four full-time employees during the daytime and eight full time employees during the evenings. Currently, there are approximately 300 to 350 customers that visit the site each day. In the future, the applicant anticipates a total of 400 to 500 customers per day on both weekdays and on weekends. A maximum of 79 people are expected on site at any one time, including the owner, employees and customers. The food establishment will be open seven days a week, from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Because of the expansion of the food establishment into the adjacent retail space, there is an incremental Conditional Use Permit Amendments and Parking Variance Supplemental Form for Commercial Applications Approval Letter for Conditional Use Permit Amendment dated May 2, 2000 Approval Lettter for Special Permit and Parking Variance — dated April 4, 1995 Staff Comments Aerial Photo -3- 1219 Broadway City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame ore R�� crrr o� BURLINOAME RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, The Planning Commission is required bylaw to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The proposed expansion of food establishment will take place within the existing and adjacent tenant spaces in the same building. Hence, noise, lighting and other possible nuisances will be contained in the building. No additional structure is being planned. The project will also include upgrades and additions of equipment and structure that comply with the latest national, state and city's building, fire, sanitary, accessibilty and other standards. It includes the phased installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system, newhoodand drains, and re -construction of a code -complying storage area. With all these retrofits in mind, plus the higher quality of food and catering service provided, the project will be an added amenity to community. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? The property is located in the C1 zone and Broadway Commercial Area based on the General Plan designation. Section 25.36.041 of the Zoning Ordinance permits the use of food establishments pursuant to a conditional use permit. The subject property had established the use of a limited food service establishment historically. In 1995, the City granted an adjustment to the conditional use permit to the current business owner for expanding the food establishment into adjacent space. Section 25.36.048 (b3) and (d4) permits (1) an increase in seating area, (2) changes from a limited food service to a full food service pursuant to adjustment to a current conditional use permit. Hence, the proposed project fits in the context of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance with an adjustment to the currently approved conditional use permit. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The exterior upgrade of the project includes (1) replacing a dated storefront system (with one that matches the existing cafe storefront) and (2) relocating entries critical to compliance with State and City's accessibility, life safety and exiting requirement. These measures will enhance the original aesthetics of the existing building and still in tune with other buildings in downtown. CURFRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlineame ore eURLINGAME COMMERCIAL. APPLICATIONS RECEEIVED PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM 1. Proposed use of the site Food service 2. Days and hours of operation sun -sat, 5:00 a.m. -11:00 p.m. MAY -- Ga 2008 CITY OF BURI-IWAMF PI.ANNIN(i QEf>,.. Number of tracks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type) Based on current deliveries, all venders find a vacant loading zone except for early AM deliveries 4. Current and nroiected maximum number of amnlmieec ti oh„1;, , .,, o �++1,;.. 1....- Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of AM to After 5:00 AM to After 5:00 AM to After 5:00 Operation PM PM PM PM PM PM Weekdays Full-time 3 1 4 (AM)/ 2 (PM) 6 4 (AM)/ 2 (PM) 8 Part-time Weekends Full-time 3 1 4 (AM)/ 2 (PM) 6 4 (AM)/ 2 (PM) 8 Part time 5. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come tn the �;te• In 2 Years In 5 Years 7Existing Hoursof AM to After 5:00 AM toAfter 5:00 AM to After 5:00 n PM PM PM PM PM PM s 300-350 (5:0 AM-6:OOPM) 300-400 5:0 AM - 11:OOPM 400-500 150 Weekends 300-350 (5:0 AM-6:00PM) 300-400 5:00 Am - 11:nnPM Ann -500 150 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and visitors/customers): 79 persons 7. Where do/will the owner and employees park? on -street parking 8. Where do/will the customers/visitors park? on -street parking 9. Present or most recent use of site Food service/retail 10. List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach list if Necessary) Apa ment at rear COMMERCIALTRM May 2, 2000 1219 Broadway pag6-2- - --- 6. that an amendment to.this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 7. that the business may be open 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday with a maximum of three employees at any one time; 8. , that the business shall provide and maintain trash receptacles approved by the City and consistent with the streetscape improvements at the front door and the side door leading to the alley; and 9. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements in effect at the time of the California Building and Fire Codes, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If you wises to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction; you must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time. is required pursuant to state or federal law. Sincerely yours, i�lccro�� Margaret Monroe City Planner RH1s C. II Piccolo Caffe, applicant 1219 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (35.58 FT ON BROADWAY X 100 FI'SLY PTN LOTS 1 & 2 BLOCK 3 EASTON ADD BURLINGAME RSM D/51; APN: 026-193-280) April 4, 1995 1219 Broadway Avenue page -2- All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. One extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. (Erection of the signage will require separate application to the Building Department.) Sincerely yours, &��IXS JrCLC, Margaret Monroe City Planner MM: smg 1219HROA.cca c: Ronald C. Roussey Chief Building Inspector Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (35.58 FT ON BROADWAY X 100 FT SLY PTN LOTS 1 & 2 BLOCK 3, Subd. Name; EASTON ADD BURLINGAME RSM D/51, APN: 026-193-280) DATE: TO: FROM: i L"llkb, ROMING FORM ' q, gr CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY CITY PLANNER/ZONING TECHNICIAN Jane/Sheri/Leah 2 -( " �_ Date of Comments l , ��CITS l.1aT Z, T-W z— 2271-1 5 F�CL e-� c�� Z Sc. LT5 M-UT Page I of 2 CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica From: PW/ENG-Voong, Victor Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:27 PM To: 'Kenny Hung' Cc: PW/ENG-Bell, Doug; CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica; Tom Gilman; Vincent AmRhein; PW/ENG- Gomery, Jane Subject: RE: II Piccolo Caffe, 1215 Broadway, Burlingame - Encroachment Permit Exhibits.(2) Hello Mr. Hung, Please share this message with your staff. The City does acknowledge that there are existing conditions within the easement/alley areas. Because they are existing conditions, we can not require them to be corrected at this time. The City can only prevent future encroachments. That is why all new proposals to install doors/gates into the easement/alley will be denied. Victor From: Kenny Hung [mailto:kHung@des-ae.comj Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:32 PM To: PW/ENG-Voong, Victor Subject: Re: II Piccolo Caffe, 1215 Broadway, Burlingame - Encroachment Permit Exhibits.(2) Exhibit A-5D attached. Thanks. Kenny From: Kenny Hung Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:24 PM To: 'vvoong@burlingame.org' Subject: Re: II Piccolo Caffe, 1215 Broadway, Burlingame - Encroachment Permit Exhibits.(1) Hi Victor, Tom Gilman from our office asked me to email you these exhibits for review. In essence, we have found that there are existing encroachment conditions at the same alley where II Piccolo Caffe (the applicant) is located. These encroachments include metal gates and doors from adjacent properties and they open directly into the alley without any forms of protection. These gates and doors may become a hazard to people walking by, especially in emergency situations. Please see exhibits A-5B, A-5C and A-51D (2nd email) For our encroachment application, we have considered this potential harzard and propose to protect the relocated exit door with new guardrails. These 42" tall guardrails extend 3' from the building and are located approx. 4' from the existing wood gate. They are intended to protect the pass-bys from the exit door when it opens. New lighting will be provided for the relocated exit. Please also note that this door will remain closed for most time of the day. In view of all these, our proposed solution will provide a safer condition without obstructing movement through the alley. Please see the attached exhibit A-5A (2nd email) Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thanks. 4/29/2008 Project Comments Date: Revised Plans Submitted May 5, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for expansion of an existing food establishment at 1215 Broadway, zoned R-1, APN: 026-193-280 Staff Review: NIA No further comments Project Comments Date: March 13, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 X Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (6.50) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for expansion of an existing food establishment at 1219 Broadway, zoned C-1, APN: 026-193-280 Staff Review: March 17, 2008 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). 2) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 3) On Page A.0 there are two notes that must be removed under "Project Data:" a. Remove the reference to the "R" occupancy referenced in Note 3, unless the R occupancy is part of this project. b. Remove Note 5, since the outdoor seating must be included and reviewed for code compliance. 4) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 5) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 6) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 7) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 8) Obtain approval from San Mateo County Health Department for these plans. 9) Show code compliance with all requirements for commercial cooking appliances, including complete hood, duct, and shaft details. 10)Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential / non-residential buildings. Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. 11)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. Date: From Subject: Staff Review: Project_ Comments March 13, 2008 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 d Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 of Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 City Attorney Request for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for expansion of an existing food establishment at 1219 Broadway, zoned C-1, APN: 026-193-280 March 17, 2008 1. The building shall be equipped with an approved NFPA 13 Sprinkler System throughout. Tenant space prior to completion of building permit. Sprinkler drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Central County Fire Department prior to installation. The system shall be electronically monitored by an approved central receiving station. 2. Communication shall be verified from tenant/designer to property owner that the entire rest of the building shall be equipped with fire sprinklers within 6 years of the start of this project. 3. The fire protection underground shall be submitted and approved by the Burlingame Building Department prior to installation. 4. The fire sprinkler system will not be approved by the Central County Fire Department until the fire protection underground has been submitted and approved by the Burlingame Building Department. Please coordinate installation of underground to be installed early in project. 5. Commercial cooking hood and duct shall be equipped with a UL 300 approved fixed fire extinguishing system with an associated Type K extinguisher. 6. Provide Panic Hardware for both exit doors. 7. A lock box shall be provided or updated. Reviewed by: Date: ✓ 7+—ois q 0 0 4 0 P 91 _ ffi b N frp .j api � y � o 'C L+ N c A 4 y O b w �b O tlyv �: N L A U O A �o' UnJI W w 0 0 �1 off ' a 'O Q o F o 4 ct 0 o '$ o OA 'v fpg3p J cn {a]l U U Jp o ' ig 1, i a rj a €i yE??s 3g P"� 1121 i Fa PK a� d 3g% '�$ e5i S i $Sga 5 's ',p 11, 5 EE Hal deo�, @g ell F �$ i Ijk.! Ci 'qs11, S's i �e a y 6 t� eCIO9u �' �w ?a.g ?�;i ge�' " n ;; 3 BSgC.; s ei5 1 ? l p a ppe$ iqI & .ra j H gtr E e B d tr d o$539 %:%r#s ed8 JI$ ♦'Eak105.si l l\ 4l 1 ♦ 1 l l l 1 B sg g p g g g IM � �UM 55 €EB@@ ' % i8o� qjG Ci frp] 6I @8 g gg� 6-a A %r 8 +ia a� Hu �' g �gIliga 11,lg@ifff Sg@Yyi@�y dedE£i�%e+$, 3 ..8'�356�8xH3 oSeBat�e�4 eseE if Fdj B aaPP S5$ le 42 t1 .3 5. g�� r 5aii p g g55a liffly.�{$ eg ye'kag ,vrrjJ' gs1.$, y W a5ii § full �7 5 a!flb� s& a>ea 38 EEi3'e3,o B .P E$ F �A erfr��, fflp �C3�EEa'ai i City of Burlingame Amend Conditional Use Permit for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project Address: 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive - Item No. Study Calendar Meeting Date: 05.27.08 Request: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement project to add a sixth floor to the proposed Professional Office Building. Applicant: Mills Peninsula Health Services APNs: 025-123-040, -100, -120 & -130 Property Owner: Peninsula Health Care District and Mills Peninsula Health Services Lot Area: 25.02 Acres General Plan: Institutions - Other Zoning: C-3, C-1 & Unclassified Adjacent Development: Office, Retail Commercial, Multiple Family Residential and Single Family Residential. CEQA Status: The larger Peninsula Hospital Replacement project (Previous Project) was reviewed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this project and certified by the City Council on November 15, 2004. An Addendum to this EIR has been prepared. The. Addendum analysis concluded that no subsequent environmental analysis is needed, and that the analysis conducted and the conclusion reached in the previous EIR certified on November 15, 2004 remain valid. The proposed revisions to the Previous Project watld not cause new significant impacts not identified in the previous EIR, and no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts. No changes have occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the Previous Project that would cause significant environmental impacts to which the Revised Project would contribute considerably, and no new information has become available that shows that the Previous or the Revised Project would cause significant environmental impact. Therefore, no supplemental environmental review is required. History: On November 15, 2004, the City Council approved a project submitted by the applicant, Mills Peninsula Health Services, to replace the existing Peninsula Medical Center hospital building and nearby office buildings with a new hospital and medical office building. As a part of the project approval, 146 conditions of approval were adopted to be implemented during the six -year construction of the project and to be applied to the ongoing operation of the hospital. The project is now in the "Phase 3" construction phase, which consists of construction of the hospital building. Construction of the office building is expected to begin later this year. Current Request: Mills Peninsula Health Services is now requesting an amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permit for the project to increase the size of the office building (now referred to as the Professional Office Building) by adding a 27,000 square foot sixth floor and 1500 square foot additions to the proposed fourth and fifth floors, for a total floor area of 179,074 square feet (refer to attached letter from Robert Merwin, CEO, Mills Peninsula Health Services, dated January 15, 2008). The applicant notes thatthe purpose of the proposed additions is to provide space for a multi -specialty medical practice group in the Professional Office Building (POB). There are no changes proposed to the footprint of the building as originally proposed, the fourth and fifth floors were proposed to be set back 30 feet from the lower floors. With the addition, these floors would be set back 15 feet from the lower floors. Planning staff would note that on the plans submitted for the project, the applicant refers to the first floor as a lower level, and the remaining floors as Levels One through Five. Since the lower level is not entirely below grade, it is considered a floor. Therefore, staff refers to the building as a six -story building, with the lower level referred to as the first floor. In order to provide parking for the proposed increase in floor area, the applicant has revised the site plan to include additional parking in the area surrounding the helipad location. In the Previous Project, the helipad was to be placed on a mound created by adding fill around the helipad location. With the Revised Project, Amend Conditional -Use Permit for Peirinsula Hospital Replacement Project 17 Et Camino Real1l501 Trousdale Drive Visual Quality: The addendum notes that the Revised Project would result in no changes to the landscaping and lighting proposed with the Previous Project. The primary difference would be the height of the proposed Professional Office Building, which would increase by about 15 feet. The analysis notes that from the north, the Revised Project would look very similar to the Previous Project, with similar use of materials. Previously the Main Hospital Building would have been visible over the POB. However, the additional level would obscure any view of the hospital. From the south, the eastern half of the POB would be visible and the western half would be obscured by the Hospital Building. The entire POB would be visible from the east, El Camino Real view. From the west, the majority of the building would be visible, although the hospital would partially obscure the lower three levels on the south end. The Previous Project had already identified the impact of the project on sky views to be significant and unavoidable, the incremental reduction in sky view caused by the Revised Project was not considered to change this determination. Development of the Revised Project would be consistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Traffic Impacts: An updated traffic study was prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates to determine the potential impacts of the Revised Project. The study concluded that the Revised Project would generate a net increase of 82 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, 177 trips during the Midday peak hour, and 113 trips in the PM peak hour as compared to the previous project (refer to Table 3-2 of the Addendum to the EIR for a comparison of the trips generated by the Previous Project and the Revised Project). The traffic consultant also conducted traffic counts in January, 2008 to update the background traffic conditions found in the Final EIR. In orderto provide accurate background conditions forwhen the project is complete, the numbers were reduced to exclude the existing traffic associated with project construction. With this scenario, it was determined that upon completion of the project, and taking into account the additional trips associated with the Revised Project, all of the study intersections would operate at a level of service (LOS) of C or better. A level of service C is considered to be acceptable operating conditions. Based on the updated background conditions, the intersection level of service for El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive at the Midday Peak will operate at LOS C, where the original analysis contained in the Final EIR predicted LOS D during the Midday peak. Parking Impacts: The traffic consultants also conducted an analysis of the parking needs of the Revised Project. The Revised Project would result in an increase in parking demand of about 81 spaces over what was needed for the Previous Project. As noted in the description of the current request, the applicant was able to add the required parking in the vicinity of the proposed helipad. Proposed Revision to Condition No. 118 Regarding Mitigation Monitoring Panel As a part of the original project approval, a condition was added which requires the applicant to form a mitigation monitoring panel and establish a point of contact to respond to complaints. On November 15, 2005, the applicant submitted a proposal to the Planning Commission for review, and the proposal was endorsed by the Commission. The panel is made up of representatives from Mills Peninsula Health Services, the City of Burlingame, Peninsula Health Care District, the Davis Drive neighborhood and Burlingame Plaza shopping center. Carole Groom was selected as the single point of contact to respond to complaints. The mitigation monitoring panel has been meeting on a regular basis since its inception in 2005. Recently, there have been questions raised at the meetings as to the purpose and scope of the panel, and whether the intention was to monitor and address complaints regarding the construction project, or a broader forum for complaints about hospital operations. In order to clarify the intent, it is suggested that the Commission consider an amendment to this condition that more clearly spells out the purpose and scope of the panel. -3- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 601 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 11 p: 650.558.7250 1 f: 650,696.3790 • www.buriingame.oru 11 APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Other: ,`i71 Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel 23-U12 o z5 _lz3-loo UZ5-IZ " 130 PROJECTADDRESS: 1501 TROUSDALE DRIVE, BURLINGAME 025-123 Ili APPLICANT project contact person 6*" OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Mills -Peninsula Health Services 7`d l et ce uu�� Address; 1501 Trousdal Drive City/State/Zip: Burlingame, .CA 94010 Phone(w): (650) 696-7604 (Home): (650) 576-3493 (Fax): (650) 696-5134,_.. (E-mail): OVI!enC@sutterhealth.org ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Anshen + Allen Address: 901 Market Street City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone(w): (415) 885-9500 (Home): (Fax): (415) 882-9523 (E-mail): mat@anshen.com PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Peninsula Healthoa're District Address: 1600 Trousdale Drive Suite 1,210 City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone(w): (650) 697-6900 (Home): (Fax): ` (-650)- 652-9374 (E-mail): cheryl.fama@peninsulahealthcaredistrict.l *Contact Persons: Christian Ovlen Larry Ko llerer Please mark one box With 0 to indicate the contact person for this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add one floor, approximately 30,000 square feet, to the currently approved Professional Office Building. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. p Applicant's signature: 5�/ Date: e o F5 I am aware of the proposed 77zu,�,� by authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: l -- cS -C�cO Date submitted: S:\Handouts\PC Application 2007.handout Mills -Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project — - Application to Amend Conditional Use Permit — POB Expansion 1. Explain why the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Please see the Overall and Conditional Use Permit Findings adopted by the City Council by Resolution No. 105-2004, Approving the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project, including the POB. The proposed one story addition to the POB will not be injurious to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience for the reasons stated therein. In addition, to accommodate the proposed addition to the POB, appropriate and necessary accommodations will be made for parking and circulation. Moreover, the addition will further facilitate and support the continued provision of medical services to the community over the long-term by providing the physical space or capacity in the facility to develop a group practice or foundation model. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? Please see the Overall Findings and Conditional Use Permit Findings adopted by the City Council by Resolution No. 105-2004, approving the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project, including the POB. The proposed one story addition to the POB is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the reasons stated therein. No change is proposed in the location in how the proposed use will be located or conducted. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? Please see the Overall Findings and Conditional Use Permit Findings adopted by the City Council by Resolution No. 105-2004, approving the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project, including the POB. The proposed one story addition to the POB will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general facility for the reasons stated therein. The proposed additional floor does not exceed the height at the point of connection of the POB to the approved hospital. In fact, the highest elevation of the replacement hospital, which is currently under construction, is one floor higher than the proposed height of the POB. The POB is not adjacent to the residential area on the south side of the project and there will be no aesthetic, mass, bulk or character differences between the previously approved POB and the POB with the additional floor. The proposed addition is only about a 5% addition to the total size of the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project and it is compatible with the project and adjoining properties as previously approved. cuyo�eimin�N�e connlfimiNuweimian� �.E).ntl rvviw� Today, however, the IPA model of single practice management is increasingly seen as lacking essential elements for long-term viability, just as history dictated in the late 1970s and early 1980s with hospital consolidation. The younger physician demographic is changing. In recent graduating classes, a majority of the new primary care physicians are female. Many graduates have priorities that place family and lifestyle ahead of full-time medicine. These new physicians have less interest in marketing, insurance claims, setting up an office, personnel issues, or other travails of running a small independent office. They want to practice medicine (and often on a part-time basis) and leave general office and related issues to others. Furthermore, the financial uncertainties of starting a small private office in our community make the foundation model, with its substantial and dependable salary, a superior alternative. It is no accident that between them, Permanente and PAMF have added more primary care physicians each year than the entire graduating class of all California medical schools. In the long run IPAs simply cannot successfully compete for new primary care physicians. With this in mind, following a recent retreat with the MPHS board, MPMG has engaged in strategic planning to explore merging with PAMF, developing their own separate foundation, or otherwise morphing into a foundation model. In order for a multi -specialty group practice to optimally function, it is imperative that the group, or large components of -the group, be housed in dedicated office space organized so as to take_____ most advantage of the group practice model. Unfortunately, the current hospital replacement project as planned does not have room for such a foundation in the current POB. It is estimated that we will need an approximate addition of 30,000 gsf to accommodate a foundation model. This is most easily and inexpensively accomplished by adding a floor to the POB. The POB's footprint, general design, and construction timing would not change. There would be no potentially significant planning or environmental issues associated with adding a floor to the POB other than parking (which should be able to be fully accommodated on -site) and traffic (any incremental impact at the Trousdale/El Camino intersection should be fully mitigated).' The incremental parking and traffic impacts of adding approximately 30,000 gsf to the MOB (which represents an increase of only about 5% in the overall size of the hospital replacement project, is being reviewed by our transportation consultant, Wilbur Smith Associates), will be submitted to the City for peer review as part of the CEQA review process. With respect to our residential neighbors on the south side of the property, the added floor would not be visible from their homes, as the entire POB is screened from the neighbors by the hospital building. This is a rare window of opportunity for the city to encourage the development of a best -of -class physician delivery model with little or no impact. Unfortunately, the opportunity is not open- ended. The POB must open with the hospital, which, as you know, is now under construction, since the POB houses certain functions such as medical records, administration, food services ' The impact of adding additional space for the foundation would be less than original estimates because approximately 12,000 SF of space in the POB previously assumed to be for medical office use will be instead dedicated to a kidney dialysis office unit which requires substantially less parking and generates substantially fewer trips. Mills -Peninsula Health Services A Sutter Health Affiliate January 15, 2008 William Meeker, Director Community Development Department City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED JAN 1 5 Z008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, 1783 El Camino Rea! Burlingame, CA 94010 650.696.5400 RE: The Case for an Expanded Professional Office Building on the Peninsula Medical Center Campus in Burlingame Dear Mr. Meeker: The new Peninsula Medical Center is designed as a state -of -the art healthcare facility to meet the needs of our community in the 21" century. A key component of the project is the close- --- ----- -' - integration of physician office space with the inpatient hospital, particularly for those physician specialties where there is a high degree of interaction between inpatient and out -patient practices. To facilitate the full continuum of care, the project has included a Professional Office Building (POB), as part of the approved Hospital Replacement Project at the Peninsula Medical Center campus in Burlingame. The POB is currently sized at 145,000 total gross square feet (gsf) of which .70,000 gsf is medical office space. It was designed to house those specialists who have heavy inpatient practices (such as surgery and OB/GYN), predominately consisting of members of Mills -Peninsula Medical Group (MPMG) and various independent practitioners. MPHS and its associated medical group MPMG have spent several years evaluating the age of our current medical staff and are concerned about the ability to recruit the next call of high quality physicians to our community. This is of particular concern given the high cost of living and of developing a practice in our community. MPMG is evaluating the possibility of forming a non-profit, multi -specialty group practice (a "medical foundation") to provide a vehicle for the enhanced recruitment of physicians for our community. Sutter Health already has numerous medical foundations as affiliate members, including the prestigious Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). This model is recognized in the health care industry as one of the most successful for improving quality, access and efficient delivery of medical care. Examples include the Cleveland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic, as well as the Permanente Medical Group. By any measure, MPMG is one of the most successful Independent Practice Associations (IPAs) in California. MPMG consistently rates among the highest in patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and productivity. Historically, the independent practice model has served MPMG and our community well. A 100 Top U.S. Hospitals Award Winner www.rnills-peninsula.ory and laboratory services which are critical to hospital operations. The decision to purchase and fabricate steel for an additional floor must be made by May 1 ", 2008, and we must decide on the design of the building's foundations by February 15, 2008. We recognize that this is a very tight time frame and that it is unlikely that a full building permit can be in hand by then. But, realizing this potential opportunity may still be possible if we can obtain the support of City staff and elected leadership, subject to final approval after review of potential environmental (parking and traffic) impacts and appropriate CEQA documents. The alternative to adding a floor to the POB now would be to construct a separate building at a later time. Any such project would probably be significantly larger than 30,000 gsf because it would not be part of the POB and in order to make economic sense. Because of existing limitations it would likely need to be located on the District parcel at the west end of the site. We believe this alternative is less desirable for many reasons and that our neighbors would probably strongly object to another project so soon after the hospital replacement project construction. We believe the proposed addition supports and enhances the Peninsula Medical Center development already under way. By planning now for adequate physician presence in the connected building, Burlingame and Mills -Peninsula will be ensuring a complete health care xesourc@ unmatched by anything in the Bay Area for many years to come. We hope you will agree that this is a vision worthy of your support, and we are happy to answer any questions. T ank y u, Robert W. Merwin CEO, Mills -Peninsula Health Services Cc: James Nantell, City Manager Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner _ Project_ Comments Date: February 11, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 NPDES Coordinator- (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to add a floor to the proposed professional office building for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project at 1783 El Camino Real, zoned Unclassified, APNs:, 025-123-041, 025-123-042,. 025-123-100, 025-123.-130 and 025-123-140 - Staff Review: February19, 2008 1) Per the agreement of the City Attorney and Central County Fire and based on approval of the vesting tentative parcel map - Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC). 2) Specify on the plans that all future tenant improvements will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes 3) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 4) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 5) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 6) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 7) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise non-residential buildings. Go to hftp7//www.energy.ca,gov/tit1024 for publications and details. 8) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 9) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 10) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 11) On your plans provide a table that includes the following: a. Occupancy group for each area of the building b. Type of construction c. Allowable area d. Proposed area e. Allowable height f. Proposed height g. Proposed fire separation distances h. Exterior wall and opening protection L Allowable -CENTRAL COUNTYPR-E-DQPARTMENT Serving ilia Town of i—I 1110rougk and tine City of Durlingame February 13, 2008 David P. Ogorzalek, Project Architect Anshen + Allen, Architects 901 Market Street, Ste. #600 San Francisco, CA 94103 RE: MILLS PENINSULA HOSPITAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING BURLINGAME PERMIT #B-07-157 Dear Mr. Ogorzalek, -._.Cn January 23, 2008 the design team for the above project presented design revisions to the Professional Office Building (POB). The proposed addition of one floor would result in a re -designation as a high rise as defined by Health & Safety Code §13211. The following items are design criteria for consideration in this re -designation as a high rise: I. Primary water supply shall be from a municipal water connection. POB may be connected to the Hospital fire water system. A secondary on -site water equal to the hydraulically calculated sprinkler design demand plus 100 gallons per minute additional for the total standpipe system shall be provided for a minimum of 30 minutes. Calculations will have to be determined for the roof at 1,500 sgft under Ordinary Density to determine if the Hospital 40,000 gallon water storage tank and fire pumps will serve as secondary supply to the POB. (CBC 403.2, 903.3.5.2). 2. The POB may use the Hospital Fire Department Connection located at the hospital loading dock provided pressures for the standpipe meet a minimum 100 psi at the roof. 3. POB shall be provided with two (2) standpipes in stairway vestibules with hose connections at the roof level. (CFC 905.4, NFPA 14, 7.3.2, 7.4) 4. POB may be connected to the Hospital's emergency power system, 5. Smoke Control design shall be designed to pressurize the fire floor, one floor above and one floor below. 6. A Fire Control Room shall be provided for the POB and located at the exterior of the building within 50 feet of fire apparatus access. Final location shall be approved by the CCFD Operational staff prior to final. 13gq Rdlins RO.J, purlingnme, CA Q4010 (650) 558-7600 y-m : (650) 344-9950 Date: To: From Subject: Staff Review: February 11, 2008 City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff Recycling Specialist - (650) 558-7271 ( 'Z? 2t OH of Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 P� NNrf?UCt j��� ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 m City Attorney Request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to add a floor to the proposed professional office building for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project at 1783 El Camino Real, zoned Unclassified, APNs: 025-123-04f, 025-123-042, 025-123=100, 025-123=130 and 025-123-140 February19, 2008 1. For the purposes of review, the building shall be designed as a Type I Highrise conforming to Health & Safety Code §13211 and the provisions of Title 24 Building Standards Code specific to Highrise in addition to previous comments. 2. Primary water supply shall be from a municipal water connection. POB may be connected to the Hospital fire water system. A secondary on -site water equal to the hydraulically calculated sprinkler design demand plus 100 gallons per minute additional for the total standpipe system shall be provided for a minimum of 30 minutes. Calculations will have to be determined for the roof at 1,500 sqft under Ordinary Density to determine if the Hospital 40,000 gallon water storage tank and fire pumps will serve as secondary supply to the POB. (CBC 403.2, 903.3.5.2). 3. The POB may use the Hospital Fire Department Connection located at the hospital loading dock provided pressures for the standpipe meet a minimum 100 psi at the roof. 4. POB shall be provided with two (2) standpipes in stairway vestibules with hose connections at the roof level. (CFC 905.4, NFPA 14, 7.3.2, 7.4) 5. POB may be connected to the Hospital's emergency power system. 6. Smoke Control design shall be designed to pressurize the fire floor, one floor above and one floor below. 7. A Fire Control Room shall be provided for the POB and located at the exterior of the building within 50 feet of fire apparatus access. Final location shall be approved by the CCFD Operational staff prior to final. 8. Locations of Fire Department Two-way Communications System shall be approved by the CCFD Operational staff prior to final. RPVIPwpd by Datp: SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM THE CITY OF BURLINGAME'S MODEL LIST OF STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES The following list contains measures to control sources of stormwater pollutants associated with the post -construction phase of new development and redevelopment projects. Each identified source of pollutants may have one or more appropriate control measures. A. Illegal Dumping to Storm Drain Inlets and Waterways On -site storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No Dumping! Flows to Bay," or equivalent, using methods approved by the City of Burlingame. B. Interior Floor Drains Interior floor drains shall not be connected to storm drains. C. Parking Garages Parking garage floor drains on interior levels shall be connected to an interceptor or a water treatment device approved by the City prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. D. Pesticide/Fertilizer Application Landscaping shall be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to stormwater pollution. E. Pool, Spa, and Fountain Discharges Swimming pool discharge drains shall not be connected directly to the storm drain system or to the sanitary sewer system. When draining is necessary, a hose or other temporary system shall be directed into a sewer (not storm drain system) clean out. A sewer clean out shall be installed in a readily accessible area. F. Food Service Equipment Cleaning Food service facilities shall have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment, which is connected to a grease interceptor and the sanitary sewer. The sink or cleaning area shall be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. New buildings constructed to Page 1 of 4 secondary__contain-m-ent_areas. The _director -may -allow-a drain for workareas(but ---- ---- --------- not for hazardous storage areas) is the drain is connected to a wastewater treatment facility approved by the director. K. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance 1) The owner of every newly constructed, remodeled, or converted commercial or industrial facility shall comply with the following requirements upon commencement of discharge. Interior floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluidsorvehicle equipment -cleaning -- wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and equipment. The director may allow an exception to this requirement under the following circumstance: a. When the drain is connected to a wastewater treatment unit approved by the director. 2) Interior floor drains shall not be connected to the storm drain. L. Fuel Dispensing Areas Fueling areaS2 shall have impermeable floors and rain covers that extend a minimum of ten feet in each direction from each pump. M. Loading Docks 1) Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the director is provided. Any loading dock area with a sanitary sewer drain shall be equipped with a fail-safe valve, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation. 2) Exterior drains shall be connected to the storm drain. Such connections shall nol be permitted within the following areas: a. Loading docks where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled. N. Fire Sprinkler Test Water Fire sprinkler test water shall not be discharged into the storm sewer system. Discharge shall be routed to the sanitary sewer. O. Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water 1) Boiler drain lines shall not be connected and allowed to drain to storm drain system. z The fueling area shall be defined as the area extending a minimum of 6.5 feet from the corner of each fuel dispenser or the length at which the hose and nozzle assembly may be operated plus a minimum of one foot, whichever is greater. Page 3 of 4 [ut.�:-D-mom Qj a a F f ¢ .i O .� P 5 g 0.T... � � 0 U .0 1 11h s Ijk j'Ep@ 3 ° 1q,111 1gg' Vt It IV "8F�-q� .° C) 40 HIM I m ba pp pp 6 91 l 1 ? 1 ♦ 1 hr-104 u 98 .t g311 a k HOU fit B e Huff g" gq §�[[@@ pB ?g�BAd f�o �1 gg�A�t�vigil Item No. - - Consent Calendar _-- PROJECT LOCATION 1790 Escalante Way City of Burlingame Item No':2, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Consent Calendar -- Special Permit and Parking — Address: 1790 Escalante Way Meeting Date: May27, 2008 Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit fora Basement and Parking Variance for a first and second story addition and new basement area to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Architect: John C. Lee APN: 025-352-030 Property Owner: David Zhang _ __ _ _ _ Lot Area: 8,299 _SF- _— General Plan: -Low -Density Residential-------__- - Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 Class 1(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. May 12, 2008, RegularAction Meeting: At the Planning Commission RegularAction meeting on May 12, 2008, the Commission had concerns with potential view blockage caused by the ridgeline of the library addition (May 12, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission voted to continue the item to the Consent Calendar with direction to the applicant to reduce the height of the library roofline by a minimum of 18 inches, 24 inches preferred, and to install story poles to reflect the revised height of the library ridgeline. Revised plans were. submitted on May 15, 2008, to address the Commissions and the neighbors concerns. The revised plans include a reduction in the proposed plate height of the library addition from 9'-1" to T-6" and a change to the pitch of the library addition from 4:12 to 2.5:12. These two changes lowered the overall height of the library ridgeline by a total of 1'4". The story poles have been revised to reflect the lowering of the library ridgeline. Project Description: The existing two-story house with an attached, undersized two -car garage (18'-1 0"wide x 18'-4" deep, clear interior dimensions) contains 3,070 SF (0.37 FAR) of floor area and has five bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add approximately 446 SF on the first floor along the right side of the house, to add 226 SF on the second floor at the front of the house and to build a new 614 SF basement area with a 9'-0" ceiling height (which requires a Special Permit). With the proposed first and second story and basement additions, the floor area will increase from 3,070 SF (0.37 FAR) to 3,742 SF (0.45 FAR) where the Zoning Code allows a maximum of 3,756 SF (0.45 FAR). Planning staff would note that the entire basement area, 614 SF, is exempt from the FAR calculation). The proposed project is 14 SF below the maximum allowable FAR. With the addition, the number of bedrooms will be increasing from five to six (new library counts as a potential bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached two -car garage will be reconfigured to accommodate one covered space with clear interior dimensions of 9'-5" x 20' and another covered space with clear interior dimensions of 9'-5" x 18'-8". A Parking Variance is required for the second covered parking space (18'8" deep proposed, where 20'-0" is the minimum requirement). Please note that the zoning code allows an existing 18'-wide attached garage to count as two covered parking spaces. One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway (9' x 20'). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010); • Hillside Area Construction Permit for a proposed addition in the hillside area (CS 25.62.020); • Special Permit for a new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than six and one half (6 %2) feet (9'-0" proposed) (CS 25 28.035 f); and • Variance for substandard covered parking space length (18'-8" proposed on one of the two covered spaces, where 20'-0" is the minimum requirement) (CS 25.70.020 b). Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Parking Variance 1790 Escalante Way concerns. — - _ -- - ---- -_ - - - Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on April 14, 2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions concerning the proposed second story window over the garage, the proposed bay window in the library addition and placement of the debris box during construction and voted to place the item on the consent calendar when the plans have been revised as directed and story poles have been installed (April 14, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes). The designer submitted revised plans, dated stamped April 16, 2008, to address all the changes requested by the Commission. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: __ 1_- _ _ _-Compatibility -of-the architectural -style -with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings for Design Review: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Plannin Cg ommission's April 14, 2008 Design Review Study Meeting, April28, 2008, RegularAction Meeting and May 12, 2008, RegularAction Meeting, that the addition is straight forward and well organized, that the architectural style is consistent throughout the house, and that the project is consistent with the pattern in the neighborhood, the ;project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five Design Review Guidelines. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a hillside area construction permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's April 14, 2008 Design Review Study Meeting, April 28, 2008, Regular Action Meeting and May 12, 2008, RegularAction Meeting, and because the ridgeline of the proposed library addition has been lowered by V-4", the placement of the proposed addition will not have a substantial impact on the view from the adjacent properties or on the distant views in the neighborhood, and the project is found to be compatible with the Hillside Area Construction Permit criteria listed above. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. -3- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Parking Variance 1790 Escalante Way changing theroof height& pitch shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. 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; and 12. 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. Erica Strohmeier Planner c. John C. Lee, applicant and architect. Attachments:' Minutes from the May 12, 2008, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting E-mail from the City Arborist, Steve Porter, concerning the neighboring trees at 3130 Atwater Drive Minutes from the April 28, 2008, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting Story Pole certification letter and plan from Kavanagh Engineering — dated April 24, 2008 Story Pole Plan from applicant — date stamped April 21, 2008 Minutes from the April 14, 2008 Design Review Study Meeting Application to the Planning Commission -5- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION- Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 4.---17-90-ESC-AL-ANTE-WAY, ZONED-11=4 - APPLICATION- FOR -DESIGN -REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JOHN C. LEE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID ZHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 28 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated May 12, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. - - - John -Lee, 7`I'I-San-Miguel-Lane,, Foster City; represented -the applicant. Visited 1760 Escalante and saw that the ridge is below eye level, and view requires a sharp angle and is blocked by trees. Commission comments: Concern regarding integration of roofline of addition and clipped off corners of library addition; doesn't fit with architecture of property, or neighborhood; these concerns haven't been addressed in the revised plans. Library addition protrudes into the neighbor's distant view; could the roof be at -a lesser pitch to reduce view impacts; consider changing roof pitch on addition to 3:12 pitch. Bringing ridgeline down is difference between approving and denying the project. Public comments: Dana Wemple, 3130 Atwater Drive and Jeff Kaufman, 1760 Escalante Way; concerns about trees impacts on property at3130 Atwater Drive have been relieved somewhat; remaining concern is that excavation for basement is limited to only where the story poles are located; encouraged bringing down the ridgeline will reduce view impacts. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Could be comfortable with a reduction in the height of the addition. Commissioner Terrones moved'to approve the application by resolution, with the conditions included in the staff report, and the additional condition that the ridgeline of the roof of the addition be brought down by 12 to 18-inches. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion by Commission Brownrigg to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to reduce height of roofline by a minimum of I6-inches, 24-inches preferred, and instal( story poles to reflect the revised height of the ridgeline. The item may be placed on the Consent Calendar when it returns to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: 91 From: PARKS -Porter, Steve Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:25 AM To: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica Subject: 1790 Escalante Way Erica, Upon inspection at 1790 Escalante Way, It appears that there will be little or no construction impact to the neighboring Pine Trees at 3130 Atwater Dr.. The construction will be at least 15 feet away, and outside of the neighboring Pine Trees dripline. AP,R-24-2008 11:10 FROM:KAURNRGH ENGINEERING 650 579 1960 TO:96963790 P.1 rxnvP%1m1%ur-1 C1V%211VCCK1F _ 708 CAROLAN AVENUE • BURLINGAME, CA 9401 TEL: (650) 579-1944 . FAX: (650) 579-1960 0755 Zhang c01.doc kavenc(Mrcn com 08.0424 OF 6 Erica. Strohmeier Fax: +1 (650) 696-3790 City of Burlingame RE: 1790 Escalante Way, Burlingame - STORY POLE CERTIFICATION FAX On 4-22-08 we surveyed the story poles for the subject site as shown on the attached sketch SK-3 "Story Pole Diagram" dated 4-23-08 with results as follows: ELEVATION— TOP OF POLE [feet] POLE SURVEYED P#101 122.30 P#102 _. 126.36 P#103 122.39 P#104 110.62 P#1.05 115.94 P4106 118.07 P#107 11.6.18 P#108 113.48 /Very yttruly yours, 0051 Charles L. Kavanagh RCE 20858 No. 20858 CC: Exp. 9-30-09 David Zhang sr CIVIL 1790 Escalante Way �rE a ChO Burlingame, CA 94010 Lee AtoC. Architect rchct office 650-345-6663 711 San Miguel Lane cell 650-200-8400 Fos Foster City, CA fax 650-345-8338 archjcl@grail ;com CIVIL DESIGN . SURVEYING . UTILITIES SINCE 1983 Page 1 of 2 00 N O M C «+ M -p N W i O En I,• U 'Q r- a RECEIVED APR 2 4 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PIANNING DEPT. No.2863 P- 1 Apr•21. 2008-- 2:02P dyi� �)��, oressorsse. 'ONI StSNNV1 I.-I-r.' Iji{:fr r.'4 icy r,' N % �M di. N 1.LA C] ..J a �J z k � � § � s @ 0 IL 0._,I w 0 01,'_ 0 0 2+ auL."h _ �-- a xx z _z Fou U, ? Q ❑ pew �iwz in W p E ,9; g op H i a u wrwn S CL n o g Ili,X .^ NMtl y� NA \rr�\\ - FCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 BIIRLir�Gt1ME p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org -APPLICATION -TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel Number: (�J PROJECT ADDRESS: %� © i r� WZ01 d2"/ ° APPLICANT project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Jahn G:; "_t Address: City/State, Phone (w) (Home): (Fax): 6Ci (E-mail): OrCA-1 t l W W/ Ai, HITECT/DESIGNER project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Ol/lIn C_ i_P !/-!� Address: City/States Phone (w) (Home): (Fax): 6 ✓ U" _;�S� 4' _, 3 0 (E-mail): Y_Gh, G i ° �f M of t i c COVI PROJECT AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I 3est of my knowledge and be 6 mrit's sionat I am aware of the -ommission. ?roperty owner's PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Address: { 7 �'i L' ,`. L Al i W,4( City/State/Zip: '�311f:\7 L Y4C-�M4f � aj1A, 10I Phone (w): (Home): _ (Fax): _ (E-mail): _ Please mark one box With 0 to indicate the contact person for this project. SF :rtify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the // _Date: and herby authorize the above applicant to submit this appticatidn ib Kg Planning Date: CITYCIF PUVRJNIC q}n,E Date submitted: S:%Handouts\PC Application 2007.handout Van aance Appl6cation -- - For existing garage does not have legal size space for one parking stall 1790 Escalante Way, Burlingame, Ca 94010 a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The existing garage depth does not have the required 20' in length to meet the current zoning code for one parking space__in the garage. The front -of the -garage -is- located at the front yard set back line does not have space to extend and the rear is the existing utility space. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. To meet the current zoning requirement to have 20' depth garage, the garage must enlarge to add 18"' in length. The additional length will create unnecessary hardship, The existing garage is functional to meet compact auto stall. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. This garage is an existing condition. It was built with the original residence. It will not change with this variance, d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, build and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? This garage will remain the same as it was. It will not alter the aesthetics, mass and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Rs.:.. F �� k+ t a f �.T MAR 2 4 2008 CITY pr [JURL.IN GAME r tANPJ;Nri j r.F?, NEXT UPSTREAM MH MH #E1-21015 RIM 100.27 MH #E1-21014 \t REF. ELEVATION (� \ TC 100.00 (ASSUMED) /-� �j'Y 10�• G� 1. ' ,BOG Got •,,r;. �- Q NOTES: 1. FIELD SURVEYING. Performed November 14, 2007 using Leico NA 828 automatic level. 2. REFERENCE ELEVATION. Cut x on top of curb near a fire hydrant EL 100.00 (assumed). 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Lot 9, Block 43 "Mills Estate No. 25" filed February 3, 1964 in Book 59 of Maps at Pages 40. APN 025-352-030 AREA 8,298 SF 0.191 ACRES 4• BASE DRAWING. From John C. Lee, Architects/Planners Inc., 711 San Miguel Lane, Foster City, CA 94404, Tel. (650)345-6663. Kavanagh Engineering added elevations and sanitary sewer information based on city datum per Note 2 above. 160.03 0 /(E) O DRIVEWAY , BASKETBALL 1/4 COURT-- L121 M m j 1 5 (VEST OVERFLOW TRIM OF = o TOILET c� EL 106.05 nm m I o I � I L_ I INDICATES 1 "=16' E2 -.4 I I z I n / (E) CONC v SLAB (E) CONC. PAVEMENT / ? I / (_NJ) TEMP. GLASS p / SKYLIGHTCI BELOW eRABLE9 LEGEND: oo� ��°�' FF Finish Floor ah GR Ground MH Manhole SSCO Sanitary Sewer Cleanout TC Top of Curb TP Top of Pavement (E) Existing (N) New Y r1E EN�".�` GR tip3.35 pROFFSSIon \ _ 'H-B 2, €r 2008 ri - �c No. 20858 Z CITY OF Bt.R—ING•AME °t.nNviNea ot'aT. Exp. 9-30-09 KAVANAGH ENGINEERING sifn CIVIL LIF \ 7D8 CAROLAN AVE. BURLINGAME, CA DAVID ZHANG 94010 650 579-1944 SK— 2, APPR: eL BURLINGAME, CA 1790 ESCALANTE WAY BY.' DIS IVA CITY OF BURLINGAME BACKWATER PROTECTION SCALE: 1"=16' JOB: 0755 BR SITE PLAN I DATE: 12-19-07 Project Comments Date: September 20, 2007 To: d City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal _ (650)_55876.0.0 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-352-030 Staff Review: September 24, 2007 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. Replace all displaced/damaged sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 9/24/2007 Project Comments Date: October 18, 2007 (Revised Plans) To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 X Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal _(650�_558-7260_ _ __ (650)_558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-352-030 Staff Review: September 24, 2007 *** Although the basement has been revised the comments of 9/20/07apply and must be addressed before this project can move forward to the Planning Commission. 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. NOTE: Projects for which Building Permit applications are received on or after January 1, 2008 must comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. Projects that have been approved by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission on or before December 31, 2007 may use the 2001 California Codes. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 4) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 5) Comply with the new, 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential � ildings. Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. <_-Q ooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress .-------windows on the elevation drawings. Include the windows for the Library. ?vide a second means of egress from the basement area. 8) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 9) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 10) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 11) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. 12) NOTE: Plans that specifically address items 6 and 7 must be re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Date To: From Project Comments October 18, 2007 (Revised Plans) ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 E3 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 d Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600_ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-352-030 Staff Review: September 24, 2007 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: Date: -;2— � �� Project Comments Date: September 20, 2007 To: From: Subject: matt meview: City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 City Arborist Q NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 City Attorney Planning Staff Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, APN: 026-352-030 Z4, ZUUY 1) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement bonstruction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the construction project (including demolition). Include appropriate stormwater BMPs as Project Notes. These BMPs include but are not limited to the following: • Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly to prevent contact and contamination of stormwater; • Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; • Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering site and obtain all necessary permits; • Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on -site except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated; • Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate; • Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; • Limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff; • Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; • Avoid tracking dirt or other materials off -site; clean off -site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping method; • The Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors regarding the construction BMPs. 1 of 2 WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SOIL EROSION? G:/�/: G Water and wind carry soil from our Bay Area land down into our streams, lakes and the Bay. This soil carries with it pollu- tants such as oil and grease, chemicals, fertilizers, animal wastes and bacteria, Which threaten our water fuali. Such erosion also costs the home construction industry, local government, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars a year. Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding. The loss of soil from a construction site results in loss of topsoil, minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in the landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it clog our culverts, flood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys wildlife and damages recreational areas such as lakes and re- servoirs. As an example, road and home building in the Oakland hills above Lake Temescal filled the lake to such an extent that it had to be dredged in 1979 at a public cost of $75%000. M � NEED MORE INFORMATION? ABAG has produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion called "Money Down the Drain." It is available for showing to any interested group. Call ABAG Public Affairs at (415) 841-9730. ABAG has also published a''Manual of Standards for Sur- f Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively designs and practices for erosion prevention, sedi- ment control, and control of urban runoff. The manual addresses problems and solutions as they apply to California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from ABAG and is available on reference at many local libraries and in city and county public works and planning depart- ments. USDA Soil Conservation Service personnel are willing to provide more information on specific erosion problems. This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park District. AY n Of, DA 061 /.PE" OOVEflXMENfE PROTECTING YOUR EROSION EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT I U WHAT YOU CAN DO TO a Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of dol- lars a year. We lose valuable topsoil. We have to pay for damage to roads and property. And our tax money has to be spent on cleaning out sediment from storm drains, channels, lakes and the Bay, You can protect your prop- erty andprevent—future headaches by following these guidelines: BEFORE AND DURING CONSTRUCTION Plan construction activities during spring and summer, so that erosion control measures can be in place when the rain comes. Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site design WO help you avoid expensive stabilization work. Preserve existing vegeta- tion as much as possible. Limit grading and plant removal to the areas under current construc- tion. (Vegetation will naturally curb erosion, improve the appearance and the value of your property, and reduce the cost of landscaping later.) • Use fencing to protect plants from fill material and traffic. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable as- phalt or porous paving blocks. • Preserve the natural contours of the land and disturb the earth as little as possible. Limit the time in which graded areas are exposed. Minimize the length and steepness of slopes by benching, terracing, or constructing diversion structures. Landscape benched areas to stabilize the slope and improve its appearance. • As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation on all areas that are not to be paved or otherwise • Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water, restricting traffic to certain routes, and paving or gravel- ing access roads and driveways. TEMPORARY MEASURES TO STABILIZE THE SOIL k 6 Grass provides the cheapest and most ef- fective short-term.ero- sion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To find the best seed mix- tures and plants for your area, check with your local nursery, the U.S. Department ofAg- riculture Soil Conserva- tion Service, or the University of California Cooperative Extension. Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable envi- ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy-lo-obtain mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips and straw. Straw mulch is nearly 100%"effective when held in place by spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber (tackifrers), by .punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tack- ing a netting over it. Commercial applications of wood fibers combined with various seeds and fertilizers (hydraulic mulching) are effec- tive in stabilizing sloped areas. Hydraulic mulching with a tackifier should be done in two separate appli- cations: the first composed of seed fertilizer and half the mulch, the second composed of the remaining mulch and tackifier. Commer- cial hydraulic mulch applicators —who also provide other erosion control services — are listed under "landscaping" in the phone book. - - ----RE-SOLUTION-APPROVING-GATEGORIGAL--E-XE-MP-TION, DESIGN -REVIEW,, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Parking Variance and Special Permit for a first and second story addition and new basement area to a single family dwellinq at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, David Zhang property owner, APN: 025-352-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 27 2008, -at-which-time it reviewed -and considered -the staff report -and all other written - materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15301 Class 1(e)(1), which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Parking Variance and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Parking Variance and Special Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27"' day of May, 2008 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" _- _Conditions_of_approvaL_for Categorical. Exemption, -Design -Review, -Hillside -Area -Construction Permit, Parking Variance and Special Permit 1790 Escalante Way Effective June 6, 2008 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design - -which should -be evident -at -framing, -such -as -window -locations -and -bays; -are -built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. 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; and 12. 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. _ m� and Parking Variance For a Proposed Residential Condominium Address: 1226 El Camino Real Meeting Date: 05/27/08 Request: Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit and Parking Variance for construction of a new, four-story, nine -unit residential condominium. Applicant/Property Owner: 1226 El Camino LLC APN: 026-096-400 Architect: Kirk Miller Affiliates Lot Area: 12,874 SF General Plan: Medium High Density Residential _ _Zoning_R-3 Adjacent Development- Multifamily Residential CEQA Status: Proposed project covered by Mitigated Negative Declaration 547-P, attached. Current Use: 12-unit apartment complex in four separate buildings. Proposed Use: 9-unit residential condominium in one building. Allowable Use: Multiple family, duplex, and single-family dwellings. Project Summary: The applicant is proposing a new, four-story, nine -unit residential condominium building with partially below -grade parking at 1226 El Camino Real, zoned R-3. The approximately 12,874-square foot project site currently contains four, two-story apartment buildings with a total of twelve occupied units, and carports in the two rear buildings. The project site currently consists of two lots (Lots 7 and 8, Block 17). All existirig buildings would be demolished as part of the project and replaced with a single four-story, nine -unit - condominium building. With the proposed project, Lots 7 and 8 would be combined. The following applications are required: • Mitigated Negative Declaration, a determination that with mitigation measures there are no significant environmental effects as a result of this project; Condominium Permit for a new four-story, nine -unit residential condominium building (CS 26.30.020); and Parking Variance for substandard back-up space on -site (15'-0" back-up space provided for spaces 11- 21 where 24' is the minimum required for 90' parking) (C.S. 25.70.025, 1, c). May 12, 2008 Action Meeting: At the May 12, 2008, Planning Commission action meeting, the Commission provided additional comments for the applicant's to address and continued the item (May 12, 2008 P.C. Minutes). The applicant submitted a written response dated May 15, 2008, and revised plans, date stamped May 19, 2008 (sheets A4.1 through A4.4), to address the Commissions' concerns. This list below provides all of the concerns and suggestions stated at the May 12, 2008 action meeting. Please refer to the applicant's letter for responses to each item. With regard to replacement of the curb, gutter and sidewalk, Engineering staff confirmed that the curb, gutter and sidewalk will be required to be replaced as a part of this project in compliance with the design standards established by Caltrans. An encroachment permit from Caltrans will be required for replacement of the curb, gutter and sidewalk. • The drawings are so flat that you don't have a sense for the materials. • Concerned that the base will be lost by the decline in the grade of the lot; may not be appreciated. • Prefer the arched entry. • Referenced 1512 Floribunda Avenue as a successful use of Spanish/Mediterranean architecture. • Clarify that windows will be aluminum clad wood windows. • Specify 4-inch recess depth for windows (from face of wall to glazing). Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit and Parking Variance 1226 El Camino Real _species of Elm trees- as_approv--_y.Qattra-n-s._ The two- -o-ther_eucal-yptus-tr_eesron"o-the-north-and-one to — the south of the property, will not be removed unless Caltrans decides to remove them at a later date. I Inclusionary Zoning: This project is subject to Inclusionary Zoning regulations which require that an affordable unit be included with any residential projects with 4 or more units. The nine -unit proposal requires one affordable unit, and the applicant is proposing that Unit 1 B, a two -bedroom unit on the ground floor, will be an affordable unit. The applicant may use up to two of three incentives offered including increasing the building height up to 46'-0", reducing the common open space by up to 50% or 200 SF (whichever is greater), or increasing the number of compact parking stalls. The applicant is using the incentives to increase the building height and number of compact parking spaces. The height of the proposed building is 45'-5" where 46-0" is the maximum allowed using the affordable incentive. The applicant is proposing 10 of the 21 parking spaces-(48%) to-be-compactsize -(8'-x-1T). Based -on -this proposal; the affordable unitmustbe maintained -at that market rate for 10 years. As part of the project, the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with a third party agency to provide the affordable unit for sale or rent. A condition of approval has been added. The City recently completed an agreement with Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley for administration of affordable units in Burlingame. On -Site Parking and Transportation/Traffic Analysis: The code requires 18 parking spaces for the residents of the units, two guest parking spaces and one service vehicle parking space, for a total of 21 on -site parking spaces (21 on -site spaces are provided). The garage provides eight standard parking spaces, 10 compact spaces, one disabled/guest space and one standard guest space; the service vehicle parking space. is provided in front of the building. The garage also contains storage areas and a garbage enclosure. Access to the proposed partially below -grade garage would be from El Camino Real by way of two driveways at the north and south ends of the property. Currently, there are two driveway curb cuts at these locations. There are two existing 9'-0" wide private access easements along the south property line, one on the subject property and one on the adjoining property at 1224 El Camino Real. Together, these easements create an 18'- 0" wide area which is used for vehicular access by both properties. For the proposed project, the easement would be used as back-up space for spaces 11-21. Although an existing private access easement exists, a Parking Variance is required because the back-up area is not entirely on the project site. The Parking Variance is required for substandard back-up space on -site (15'-0" back-up space provided for spaces 11-21 where 24' is the minimum required for 90' parking). This space intentionally left blank. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit and Parking Variance 1226 El Camino Real environmental im g y have —been -incorporated—into—the— fact. "Cheri ation —measures -m—the—Initial—Stud -- - recommended conditions of approval (see conditions in italics). Responses to Letter from Department of Transportation, dated April 2, 2008: During the 30-day public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments were received from the Department of Transportation (see attached letter from Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief, dated April 2, 2008), regarding Cultural resources, maintenance services and encroachment permit. Planning staff provided the following responses to these comments: Cultural Resources: Mitigation measures in the initial study apply to the project site, including any work in the Caltrans right-of-way. In addition, Condition #3 has been added which requires that if --during--construction -within—the state —right -of -way -there is —an inadvertent archaeologicalorburial- discovery, the Department of Transportation shall be immediately contacted. Maintenance Services: The proposed project landscape improvements and maintenance within the Caltrans right-of-way will be the responsibility of the applicant. Planning staff would note that the proposed landscape plan indicates two Chinese Hackberry trees to be planted in the Caltrans right-of- way. However, this tree species cannot be planted in the right-of-way, since Caltrans has approved only the Accolade or Frontier species of Elm trees. The City Arborist notes that Caltrans plans to replace the existing eucalyptus tree in front of the site within the next year as part of their tree replacement program along El Camino Real. Encroachment. -Permit: Condition_.#4 has..been--added requiring the -applicant -to .apply for an encroachment permit for any work proposed with the Caltrans right-of-way. This space intentionally left blank. 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit and Parking Variance 1226 El Camino Real Arborist, City Attorney and NPDES Coordinator. Planning staff would note that the applicant has been working +vith the various City departments to address their comments. Many of the comments have already been addressed on the proposed plans. Please note that Public Works Department reviewed and accepted the proposed 18% driveway slope at the front of the site (15% is the maximum slope without Public Works Department approval). March 10, 2008 Study Meeting: At the March 10, 2008, Planning Commission study meeting, the Commission provided several comments and suggestions for this project (March 10, 2008 P.C. Minutes). The applicant submitted a written response dated March 26, 2008, and revised plans, date stamped April 3, 2008, to address the Commissions' concerns. This list below provides all of the concerns and suggestions stated at -- the study meeting. Please -refer to the -applicants -letter for responsesto-item—Responses-required-by staff are provided at the end of the list. Comments addressed by applicant (see applicant's letter dated March 26, 2008 for responses to these comments): • On sheet GO-0, and on landscape plan; shows gas meters next to driveway and in front of walk; could be placed on other side away from the walkway; or could be placed on the other side near service parking, should be screened with landscaping so they are less visible. • On Sheet L-2; parking shown on front for deliveries looks tight; could it be widened, though it may impact landscaping in the area; particularly since off of El Camino Real; also consider shortening landscape arms -adjacent to facilitate ingressandegress. - _ _ . __.._ _.. • More attention to the details on a building of this size is needed; in particular, make sure that the window sill and trim are wood. • Muntin bars should be true or simulated true divided light -style. I • Chimney elements are a strong feature and should be another material other than stucco to make a statement; add more shape or something to show that they are being supported at the bottom. • With respect to the roof garden ; thanks for providing the space; consider looking to "BuiltltGreen.org" for guidance on sustainable treatment of the roof garden • Concern with stucco posts on the balconies, there are a lot of stucco elements, could be too much. • Be certain to call out specific materials used in finishing as well as size of finishing elements. • Note on plans that all windows are clad aluminum, simulated true divided light. • Asked if the retaining wall at the front of the property can be removed. • Still some concerns about the exterior elevations; still a bit stark particularly above the entry; the tile roofs are still just a token gesture, perhaps provide additional wood ornamentation on front facade to tie in this detail, or consider straight parapet with more details and a trim band. • Use wood sills on windows. • Details of backflow preventer at the front of building are needed; what is proposed for screening. • The stair element at the front of the building needs some more work to make it more architecturally appealing. • The visual simulation demonstrates that the building will be taller than others in the area; does the floor assembly need to be 18-inches; couldn't it be 12-inches. • Provide additional screening and/or landscaping at the edge of the rooftop garden to provide privacy to neighbors. • Questioned how frequently the rooftop garden will actually be used. • The rooftop space could also be used for solar panels to provide increased building efficiency. • The rooftop garden will receive more sun than landscaped areas in rear of similar projects that are generally shaded. • There is not a single architectural style present on the building; could a mansard roof could be more in the vocabulary of building's style and bring down the height. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit and Parking Variance 1226 El Camino Real Required Findings �.For CE-QA.requirements—the—P-lanning- -- Commission must review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's March 10, 2008 study meeting and May 12 and April 14, 2008 regular action meetings, that the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation, and that based on the Initial Study, facts in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing, and Planning Commission observation and experience, it has been determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will -have -a significant (negative) effect on the environment-- — -- — — - - - ---- Criteria for Permitting a Residential Condominium: The following condominium standards shall apply to all land and structures proposed as a part of a condominium project and shall be evaluated and processed pursuant to the procedural requirements set forth for Conditional Use Permits in title 25 of this code. No condominium project or portion thereof shall be approved or conditionally approved in whole or in part unless the planning commission, or city council upon appeal or review, has reviewed the following on the basis of their effect on: (a) Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare; (b) The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources; and ;c) Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations. Findings for Residential Condominium: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's May 12 and April 14, 2008 regular action meetings, that the revised plans submitted address the Planning Commission's comments regarding the design of the proposal and that the project provides one affordable housing unit which increases the housing supply for households that have moderate incomes compared to the median household income for San Mateo County, the project is found to be compatible with the residential condominium criteria. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing an potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit and Parking Variance 1226 El Camino Real 7. that -the maximum--ele-vation-at-the-top-of_the=roof-ridge=shall-not-exceed-elevation 73.08' as measured- - from the average elevation at the top of the curb along EI Camino Real (27.71') for a maximum height of 45'-5", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 25.50; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 36.00'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 46.50'; fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 57.00% and the top of ridge elevation shall be 73.08 ; stair enclosure elevation shall not exceed elevation 75.24' and elevator enclosure shall not exceed elevation 80.66'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 8.- - - -that any -changes -to the size or envelope -of the building, which would -include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 30 and February 9, 2007 memos, and November 6, 2006 memo; the Fire Marshal's December 3 and February 12, 2007 memos and November 6, 2006 memo; the City Engineer's March 26, 2007 and December 11, 2006 memos; the City Arborist's March 30 and February 14, 2007 memos and December 27, 2006 memo; the City Attorney's March 28, 2007 memo; and the NPDES Coordinator's November 13, 2006 memo shall be met; 10. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or. in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 11. that 'guest parking stall' shall be marked on the two guest parking spaces and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 12, that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the two guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 13. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 14. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 15. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 16. that if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future, the gate shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit and Parking Variance 1226 El Camino Real - 29.— that-prAje-ct-approvals.shall-be-conditioned-upon-installation-of-an-emergency-generator-to-powe"he— sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; Mitigations from Initial Study. 30. Water all active construction areas daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible; - 31. -Cover all -trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose -materials -or -require -all trucks -to -maintain -at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer); 32. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non -toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites, 33. Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; 34. Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto ad paved roads;__, _. 35. Pave all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. as soon as feasible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; 36. During the breeding bird season (February 1 through August 31) a qualified biologist will survey the project site and large trees within 500 feet and line of sight for nesting raptors and passerine birds not more than 14 days prior to any demolition, construction, or vegetation removal, If demolition or construction activities occur only during the non -breeding season between August 31 and February 1, no surveys will be required, • Results of positive surveys will be forwarded to CDFG (as appropriate) and avoidance procedures will be adopted, if necessary, on a case -by -case basis. These may include construction buffer areas (up to several hundred feet in the case of raptors) or seasonal avoidance. 37. A qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor shall be retained to monitor all excavations in previously undisturbed sediments on the project site. The duration and timing of ,monitoring shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Applicant and the City and based on the grading plans. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. if avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out, 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit and Parking Variance 1226 El Camino Real all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: a) A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted (generally April 15 to October 15) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; b) Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets, c) Silt fences, hay bales, or some kind of inlet protection at downstream storm drain inlets and d) The post -construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debrisandsediment. 43. The project applicant, before project approval, shall prepare the appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) and NPDES Provision C.3 requirements for post -project treatment and control of storm water runoff from the site. Post -project treatment measures must be hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall specify operation and performance standards to ensure all necessary maintenance is performed regularly. The party responsible for maintenance shall be identified and the maintenance requirements included in the drainage plan; 44. The project sponsor shall, as required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, employ building materials and construction techniques_to ensure that interior sleeping areas meet an interior standard of 45 dBA. Post -construction monitoring shall be conducted to verify conformance prior to issuance of the final building permit,• 15. The project sponsor shall require construction contractors to limit standard construction activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be allowed on Sundays and holidays; 46. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically -attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. 47. The construction contractor shall be required to prepare a traffic management plan for construction within Capuchino Avenue to minimize impacts to local residents, subject to review and approval by the City of Burlingame Public Works Department. The traffic management plan shall include provision of advance notification and informational signs to direct motorists to alternate travel paths during construction work hours, and 15 CITY-OF-BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION = Unapproved Minutes---- - --- May 12,-2008- B. 1226 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 -APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION FORA NEW, FOUR-STORY 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1226 EL CAMINO REAL ZONED R-3. (1226 EL CAMINO LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND KIRK MILLER AFFILIATES, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROMAPRIL 14, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated May 12, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-eight (48) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: • None Kirk Miller, 442 Post Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. ■ The theme of the building is similar to the Burlingame Library; windows are recessed with shadow lines. ■ Major remaining issue is the front fagade. Described two alternatives for fagade treatment. Additional Commission comments:- ■ The drawings are so flat that you don't have a sense for the materials. • Concerned that the base will be lost by the decline in the grade of the lot; may not be appreciated. • Prefer the arched entry. ■ Referenced 1512 Floribunda Avenue as a successful use of Spanish/Mediterranean architecture. • Clarify that windows will be aluminum clad wood windows. • Specify 4-inch recess depth for windows (from face of wall to glazing). • Specify the stucco texture; prefer a "Santa Barbara" style finish as opposed to sand finish. ■ The design of the balcony element over the entry is awkward; since it is not useable, eliminate it and create a combination of the two proposed elevations; use larger corbels under the balconies and pair the small corbels under the bay windows. ■ Clarify finish and ensure that a different finish (e.g. limestone) is used for the "belly band" around the building, don't want to see foam trim covered in stucco. ■ Call out materials on all elevations. ■ Specify whether wood posts used on elements of the design are to be paint grade or stain grade and if they will be stained, would prefer a dark stain finish. Public comments: ■ None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the mailer with direction to the applicant to address the items raised during the Commission's discussion; the item may be placed on the Consent Calendar when ready for review. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. 21 CITY OF'BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION =—Unapproved Nlmufes April 14�068 11. 1226 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 —APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION FORA NEW, FOUR-STORY9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (1226 EL CAMINO LLC,APPLICANTAND PROPERTY OWNER; AND KIRK MILLER AFFILIATES, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Pat Fellowes and Sherrie Chow, 1008 Laurel Street, San Carlos, represented the applicant. Commission comments: On Sheet 4.1, windows are indicated as vinyl sliders and on Sheet 4.2, are specified as simulated true divided lite wood windows, please correct the plans to indicate that all windows will be simulated true divided lite wood windows with aluminum cladding on the exterior, and that the trim will be traditional wood stucco mold trim. City Engineer's letter indicates a requirement to replace the curb, gutter and sidewalk, but understand this is in Caltrans right-of-way, will the sidewalk and iron railing next to the sidewalk be replaced, if not -can -Ivy be -grown on it: Noticed that in the response letter from the previous meeting, majority of the responses answered what's going to be done, but several go completely unanswered, that is a problem. • Still have an issue with front elevation, decorative railings just not getting there, been some concerns regarding this elevation as well as side elevations. ■ Niche added is token, something needs to go in recess. Bays come down and sit above limestone block, would help if there were corbels added underneath the bay windows. Regarding the chimney treatment, corbels could be added supporting the bottom of the chimneys. • Front elevation still a concern, shutters on the windows above arch and shutters to frame the French doors could add interest to front elevation, shutters would be a way to introduce different materials, need to be sure they are right scale and style, could do away with niche if other elements such as shutters were added. ■ Instead of shutters, could add more decorative railing and bigger windows, and add planter boxes, could get rid of niche, center part looks orphaned, if windows are made bigger, shutters may not be best alternative. Have seen a design of shutters with wrought iron closures which could add interest to the front elevation. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: • Revise plans to indicate aluminum clad wood windows and wood stucco mold trim around the windows throughout the plan set. • All Commissioners are interested in seeing additional detail on front fagade, and there are a couple of options to achieve. Could add shutters to windows, but need to see shutter design and see samples. • Windows could be increased in size and add more decorative railing to break up mass. • Chimney element should have corbels to support cantilevered element. • Niches are arbitrary. 22 ---1-226_EL CAMINO-LLC- - - -- - -- 1 008 LAUREL STREET SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 OFFICE 650-2989964---FAx 6 0-298.9974 April 22, 2008 Ruben Hurin Community Development Department - Planning Division APR 3r; 2,008 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 e rail,NJNGAM A YININ.0 DEFT - - —1226 EI-Camino Real - - - Response letter to the April 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes. 1. On Sheet 4.1, windows are indicated as vinyl sliders and on Sheet 4.2, are specified as simulated true divided lite wood windows, please correct the plans to indicate that all windows will be simulated true divided lite wood windows with aluminum cladding on the exterior, and that the trim will be traditional wood stucco mold trim. Notes have been corrected to indicate simulated true divided lite wood windows with aluminum cladding and with wood sills. 2. City Engineer's letter indicates a requirement to replace the curb, gutter and sidewalk, but understand this is in Caltrans right-of-way, will the sidewalk and iron railing next to the sidewalk be replaced, if not can Ivy be grown on it. Sidewalk and iron railing is owned by Caltrans and will not be replaced. Verde Vista is to be planted at the back of the retaining wall. 3. Noticed that in the response letter from the previous meeting, majority of the responses answered what's going to be done, but several go completely unanswered, that is a problem. Responses from the previous meeting of March 17 were answered where applicable; other comments were statements that did not need further addressing. 4. Still have an issue with front elevation, decorative railings just not getting there, been some concerns regarding this elevation as well as side elevations. The niche has been deleted and the design of the center fagade area went through numerous design study and sketches by Architect and consultants. It was in complete agreement that additional materials or treatments create a very busy as well as a different theme within itself and conflicted with the proposed architectural style. Therefore, the windows are wider and an arch type to lend some variation to other window and door openings. Railings that will mimic the ironwork of the front entry door are added to one level of the windows but not to all 3 levels so as to not create a cookie -cutter treatment process. The center of the building fagade greatly benefits from some relief of other elements such as the projected bays, cantilevered decks, recessed portions of the building, various moldingArim-workhronwork and materials of stucco, limestone, and wood. Allowing this portion of the fagade to stand in a quieter presence, having more negative space (in relationship to any openings or detailing) balances with the rest of the fagade and is in keeping with a unifying and distinctive Mediterranean style. 5. Niche added is token, something needs to go in recess. CITY -OF BURLINGAME PLANNING -COMMISSION -Approved Minutes= --- - - -- - 41&rch=10,�2008- - - VI. STUDY ITEMS 1226 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (1226 EL CAMINO LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND KIRK MILLER AFFILIATES, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, AND PARKING VARIANCE b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION Community Development Director Meeker presented a summaryof the staff report, dated March 10, 2008. Commission comments: • Commented that there were no comments in the environmental analysis regarding the flooding that occurs on El Camino Real; should there be additional conditions to address the situation. • Existing and proposed conditions for hardscape are about the same; are there circumstances that require additional requirements to address flooding. • On sheet GO-0, and on landscape plan; shows gas meters next to driveway and in front of walk; could be placed on other side away from the walkway; or could be placed on the other side near service parking, should be screened with landscaping so they are less visible. - - • On Sheet L-2; parking shown on front for deliveries looks tight; could it be widened, though it may impact landscaping in the area; particularly since off of El Camino Real; also consider shortening landscape arms adjacent to facilitate ingress and egress. • No problems with the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. • More attention to the details on a building of this size is needed; in particular, make sure that the window sill and trim are wood. • Muntin bars should be true or simulated true divided light -style. • Chimney elements are a strong feature and should be another material other than stucco to make a statement; add more shape or something to show that they are being supported at the bottom. • With respect to the roof garden ; thanks for providing the space; consider looking to "BuiltltGreen.org" for guidance on sustainable treatment of the roof garden • Concern with stucco posts on the balconies, there are a lot of stucco elements, could be too much. • Be certain to call out specific materials used in finishing as well as size of finishing elements. • Note on plans that all windows are clad aluminum, simulated true divided light. • Asked if the retaining wall at the front of the property can be removed. • The building design has improved; particularly the changes made at the main lobby, • Still some concerns about the exterior elevations; still a bit stark particularly above the entry; the tile roofs are still just a token gesture, perhaps provide additional wood ornamentation on front fagade to tie in this detail, or consider straight parapet with more details and a trim band. • Use wood sills on windows. ■ Details of backflow preventer at the front of building are needed; what is proposed for screening. • The stair element at the front of the building needs some more work to make it more architecturally appealing. • The visual simulation demonstrates that the building will be taller than others in the area; does the floor assembly need to be 18-inches; couldn't it be 12-inches. • Provide additional screening and/or landscaping at the edge of the rooftop garden to provide privacy to neighbors. • Questioned how frequently the rooftop garden will actually be used. • The rooftop space could also be used for solar panels to provide increased building efficiency. 1226 EL CAMINO LLC 1 008 LAUREL STREET SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 OFFICE 650-298-9984 FAX 650-298.9974 March 26, 2008 Ruben Hurin Community Development Department - Planning Division 501 Primrose_ Road Burlingame, CA 94010 1226 El Camino Real APIFi' 2001`, Response letter to the March 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes. 1. No comments in the environmental analysis regarding the flooding that occurs on El Camino Real; should there be additional conditions to address the situation. 2. Existing and proposed conditions for hardscape are about the same, are there circumstances that required additional requirements to address flooding. - 3. On sheet G0.0, and on landscape plan; show gas meters next to driveway and in front of walk; could be placed on other side away from the walkway; or could be placed on the other side near service parking, should be screened with landscaping so they are less visible. Gas meters have been relocated to North property line at the landscaping ship. 4. On Sheet L-2; parking shown on front for deliveries looks tight; could it be widened, though it may impact landscaping in the area; particularly since off of El Camino Real; also consider shortening landscape arms adjacent to facilitate ingress and egress. The areas have been reviewed and determined to be sufficient to accommodate the ingress and egress of a vehicle on the service parking space. 5. No problems with the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 6. More attention to the details on a building of this size is needed; in particular, make sure that the windowsill and trim are wood. All windowsills and trimwork will be of wood material. Notes have been added on plans. 7. Muntin bars should be true or simulated true divided light -style. All windows with muntin bars shall be of simulated true divided light -style. Notes have been added on plans. 8. Chimney elements area strong feature and should be another material other than stucco to make a statement; add more shape of something to show that they are being supported at the bottom. Recessed lines have been added to provide a relief element and detailing to the chimneys. 21. Questioned how frequently the rooftop garden will actually be used. The roof garden had been discussed and agreed upon the Planning Commissioners to be an asset to the development and its residents. 22. The rooftop space could also be used for solar panels to provide increased building efficiency. Project sponsor would like to incorporate this item if while under construction, the rooftops deem it possible to include them. —23. The rooftop garden will receive more sun than landscaped areas in rear of similar projects that are generally shaded. 24. There is not a single architectural style present on the building; could a mansard roof could be more in the vocabulary of building's style and bring down the height. The building is a Mediterranean architectural style and the hip roof is more in character to the overall design. A mansard roof lends a more Beaux Art or Georgian style that incorporates dormers within the roof area. 25. The entire facade should be looked at more closely with respect to detailing and tying in architectural elements. Limestone decorative features are incorporated at the entry and a limestone block treatment is at the ground level facade. A trim is applied at the sill level and windows shall be recessed in 3" from the exterior wall surface thereby defining spatial variations of the facade. The wood brackets at the roof line have been replaced with larger and more detailed type. Wood Corbels have been added under the deck areas to add some rhythm. 26. Consider a windscreen at the roof garden to make it more usable. There shall be parapet walls with trelliswork and landscaping at the side property line walls and extensive planting around the entire perimeter of the roof garden to help shield the wind. Mr. Ruben Hurin April 2, 2008 Page 2 environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans, clearly indicating State ROW, must be submitted to the address below. Traffic -related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/ M. Condie, District Office Chief Office of Permits California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622-1644 or sandra fnegan@dot.ca.gov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, LISA CARBONI District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse "Cald'ans improves mobility across California" 1226 EL CAMINO LLC 1 008 LAUREL STREET SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 OFFICE 650-298-9984 FAx 6SO-298-9974 PAT'S CELL 415-987.2954 March 1, 2008 Ruben Hurm RECEIVED Community Development Department - Planning Division 501 Primrose Road MAR 0 3 2008 Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1226 El Camino Real Response letter to the November 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting minutes. • Concern about the prominence of the parking on the ground floor; the lower level appears lifeless; consider modifying entry to make it more prominent with an emphasis on the strong center form between the two bays; perhaps look at a stair element to make it possible for residents to walls up to second floor units. The building entry has been relocated to center between the two bays, thereby creating asymmetrical balance of the building. The front entry will be more emphasized with a formal and extensive limestone design. • Add more wood elements along the center fagade to harmonize with the clay tile roof. A limestone treatment of the entry and along the entire ground floor fagade as well as decorative iron grillwork enriches the whole building fagade. • Concern regarding the loss of affordable housing units was expressed. The proposed building has been designed to current zoning codes, which now limit this site to its maximum allowable housing units. Questioned the composition of the limestone feature at the front entry; provide sample. The front entry has a formal limestone design. A sample shall be presented at the Planning Commission hearing for viewing. • Create gathering spaces within the building and on property; the outdoor space at the rear appears to be a leftover space, common open -space should designed as a pleasant space to use; create pleasant transitions to the common open spaces. As a result of the suggestion of the Planning Commission, a Roof Deck has been added for the occupants to have a dedicated outdoor place. It features City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes —IX.—DESIGN-REVIEW S-T-U- D-Y]T-E-MS July 23, 2007 9. 1226 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 — ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, AND PARKING VARIANCE FORA NEW, FOUR- STORY 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (1226 EL CAMINO LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND KIRK MILLER AFFILIATES, ARCHITECT) (108 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Deal asked the applicant if he would like to postpone both the 1226 El Camnio Real and 1509 El Camino Real projects because not all Commissioners were available for comments. Pat Fellowes, applicant, stated that he would like to move forward with the Commission discussion of the projects and not postpone them. Chair Deal recused himself from this item since he lives within 500-feet of the site, and left the dais. Secretary Terrones assumed responsibilities as acting Chair. City Attorney Anderson indicated that, due to a lack of a quorum, a subcommittee of the remaining three (3) members of the Planning Commission would provide comments relative to this item. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff._ Acting Chair Terrones opened the public comment period at 8:15 p.m. Patrick Fellowes and Sherry Chow, 1008 Laurel Street, San Carlos, represented the project. They described the access to parking across easements. The same curb cuts as exist today will be retained. Commission comments: • Simulated true divided lite windows will be required on the project; call this out on the plans. • The project is an ideal candidate for a roof garden. The open space on the site appears to be an afterthought. A roof garden should be considered. • The entryway is anemic for the size of the building. • Cautioned about using more trees near El Camino Real due to site lines. Concern about a reduction in number of dwelling units below what currently exists. • Prepare a streetscape simulation and possibly shadow analysis (shadow analysis only required if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director). A concern was raised regarding the massing of project; prepare a visual simulation. The pedestrian level design is fairly lifeless; have severe concerns about massive four-story building. Massing could affect environmental scoping. Perhaps scale back on some of the units to provide different massing on the building. Rear elevation massing is broken up; the same should be done at the front. Bring visual elements down in height. The open space at the rear is merely a token. Include restrooms, water supply, gas line and other amenities that will encourage use by residents rather than a fountain. It may be beneficial to have other Commissioners present to comment on the design. A direction/style needs to be chosen. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame, indicated that she lives one block from El Camino Real. People don't use the front facing balconies on apartment buildings facing El Camino Real. Encouraged placing balconies further back on property so that they are more useable. C: City of Burlingame _Planning Department _ 501 Primrose Road _P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 ___www.burlingame.org ____ APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: l22 G r—A CA^ih o APPLICANT Name: (2�Z& 0 Cayy'irla L-Lc- Address: 10601...AtIwe-( 2ftiG f /� City/State/Zip: � C stA-105. 450c q4y7z� Phone (w): 6 cje 2.1 Qj - !jq g ¢ (h): &' ARCIIITECT/DESIGNER PROPERTY OWNER Name:_ _ � kew-y j e- C.ko w Address: 1006 LO.Weef sfr-eo' City/State/Zip: S44 CAV' 10.r, Gib q ¢p 76 Phone (w): 6o941 - 019 q a 84- (fly G�c✓D-29$,.gq?�- Name: 9Vry-- mI (I ew, i f- I iers Address: 442 Fo—s f" S f-• i:+e- 061 City/State/Zip: S'AYl �i/a217Gt SG� I CA Please indicate with an asterisk Phone (w): 41E-78$ - 87gg °w 16 2-the contact person for this project. (h): (fl: -+('S 708 --L9 ( LIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rem at Lyli i- 1P4-51 06vt ( JAN 2 6 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to'the �:best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: 65h q2t) Date: �l I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commis ion. Property owner's signature: �Date:�Io 7 Date submitted: PCAPP.FRM CITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE APPLICATION RECENED Project Address: f22 E1 Camino Real Burlingame, CA 94010 APR 1 6 2007 APN#026-096-230 (Lots 7 and 8 of Block 17) CITY 01F BURLINGAME Parking Variance for 24'-0" clear back-up encroaching 9 feet into cross -access PLANNING DEPT. easement along right side (southeast) property line. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area An existing 9-ft. wide Right Of Way Easement and easements of ingress and egress for driveway, construction and maintenance purposes, but not for parking were recorded in October 1950 and has been in place for almost 57 years. The owners of 1226 El Camino Real and owners of 1224 El Camino Real intend to record for the purposes of clarification, mutual re -acknowledgement of the original Grant of Easement Deeds described in Volume 1963 at Page 335 and Volume 1963 at Page 338, Official Records of San Mateo County. mieht result form the denial of the application Literal enforcement of the code requirement would result in a 2nd driveway and curb cut that is aesthetically not desirable by either design guidelines nor in consideration of the public's view. There would be less landscape area, as it would require additional hardscape surfaces for vehicular access and cutting down of a major tree in the right-of- way. c Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health safety,general welfare or convenience. The existing easement has been in place for almost 57 years where the subject property and adjacent building have shared this 9-11 driveway approach at the curb cut for the benefit of both adjoining lots. The existing condition should remain to allow its current usage and not adversely affect the frontage, which is on the busy El Camino Real. This also lessens the amount of in and out maneuvers that would occur and impact the traffic flow of this busy thoroughfare. The new building proposal incorporated the shared driveway to remain in the same location. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics mass bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The existing curb cut and driveway will remain in place with the proposed new building, thereby providing for the least impact on the surroundings. The existing eucalyptus trees in the public right-of-way would not be disturbed. 50M LINE ELEV.: 43.75 `SE$.SHEET C-2 -/4AVE-__- _- 1 $SMH ga RIM EL'2365 63GF 6'^ .R✓G C°2.C6 V� -- - ,� lN) T¢L, c TVNEl 19A5 . R15gRS �1 '>•s- !- .ya 1 D 0 6.r 6//0/a wwF-� tiI V REMOYC 1 WILDING Xfi — _ — _ Ip N53' 0'05"W y N (N)TEL ¢ T'Y r D 10009 r t 1� M1�fY 11 COk/C 5 I LE y'2 WP f n r, n, - s 4r:t v01 59-- p ' gu p S6—•y G2 I D �$353C S3dAF-SS ,f F. 5 yGR _ u .—,, �- _ . 9/liJ� , b" SGLE /"v 2I a ASI DT f.LAR NERE 'as q 4CATp{ ,Sy sJ- fir'PVc SSY�+�'4-� ELEVATION j CATCH BASIN D \r, \ RASN t APPROXIMATE GRATE F : 23A' tyN.l•D - 23.38 A LAWN maRz.>o/ ✓ e t �• I OPEN MANHOLE j INV. EI_, 208Y (BOY) z TT '!�' \ u'^v fx *t '.e KG (NO L@) PLUMED PIPE NOT HSIB IE I^ > 9ip a A/C w1TN DIPtT 1 S' AM1TGH 2JJ�. .ryk' I 6tl v q '1 44�(RP ' @ 6/ E E•.a c>dT I I \ EX18UN LOOR 3• ma's , 5Z e I dkf @ /0 MAX 2 STORY3,VR M PW✓ PELOW 0, I 5 C 1 _. i'�---SMB, _ \ F ,) p.G3 :1e" AID C f,PNC'x A,� riN. Cr - w. '--~r`•'`A I J •N`F �•-� •r Y!: qh 1F - If 9A4UN1D j A .• •i:�\o _. AG ASPNALTWNCRE?HPAVPX6N1' D g0 •T?'\ \ \ Z' I .•y nt� \ \ .GO Ce ICRng3M CLP CNA`NWNKP3NCe b . A/C GONG, CONCRETE r.k k. s w \ I coNr't GONNKT _ NN corn CLenK(YIro RAD3 o w .yq O 2i.21 FF 1HR �GJI \ w � - - u \ I DI DRIJNIM,Ef �ymy N 2. I \ 'ONC r FP iRE$HOLU 1f II Rl h�'' I .DWY DRIVEWA• . , (E)F.P% P]GSTwG Ej ! GONG 59 i slk „ I'1 \ EB IRYCIRICE. sq 2O' N� O 4 EP - E9GC OPPAVFAAN[ g 4y51 $ SI NO .T�, .n V /.9 ai I FP PINISRPLWR 'I'N 3 \ S P.Y bP SJ: .. y - 4XIS 11kG cN( FL FLOWLINE i : C g LING w CONC' `� r EX13TNp L`%r -. DI prf%':11 BUILDING I 'LI I cv GM VALVR 9 F S li q,'Y' •p0 BUILDING TORY7 A161 GRT GMIEVAIION TBE INVERT - ��•. IN ° I - amDveNNADiwR�esl 71 - 26 OI. NC� 6 r-T ll•�� I � y0 Sol STORLI DRAW MIST 239N. t \ z w %S6 C � /]' \ J ` � SDAq( 5'NRMOPAiNMANNOLC WNC 2 '@ 1FlR 3 / M1 COYG a I ,SSW SAMTARYS5WPRGILANOUT 5 -69LF 4y PeHf^avF 5[EAS sSARi SAmTARYmANRFANWGO V - SW$nRAIN 26 .� 'FF26.0 yy5N{,�,� 1y 'sii& I \ I Tc TOPWCuNa t%4260. F^!S M6TERE �p 'G r3' B/ v' N 9 TW TGP OP WgIL I ly yp TREE ypP ry'V _-0. a rQ6 DFL�..iS6 g�FL \, _ P3 ] ,. 2AS. �.I E(VE. ELEV.: M14AN V WATER V� WVVE BLNNfl v Ga I —D— gs-E- GAS INCLVI9 LINE e �S] ��qqq �- ~ �of I` y 9.fA^ F Y •L io E 3 44 flG i' -so- ST D%Aw Lvm 2Y ..•y �- 69➢`jN 4I �A855 a 2G3 \` -SS- SAMTAAY SEWHRytNE •L OfY1�. / CALiR 3 •1p 3]�' k Dfi a CRUUNP�'- I, -W- WATERWNE n 28 CON.PER ',+nN 253. W'y! i•�"YP / 2S � 6 -v-rr_ E%ISfINGEOGEOF PAVH.�.'I T GL GT 2693 1 6 \DI GROUND 0� P',1g" � $ CI xv Y 1. 2 'VqN z�IIFAYC.T05-�-.I: 28 CA 6>8 'd� &• b r 'lf'% 29.70- _. 1U .\12 JSW .y d rvb t ,ba--wzl.e o. y.ez� ,. p # 111 �- -1-- !El ca'RK':. slPE4MlR- 979fi ...9- 2i yd P' '" STWCVT 1� S LEl� ✓6,' p IA I fi"EUCA PTUS ,.t� ] R wtr E (C) WALL U 8 1 `i� - �s zl 2sa O\ o / 1 1r \a 135- GROUND of R SUb.' EN) b140 v I PER CALTRANS A87 �., ...._._ -r-- _�_+-_y 'S.1 yG, .,Vrt \t✓- '� _- •1a C EeT,' - °lr A)eeh !El SAW cur `Elb� 'e'` PRINTED \ I \., JAB 17 Z007 EL CAMINO REAL \v / 111 ci °lu NSIM, I CONTRACI'OIgS)T08XeRCISe D[83 CAT1TION Wf1EN I Z]I I - STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82 '1`!%/D7 vpoFA \ PINES OR UNDBR, DYER ORAROIROUND STINGGAS 1 V aLOUIS ATTILIO ARATA 1 La Cruz Avanm Surrey. IN, SK Sh i PIPES OR OV8RH8AD OR UNDHROROOND BLECTRIC WIR85. vy ` GRADING, DRAINAGE'& UTILITIES PLAN C- l Na W CIVI EDgineaT & $UIVByoT Millbrae• -09 B4030 Ar2ucxogcHr,�Nr PERA9'I la xeQHRCEo room 9UNIT CONDOMINIUM BUILDING P1a6 lx CALTRANSBOIiA0Y ,AiLATEDnROEBDONE (65p)692-0927 WCffOJ EL CAh0J0 Rl?AL,A3TAT8IIlpHWAY. L � 7226.ELY:AMINO MEAL .- Checked: LAA DI 3 M.M.s�gCO: fM\AN. BvxlwOAn•>B yal=: I/17J01 DrWB. Na. R.C.F. 11413, La. Eep. 12/31/OB COUNTY OF SNd MATED CALIPORNI_y Scale! 1`= 6' D- 4975'2 RIW. EM1 9114• City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlineame.m IT p ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM >+ (to be completed by applicant when Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report is required) GENERAL INFORMATION Project Address: l22/v 1<1 CAM I rlO Z9!Xi Assessor's Parcel Number: _d2.&— d 9w'230 Applicant Name: 12:9& El C4MirO LLC Property Owner Name:...[ 2=e2f., lrl C'arviM LLC Address: 100 L-ALAY J 51,rZ4-I-' Address: Sgnie City/State/Zip: SAt') Carbs, Gf4©70 City/State/Zip: Phone: �(CD)2°J0� P�4 Phone: Permit applications required for this project s ecial permit, variance, subdivision map, parcel map, condominium permit, building permit, etc.): (special M", Cbndbmihium and approvals required for this project by City, Regional, State and Federal SITE INFORMATION Site size: Acres and 14— Existing use(s) of property: P.S) Llil is Total Number of Existing Parking Spaces]: 12 Number of Existing Structures,and Total Square Footage Will any structures be demolished for Size and use of structures to be demo] Number and size of existing trees on site`: if� Will any of the existing tress be removed? Yes If Yes, list number, size and type of trees to be removed: Square Feet Existing Zoning: - Number of Compact Spaces]: O f Each: _Yes No uvw- No Are there any natural or man-made water channels which run through or adjacent to the site? Yes _� No If Yes, where? 1 City of Burlingame minimum standard parking space size is 9'x20'. The minimum size for compact parking spaces is 8'07'. Refer to City of Burlingame Zoning Ordinance C.S. 25.70 for parking requirements for particular uses. R I �P D a Refer to the City of Burlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (C.S. 11.06) for tree remova permit and tree planting requirements. APR _ 6 2007 ENVRE CITY OF B AMOA\ME PLANNING DEPT. -- - G-ity-of-Burlingame-P-lanyting-Department 50l Primrose -Road p(650)=558 7250 F(650)-696-3790 www, urlin Building gross squar footage: Existing: Proposed!-1— -t-74-'CJ Number of floors of onstruction: Existing: 2 Proposed: 4r Traffic/Circulation # Standard and compact off-street parking spaces provided: Existing: Standard 1 Proposed;: Standard 0 Compact Compact 1.0 Total Total 21 Grading: Amount �f dirt/fill material being moved (check 0-500 cubi yards 5,000-29,000 cubic yards 500-5,000 ubic yards Over 2q,000 cubic,yards(indicate amount) Note: If fill is bein placed over existing bay fill, provide engineering reports which show the effect of the new f111 on the u derlying bay mud. Storm water runoff.- Indicate area of site to be covered etc.): I Is the area with imp rvious surfaces less than 200 feet away Yes I_ No Noise: Describe noise sources and timing of activity Noise sources generated Vibration: Will the proposal cause vibration that may sources of vibration: V30 Exterior Lighting:. Please describe an}, proposed impervious surfaces (parking lot paving, a wetland, stream, lagoon or bay? ed by your'project during construction: _ Fri . ' 74'M I adjacent properties? Describe any potential Water: Expected amount of water usage: Domestic gal/day Peak use Commercial f> gal/day Peak use 0 Expected fire flow demand SRO gallmin As per the C.3 regulations set forth by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, please respond to the following questions: 1. Would the proposed project result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? FC Refer to City of Burlingame Exterior Illumination Ordinance (No. 1477) regarding requirements which limit exterior illumination in both residential and commercial zones. APR _ 6 2007 (ENWREVORWINGAME PLANNING DEPT. — @i"f-Burlingame Planning -Department 501 Mmrose Road P-(650)=558 7250 F(65D)=6R&3790� WW burlinga—maoee General: Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Provide attachment to explain nature of all items checked `yes''. i Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. Yes No Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. Change in dust, ash, smoke fumes or odors in vicinity. Change in bay, lagoon, stream, channel or groundwater quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity (during construction and/or during operation). Site on filled land or on slope of 10 % or more. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable materials or explosives. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire water, sewage) Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (oil, natural gas, etc.). Relationship to a larger project or. series of projects. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Q -�'`�� / Signature4a�\ APR - 6 Z007 GIT,4bV4 t AIME PLANNING DEFT. 12) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 13) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 14) The fireplace chimneys must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. 15) On your plans provide a table that includes the following: a. Occupancy group for each area of the building b. Type of construction c. Allowable area d. Proposed area e. Allowable height f. Proposed height g. Proposed fire separation distances h. Exterior wall and opening protection i. Allowable ii. Proposed i. Indicate sprinklered or non-sprinklered 16) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel 17) Specify the total number of parking spaces on site 18) Show compliance with all accessibility regulations found in the 2007 CBC for existing buildings including: a. Accessible paths of travel b. Accessible countertops c. Accessible bathrooms d. Accessible parking 19) Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to issuing the building permit. 20) For applications received after July 1, 2005 the requirements of SB-1025 apply. This statute requires that 10% of all new covered multi -family dwelling units must be provided an accessible route of travel to the primary entry level entrance, public and common use areas and within the dwelling unit, and to one bathroom on the primary entrance level; accessible doors and doorways and; accessible kitchens and bathrooms; grab bar reinforcement around toilets, tubs and showers; and light switches within reach limitations. 21) All entrances to and vertical clearances within the parking structure must have a minimum vertical clearance of 8' 2" where required for accessibility to accessible parking spaces. 22) Per CBC 3003.5, all structures four or more stories in height must have at least one elevator that can accommodate a stretcher. See the referenced code section for dimensions (80" x 54") and other details. _KINK MILLER AFFILIATES - PROJECT MANAGEMENT. ARCIIITMAIRE • MASTFR PLANNING 442 POST STREET TELEPIIONE (415)7888788 SUITE 801 FAX (4 15) 798-8188 SAN FRANCISC(T CA 94102 F.MAIL KIRK($,K1RKM1LLF.R.NE'1 THE PROCESS DETERNQNES THE PRODUCT March 28, 2007 Mr. Joe Cyr, Chief Building Official City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 1226 El Camino Real Dear Mr. Cyr: Plans for a new 9 unit, three stories over parking podium condominium building, to be located at 1226 El Camino Real, Burlingame, are with the Planning Department for review by them and other departments, and then for scoping by the Planning Commission. Please be advised that all windows in sleeping rooms are designed to be in compliance with Section 310.4 of the California Building Code. They all have minimum net clear operable area of 5.7 square feet, a minimum net clear operable height of 24 inches, a minimum net clear operable width of 20 inches, and their finished sill height is no more than 44 inches above the floor. The elevator has a clear inside width of 80 inches, and a clear inside depth of 51 inches (54 inches at the door). The door is off -center and 36 inches wide. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely ou I L. k Miller, FAIA 13)For applications received after July 1, 2005 the requirements of SB-1025 apply. This statute requires that 10% of all new covered multi -family dwelling units must be provided an accessible route of travel to the primary entry level entrance, public and common use areas and within the dwelling unit, and to one bathroom on the primary entrance level; accessible doors and doorways and; accessible kitchens and bathrooms; grab bar reinforcement around toilets, tubs and showers; and light switches within reach limitations. 14)AII entrances to and vertical clearances within the parking structure must have a minimum vertical clearance of 8' 2" where required for accessibility to accessible parking spaces. 15)Per CBC 3003.5, all structures four or more stories in height must have at least one elevator that can accommodate a stretcher. See the referenced code section for dimensions and other details. 16)NOTE: Plans that specifically address items 7, 14, and 15 must be re- submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. X/ Is" Date: February 8, 2007 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 ❑ Chief Building Official W Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for preliminary review of a proposed four-story, 9-unit residential condominium at 1226 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, APN: 026-096-400 Staff Review: February 12, 2007 • Previous comments remain the same. • Disclose locations of back flow prevention device, fire department connections, and post indicator valves where appropriate. • Combustible construction to the four story shall not begin until the standpipe system to the four story is complete, operational, and approved by the fire department. Reviewed by: U �G%F"' Date: Date: Project Comments February 8, 2007 To: a( City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for preliminary review of a proposed four-story, 9-unit residential condominium at 1226 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, APN: 026-096-400 Staff Review: February 12, 2007 1. Explanation for 18% driveway slope is acceptable. Applicant is to insure that the driveway slope shall not exceed maximum slope of 18% for the driveway to the south. The other driveways shall meet the 15% maximum driveway slope. 2. Applicant has submitted the parcel maps for lot combination purposes and condominiums. 3. Applicant is working with City staff for installation of storm drain pipeline to Capuchino Avenue to the City box culvert. 4. All other comments can be addressed prior to the issuance of the Building permit. Reviewed by: V V Date: 3/26/2007 PC Item # MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: CITY ENGINEER :DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2006 RE: CONDOMINIUMPERMITFOR 9 UNITS, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSE - RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 17, MAP OF BUI2LINGAME GROVE SUBDIVISION - 1226 EL CAMINO REAL I have the following comments which need to be addressed prior to any action. [GENERAL: Show proposed drainage system and indicate that all roof and site drainage shall go to Capuchin Avenue by means of a private easement from neighboring property fronting Capuchin Avenue for the benefit of this development. The drainage pipe to Capuchin Avenue shrill terminate in a new Department of Transportation (Caltrans) type GO catch basin. As part of the project at its own cost, a new private 18" storm drain pipeline shall be designed and constructed from the new catch basin to the City storm drain culvert near Lincoln Avenue. All work must be reviewed and approved by the City. 2. Since this whole site is to be developed below street or adjacent grade, approvals will be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pinup system; and the sump pump system shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual .pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators must be so housed that they meet the City's noise requirement - see attached plan check sheet. Proposed pump and generator ate to be shown. 3. Show requited seven foot (T) minimum clearances at parking garage floor areas not j ust floor to floor. Provide room for all pipings, ducts and fire sprinklers. Disabled parking shall have access and ,parking area at eight feet two inches (87') clear. 4. All utilities to this site must be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site must be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site. 5. Indicate that new curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting this site shall be designed by a civil engineer, approved by the City Engineer, and installed by this development. ofthe subject phrcels shall be submitted to the Public Works Department -Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 2. A condominium map is required to be filed prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. This map can be pr6cessed concurrently with the lot combination map. 3. The CCR's for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City Codes. c: Owner, Architect PAWP51\FILF.S\C0ND0MAP.YtVW (REVISED 04/9/98) Name 3 Pro,el Date: November 3, 2006 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 [City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for preliminary review of a proposed four-story, 9-unit residential condominium at 1226 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, APN: 026-096-400 Staff Review: November 6, 2006 ,C=/ LeadcS OFC _%K'� �t��`cH�ofLr.Kc �lLoYfcc`ticD 5�2� �'��i1rl r2+6� �-�- �o?may ���. w,•�/ �zE���2� .aK. ;,��,rrv,�ku�,utr- /b�FL$o6ccyQ-- %�Epa2V' Fog 7flE G�2oV'Ec.Y'ccnt O� TKE Y/��E F/ty)t1 GJN Sy2✓cttaa7l '�A ^c /JG E , Reviewed by: Date: ej/a z/o G Project Comments Da e: November 3, 2006 To: City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for preliminary residential condominium 026-096-400 Staff Review: November 6, 2006 00* Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 O� City Attorney review of a proposed four-story, 9-unit at 1226 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, APN: New stormwater control requirements apply to projects of certain size. Effective 8/15/06, any project that creates 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces is subject to these requirements. Certain projects are required to incorporate and implement these specific requirements in order to address the long-term water quality impacts resulting from the development projects. Some of the requirements are listed below: o post -construction permanent stormwater treatment measures that incorporate, at a minimum, hydraulic sizing design criteria contained in Provision C.3.; o identification of the responsible party for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater controls and requirement of a signed Operation and Agreement (O&M) with the City; o incorporation of, as appropriate, site design techniques and source control measures; o requirement of stormwater quantity controls to limit increase in peak stormwater discharge from certain projects that may increase erosion in creeks (implementation date is not yet known, pending Regional Board's approval). • To find out if your project is required to meet these new requirements, please fill out the attached NPDES Permit Impervious Surface Data Collection Worksheet and return to the Planning Department. For more information about these new requirements, please read the attached brochure, New Stormwater Control Requirements: What Developers, Builders and Project Proponents Need to Know. 1 of 2 __ Project -Applicant _ Checklist for NP-DES-Permit Requirements ----- - - SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM I. PROJECT DATA Project Name APN Applicant Name Applicant Address Type of Development ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Mixed -Use ❑ Streets, Roads, Highways, Freeways, etc. ❑ Significant Redevelopment Project (as defined by STOPPP's NPDES permit Provision C.3.c.i.3) Project Address Applicant Phone ❑ Site Area (sq. ft.) ❑ Disturbed Area (sq. ft.)* ❑ Existing Impervious Surface (sq. ft.) ElNew Impervious Surface (created, added and/or replaced) (sq. ft.)** * If>: 1 acre (43,560 sq. ft.) of soil disturbance, please refer to Section III. ** If>_ 1 acre (43,560 sq. ft.) of impervious surface is added and/or replaced, please refer to Sections IV and V. (This threshold is reduced to projects that are 10,000 sq. ft. or larger starling H. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL PROJECTS —All projects must incorporate as many of the following measures as practical (check boxes that apply). A. SITE DESIGN MEASURES. Project must incorporate the following measures to the maximum extent practicable: ❑ Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. ❑ Minimize impervious surface areas. ❑ Minimize impervious areas from being directly connected to the storm drain system (e.g, direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas where feasible). Ito ❑ Maximize permeability by preserving open space. ❑ Use permeable pavement surfaces where feasible. ❑ Use landscaping to heat stormwater. ❑ Use "Bay Friendly" landscape design, as indicated in "Bay -Friendly Landscape Guidelines - Sustainable Practices for the Landscape Professional". ❑ Incorporate all applicable source control measures in attached Local Source Control Measures List. C. PERMANENT STORMWATER TREATMENT CONTROL MEASURES. Project must consider incorporating the following measures: Vegetated swale ❑ Extended detention basin (dry) ❑ Wet pond ❑ Media filter (sand, organic matter) ❑ Vortex separator (commercially available in -line treatment unit) ❑ Bioretention area Vegetated buffer strip ❑ Constructed wetland ❑ Manufactured drain insert (may not be used unless part of a multi -step treatment process) ❑ Infiltration trench ❑ Other Continued => A:\Checklist final.doc 1 of 3 BOA, Inc. IV. GROUP 1 PROJECTS: PROTECTS THAT ADD AND/OR REPLACE z 1 ACRE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE- - The following-requirements-apply-toprojectrthat= add andforreplace Y-acre (43,540 sq. f.) or more of impervious - surface, and are therefore subject to the requirements ofProviston C3 ofSTOPPP's amended NPDE,S nermit. Tf the in compliance with Provision C3, regardless of amount of impervious surface added and/or replaced, with the incorporation of appropriate pollutant source control and site design measures, and the use of landscaping to appropriately treat runofffrom the roof and house -associated impervious surfaces (e.g., runofffrom roofs, patios, driveways, sidewalks, and similar surfaces). 1. Incorporate site design measures, as listed in 6. Use of a hydraulically sized, permanent Section II.A above, stormwater treatment control, as follows (see littp: //Avww. flowstoba y. ortr/udfs/barn/C`onstlucti o 2. Incorporate all applicable source control n%20Series/stoPpp c3 handbook final df for measures listed in municipality's Local Source more information): Control Measures List, 3. Incorporate pesticide -reduction measures, such as using Integrated Pest Management. 4. Enter into an agreement of responsibility and funding for ongoing implementation and maintenance of stormwater treatment control measures, as appropriate for the control measure. 5. Treatment control measure design must be consistent with Vector Control Plan requirements, ❑ A flow -based treatment control hydraulically sized to manage the flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least 0.16-0Q, or 0.36, inches per hour; or ❑ A volume -based treatment control hydraulically sized to capture 80 percent or more of the volume of annual runoff, using local rainfall data. More hydraulic sizing information can be found at http://www.cab=handboolcs.com/Docamelits/Developnient/S ecdon Saidf - - V. HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT —In addition to the requirements under Section IV the following requirement applies to applicable" Group 1 projects located in areas subject to hydromodification management. See figure 3-1 ofSTOPPP's Hydromodification Management Plan for exempted and non -exempted areas (generally, lands east of Alameda de las Pulgas are exempt and lands west are subject to hydromodification management requirements). The HMP is available at 'z b-41, a, e;—1 —Ar 1. Use a flow duration stormwater control measure designed such that post -project stormwater discharge rates and durations match pre -project discharge rates and durations. For sizing information, please consult the HMP. (In the future, include reference to Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) download information.) "The following types of projects are exempt fiom the requirements for hydromodification management: • The construction of a single-family residence that is not part of a larger plan of development. • A redevelopment project that does not increase the amount of impervious surface and the time of concentration of stormwater runoff. • A transit type of development within''/i to''/: mile of a transit station and/or intermodal facility. • A project within a "Redevelopment Project Area" that redevelops an existing brownfield site or creates housing units affordable to persons of tow or moderate income. Reviewed by: Planning: date Engineering: date Building: date AAChecklist 6naldoc 3 of 3 EOA, Inc. http;//t�fw�_v,.waterbottrds,c_a boy/sto, rmta'tr/construction. htm 1. Stormwater Treatment Measures Stormwater treatment measures are engineered systems that remove pollutants before stormwater reaches the storm drain system, and ultimately the ocean or San Francisco Bay. The county -wide NPDES permit specifies hydraulic sizing criteria for treatment measures. Examples of treatment measures include: • Bioretention units (also called "rain gardens"), • Flow -through planter boxes, • Pervious pavement with subsurface treatment, • Vegetated swales, • Detention basins. Citv Is Stormwater Treatment Required for My Project? All projects require post - construction stormwater treatment measures to the maximum extent practicable. Treatment measures must be incorporated in projects that create and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surface, including the project's roof area, streets, sidewalks, parking lots, etc. As of August 15, 2006, treatment measures will be required for projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. Maintaining Treatment Measures Post-constmction treatment measures need ongoing maintenance to keep working properly. During project review, applicants must prepare a maintenance plan and enter into a maintenance agreement with the applicable municipality to assure long-term maintenance of treatment measures. What is Hydrograph Modification (HM)? When open land is covered with buildings and pavement, runoff flows into creeks at higher rates and volumes, resulting in creek channel erosion, flooding and habitat loss. In the past, erosion was addressed by constructing engineered channels, leading to excessive sedimentation and other problems. Does My Project Need HM Controls? STOPPP has prepared a Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) identifying areas susceptible to HM, in which projects will be required to retain, detain or infiltrate runoff to match pre -project flows and durations. The HMP will be implemented after it is approved by the Water Board (likely this year). Contacts for More Information: • STOPPP: 650/363-4305, www.flowstobay.ore • Water Board staff Keith Lichten, 510/622-2380 • Phone numbers for local stormwater programs are listed on the following link: 11tta:6vww ilowstobay or /con 4cis/ilh6ldi sohargecoord!ral Resources on the Web The following resources provide useful information for incorporating stormwater controls in projects. * C.3 Stormwater Handbook, STOPPP, 2005. Guidance on the new development provision of STOPPP's NPDES permit. h"://w", flowstobav or¢/pdfs/bm p!Conslructign"�°2QSeries/stoppp c3 liandbook_fina gdf b Guidebook of Post. Construction BMPs,- - ----- STOPPP, 2005. Post- constraction BMPs used in local projects. htto://wvnv flowstoba or /odfs/bni n/Constrncti on%20S eries/S iteDosi e nGuidebook ndf b Start at the Source, Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), 1999. Overview of site design measures. http•//ww v flowstobay or /vyidfs/bm o/Construction%20S erie s/start%20a t%20the%20sowec,pdt * List of Qualified Consultants, BASMAA, 2005. Consultants with qualifications to design treatment measures. htiy//svww,bssmm,org/re1 as�LA{9t4AA!/62o_ na1iii_ed°!o2oCon Auhaot"r olUtApdf b StormwaterSMP Handbook— New Development, California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. hM. ://www.cabmnhandl=ks ore/D evolonment.asn STOPPP gratefully acknowledges the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program for the content of this brochure. house food service facilities shall include a covered, bermed area for a dumpster. Grease removal devices shall be maintained in good operating conditions at all times. The discharger shall develop and maintain a record of periodic maintenance, and pumping of the removal device records shall be retained for a period of not less than three (3) years. G. Refuse Areas 1) New buildings constructed to house food service facilities shall include a covered, bermed area for dumpster. 2) Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the director is provided. H. Outdoor Process Activities/Equipment' 1) Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the director is provided. 2) Secondary containment shall be provided for exterior work areas where motor oil, brake fluid, gasoline, diesel fuel, radiator fluid or other hazardous materials or hazardous wastes are used or stored. Drains shall not be installed within the secondary containment areas. The director may allow a drain for work areas (but not for hazardous storage areas) is the drain is connected to a wastewater treatment facility approved by the director. I. Outdoor Equipment/Materials Storage 1) Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the director is provided. Any loading dock area with a sanitary sewer drain shall be equipped with a fail-safe valve, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation. Such connections shall not be permitted within the following areas: a. Equipment or vehicle washing areas; b. Areas where chemicals, hazardous materials, or other uncontained materials are stored unless secondary containment is provided; c. Equipment or vehicle fueling areas or fluid changing areas; d. Loading docks where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled. 2) Secondary containment shall be provided for exterior work areas where motor oil, brake fluid, gasoline, diesel fuel, radiator fluid or other hazardous materials or hazardous wastes are used or stored. Drains shall not be installed within the Examples of businesses that may have outdoor process activities and equipment include machine shops and auto repair shops, and industries that have pretreatment facilities. Page 2 of 4 2) Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 3) Roof drains may discharge to the storm drain system, provided that all roof equipment, tanks, and pipes containing other than potable water, cooling system water, or heating system hot water have secondary containment. Page 4 of 4 WHEREAS, the City's Stormwater Management Ordinance, guidelines, criteria and other written -directions require that the stormwater treatment measure(s), as shown on the - --- -- approved -Site- Plan -or-comparable-document,-be- constructed -andnmaintained-by-ther-P - Owner, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefit received by the Property Owner as a result of the City's approval of the Site Plan, the Property Owner hereby covenants and agrees with the City as follows: SECTION 1: CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT MEASURES The on -site stormwater treatment measure(s) shown on the Site Plan or comparable document shall be constructed by the Property Owner in strict accordance with the approved plans and specifications identified for the development and any other requirements thereto which have been approved by the City in conformance with appropriate City ordinances, guidelines, criteria, and other written direction. SECTION 2: OPERATION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY This Agreement shall serve as the signed statement by the Property Owner accepting responsibility for operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment measures as set forth in this Agreement until the responsibility is legally transferred to another person or entity. Before the Property is legally transferred to another person or entity, the Property Owner shall provide to the City at least one of the following: 1) A signed statement from the City or authorized public agency assuming post - construction responsibility for treatment measure maintenance and that the treatment measures meet all local agency design standards; or 2) Written conditions in the sales or lease agreement requiring the buyer or lessee to assume responsibility for operation and maintenance (O&M) consistent with this Agreement, which conditions, in the case of purchase and sale agreements, shall be written to survive beyond the close of escrow; or 3) Written text in project conditions, covenants and restrictions (CCRs) for residential properties assigning O&M responsibilities to the homeowners association for O&M of the treatment measures; or 4) Another legally enforceable agreement or mechanism that assigns responsibility for the maintenance of treatment measures satisfactory to the City. SECTION 3: MAINTENANCE OF TREATMENT MEASURES The Property Owner shall not destroy or remove the stormwater treatment measures from the Property nor modify the stormwater treatment system in a manner that lessens its effectiveness, and shall, at Property Owner's sole expense, adequately maintain the stormwater treatment measure(s) in good working order acceptable to the City and in accordance with the 2 properly maintained and are continuing to perform in an adequate manner to protect water quality and -the public health and safety-This-includcs the riglifto enter upon the Property -- -- whenever -there -is -a -reasonable -basis -to -believe that -a violation of-this-Agreement,—theC—' '— stormwater management ordinance, guidelines, criteria, other written direction, or the San Mateo Countywide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (Regional Board Order 99-059, as amended by Regional Board Order R2-2003-0023, and any amendments or reissuances of this permit) is occurring, has occurred or threatens to occur. The above listed agencies also have a right to enter the Property when necessary for abatement of a public nuisance or correction of a violation of the ordinance guideline, criteria or other written direction. The City, Regional Board, or the Mosquito Abatement District shall provide reasonable (as may be appropriate for the particular circumstances) notice to the Property Owner before entering the property. SECTION 8: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN TREATMENT MEASURES In the event the Property Owner fails to maintain the stonnwater treatment measure(s) as shown on the approved Site Plan or comparable document in good working order acceptable to the City and in accordance with the maintenance plan incorporated in the Agreement, the City, and its authorized agents and employees with reasonable notice, may enter the Property and take whatever steps it deems necessary and appropriate to return the treatment measure(s) to good working order. Such notice will not be necessary if emergency conditions require immediate remedial action. This provision shall not be construed to allow the City to erect any structure of a permanent nature on the Property. It is expressly understood and agreed that the City is under no obligation to maintain or repair the treatment measure(s) and in no event shall this Agreement be construed to impose any such obligation on the City. SECTION 9: REIMBURSEMENT OF CITY EXPENDITURES In the event the City, pursuant to this Agreement, performs work of any nature (direct or indirect), including any reinspections or any actions it deems necessary or appropriate to return the treatment measure(s) in good working order as indicated in Section 8, or expends any funds in the performance of said work for labor, use of equipment, supplies, materials, and the like, the Property Owner shall reimburse the City, or shall forfeit any required bond upon demand within thirty (30) days of receipt thereof for the costs incurred by the City hereunder. If these costs are not paid within the prescribed time period, the City may assess the Property Owner the cost of the work, both direct and indirect, and applicable penalties. Said assessment shall be a lien against the Property or may be placed on the property tax bill and collected as ordinary taxes by the City. The actions described in this section are in addition to and not in lieu of any and all legal remedies as provided by law, available to the City as a result of the Property Owner's failure to maintain the treatment measure(s). SECTION 10: INDEMNIFICATION The Property Owner shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City and its authorized agents, officers, officials and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, damages, liabilities, losses, accidents, casualties, occurrences, claims and payments, including attorney fees claimed or which might arise or be asserted against the City that are alleged or proven to result or arise from the construction, presence, existence or maintenance of the treatment measure(s) by the Property Owner or the City. In the event a claim 4 SECTION 16: RECORDATION This-Agreement-shall-bexecorded-by-Git)� the-Of-ficial-Records-aPfl3j&Reeerder' Office of the County of San Mateo, California at the Property Owner's expense. SECTION 17: RELEASE OF AGREEMENT In the event that the City determines that the stormwater treatment measures located on the Property are no longer required, then the City, at the request of the Property Owner, shall execute a release of this Maintenance Agreement, which the Property Owner shall record in the County Recorder's Office at the Property Owner's expense. The City reserves the option to record such release of this Maintenance Agreement. The stormwater treatment measure(s) shall not be removed from the Property unless such a release is so executed and recorded. SECTION 18: EFFECTIVE DATE AND MODIFICATION This Agreement is effective upon the date of execution as stated at the beginning of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be modified except by written instrument executed by the City and the Property Owner at the time of modification. Such modifications shall be effective upon the date of execution and shall be recorded. CITY OF BURLINGAME PROPERTY OWNER Name, Title Approved as to form: City Attorney G� In There are three steps to Bay/Ocean Friendly Landscaping. They include: Landscape Design and Drainage, Plant Selection, and Maintenance. Landscape Design and Drainage • Design the landscape for efficient irrigation and to slow runoff by grading landscape surfaces to have concave slope instead of convex slope. • Design the landscape to conform to natural drainage patterns. • Slow stormwater runoff from landscape areas by: o Incorporating vegetated buffer strips or swales next to impervious areas. o Including micro detention areas in the runoff path. • Avoid mosquito breeding by assuring water is ponded for less than 72 hours. • Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces by: o Designing landscape areas that support maximum permeability and infiltration capacity. o Choosing porous (permeable) pavements • Situate plants to facilitate maintenance. Install mowing strips, tree wells, and pathway edging to reduce problems associated with maintaining an interface between different design elements. • Incorporate groundcover (mulch, geotextiles, groundcover plants) in open areas to reduce weeds and erosion. Plant Selection • Choose and retain existing native, pest - resistant trees, shrubs, and plants. • Select pest -resistant plants adapted to your specific area. Consider site -specific characteristics such as soil, topography, climate (amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, and air movements), patterns of land use, and plant interaction. • Group plants with similar irrigation needs and other site -specific requirements together. • Select plants that can improve the infiltration of water such as deep-rooted plants. • Provide plants that have larger canopy areas to minimize impact of raindrops on soil; thus, reducing erosion. • Eliminate the need for routine pruning by selecting plants based on their size and shape when mature, • Minimize turf areas to conserve water. Maintenance • Maintain healthy soils by incorporating organic matter, making regular pH adjustments, and aerating regularly. • Prune to increase air circulation but do not over prune. • Regularly repair eroded or damaged surface .. areas and replace problem plants with locally adapted, pest -resistant plants. • Employ non -toxic IPM methods (biological, physical, and cultural controls) before using pesticides to treat a pest problem. • If pesticides are necessary, use the least toxic pesticide available: o Do not over apply pesticides. Follow the manufacturer's instruction for mixing and applying materials. o Avoid application of any pesticide if rain is forecasted. • Properly dispose of pesticides by recycling, reusing, or disposing as hazardous waste. For additional information call Household Hazardous Waste at (650) 303-4718. Additional Resources IPM Access, www.e1h.orR/--ipnrp IPM Landscape Design START AT THE SOURCE; BASMAA's Design Manual for Stormwater Protection Alameda County Waste Management Authority litW://www.basmaa.orddoctunents/ www.stouwaste.org/, Bay -Friendly Gardening and Landscaping Techniques Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District www.centralsan.org, Our Water Our World IPM San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District Fact Sheets www.smcniad.oru EXHIBIT "A" -- -- Conditions-of-approval-for-Mitigated-Negative-Declaration,—Condominium-Permit==arrd-Parkin Variance. 1226 El Camino Real Effective June 6, 2008 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 19, 2008, sheets A4.1 through A4.4, date stamped May 2, 2008, sheets TO.0, A1.0, and A1.1, date stamped April 3, 2008, sheets CO.O, AO.OA through AO.3, A1.2 through A1.6, A5.1 through A5.5, 1-1.1, 1-1.2 and 1-2.1, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; and that the project shall include an affordable unit as shown on the plans date stamped May 2, 2008, sheet A1.1; that this project shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements in Municipal Code Chapter 25.63; the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the administration of the sale, rent or lease of the affordable unit with Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley at least 120 days before the final inspection; 3. that if during construction within the state right-of-way there is an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery, the Department of Transportation, District 4, Office of Cultural Resource Studies, shall be immediately contacted; 4. that the applicant shall apply for an- encroachment permit from "the Department of Transportation for any work proposed in the state right-of-way; 5. that the applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans regarding the replacement of the existing eucalyptus tree in front of the site, and two Elm trees (either Accolade or Frontier) as approved by Caltrans shall be planted within the Caltrans right-of-way along El Camino Real; that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 73.08' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (27.71') for a maximum height of 45'-5", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 25.50'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 36.00'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 46.50'; fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 57.00; and the top of ridge elevation shall be 73.08; stair enclosure elevation shall not exceed elevation 75.24' and elevator enclosure shall not exceed elevation 80.66'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 8. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review•, EXHIBIT "A" Variance. 1226 El Camino Real Effective June 6, 2008 Page 3 19. 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; 20. 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; 21. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; - 22. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off -site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 23. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 24. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 25. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 26. that this project shall comply with the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 27. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; EXHIBIT "A" -Conditions CondomirriunT-Permitted-ParkMg- Variance. 1226 El Camino Real Effective June 6, 2008 Page 5 37. A qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor shall be retained to monitor all excavations in previously undisturbed sediments on the project site. The duration and timing of monitoring shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Applicant and the City and based on the grading plans. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out; 38. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Mitigated Negative Declaration Condominium Permit and Parking Variance. 1226 El Camino Real Effective June 6, 2008 Page 7 40. The project sponsor shall submit a detailed design level geotechnical investigation to the City of Burlingame Building Division for review and approval. The investigation shall include recommendations to develop foundation and design criteria in accordance with the most recent California Building Code requirements. All foundations and other improvements shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer based on site - specific soil investigations performed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. All recommendations from the engineering report shall be incorporated into the residential development design. The design shall ensure the suitability of the subsurface materials for adequately supporting the proposed structures and include appropriate mitigations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction; 41. Conduct pre -demolition surveys of the existing structure for the presence of asbestos and lead -based paint using certified contractors. If these materials are identified to be present in the surveys, they should be removed by state -certified contractors according to applicable regulations and disposed of as hazardous waste. 42. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water pollution protection plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: a) A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted (generally April 15 to October 15) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; b) Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short- term biodegradable erosion control blankets; c) Silt fences, hay bales, or some kind of inlet protection at downstream storm drain inlets; and d) The post -construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. 43. The project applicant, before project approval, shall prepare the appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) and NPDES Provision C.3 requirements for post -project treatment and control of storm water runoff from the site. Post -project treatment measures must be hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall specify operation and performance standards to ensure all necessary maintenance is performed regularly. The party responsible for maintenance shall be identified and the maintenance requirements included in the drainage plan; 44. The project sponsor shall, as required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, employ building materials and construction techniques to ensure that interior sleeping areas meet an interior standard of 45 dBA. Post -construction monitoring shall be conducted to verify conformance prior to issuance of the final building permit; CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPFA�RTMENT-r w6H16504325 BU RLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ie BURLINGAME0 d 270- PH: (650) 558-7250250 FAX. (650) www.burlingame.org fir ¢ maned From 94010 Lis POSTAGE Site: 1226 EL CAMINO REAL The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing an TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Nall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, Parking Variance, Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative and Final Parcel Map for Lot Combination for a new, four- story 9-unit residential condominium project at 1226 EL CAMINO REAL zoned R-3. APN 026-096.400 Mailed: May 16, 2008 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. ' If you challenge the subject application(s)in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director (Please refer to other side) Item # 3 i, 151"Myrs):7\1l�ihi TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: CITY ENGINEER DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2006 RE: CONDOMINIUMPERMITFOR 9 UNITS, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSE - RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 17, MAP OF BURLINGAME GROVE SUBDIVISION - 1226 EL CAMINO REAL I have the following comments which need to be addressed prior to any action. I GENERAL: 1. Show proposed drainage system and indicate that all roof and site drainage shall go to Capuchin Avenue by means of a private easement from neighboring property fronting Capuchin Avenue for the benefit of this development. The drainage pipe to Capuchin Avenue shall terminate in a new Department of Transportation (Caltrans) type GO catch basin. As part of the project at its own cost, anew private 18" storm drain pipeline shall be designed and constructed from the new catch basin to the City storm drain culvert near Lincoln Avenue. All work must be reviewed and approved by the City. 2. Since this whole site is to be developed below street or adjacent grade, approvals will be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump system shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators must be so housed that they meet the City's noise requirement - see attached plan check sheet. Proposed pump and generator are to be shown. 3. Show required seven foot (T) minimum clearances at parking garage floor areas not just floor to floor. Provide room for all pipings, ducts and fire sprinklers. Disabled parking shall have access and parking area at eight feet two inches (82") clear. 4. All utilities to this site must be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site must be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site. 5. Indicate that new curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting this site shall be designed by a civil engineer, approved by the City Engineer, and installed by this development. 1 of the -subject parcels-shall-b"ubmitted-to the-P-ublie—W-orks- Department - Engineering -Division with the parcel map for reviews. 2. A condominium map is required to be filed prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. This map can be processed concurrently with the lot combination map. 3. The CCR's for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City Codes. c: Owner, Architect F1WP51\MLES\CONDOMAP.RV W (REVISED 04/9/98) 3 Name - - - --City of Burlingame Address: 1425 Burlingame Avenue Item N Meeting Date: 05/27/08 Request: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for a food establishment to amend the hours of operation and number of employees. Applicants: Laura Leff APN: 029-201-080 Property Owner: Gregory J. Gormey Lot Area: ±9,625 SF Designer: Yuri Bubnov Zoning: C-1, Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area General Plan: Commercial, Shopping and Service Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Article 19, Section: 15301 - Existing Facilities, Class 1, consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. History: On February 14, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for an existing food establishment (Gau Pong Chinese Restaurant) at 1425 Burlingame Avenue, Zoned C-1, Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area (see February 14, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes). Overthe years, several food establishments, including Prime on the Avenue and Herb Indian Bistro, have operated at this site within the original conditions of approval. The applicant fora new food establishment, La Boheme-Restaurant;-is ---- now requesting an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to increase the hours of operation and maximum number of employees on site at any one time. A building permit for tenant improvements for this food establishment was issued in April of 2008 and construction is underway. Project Description: The applicant, Laura Leff representing La Boheme Restaurant, is requesting an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a food establishment in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area at 1425 Burlingame Avenue, Zoned C-1, Subarea A, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The original approval limits the hours of operation to 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week, with a maximum of 10 employees on site at any one time. The applicant would like to amend the condition (Condition # 8) to increase the hours of operation to 7 a.m. to 12 a.m., seven days a week, and increase the maximum number of employees on site at anyone time from 10 to 17. The applicant is requesting the following application: • Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for a food establishment to amend the hours of operation and number of employees. 9425 Burlingame Avenue ORIGINAL APPROVAL PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Use: Full Service Food Full Service FoodTseven P for Full Service Food Establishment EstablishmentEstablishment (vacant) (La Boheme Restaura __ Seating Area .._. ......_ 936 SF no change .. 936 SF Hours of Operation 11:30 am to 10:00 pm 7:00 am to 12:00 am7.00 am to 12:00 am seven days a week seven days a week days a week with ............ .--_ CUP Amendment Max. Number of 10 max on site at any 17 max on site at an max on site at any one Employees: one time one time with CUPtime with CUP AmdtAmendment Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1425 Burlingame Avenue at an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this — premises 6. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 7. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 8. that this full service food establishment may be open seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., with a maximum of 40 17 employees on site at any one time; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the l:intferm California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 4-9N 2007 Edition, and as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Stella Filmus and Laura Leff Attachments: February 14, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Form Commercial Application Form Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed February 29, 2008 Aerial Photo -3- City ofBurlingame Planning Counn ssion Minutes February 14, 2000 L. 1447 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (GARDEN CAFE, APPLICANT AND BAND OF AMERICA NT SA ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) 1-4-48 BU--RLI-NGAME AVENUE =(PARAGON AR, APPLICANT AND JAMBS & RUTH MODISETTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 28, 2000. N. 1451 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (ISOBUNE SUSHI OF BURLINGAME, APPLICANT AND THOMAS W. & DIANE L. AYOOB, PROPERTY OWNERS) O. 1453 BURLINGAME AVENUE - (BURGER KING, APPLICANT AND THOMAS W. & DIANE L. AYOOB TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS) P. 297 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - (SAM=S ITALIAN SANDWICHES, APPLICANT AND FISHER SANDRA TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) Q. 220 LORTON AVENUE - (THE ALIBI, APPLICANT AND ILA A. MACPHEE, PROPERTY OWNER) R. 246 LORTON AVENUE - (PADDY FLYNN=S, APPLICANT AND LAWRENCE INVESTMENT CO., PROPERTY OWNER) S. 250 LORTON AVENUE - (MANDARIN CUISINE, APPLICANT AND LAWRENCE INVESTMENT CO., PROPERTY OWNER) T. 2.60 LORTON AVENUE - (HOUSE OF BAGELS, APPLICANT AND RICHARD G. & DOROTHY EHIKIAN TR, PROPERTY OWNERS) U. 266 LORTON AVENUE - (NORTH CHINA INN, APPLICANT AND ROSALINDA W.H. KO, PROPERTY OWNER) V. 221 PARK ROAD - (DICEY RILEY=S IRISH BAR, APPLICANT AND LAWRENCE J. AND GLORIA A. HORN TRUSTEES, PROPERTY OWNERS) W: 231 PARK ROAD - (NARIN THAI CUISINE, APPLICANT AND LAWREICE J. AND GLORIA A. HORN TRUSTEES, PROPERTY OWNERS) X. 240 PARK ROAD - (SAKAE SUSHI, APPLICANT AND BRUCE C. KIRKBRIDE ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) Z. 321 PRIMROSE ROAD - (PIAZZA ITALIA CAFE, APPLICANT AND DSM PRIMROSE LP, PROPERTY OWNER) 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (FANNY & ALEXANDER, APPLICANT AND LORENZ KAO AND LOUISA ZEE KAO PROPERTY OWNERS) 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (NELSON=S COFFEE SHOP, APPLICANT AND SANDRA FISHER, PROPERTY OWNER) 1420A BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA (SAKS/COMPANY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports as amended by staff tonight, by solution. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. .ppeal procedures were advised. The Commission began consideration of the consent calendar at 8:10 p.m. and concluded their action at 8:15 p.m. City of Burlingame • Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road P (650) 558-7250 • F (650) 696-3790 • v burlingame org 1 6 2008 P6�91F BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT,, The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. a- v es•-( cutq� . as -t i cat d2v1. a. d t t I..'� c CA 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? i H� Y�v1�vLi d✓� tcc `,S�,s�,P.-v i qa-S 'Dre, y �, aS �t f t S-fza A,� ��n v t dvr-6( i f- w �1 a ( ���-�•r"�: � �-�- � i I 1 b� as ���� i w� ct Cc �.-rA�_�. v� i �t'l-. �-I�-ems 9- vol',, a ryne tiJ 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? rn inaY G'-\a", ljPS k -Py, � rn AC 5 4J i l � b� t�G�Y,� y,it•St�Pir�,�� "�� �i� C lrui �S (r i 1 r 6� t; rc1 � w1 C? L2CtS�� �- 2 7tFRM Rev 06.2 7 � r �iY-G �� o ' (, �; i•�`..n - -111 rino--a , _r, I t 1-o ny) r-.1,1'we—'"1L 'v _��C�LlfTW1'I City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag me.org PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM NPR 1 6 2008 "? �^ ClrY OF BURLINGAM 1. Proposed use of the site y—eS� '� ^ Criy (� �I ?0NNNIG DEPT. 2. Days and hours of operation ' 1� 2- 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type) none_ 4. Current and vroiected maximum number of emolovees (including owner) at this lncatinn- Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of AM to After 5:00 ' - AM to After 5:00 +AM to 'After 5:00 Operation PM PM S PM PM S PM PM Weekdays I y Full-time Part-time �T Weekends Full-time Z Z Z 1 _ Part time (47 5. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of 'a-- AM to After 5:00 9--AM to After 5:00 9- AM to After 5:00 Operation 57 PM PM PM PM S PM PM Weekdays �KJ y50 I �'C7 Z5CJ l q (2Z�© Weekends 2 � 21-1 15 Z_ 2�-S 2125 2�S 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owners- employees and visitors/customers): I '+ oh \D JJ/WP e.5S + 'I0 cU s+uy-rPN'S -::! I I I �- 7. Where do/will the owner and employees park? 0 W Oe-r My vr-iQ ,?-v evil, i%kal_rr I G'Lss r"24 P 5 CAI�'''J � ei hem 1 (ce �vtbliG�rCwS 1 vY l�wr U(i iv1 13Arlirgm-6,wh 8. Where dd/will the customers/visitors park? -y- i10 wv _Vura +)-\zzk4� ayzf- ����C al I ✓ 9. Present or most recent use of site C� o S4)� 10. List of other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach list if CONIIdLRCLkL.FRM u Olobs VO'3MONnana z w S'1 NOIIVAON3a HOla3lNl 3 1N3AV 3WVONnuno SZ9l INVanvis3a NOIIVOI.dI00W NVId HOOId ONOONO -'NV1d N01111OW30 €IG1f7- 1 CI09CJ(n10 NTtlM3D1513) 31JI??IA1N 3JU11�1 _ lye` Nb NltlM3415 (3) ]N11 Ali11d0Nd AIDUN �N rDDDM _ W ro w Om W y 0 O .21jC pW ti A ty¢_' 4 II :3 {1F wro� Ipw� .Uiex I I `Y 1p 'ip Wes.- p ut 4 �N�o �i?E P EY pa poW 4 0 ("' \ a w cP4� 2 � / 1 ym WI _�P� 1.P1 wp _ �pji rc2¢ 1 1t m lgi (� I L Irl—;I 1d u h W ryp Z O I _ WN Dl 3[ H o �kk ��� I 7 I j l t a }i•'.' � l^ 1-9 '' m§ � u' : W =$2 a Z � Z13e 1 x".Z W �I W Y SRGWi EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit Amendment. ------Jh425-Burlingame Avenu Effective June 6, 2008 1. that this business location presently occupied by a full service food establishment, with 936 SF of on -site seating may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 19, 2008, sheets A3 and A10; 2. that the 936 SF area of on -site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3, that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 4. that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 5. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 6. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 7. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 8, that this full service food establishment may be open seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., with a maximum of 17 employees on site at any one time; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. City of-Buriingame - `item Iva.` Meeting Date: 5/27/08 Proposal: Amendment to Title 22 of the Municipal Code, the Sign Code to exempt certain pole signs in the SL District from compliance, to amend the maximum heights allowed for monument signs in the RR, C-1 & C-2 Districts, and to correct a reference for wall sign area. Environmental Review Status: The proposed changes to the sign code are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states minor alterations to land use limitations are exempt from environmental review. May 12, 2008 Planning Commission Study Meeting: At the May 12, 2008 Planning Commission Study Meeting for this item, the Commission asked for clarification and made suggestions for modifying the provisions regarding nonconforming pole signs (refer to attached May 12, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes). Following is a summary of Commission comments and how they have been addressed. • Clarify purpose of increasing the monument sign height to 92 feet. • Identify exramples of 12-foot high monument signs in the Broadway Area. Planning staff would note that the increase to 12 foot high monument signs would not apply to the portion of Broadway within the Broadway Commercial area (zoned C-1), but would apply to that portion of Broadway between California Drive and U.S. 101 (zoned C-2 and RR), where the auto dealers are now located. There are no monument signs in this area now, the businesses in this area have either nonconforming pole signs or use wall signs to advertise their businesses. Attached are two photos of monument signs for reference. The Bay Landing monument sign at 1550 Bayshore Highway is approximately 10'-6" tall, and the Peninsula Hospital four-sided monument sign on the corner of El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive is 12' tall. The 12-foot high signs are proposed on those streets with higher traffic speeds and/or where parking occurs along the street, in order to provide adequate visibility. Concern regarding size of addition that would trigger removal of the nonconforming pole sign (issue raised by Mark Hudak from the floor). Should be allowed to be allowed to be converted to a single -identity, non -conforming pole sign if desired by the property owner. The text of the proposed ordinance has been modified to address the concern raised by Mark Hudak that depending on the size of the parcel involved, a 1000 square foot addition may be minor, and suggested that the trigger requiring removal of the sign be based on an addition which exceeds ten percent of the floor area on the site. In addition, Commissioners noted that if the property which did not contain the sign were redeveloped, the nonconforming sign should be allowed to remain and advertise only the business(es) on the parcel where the sign is located. The ordinance has been amended as follows to address these concerns: "All off -premises advertising as prohibited in 22.40.040 on the pole sign shall be removed if any of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel are redeveloped by the demolition or construction of any structure or any portion of any structure exceeding one thousand (1,000) square feet or ten percent (10%) of the floor area — gross square footage of the structures on the parcel, whichever is greater. Following removal of the off -premises advertising, the only advertising allowed on the pole sign shall be advertising of a person, product, or service located on the one parcel on which the pole sign is then located." Ordinance Amending Title 22 (Sign Code) May 27, 2008 C-1 and C-R zone districts: • Allow two monument signs on parcels with at least 300 feet of parcel frontage. • Allow three monument signs on parcels with at least 400 feet of parcel frontage. • Increase the maximum height of monument signs on El Camino Real from 8 feet to 12 feet. • Add Trousdale Drive to the list of streets in the district (Hospital property is zoned C-1). C-2 Zone District: • Allow two monument signs on parcels with at least 300 feet of parcel frontage, • Allow three monument signs on parcels with at least 400 feet of parcel frontage. • Increase the maximum height of monument signs on Broadway and California Drive from 8 feet to 12 feet. RR (Rollins Road) Zone District • Allow two monument signs on parcels with at least 300 feet of parcel frontage. • Allow three monument signs on parcels with at least 400 feet of parcel frontage, • Reduce the maximum height of monument signs on Adrian Road, Broadway and Rollins Road from 20 feet to 12 feet. • Reduce the maximum height of monument signs on all other streets from 15 feet to 12 feet. RR, IB and APS Zone Districts Change the reference to the Section which describes the sign area limitations for wall sign area. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing and consider public testimony and the analysis contained in the staff report. Following the public hearing the Commission may consider two alternatives: 1. Recommend the proposed ordinance to the City Council for action; or 2. Direct staff to make adjustments to the ordinance and refer it back to the Commission for reconsideration and action. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner Attachments: Photos of Monument Signs May 12, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2007 and May 21, 2007 Council Minutes February 26, 2007 and April 9, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes Letter from Mark Hudak dated April 4, 2007 Letter from Dennis Berkowitz dated April 3, 2007 Letter from Mark Hudak dated January 12, 2007 Newspaper Notice — Published in San Mateo Times May 17, 2008 Ordinance Amending Title 22 (Sign Code) -3- 1550 9NYSNGRE HIGHWAY EMEnGENCY -5te a--w,Is ms k �. Main Entrance ; .1 CITY OFBURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes -- --May 12, 2008 A. STUDY ITEMS AMENDMENT TO TITLE 22, THE SIGN CODE, TO EXEMPT CERTAIN POLE SIGNS IN THE SL DISTRICT FROM COMPLIANCE, AMEND HEIGHTS ALLOWED FOR MONUMENT SIGNS IN THE RR, C- 1 AND C-2 DISTRICTS, AND CORRECT A REFERENCE REGARDING WALL SIGN AREA. PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Senior Planner Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 12, 2008. Commission comments: Clarify purpose of increasing the monument sign height to 12-feet. Identify examples of 12-foot high monument signs in the Broadway area. Concern regarding non -conforming pole sign referenced by Mark Hudak; should be allowed to be converted to a single -identity, non -conforming pole sign if desired by property owner. 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 7:14 p.m. VII.ACTION ITEMS 2a. Consent C endar - Items on the Consent alendar are considered to b outine. They are acted upon simultaneous unless separate discussion an or action is requested by th pplicant, a member of the public or a Com issioner prior to the time the Co mission votes on the motion adopt. Chair Cauchi asked i yone in the audience or on the mmission wished to call any m offthe consent calendar. Item 2c (145 ollins Road) was removed from t ConsentCalendarbyOscar - ' Save the Bay'). 1t620 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, NED R-1—APPLICATION FOR ESIGN REVIEW AND VARI CES D1ELLINGVR RSCHEINHOLAREA OAND TZ ASSO RKTESING FAPPLICANT AND ARC OR A FIRST FLOOR DIECT; ANTION OD MARY LOU A GLE FA A SINGLE FA LY 2b. 9 CHANT MORE T OF THE (JERRY KUH ROAD, ZONED R-1—APPLICANN EN FEET ABOVE ADJACENT GRAD SS,,FLOOR AREA OF THE MAIN D EL, PPLICANT AND DESIGNER; Commissioner Brownnggn)ved the staff reports, Commissio er conditions in the staff reports a Chair Cauchi called for a voice v This item concluded at T 18 p.m. FOR CONDITIONAL USE PI E AND FOR STORAGE EXC ,E LLING FOR A NEW AC( AND JERRY CARMINE, approval of Items 2a and 2b ofthi s comments and the findfngs\j d by resolutions. The motion w 6te on the motion and it passed ITS FOR WINDOWS =E NG TEN PERCENT =SS Y STRUCTURE PROP TY OWNER) Consent Calendar based on tht the staff reports, with recomi s seconded by Commissioner Appeal procedures were in 2 permt �s issued for the existing Pitt porum hedge along the le ide property line o the neighbor's - proper6y 1400-C-olumbus,-and that- e-protectian�nzasurus s main in�la�ti he occupancy permit is issued for the project; and that dscaping shall be added a g the right side p erty line adjacent to th ouse in protected planter b s wherever possible and stn maintain a 9'6" c ar driveway width, plant mat als shall be selected to pro 'de screening between the p perties; seconded Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was appr ed by voice vote, 4-1 (Bay ck dissented). b. INTRODUCTION OF AND PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 22 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE SIGN REGULATIONS Senior Planner Maureen Brooks reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance amending the provisions of the sign code. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance adopting a revised Title 22 (Sign Code). Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. CA Anderson reviewed the staff report�a d requested Council hold a public hearin n the adoption of Ordinance No. 1806 to establish the comm ity development department. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There •e no comments from the floor, and the h ing was closed. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve adoption a Ordinance No. 1806 establishing the Community Developme4,Pepartment and making conforming angel to the Municipal Code; seconde ) Councilwoman Keighran. Tlie-ilQotion was approved unanimously voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel directed CC 4oi tenser to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days��doption. 7. Pat Giorm, 1445 Balbo venue, stated that then t Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee eeting is on Thursday, ay 10, and that Bike to rk Day is Thursday, Ma 17. Stephen Hamilton, 105 Cresc t Avenue, spoke on • unteer opportunities. Th ollowing citizens spol\i n�favor of saving the Easton Euca tus Tree: Mike 'flon, 1719 Easton; Jeum e faff, 615 Bayswater A ue; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Cres nt Avenue; and Diane tgiidon Wiggler, 1536 Cyp ss. There were no furthe omments from the floor. 3 Burlingame City Council May 7, 2007 Approved Minutes City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 NEW REGULATIONS FOR SIGNS -PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS (NOTICED INSAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES) SP Brooks briefly presented the project description, noting that the subcommittee had been working on the sign code update for two years now, had studied the existing sign environment and made recommendations on what works and what does not work. Subcommittee came up with the new regulations based on a new approach which determines the overall square footage of signs allowed based on the speed of travel of the street or public way on which the signs are located. Commissioners commented on the letter from Mark Hudak regarding the existing pole sign shared by Holiday Inn Express and Max's Opera Caf6, and asked if there is a way that this signage could be "grandfathered" under the new code. Planning staff clarified that the pole sign itself is now nonconforming and can continue to be used. However, the off -premise advertising issue would be created by the property when the property is divided and the existing two businesses are no longer on one parcel. This is not a nonconforming situation, but a new situation which would be created by the property owner's action subdividing the property. Commissioners expressed concern with the proposed regulation which would prohibit awnings from being internally lit, think it is too restrictive, is there a way to regulate so that the internal lights can illuminate only the portions of the awning where the letters are located and no more, and the rest of the awning remains dark. Planning staff noted that it is difficult to regulate the intensity of illumination, will look into various methods used for awning lighting and report back; note that there is a limit on the overall area of signage allowed on a site, is this the approach that was used for Fox Plaza; yes, the same approach is proposed in the sign code update, where with a variance, signage can be moved from one frontage to another and the number of signs can be increased, but there is a cap on the overall or total square footage allowed. Commissioners noted that there is an incentive for two sided monument signs, each counted as a one sided sign when determining is counted toward overall sign area, can we require that the copy on both sides be the same? Planning Staff noted monument signs are treated separately from other signage (wall, projecting and awning signs) and only one side of a monument sign is counted. CA Anderson noted that because the courts have restricted regulation on content, could not require copy to be the same on both sides. Commissioners asked about the use of artwork as signs, how would the new regulations restrict, do not want to discourage that kind of creativity. Planning staff noted that some artwork is not regulated by the sign code, if it does not specifically identify a business; if the art is determined to be a sign, it would be regulated in the same way it is now, by its size and location on the site, roof signs would continue to be prohibited, but a proj ecting sign could be designed creatively. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Chair Browmrigg noted that this item will be brought back to the Commission on the action calendar when the additional information is provided. The public hearing will be noticed in a newspaper of general circulation, notices will be mailed to people who have expressed interest in the sign code update and the information will also be posted on the City's website. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. X. COMMI\IONER'5 PORTS There�rvere no Co ssioner%Reps for revie\ \ IV --planningCommisssi — April 4, 2007 Page 2 To correct this anomaly, we have proposed a simple grandfathering clause as part of the overall revisions to the sign ordinance. This provision would preserve existing signage when a property is split, so that both properties could continue to use it. It would not authorize any new signage, nor would advertising for businesses located on other properties be permitted. From the public's standpoint, this provision would do no harm: the provision would apply to very few properties and it would be difficult for anyone to tell when it had been applied. From the business community's standpoint, this small change would have significant benefits. What, then, is the objection? I hope that you will review my earlier letter in this context. I am also enclosing a letter from the owner of Max's Restaurant regarding the importance this proposed addition to the new sign ordinance. I will be appearing at the meeting on April 9 to discuss this with you. In the meantime, please call me with any questions. Sincerely Mark D. Hudak 316 Enclosure cc: Client (w/encl.) City Manager (w/encl.) City Attorney (w/encl.) City Planner (w/encl.) 26944.0000 1 \BGLIB 1\1 326749.1 04-04=07 naiad Free -Max'; AccouatImi 6508736462 T-201 P.003/003 F-468 hotel omrently share a large sdtwture that contains sepsrete'sigas for the howl and for Max'e. We are told tbat if the land is subdivided a problem sill adac dace the ordinance does not allow a sign on one party's land to serve as the property ideotiticetion sign for an adjacent parcel. Fwtbvr, if Max's or the hotel wets to build a now sign on its own land parcel the sign would need to be con siderably smeller. This would not be acceptable for either the hotel or the restaurant since a smaller sign would clear;y have a negative impact on wWohcver business was forced to have it. Unless this problem is solved the subdivision will not occur and neitber will the important pmir* and laudseeping additiaos, and removal the unattractive pool. It is our uoderglanding that the commission is considering changes to the ordinance. Wq rage that you approve a chww that will allow for exieting Signs that ouaenTly service more than eau business to remain in plane in a gx a hared sww wbether the bWhtessos are all on the Same ptatpel or are On 4%QML parcels. 'ibis change would allow our landlord's very beneficial projcct to proceed. We we abwkrtely ao way in which the city of Budingame or any oils residents and posts would sufilr any negative impact fiom this, but, as discussed above, Our business, out wSt amers, and commu oily members driving past the sift and suing the additional landscaping and improved look, wmM all beruefit. Tn factr since our restawnint business would likely iocreme due to the improved look amd parking availability, the city would liltely oars additional revenue due to ineteased sales levels at the restaurant I thank you for your consideration of this I== that is of great impomwe to Max's. Phalan do not hesitate to call me ditealy ifyou have any questions or need addhitmal infornadom 1r,"M Mim's World r Dtamis Berkowitz President Page 2 We could avoid this dilemma by creating an exemption for existing signage in the new ordinance. I would ask that the committee consider the following approach: "Nothwithstanding any other provision herein, a sign that advertises two or more businesses located on a single property may be maintained following a subdivision, lot split, lot line adjustment; or other division of the property. In such situations, the sign may continue to advertise businesses that are located on the parcel or parcels that were part of the property served by the sign prior fo the property division, including any successor or new businesses located thereon. Such signs may be maintained, repaired, and replaced but may not be increased in size or height beyond the dimensions in existence prior to the property division." This exception would apply in only a limited number of cases throughout tfie city, so its impact on the public health, safety and welfare would be minimal. On the other hand, the flexibility would be enormous benefit to the properties and businesses affected. The exception could not be used to create new, nonconforming signs; only existing signs would be affected. Please let me know if you have any questions about oui position. I would be happy to meet with the committee if that would be helpful. I would ask that you pass on this letter to them for their consideration and let me know when the amended ordinance will be brought forward to the Planning Commission for study. ' Since Mark D. Hudak MDH:os cc: Clients 04050.00001 \13GLIB 1 \ 1317556.1 I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 22 (SIGN CODE) TO EXEMPT CERTAIN POLE SIGNS IN THE 3 SL DISTRICT FROM COMPLIANCE, AMEND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS ALLOWED FOR MONUMENT SIGNS IN THE RR, C-1, AND C- DISTRICTS, AND 4 CORRECT REFERENCE FOR WALL SIGN AREA 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. 7 In 2007, the City adopted a comprehensive revision of the City's Sign Code (Title 22). 8 Since adoption, the City has identified some inconsistencies in the regulation of monument signs 9 in the RR, C-1, and C-2 Districts. This ordinance addresses those inconsistencies. The 10 ordinance also corrects references for wall sign area in the RR, IB, and APS Districts. In 11 addition, property owners with existing pole signs in the SL District are faced with irregular lot 12 lines and patterns of development that often require lot line adjustments or splits in order to 13 properly develop or finance the properties. This ordinance would allow off -site advertising of 14 the adjacent businesses on an existing pole sign following such a lot line adjustment or split, but 15 only under very specific circumstances and conditions. 16 17 Section 2. Subsection 22.14.050(a) (C-1 & C-R Districts) is amended to read as follows: 18 (a) Based on the following criteria mid subject to the stamlards of chapter 2234; One 19 two-sided freestanding monument sign shall be permitted on a parcel frontage of one hundred 20 (100) feet ar 8u eater, l asec{ oiiYlle folloci ing.efiteria'<md;tiuJect w the,starfdat sin chapter 21 22 34 Ta zi t�i�o-sided freestanding nionumeutsigiis shall be permitted on a parcel -frontage < f at 22 le t lfitee liundied (300) feet based on the'following_criteria tot he sfaildards:ii 23 chaptgx,22:34. and Tthree (3) two-sided freestanding monument signs shall be permitted on a 24 parcel frontage of four hundred (400) feet or greater'based� the folldwHi criteri, subject to 25 the standards(in chapter 22 34.- 26 27 28 May 13, 2008 Draft 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [E:?t 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Drive 12. feet 50 square feet 100 square feet per side total area Rollins Road 8 feet 50 square feet 100 square feet per side total area All other Streets 5 feet 30 square feet 60 square feet (local) per side total area (2) Monument Sign Incentive: In order to promote monument signs in this district, two-sided monument signs are considered to be a single sign and in measuring total sign area, only one side of the sign is included in the calculation. (3) Freestanding monument signs are prohibited on a parcel frontage of less than one hundred -fifty (150) feet in length. Section 4. Section22.20,020 (SL; AA-& APN Districts) is amended to read as follows: 22.20.020 Prohibited signs;'ineluding;pole signs. In addition to the signs specified in chapter 22.40, Prohibited Signs, pole signs are prohibited. () I3owever; apolc sign lawtiilTy existinb on Mar h 31,'2008, triap contuui 'tq exist so ]oilg as_it.coufonns to the provis ons.of chapter 22.35. Futihet' `notr� ilhstanding section do vertise the,buisriresses thatare located on the result rig parcels tint only under the following May 13, 2008 Draft 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 All other streets 12 4-5 feet 40 square feet per side 80 square feet of total (local) sign area Section 6. Subsection 22.22.050(a) (RR District) is amended to read as follows: (a) Wall signs shall be permitted on any designated frontage subject to the sign area limitations listed in Section 22,22.020 22, 22.030 and the placement requirements listed in Chapter 22.48. Section 7. Subsection 22.24.050(a) (113 & APS District) is amended to read as follows: (a) Wall signs shall be permitted on any designated frontage subject to the sign area limitations listed in Section 2."�0T? 2114.030 and the placement requirements listed in Chapter 22.48. Section 8. This ordinance shall be published as required by State law. Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2008, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: U:W� R.ESIORDINANCVSignCoderevision2008-2ndDraft.wpd May 13, 2008 Draft G City Clerk �_k j I�. 3 tl .. q�' �L j City of Burlingame Address: 466 Marin Drive Item N Regular, Meeting Date: May 27, 2008 Request: Design Review and Variances for front setback, floor area ratio and covered parking space length for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Jesse Geurse APN: 029-163-230 Property Owners: Steve Druskin Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 Class 1(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The existing two-story house with an attached one -car garage contains 2,486 SF (0.41 FAR) of floor area and has three (3) potential bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add a 97 SF covered front porch area, an additional 374 SF to the rear of the first floor and add approximately 520 SF to the existing second story. The proposed covered front porch has a setback of 19'-3", where 20'-5", the block average, is the minimum requirement and therefore a front setback Variance is required. With the proposed addition and remodel, the floor area will increase from 2,486 SF (0.41 FAR) to 3,142 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) is -the rrtaXimum'allowed. The proposed project exceeds the maximum allowable FAR by 122 SF, and therefore a Variance for FAR is required as part of the application. There is no increase to the number of potential bedrooms proposed with this addition (three existing). One covered parking space (10' x 20') and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') are required on site for the proposed three bedroom house. The existing attached garage does not meet the required covered parking space length (18' existing and proposed, where 20' is the minimum requirement) and therefore a Parking Variance is required. One uncovered space is provided in the driveway (9' x 20'). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010, a, 5); • Front Setback Variance to the proposed front porch (19'-3" to porch proposed, where 20'-5", block average, is the minimum requirement) (CS 25.28.72 a, 1); • Variance for Floor Area Ratio (3,142 SF, 0.52 FAR, proposed where 3,020 SF, 0.48 FAR, is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.070); and • Variance for covered parking space length (18' existing and proposed, where 20' is the minimum requirement) (CS 25.70.020 b). 466 Marin Drive Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: April 18, 2008 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS ................ .... Front (1st fir); ......_. .. 20'-0" — -- ---. _ .. 19'-3" (to porch) . - ,.... - --------- 20'-5" (block average)' .... (2nd_fir) 20'-0 .... -- - ... 31' 7" (to dormer) 20'-5" (block average). Side (left): 4'-1" ....._._ - - 6'-2" --. :: 1 4'-0" (right): 4'-6" 5'-6" 414" Rear (1st fir). ..._..., 45 -4" (to deck ........... I ..... ......... -...... 46'-10" _... --- .....- 15 -0" (2nd fir): 64$-0" 45'-4" 20'-0" Design Review and Variances 466 Marin Drive Design -Review- Criteria: T-he criteria -for design -review as -established in-Ordinanoe-No. 1=591=adopted-by-the -- Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) .. that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, -bulk and characterof existing an potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 18, 2008, sheets T.0 through A.B, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and NPDES Coordinator's February 28, 2008, memos, and the City €ngineer's and Fire Marshal's March 3, 2008, memos shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Variances for Front Setback, Floor Area Ratio and Covered Parking Space Length as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here shall become void; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 16. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the -3- Date: May 14, 2008 To: City of Burlingame Planning Commission From: Steve and Sheila Druskin, Homeowners Re: 466 Marin Drive ECIFEI ED MAY 14 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING KEPT. The following is our response to the discussion at the April 28th Planning Commission meeting regarding our proposed design and request for variances, and to the Planning Department's May 12, 2008 memo outlining its position with respect to the FAR calculation on the current design. Dormers As set forth in the materials accompanying our request for a FAR variance, we disagree with the Planning Department's position that the dormer in Bedroom #2 should be counted in the FAR calculation. It has now come to our attention based on the Planning Department memo that the dormer over the front entry way is also being included in the FAR calculation, a position with which we also disagree. We will address each dormer separately. (a) The proposed dormer over the front entry way is not in any way usable space, nor is it accessible from any area of the house. The current entry way has an existing vaulted ceiling above it; this new dormer is to be added above that existing ceiling in order to (i) bring natural light into the stairway and (ii) improve the aesthetics on the front, street view of the house. (b) The dormer in Bedroom #2 was designed to provide for (i) the best possible usable space for the bedroom, (ii) more natural light into the bedroom, and (iii) the best possible aesthetics for the front, street view of the house. As discussed with the Commission at the April 28th meeting, the design and size of this dormer was necessary due to the arched ceiling in the existing living room below, and many alternative designs and approaches were created and considered over a 3-4 month period. On April 28th, we showed the Commission two alternative designs that had been considered but ultimately were unworkable from both an interior functionality and exterior aesthetics aspect. The Commission agreed that those designs were not acceptable alternatives. There were in excess of one dozen other designs that were created and considered, none of which worked for one or more reasons, including primarily that they were not aesthetically pleasing from the street view of the house. Further, many of the alternative designs required interior floor plan changes that did not make sense in tenns of usable space for the bedroom. This dormer is not intended to be usable space in the bedroom as it is elevated off the floor by several feet, slants upwards towards the windows and has a lower ceiling than the rest of the room. It was designed specifically not to be included as livable or usable space, and to be only treated as a dormer. In the Planning Department's May 12 memo, the Planning Department infers an intention on our part to manipulate the space in a manner different from what is proposed in this design. As part of the remodel process, CITY OF BURLINGAME- PLANNING `COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008 466 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING FORA FIRSTAND SECOND STORYADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS, APPLICANTAND DESIGNER; AND STEVE DRUSKIN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc., 405 Bayswater Avenue and Steve Druskin, 466 Marin Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Requested clarification from staff on whether dormer counts toward floor area. • Commented on the hardship for moving wall back to meet parking dimension. The applicant's justification appears to be worded too strongly. • Noted that the platform at the dormer shouldn't count towards floor area because a person can't stand in the area. ® Neither the floor area nor the front setback Variances seem justifiable. Adding detail (such as a front porch) doesn't constitute a hardship. • Is there a way to configure the space to eliminate the need for the front setback Variance? • Design is good provided that the FAR Variance can be addressed. • Creating a usable front porch is good. In order to create a useable porch, it needs to move outward a bit to provide a place to land. Hindered by the block average. The hardship is the location of the front wall of the house. The proposed front porch does not encroach too much into the setback. • If the dormer counts in FAR, scale back the family room to eliminate the need for the floor area Variance. Public comments: • None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete if the FAR Variance is eliminated, if not, then place on the Regular Action Calendar. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar if the FAR Variance is eliminated, or on the Regular Action Calendar if it is not eliminated, when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Auran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:58 p.m. Chair Cauchi indicated that he had to leave the meeting by 10:00 p.m. and left the dais, turning over the meeting to Vice -Chair Terrones. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P (650) 555.7250 F (650) 696-3790 CITY OTC. BCIRLINGAME VARIANCE APIOUCA ION 921343 4 IIS 011Y OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE FOR VARIANCE OF FAR., FRONT PORCH AND GARAGE SIZE _ b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE FOR VARIANCE OF FAR., FRONT PORCH AND GARAGE SIZE C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. SEE ATTACHED RESPONSE FOR VARIANCE OF FAR, FRONT PORCH AND GARAGE SIZE d How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? SEE ATTACFED RESPONSE FOR VARIANCE OF FAR, FRONT PORCH AND GARAGE SIZE 2) Variance: Front Porch a. The request for a variance on the set back of the new front porch from the street is requested so that the porch can remain functional and usable. The porch was introduced to present architectural aesthetics to match neighboring properties. Many neighbors have covered porches, so we do not believe the addition is inconsistent with the style of the neighborhood, nor is the proposed porch longer or wider than those in the neighborhood. We ask that the variance be granted so that the porch can be usable and functional. b. Pushing the new front porch back to meet the average 20'5" set back would cause the porch to be too narrow to be functional or usable. A porch that is neither functional nor usable would be purely cosmetic and would be detrimental to the future value of the house. We feel the addition of the front porch improves the overall style and look of the house from the street view. As mentioned above, many houses in the neighborhood have covered porches and the addition of one to this structure would be consistent with the style of the neighborhood. C. The proposed front porch will have no detrimental impact on any other house in the vicinity, nor will it cause any harm or damage to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience of any other property in the neighborhood. We believe the addition of the front porch will be a positive addition to the overall style and character of the house, which will be a positive improvement to the neighborhood. d. As stated above, the proposed new porch will not only fit in appropriately with the street view of the renovated house, but will be consistent with the design and style of many homes in the neighborhood that already include front porches. It will be an improvement to the current style of the house, and will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. 3) Variance: Garage Size a. We are requesting a variance from the requirement that the existing garage be expanded by just 1 foot as we believe the requirement is unreasonable and substantially burdensome under the circumstances. APR 1 8 2008 ---, 1 .1 IRI INInANAE. - - ��������2�- - _ - °^- d©©-©d��5>©�«w:«_ ���� au, � a N z `U z I �a Mz � O y c� I Construction Inc. 409 Bayswater Avenue Phone 650-458-6298 Fax 650-558-9454 License 874988 Date February 26, 2008 To the City of Burlingame Planning Department, O'Flaherty const., Inc. along with Jesse of Geurse Conceptual designs shot 8 elevations at 466 Marin Drive in Burlingame. The elevations shot were the (4) property corners, (3) elevations along the curb line and finished floor. All were relative to finished floor of the residence. The intended purpose was to show the elevation of the finished floor in relation to the topography of the existing lot. Sincerely Patrick O'Flaherty O'Flaherty Const., Inc RECEIVED APR 1 8 M8 G'LTY OV "3lMUNCiAma PLANNING POT, Date In 3M Subject: Project Comments February 27, 2008 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition at 466 Marin Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 029-163-230 Staff 12eviewi March 3, 2008 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 4) This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2007 California Building Code for new structures. 5) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 6) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 7) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential / non- residential buildings. Go to http://www,energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. 8) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. Note: The area labeled " Office" is a room that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement. 9) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 10) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 11) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 12) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet. Sec. 2113.9 13) NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 8 must be re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed Date: To: From: _1 Project Comments February 27, 2008 0 City Engineer (650) 558-7230 0 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ® City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ® Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 Q Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition at 466 Marin Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 029-163-230 Staff Review: March 3, 2008 1 An construction project in the City,re regardless of size, shall comply with the City Y p 1 9 p Y - NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the construction project (including demolition). Include appropriate sto►arnwater BMPs as Project Notes. 2) The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging an, storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. 3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls as necessary. a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls continuously until permanent erosion control have been established; b. Address method(s) for diverting on -site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off -site runoff arount the site; c. Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on -site. 4) Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: a. Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; b. Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Community Development and Engineering departments. Distribute to all project proponents. r�'m R r . "� For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. FEB 2 Y 2008 Reviewed by: Date: 02/28/2008 cr, v a EsuIt r .,;;v.rae F}I Rnir.,... .... .. Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as construction increase the rate of erosion 200. even 2, 000 times that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding. The loss of soil from a construction site results in loss of topsoil, minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in the landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it clog our culverts, flood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys wildlife and damages recreational areas such as lakes and re- servoirs. As an example, road and home building in the Oakland hills above Lake Temescal filled the lake to such an extent that it had to be dredged in 1979 at a public cost of $750,000. addresses problems and solutions as they apply to California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from ABAG and is available on reference at many local Iibraries and in city and county public works and planning depart- ments. USDA Soil Conservation Service personnel are willing to provide more information on specific erosion problems. This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park District. Assocunou EAST BAY REGIONAL OF BPY AFEA aovenvmeu=s PARK DISTRICT +aft3kytM Vd. B �Q Oa#land9 Water and wind carry soil from our Bay Area land down into our streams, lakes and the Bay. This soil carries with it pollu- tants such as oil and grease, chemicals, fertilizers, animal wastes and bacteria, which threaten our water quality. Such erosion also costs the home construction industry, local governmeril, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars a year. ABAG has produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion called "Money Down the Drain." It is available for showing to any interested group. Call ABAG Public Affairs at (415) 841-9730. _ ABAG has also published a "Manual of Standards for Sur- f-ce Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively `h designs and practices for erosion prevention, sedi- rnent control, and control of urban runoff. The manual • A� YOU CAN: �® on all areas that are not to be paved or otherwise covered. Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of dol- lars a year. We lose valuable topsoil. We have to pay for damage to roads and property. And our tax money has to be spent on cleaning. out sediment from storm drains, channels, lakes and the Bay. You can protect your prop- erty and prevent future headaches by following these guidelines:, ;v..r BEFORE AND DURING CONSTRUCTION PIan construction activities during spring and summer, so that erosion control measures can be in place when the rain comes. • Examine your site carefully before, building. Be aware of the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site design will help you avoid expensive stabilization work. Preserve existing vegeta- tion as much as possible. Limit grading and plant removal to the areas under current construc- tion. (Vegetation will naturally curb erosion, Improve the appearance and the value of your property, and reduce the cost of landscaping latex.) • Use fencing to protect plants from fill material and traffic. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable as- phalt or porous paving blocks. .- • Preserve the natural contours of the land and disturb the earth as little as possible. Limit the time in which graded areas are exposed. • Minimize the length and steepness of slopes by benching, terracing, or constructing diversion structures. Landscape benched areas to stabilize the slope and improve its appearance. • As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation • Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water, restricting traffic to certain routes, and paving or gravel- ing access roads and driveways. Grass provides the cheapest and most ef- fective short-term ero- sion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To find the Crest seed mix- tures and plants for your area, check with your local nursery, the U.S. Department of Ag- riculture Soil Conserva- tion Service, or the University of California Cooperative Extension. Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable envi- ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy -to -obtain mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips and straw. Straw mulch is nearly IGO% effective when held in place by spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber (tackifrers), by punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tack- ing a netting over it. nfflt n =' • 1�'a����� O$a¢"PBSrtLFP� aoa b�.°_ cial hydraulic mulch applicators —who also provide other erosion control services — are listed under "landscaping" in the -• %rim"0rfio'f%qee 5_�y�.yj3�eyyt��$$'�@ • • ij '%irpla��1 �{p-v951a��X/Pe`II phone book. AND VARIANCES RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review and Variances for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 466 Marin Drive zoned R-1 Steve Druskin, property owner, APN: 029-163-230; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 27 2008, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15301 Class 1(e)(1), which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said Design Review and Variances are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Variances are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May, 2008 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Corrditiarrs apprt5val-ferCategorical- xE-eruption,—Design Review and V riamces 466 Marin Drive Effective June 6, 2008 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. 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; and 12. 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. Item No. Action Item PROJECT LOCATION 1221 Cabrillo Avenue Design Review Amendment -- 1221-Cabrillo Avenue 1212 Cabrillo Avenue Lot Area: 5993.5 SF Plans date stampod: February 16, 2007 EXISTING ORIGINALLY ALLOWED/REQ'D APPROVED SETBACKS __ _... _ ........ ........ . --....., .... ......... .-._.... Front (1st fir): 20'-4" 18'-0" to porch 17'-3" (block average) (2nd flr): none 21'-9" 20'-0" Side (left): 11'-6" 11'-9" 4'-0" (right): 4'-0" 4'-6" 4'-0" Rear (1st fir): 32'-3" 45'-11" 15'-0" (2nd fir): none 44'-5" to bay 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2469 SF 2131 SF 2397 SF 41.1% 1 35.5% 40% FAR: 2469 SF 3331 SF 3418 SF 2 0.41 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.57 FAR # of bedrooms: not available 5 Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered 1 uncovered (20' x 20') (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Height: single -story 28'-7" 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.28.075 "S-P Basement: none basement with 9'-6" eaal ermit req uired ceiling 3 basement with ceiling i greater than 6'-6" Basement Exit: none stairway exit from special permit required basement 4 for stairway exit from basement (light or window well allowed) ' Existing nonconforming 2 (0.32 x 5993.5 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 2418 SF (0.57 FAR) 3 Special Permit for a new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (9'-6" proposed) (CS 25.28.035, f). " Special Permit for a direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well (stairway proposed) (CS 25.28.035, g). Staff Comments: Staff comments for the originally approved project are attached to the staff report. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Design Review as established in Ordinance No.1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2 Design RevievYAmendment -___ _ __ _ --_ 1212Dabr#1o_AYenue 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 14. 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; 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 comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 17. 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. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Mark Robertson, applicant and designer Attachments: May 12, 2008 and March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Letters of Explanation, dated May 14 and May 1, 2008 Staff Comments from Originally Approved Project Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 16, 2008 Aerial Photo Ct City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM March 12, 2007 2a. 1221 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMENT AND DETACHED GARAGE (BRET AND SUZANNE BOTTARINI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 12, 2007, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Browmigg opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson 918 El Grant Place, San Mateo; Bret Bottarini, property owner; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, spoke. Issues noted: ceiling height on the second floor; space between floors; plate heights on first and second floor; maximum size house and confirming with the rest of the block. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that the house was well designed, the 9 foot first floor plate is not a set rule and depends upon circumstances, in this case it works, so move approval by resolution with amended condition that there be no more than 13 inches of space between the first and second floor, which would reduce the overall height by three inches, and a maximum 8'-1" plate on the second floor and the with conditions in the staff report: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 16, 2007, sheets 1-6, with a maximum space between the first and second floor of thirteen (13) inches, maximum second floor plate height of 8'-1 ",and a reduction in overall building height of at least 3 inches, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; (2) that the sump pump shall be located in an enclosed mechanical room in the basement and it shall be soundproof so that the noise from the pump will not exceed 5 dBA at any property line of the site; (3) that one, 15-gallon street tree shall be planted by the Parks Department in the planter strip in front of the property; the species and location may be chosen by the property owner from the street tree list for trees located under power lines; (4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 4, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's January 11, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 5, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's December 5, 2006 memo shall be met; (5) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (6) 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; (7) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (8) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; (9) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; (10) 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; (11) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note 3 <a -e �� . L) City of Burlingame Planning Department MAY I P� 2008 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY OF EURt.INGA1017. SUBJECT: 1221 CABRILLO AVENUE WINDOW CHANGES PLANNING DEPT. To Whom It May Concern: We are writing regarding the window changes made to our home at 1221 Cabrillo Avenue. Initially the windows were drawn prairie style; however after speaking with the sales person at Sierra Point Windows, we realized the divides that were proposed looked out of proportion to one another. The main design element was the two sets of eight foot by six foot double French doors at the front of the home. The doors would look primarily like a single pain of glass. The divides were very thin, and personally not aesthetically appealing to us. We agreed with the window designer and our designer Marls Robertson, that the current window choice looks better and is more inline with the design of the home. A few windows had to be eliminated as well. The side light adjacent to the front door did not fit. We decided to eliminate just one of the two windows in the panty to accommodate space for more storage and a microwave. After designing the kitchen, there was only room for 2 upper cabinets. The door in the pantry is a nine light door and there is another 2X4 window in the room. We thought there was an ample amount of natural light that eliminating a window that looked directly into our neighbor's bedroom was our best solution. We think all the windows in the kitchen/family room have made a beautiful well lit room. The window in the master closets was elitminated to allow for a clothing bar to be hung. If the window would have stayed in place, clothes would be in direct sunlight. We felt eliminating this window would be okay since it did not put any direct light into the living space, the closet door typically would be closed. We hope this better explains our decisions to eliminate and change the windows. With the changes made, we feel it better suites the house and the neighborhood. Please feel free to walk through our home. We feel you'll find the house has great natural light and according to our neighbors, it is a great addition to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Bret & Sue Bottaini 1221 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Home (650) 342-1342 Voice (650) 400-8867 Fax (650) 342-4876 Botsb@Comcast.net ROBERTSON DESIGN o NORTH ELEVATION Window at Master Walk-in Clst. has been eliminated for same reason as mentioned above, and window at Homework Area has been removed because Bret has changed the open landing into a storage closet as shown on plans. He felt storage was a better use of the space. k&1J1 \ IZI]1iILIT'7 117.E The Prairie style grids originally drawn on the plans were not available in TDL. We could only find them in a surface applied format. Bret decided to go with the top grid rail format as shown on the plans. Looks just fine and is in keeping with the house style. Thank you for your kind consideration, Mark Robertson. (ATY OF BURLINGASJ E. PLANNING C7E=T. 918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399 Project Comments Date: December 4, 2006 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two -car garage at 1221 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-100 Staff Review: December 4, 2006 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 4) Comply with the new, 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential buildings. Go to htto•//www.energy.ca.aov/title24 for publications and details. 5) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. 6) Roof eaves must not project within two feet of the property line. 71 Exterior bearing walls less than three feet from the property line must be constructed of one - hour fire -rated construction and no openings are allowed. 8) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. 9) Provide a second means of egress from the basement area. 10) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 11) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 12) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 13) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. 14) NOTE: Plans that specifically address items 8 and 9 must be re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewe_4 � _ Date: Nv ,J l LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGOEERING DIVISION Project Name: 7m�w til� pa✓11t Project Address: 2 2, 'a e: following requirements apply to the project A property boundary survey shall be prefonned by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) sjl i IS a� The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3,. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. a. The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. S A sanitary sewer lateral me is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. '7, Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. _ Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. lr. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page] of 3 :-,ve development\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc 1rUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION TThe back of the driveway/ dew approach shall be at least 12 above the flow line of the frontage curb iri the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private propejrty. —A. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. ._a . For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 '.I•.1t>t;vste developmentTLANNING REVIEW CONWIENTS.doc Project Comments Date: December 4, 2006 To: i City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ® Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 00, City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff 010' Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 Q NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 City Attorney Subject: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two -car garage at 1221 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-100 staff Keview: uecemaer 4. LUUb 1) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with -the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the construction project (including demolition). Include appropriate stormwater BMPs as Project Notes. These BMPs include but are not limited to the following: • Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly to prevent contact and contamination of stormwater; • Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; • Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering site and obtain all necessary permits; • Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on -site except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated; • Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate; • Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; • Limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff; • Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; • Avoid tracking dirt or other materials off -site; clean off -site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping method; • The Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors regarding the construction BMPs. 1 of 2 WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SOIL EROSION? later and wind carry soil from our Bay Area land down into our :reams, lakes and the Bay. This soil carries with it pollu- Ints such as oil and grease, chemicals, fertilizers, animal ,astes and bacteria, which threaten our water quality. Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding, The loss of soil from a construction site results in loss of topsoil, minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies to the landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it clog our culverts, flood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys wildlife and damages recreational areas such as lakes and re- servoirs. uch erosion also costs the home construction industry, local As an example, road and home building in the Oakland hills Dvernment, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars above Lake Temescal filled the lake to such an extent that it had year to be dredged 1n,1979 at a public cost of $750,000. NEED MORE INFORMATION? 3AG has produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion addresses problems and solutions as they apply to tiled "Money.Down the Drain." It is available for showing California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from any interested group. Call ABAG Public Affairs at (415) ABAG and is available on reference at many local libraries 11-9730, and in city and county public works and planning depart- ments. V — �Tas also published a "Manual of Standards for Sur- c. anoff Control Measures" which deals extensively USDA Soil Conservation Service personnel are willing to ith designs and practices for erosion prevention, sedi- provide more information on specific erosion problems. ent control, and control of urban runoff. The manual This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park District. ASSD64�IDN Df BAY .W E.1 OOVEflN4ENL5 YOUR �M ki EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT EROSION CONTROL CAN PROTECT t� -- YOUR PROPERTY AND PREVENT y(r"l) r/ i V ege to Lion-s tabiiized slope: Security • soil in place • minimum of erosion • fewer winter clean - problems protection for house foun- dations Bare Slope: Headaches- V and Liability .' �A. • mudslide danger •;' • loss of topsoil •' • clogged storm `•'•!' drains, flooding •t�.`(y',�Yj•"•'•, problems th; ✓, t�l • expensive cleanup r"• • eroded or buried house ,� •� foundations l ,:tom:: ,.r•. �'��, r', ' TIPS FOR THE HOMEOWNE] Winterize•• your property by mid -September. Don't raft until spring to put in landscaping. You need rinter protection. Final landscaping can be done iter. zexpensive measures installed by fail will give you rotection quickly thatwill last all during the wet eason. i one afternoon you can, Dig trenches to drain surface runoff water away from problem areas such as steep, bare slopes. Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking the surface to loosen and roughen soil so it will hold seeds. Seeding of bare slopes • Hand broadcast or use a "breast seeder," A typical yard can be done in less than an hour. • Give seeds a boost with fertilizer. • Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and leaves, bark chips or straw. • Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes. • Check with your local nursery for advice. Winter alert • Check before storms to see that drains and ditches are not clogged by leaves and rubble. • Check after major storms to be sure drains are clear and vegetation is holding on slopes, Repair as necessary. • Spot seed any bare areas. RESOLUTION -APPROVING -CATEGORICAL -EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Desian Review Amendment for changes to an aooroved oroiect for a new. two-story sinale at 1221 Cabrillo Avenue, Zoned R-1, WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 27, 2008, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section: 15303, Class 3 - (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single- family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May, 2008 by the following vote: Secretary —EXHIBIT -"A" - Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment. 1221 Cabrillo Avenue Effective June 6, 2008 Page 2 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 14. 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; 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 comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 17. 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. Amendment to Design Review Address: 750 Walnut Avenue Meeting Date: 5/27/08 Request: Amendment to Design Review for as -built changes to a new two-story house with attached garage. Property Owner and Applicant: Fitali Rusli and Jaje Du APN: 028-141-330 Applicant: ASI Consulting Engineers Lot Area: 15,734 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3 - construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single- family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. History: The Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 750 Walnut Avenue on October 15, 2002. A building permit was not issued and an extension was not sought, so the project approval expired. The applicant therefore resubmitted the project as previously approved. On June 14, 2004, the Planning Commission approved by Action Calendar an application for Design Review and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling at 750 Walnut Avenue, Zoned R-1 (June 14, 2004, Planning Commission Minutes attached). A building permit was issued on December 16, 2004, and construction is nearing completion. A final inspection was performed by Planning Division staff on February 21, 2008, and a number of as - built changes were noted (see attached memo dated February 21, 2008). The Planning Commission reviewed the changes as an FYI on March 10, 2008 and requested the project be scheduled for an action hearing. The Planning Commission held an action hearing to review the item on March 24, 2008, and continued the item with direction to the applicant to provide a clear explanation for the changes that were made. The Planning Commission held a second action hearing on April 14, 2008, and referred the item to a Design Review Consultant. Request: The applicant is requesting an amendment for changes to an originally approved Design Review project for a new two-story single family dwelling (CS 25.70.010). The proposed changes are detailed in the plans date stamped February 29, 2008 (Sheets A2 and A3), March 28, 2008 (Sheets Al — Site Plan, and A4 — North Elevation), and May 14, 2008 (Sheet Al — South, West, and East Elevations, and Landscape Plan) and include: • The project was approved with divided light wood windows with wood trim, but built with aluminum clad wood divided light windows with stucco over foam trim; • The plate height of the garage area is V-2" higher than what was previously approved; • The windows on the second story of the front elevation have decreased in size; • The garage doors installed are of a different style than what was previously approved; • A patio (below 30" from adjacent grade) was added to the rear elevation; • A side door and window was added to the garage on the left elevation. Staff notes that Building Division files appear to indicate that a revision was submitted and approved for the side door and window in 2006. However, the revision was not routed to the Planning Division for review; • The project was approved with no changes to the existing asphalt driveway. However, the asphalt driveway has been removed and the applicant is requesting to install a wider colored concrete driveway (see Revised Landscape Plan, date -stamped May 14, 2008). Note that the proposed driveway has not yet been installed; • The applicant is proposing three new decorative wood trellises to be installed above the garage doors and living room window; and Amendment to Design Review 750 Walnut Avenue Regular Action Hearing (April 14, 2008): At the Planning Commission action hearing on April 14, 2008, the Commission had additional comments regarding the proposed and as -built changes and expressed concern regarding the amount of paving, landscaping, window trim package, proposed trellis over the garage door, increased plate height at the garage, and the garage doors (April 14, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission referred the project to a Design Review Consultant. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer (date -stamped May 13, 2008): The design reviewer met with the contractor, the property owners, and the designer to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project. In a report dated May 13, 2008, the reviewer notes that the present situation is a result of the owner being unfamiliar with the building and design process, contractor error, and a lack of consistency between the architectural and structural plans. To address the concerns the Planning Commission raised regarding the as -built project, the reviewer recommended and the applicant is proposing the following: • Install trellises (at least 24" deep) above the garage doors and living room window; • Add a small window or wood louver vent in the gable end of the garage; • Modify the industrial look of the garage doors by adding three vertical grooves; and • Reduce the amount of paving in front of the garage, along the left side property line. In the summary section of the report, the reviewer suggested that the applicants provide more detail on the trellis design, add small planter pocketsatthe-sides-and between the garage -doors,_and.-verify the selection of plantings to best hide the foundation. In revised plans submitted to the Planning Division on May 14, 2008, the applicant addressed each of these items. (Note that the design reviewer also recommended that concrete foundation of the structure be painted the same color as the stucco, but plans do not normally include color). Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for Amendment to Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered; that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 10, 2004, sheets A6 and L-1, February 29, 2008, sheets A2 and A3, March 28, 2008, sheets Al — Site Plan, and A4 North Elevation, and May 14, 2008, sheet Al - South, West, and East Elevations and landscape plan, and that all windows shall be divided light aluminum clad wood windows, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; Amendment to Design Review 750 Walnut Avenue 1445 El Camino Real #5 Burlingame, CA 94010 ATTACHMENTS: Design Review Consultant report date -stamped May 13, 2008 Response letter from applicant dated March 28, 2008 Minutes from April 14, 2008 Action Hearing Minutes from March 24, 2008 Action Hearing Letter from Heartwood Premium Windows and Doors, dated April 2, 2008 Architectural Certification Letter from AS[ Consulting Engineers, dated April 24, 2007 Letters from Neighbors Application to the Planning Commission Staff Notes from February 21, 2008 Site Visit Letter from applicant dated February 29, 2008 Minutes from Prior Planning Commission Hearings for 750 Walnut: - September 10, 2001 - July 8, 2002 - September 9, 2002 - October 15, 2002 - June 14, 2004 Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 16, 2008 Aerial Photo ARCHITECTS came to the conclusion that this would be a burden to the Owner with little benefit of solving the main problem. 2_ "Replacement of window trim with wood instead of the stucco mold should be done." It is true that the drawings call for wood trim and it should have been built that way, however, no wood trim detail was ever included and it was not clear what it meant. The extent and number of windows on this house make it extremely costly to re -do that detail throughout; it should not be done only on a few windows or only on the front elevation — all trim should match and be the same for all windows. The windows are aluminum clad wood and are acceptable high quality windows. The stucco foam trim molding in this case is quite simple and not gaudy, and does not in my view pose a major problem. The fact that it is the same color as the rest of the stucco wall is somewhat bothersome, and it might make sense to paint the stucco trim and change the texture to match the window color, but this could also draw more attention to the molding. The Owner is resistant to this idea due to costs and time as well as aesthetics. I do not consider the window trim a major item nor do I think the cost justifies wood trim; wood trim may not look any better unless clad with the same aluminum as the window finish. Due to the distance of the house from the public street and the extensive landscaping that helps hide the house, the trim issue is not much of a public concern. 3. "Trellis would be a way to decrease mass, also could use trellis over both garage doors and living room window:" I agree with this suggestion, and so does the Owner. The resubmitted plans show these 3 new trellises, and we discussed the size of trellis members and suggested details. The design proposed seems fine on the front elevation but should be at least 24" deep (it is shown V-ti".) The members should be heavy timber appearance as shown, rather than thin stick look, and should be nicely detailed. Trellis can be stained, or painted dark brown to match other trim and gutter. I also suggested that a small window or a nicely detailed wood louver vent be added in the gable end of the garage. The Owner has added a gable vent and I think it helps reduce mass and gives texture and interest without overdoing it. I think these actions go a long way to mitigating the too high appearance of the garages. 4. "Garage doors should be switched or modified to look less like industrial doors." These doors were made this way as a custom order. They appear to be standard doors with an added layer of wood horizontal boarding. I suggested that the horizontal look could be corrected by routing vertical grooves in the boards, therefore saving the doors. Windows were considered, but are not possible and would be problematic and too small due to the small size of each board. The Owner has confirmed that the doors can be modified as shown on the elevations, by adding 3 vertical grooves matching the horizontal grooves, to give a "gridded" appearance, similar to the widow grid idea. This makes the doors less industrial and I believe they will harmonize better with the rest of the house design. 5. "Issue with landscaping and impervious surface, added quite a bit from original application, could be reduced on left hand side." The revised landscape plan reduces the amount of paving on the left and leaves only enough for circulation and extra parking in front of living room; the owner stated that they may also want to use this extra parking area as a patio part of the time. We WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE 311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX: (650) 343-1291 / inlo@wingesaia.com / TEL: (650) 343-0101 ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING February 29, 2008 Ms. Lisa Whitman City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd, Burlingame, CA. Re: 750 Walnut Ave, Burlingame, CA APN # 028-141-330 & #028-014-141-15A MAR J 8; 2008 CITY OF LURLINGNAF PLAID NIN!Q DLPT, Dear Ms. Whitman, The following items are in response to comments made by the Planning Commision. • Changes: a. The gable roof at the garage was built in proportion with the level of the 2nd floor in accordance with the approved drawing. To reduce the appearance of the additional height, we propose to install a new decorative wood trellis above the garage door as shown on plan. See Sheet A4 and A5. b. The wood trim was replaced due to maintenance issue of wood material. However, the design of the trim remains the same as the approved --- design and does not significantly affect the overall appearance of the building. c. The garage door was changed due to availability for custom size garage door. The installed garage door is a custom made high end line by City Overhead Inc. The design was selected by the owner based on closest similarity from the available selection and this design was an upgrade to the original standard door. • The windows are aluminum clad wood windows. • Please see revised Landscape plan by Landscape Architect Tom Rauchwerger. As suggested by Mr. Tom Rauchwerger, the additional handscape area was created to allow extra off-street parking since there is not enough available street parking area due to the existing fire hydrant in front of the property and the existing shrubs across the street. • The plans are revised to close similarity with as -built elevation. • See Sheet A4 and A5. Dotted lines and cloud highlight have been removed. Should you have any question, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Thomas Woo Contractor CITY OFBURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes--- -- April 14 2008 -- Commission comments: • It would have been helpful to have the minutes of the original approval in 2002. • Applicant can'tjust get to a certain point and not follow plans, the approved project is a contract and modifications should go through the approval process. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Jaje Du, property owner, 750 Walnut Avenue, represented the applicant. Commission comments: • On proposed revisions, a lot of new paving in the landscaped area, intent is to accommodate cars off street, this is a lot of impervious coverage. • understand safety concern, but generally don't approve projects with a lot of impervious surface in front yard, amount of hardscape could be reduced. • Chose colored concrete slab, can choose something that is pervious instead, the City's storm drain system is taxed. • Looking at May 10, 2004 landscape plan, more foliage and trees were proposed, now replaced with concrete, creating a parking lot, concern with impervious surface. • changes were unfortunate, structure is much more prominent. • Garage doors are unfortunate choice. -- Applicant has' entered into contract with city, changed certain items without coming back, are concerned. Applicant response: There will still be a lot of plants along the left and right side, we need more paving, there is a fire hydrant on the street in front of house so can't park there, no parking across the street, narrow street, want to park off the street. Pavers are expensive, would be hardship. When garage company gave choices, thought this door goes with the style Chose to put trellis over garage door to break up the mass. Public comments: Mark Grandcolas, 754 Walnut Avenue, Mark Freeman, 748 Walnut Avenue, and Pat Giorni 1445 Balboa; generally agree that stucco foam trim looks bad, but in this case looks okay, have idea to mitigate garage door, look like doors came off self -storage shed, replacement of doors with doors with windows would break up mass, has been four years, anxious to see finished, ask that before final, that the paintjob be finished; neighbors think this is a fine addition to neighborhood, like to see it finished, took picture of garage, garage is dwarfed by the big house next door, like that there are no cars parked on street, would rather see them park on their lot. Issue is that the contract with City has been broken, how is the Commission going to enforce contract, there is a two -car garage, apron in front of garage can accommodate another car, don't need that much paving to accommodate parking; there is a parking problem on Walnut, but it is no better or worse than other streets in Burlingame. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 0 -CITY"OPBVRLINGAME-PL4NNINGCOMMISSION— Urrapproved-Minutes March 24 0089— was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Chair Cauc led for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-04 ommissioner Terrones absent). -Appeal procedures were advised. Commissioner Brownrigg move continue the discussion of the roof erial to permit the applicant to consider other profiles and colors. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Discussion of motion: There are compositi mgle roofs that have similarlives to the maw ' /proposed, these maybe a better choice. Would If o see color and style of proposed roofing material. uchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 absent). This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. 4. 750 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (JAJE DU AND FATALI RUSLI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND A.S.L CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated March 24, 2008, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Asked who signed the architect's certification; please provide copy of letter. Jaje Du, 750 Walnut Avenue and Thomas Woo, General Contractor for project; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: How did all of the changes occur; who approved the changes; why weren't the changes brought back to staff before being implemented? Only change that was approved was the side door for the garage. City Attorney Anderson suggested a continuance to request further clarification regarding the changes that have been made to the project. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Mark Grandcolas, 754 Walnut Avenue, and Francis Tolde, 701 Walnut Avenue; when approved, the Commission wanted wood -clad simulated true divided light windows. How much more paving is being added; notes show that more is being provided; how does this relate to the maximum FAR. Construction of the project has taken three and one-half years to date. The added plate height and new trim pattern do not matter to neighbor. The applicant 5 04/01/200B 02:52 6506109316 PAGE 01/01 ACN., APR a Z008 HEARTWOOD Cr, ' UP EURLIIdGA(V'E P1LAT+{N{t,lG CErPT. M R L TolU rN W5N t7G9WO AND UOOR% 750 San 8110010 road 1, palo alto, ca 94.303 ;. ph: (650) 855 9357 1 tax, (650) 855;9360 ; www„heartwoadwd,cam April 1, 2008 Dear Jaje, As per your request, this letter is to confirm your use and purchase of Aluminum Clad Wood Windows and Doors, for your 750 Walnut Avenue home. Back in July 2006, you and Fitali Rusli purchased a package of Semco windows and doors from Heartwood. For your knowledge, Semco is a manufacturer of high quality wood windows and doors, based in Merrill, Wisconsin, and has been servicing the fenestration industry for nearly 50 years. We have sold, and continue to sell this product all over the peninsula, including Hillsborough, when a quality wood window is demanded, Sincerely, Bran J411onnesen Sal s Consultant .............�r................make an opening Statement! ............r................................... ..... �..... ........ 1 �W".. ' Marc and Madalyn Friedman OT 748 Walnut Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 685-5442 PC meeting 03.24.08 - Agenda Item #4 March 21, 2008 To the Burlingame Planning Commission, As the next door neighbors of Jaje Du and Fitali Rusli we regret that we are unable to attend the Public Hearing regarding design changes to their new home. This letter communicates our approval of these changes. From our angle, the plate height of the garage obstructs nothing and, is, in fact, significantly lower than the roof line of the house next door which is in the same line of sight as the garage. ---- --- - ---We-believe that the..change_in._the_window trim and the proposed changes in the driveway will only enhance the appearance of the new home, and are thus in favor of these changes. We look forward to the completion of the home at 750 Walnut Avenue. Sincerely, Marna q&Ma.d�wFrie� Marc and Madalyn Friedman Pi.,,r;i fi!yr_ P-C-meetin9=03.24:08 — Agen-darlYL Mark & Helen 754 Walnut Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 March 21, 2008 To the Burlingame Planning Commission, COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT MAR 2 4 2008 r.^,Ty C)F SURUNGAME PLAhlNilyG DE..PT, We are one of the next door -neighbors that lives in 754 Walnut Ave., Burlingame. Our letter is to serve our approval of Rusli family's house for their little changes on the plate height of the garage which not affecting our view. Also, their changes in drivewaywillonly enhance the nice appearance of the new home and neighborhood. Thank you and we look forward to the Planning Co 'ssiou to grant their changes. Sincerely; .. , ! rt/7J�cG�C ✓Z�G''�� �� j A0 PC meeting 03.24.08 - Agenda Item #4 RECENE MAR 2 4 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING; DEBT. COMMUNICATION RECEII/EA AFTER PREPARATION (IF3TAFFREP0 TERRY DUNNE PH. 650-401-6655 FAX 650-401-6644 LIC.# 690001 Community Development Department MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2007 TO: Project File FROM: LW SUBJECT: 750 Walnut— Planning Inspection Planning staff visited the site on 2/21/08. None of the landscaping is installed and the driveway was not poured, so staff asked the property owner to call when that is in. Additionally, the following discrepancies were noted: - - .- Project was approved with -divided light wood windows with wood trim. Project was built with clad windows with stucco foam trim. The two windows on the upper left corner of the front elevation, second story, are smaller than what was approved. Window in center of front elevation more squat that what appeared on approved plans. Patio area in rear may increase lot coverage and was not included in the approved plans. • Project was approved with two rear steps off family room. Project was built with six. Some may be >30". • A door was added to the left elevation that leads from the garage to the side yard. Appears plate height of garage has changed. This can be confirmed once cement floor of garage is poured. (Building Inspector confirmed rest of house has ceiling height of 8'- 10" on first floor, 7'-11" on second) Design of garage door is different than what was approved. Massing of face of garage wall is larger than what was approved. Roof ridge survey (7/3106) and architectural certification letter (4124/07) were submitted to the Building Division. Minutes from Planning Commission Hearings for 750 Walnut Avenue 750 WALNUT AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (ASI CONSULTING ENGINEERS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FITALI RUSLI, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked if the applicant had been given a copy of the Design Review Guidelines handbook. SP Brooks noted that these are given to all applicants for design review. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Thomas Woo, AS] Consulting Engineers, applicant and designer, was available for questions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment on the design: ❑ Propose 1 V plate height on the first floor and 9' plate height on the second floor, would be more comfortable with a 9' plate height on the first floor and an 8' plate height on the second floor; ❑ Window proportions quite big, not at a residential scale but at a commercial scale;- ---- - - ❑ The two-story entry looks like a commercial style building; ❑ Floor plan is square with rounded edge at back, this is normally seen on much smaller buildings, this is overpowering to the neighborhood, should be variation in wall masses, roof types to help break up the mass; ❑ Mass and bulk is inconsistent with the neighborhood, the vertical two-story walls make it large and bulky, could reduce width, this is a deep lot, it would have less impact on the street. ❑ Need to interject details of the old world style of the neighborhood; ❑ Need articulation on east and west elevations; ❑ Regarding the garage, agree most of the houses in the neighborhood do have attached garages, but it would be nice to break up the garage door into two single doors; ❑ Need an arborist's report with a tree protection plan that addresses how the trees to be saved will be protected during construction; ❑ Curved area in front does not match the neighborhood, modern look in a traditional neighborhood; ❑ Propose foam stucco mold and vinyl clad windows; would like to see wood stucco mold with divided light windows; C. Luzuriaga made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the direction given. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. —September _September 9, 2002 Action Hearing 750 WALNUT AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ASI CONSULTING ENGINEERS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FITALI RUSLI AND JAJE DU, PROPERTY OWNERS) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O'ROURKE Reference staff report, 9.09.02, with attachments. ZT O'Rourke presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Thomas Woo, representing the project, spoke noting that they tried to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the suggestions made at the last meeting. Commissioner noted that the front porch recedes back, would like to see the front porch moved forward. Applicant stated that they were concerned with guests coming over and wanted to make sure they had a place to park. Commissioner noted that the entry does not seem quite balanced, recommend that applicant look at changing front entry; excellent job of adding trees and shrubs along left side elevation, concerned that going to become a jungle, recommend removing the shrubs along left side. Applicant stated that they would make that change. Commissioner asked if light fixtures have been added to the rear since the last review, concerned about high wattage bulbs affecting neighbors; applicant stated that they added light fixtures at the rear so that the owners could watch the children in the rear yard at night, the lot is big and light should not affect neighbors. There -were-no further comments and the public hearing was closed. -- - -•- -- - --- C. Osterling noted the new changes are nice, need some work at the front entry, lights at rear are a concern. Made a motion to approve the project with changes to the front entry. The motion died from lack of a second. C. Auran made motion to place this project on the consent calendar with changes to the front entry to make it equally proportional. There was no second. Comment on motion: This is an enormous house, should come back as an action item, situation at front entry needs redesign to add balance, landscape changes and provide code compliant exterior lighting. C. Vistica made a motion to place this on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions had been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by Chair Keighran. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote to place this on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions had been made. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. June 14 ,2004 Action Hearing 750 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (TOM WOO, APPLICANT; ASI, ARCHITECT; FITALI RUSLI AND JAJE DU, PROPERTY OWNERS) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report June 14, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the plans submitted for this application are identical to the plans approved by the Commission in October 2002. Staff responded yes, the plans are identical. Commission requested staff in the future to add the lot size on the summary table. There were no further questions of staff. Acting Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Tom Woo, project applicant, explained that the project was already approved but the property owner was doing business overseas and did not build it. When he returned he instructed Mr. Woo to get a building permit and that is when he found out that the approvals had expired. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noting that the project has not changed, she approved it originally and with the same findings 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 May 10, 2004, sheets Al AB and L-1, including that all windows shall be divided light wood windows with -- wood trim and that any changes to the 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, 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 the conditions of the City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal's memos dated May 17, 2004, 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; 5) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 6) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 7) 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; 8) 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; 9) 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; 10) that the owner is responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures detailed in the Arborist's Report date stamped June 13, 2002; 11) 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; 12) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance 9; and that no exterior light fixture shall produce a cone of light that extends beyond the property boundaries; and 13) 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. Keele. Comment on the motion: Have already reviewed this project, identical plans as before; new building code regulations will apply to this project. RESOLUTION l'IROVING CATEG R CAL-EXEMPTIUM AW13ESIGN-REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been amendment to design review for changes to a dwelling with attached garage at 750 Walnu property owners, APN: 028-141-330; proposed and application has been made for an WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 27, 2008, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project, is hereby approved. 2. Said amendment to design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such amendment to design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman 1, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May, 2008 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Design Review. 750 Walnut Avenue Effective June 7, 2008 13. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance 9; and that no exterior light fixture shall produce a cone of light that extends beyond the property boundaries; and 14. 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. -3- Citv of Burlingame Special Permit and Side Setback Variance Address: 1837 Hunt Drive Item No. Meeting Date: May 27, 2008 Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope, and Side Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Basilia Macias, Spatial Art Inc. Property Owner: Chris Dunning General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 025-320-040 Lot Area: 13,453 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 Class 1(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the area in which the project is located in not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The existing one-story house with an attached two -car garage (20' wide x 22' deep, clear -interior dimensions) contains 2,517 SF (0.19 FAR) of floor area and has four bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add approximately 581 SF to the rear of the first floor (including covered porch area), and add a new 1,036 SF second floor. With the proposed first and second story additions, the floor area will increase to 4,134 SF (0.31 FAR) where the Zoning Code allows a maximum of 5,495 SF (0.40 FAR). The proposed project is 1,361 SF below the maximum allowable FAR. With the addition, the number of bedrooms will be increasing from four to five (the upstairs office counts as a potential bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached two -car garage (20' x 22') complies with current code dimensions, and the required uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The proposed addition on the first and second stories will have a left side setback of 6'-8" where T-0" is required. Therefore, a Left Side Setback Variance is required. Additionally, the addition will encroach 17.5 SF into the Declining Height Envelope along the left side, requiring a Special Permit. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010); • Hillside Area Construction Permit for a proposed addition in the hillside area (CS 25.62.020); • Special Permit for encroachment into the Declining Height Envelope along the left side (0'-10" x 21'-0" _ 17.5 SF) of the second story (C.S. 25.28.035, c); and • Variance for a Left Side Setback of 6'-8" where 7'-0" is required (CS 25.28.072, c, 1). 1837 Hunt Drive Lot Area: 13,453 SF Plans date stamped: May 14, 2008 EXISTING PROPOSED TO ADDN ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st f/r) _- ---- -...-- 23' 0" (to garage)' (no change) 15 0' (2nd flr) n/a 55 0 (to MB deck) i 20' 0' Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive • The designer removed the railing from the first story deck at the rear to eliminate the appearance of stacked_balconies.—Additionally, dimensions-of-posts=were-added-to=the=elevations, and-a-detail-ofithtr reardeck railing is provided (response letters dated May 12 and May21, 2008, and revised side and rear elevations, Sheets A3.1 and A3.2, and Details, Sheet A5.0). 3. Concerned with broad left side elevation; two-story wall and not consistent with the style of the house. Right elevation contains a lot of stucco and lacks articulation and detail. Massing looks layered. Add more articulation to the right and left elevations. • The designer has stepped back the office 1'0" to add articulation to the left elevation, added a slight pop - out at the master bath and stairs to the front elevation, and added windows to the right elevation. Additionally, a stone chair rail was added to the first story around the entire structure (response letters dated May 12 and May 21, 2008, and revised elevations, Sheets A3.1 and A3.2, date -stamped May 14, 2008). 4. Concerned about the use of vinyl windows. Clarify that wood trim, not stucco foam trim, will be provided. The designer is proposing metal clad wood windows and wood trim throughout (response letters dated May 12 and May 21, 2008 and Details, SheetA5.0, figure 6, dated May 14, 2008). 5. Noted that there is space to lower the plate heights to reduce view impacts. The designer reduced the plate height of the proposed second story by one foot (response letters dated May 12 and May 21, 2008 and revised elevations, Sheets A3.1 and A3.2, dated May 14, 2008). Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review ofa hillside area construction permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and -3- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the protect 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. 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; and 12, 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. Lisa Whitman Zoning Technician C. Bacilia Macias c/o Spatial Art Inc. 121 Scotts Chute Court El Sobrante, CA 94803 Attachments: Applicant's Response to Commission's comments date -stamped May 12, 2008 Applicant's bulleted list of project revisions date -stamped May 21, 2008 Minutes from Study/Design Review Study Meeting Letter from Theodore Vlahos date -stamped May 12, 2008 Story Pole Certification Letter from Roger C. Clegg, date -stamped May 21, 2008 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Form Variance Application Form Photos of Adjacent Properties Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 16, 2008 Aerial Photo -5- Qy„1_I14,i1 R,;II IA l;f RR,n MAY `,i 5141 Hilltop Dr. EL Sobrante, Ca 94803 !l a-1' 2008 Ph: (510) 669-1001 Fax: (510) 223.5100 E-mail: melheck_2000@yahoo.com May 12, 2008 Lisa Whitman and Planning Commission Community Development Department -Planning Division 2id Floor 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 1837 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, CA Subj: Response to Planning Commission meeting comments. Item #. 1. After consideration the design no longer includes the slate veneer, but will have a wainscot of porcelain file with a rough raised finish. It will be of the same scale as the brick and will be a running bond. The decision to not wrap it around the entire structure was based on the surrounding neighbors which do not have the brick wainscot on rear. But because we appreciate the commissions comments concerning articulation we felt that continuing the stone chair rail around the entire structure was beneficial to the elevations. 2. The rear elevation has been modified and the first story railing has been removed to avoid the stacked deck appearance. The railing on the second floor has also be changed and now longer has the vertical pickets. On the plans the modified rail is shown and a photo of the product is included in the plans. 3. Both left and right side elevations were modified to address the issues of scale and articulation. Eventhough the right side neighbor was incorrect regarding the "blank wall" that would be facing her property we took steps to improve that elevation as well. 4. Steps were taken to lessen the massing of the addition for example bringing down the plate height on the second floor 1 foot. The recessing a portion of the second floor on the left side so as minimize the length of 2-story wall. 5. All windows will be replaced and metal clad windows will be used. 6. All him including the belly band will be wood. Regarding Mr. and Mrs Vlahos comments we have made great efforts to minimize the impact on there property. The second story wall that is the closest to there property is over 40 feet away from tlreir home. The story poles will be installed before the next commission meeting. The first floor plate height was raised to provide more volume in the existing rooms below the addition, but we have lowered the second story plate height. Mr. and Mrs. Dunning have been very considerate in minimizing the extent of their addition and love the property they have but with a growing family space becomes an issue. We look forward to the commissions input once they have seen the projects story poles and the impact on the neighbors view and we welcome their suggestions. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions. Sincerely, Bacilia Macias Spatial Art, Inc. 510-223-5300 PLANNING LETTER#2 Page 1 of 1 5/12/2008 �� � -;I � G • Front column detail- Base with porcelain raised tile with a tailored pattern. R —'(- J � - I �� E • Front door detail- Change from "Inch_w_ood_donrs-with-12-inch-sidelites=to=(??I prep=fogtm - wood doors with glass panel and iron detailing. CITY OF BURLINGAME • Second story Master Bedroom French doors -changed from (2) 36 inch double papgiglpyl, DEPT. slider to (3) - 30 inch French Panel doors. • Balcony railing changed to decorative iron railing. • Front lighting elements added to elevation 151 and 2"" story • Plate height dropped 1 foot on second story ➢ Left Side Elevation • Recessed a portion of the second floor to minimize the length of the two story wall • Modified second floor massing to address issues of scale and articulation • Second floor master bedroom windows resized • Stucco band changed to wood belly band • Stone Chair Rail added along with wrapped wainscot • 3 inch foam trim with stucco finish changed to 4 inch wood trim ➢ Rear Elevation _. Lower deck modification--railing-removed and structure roupded • Bay window added to rear bedroom • Family room slider changed to aluminum clad sliding glass doors • Kitchen slider changed to two panel aluminum clad French doors Columns eliminated since second story addition was pushed forward • Wood railing on upper deck changed to redwood rail with stainless steel 5132" diameter cables • Sitting room changed from double vinyl slider to two panel aluminum clad French doors • Decorate lighting added to lower and upper levels ➢ Right Side Elevation • Lower bedrooms' bathroom windows slightly relocated to provide balance and greater distance from shower • Modified second floor massing to address issues of scale and articulation • Window added to stairwell wall for balance and aesthetics • Stone Chair Rail added along with wrapped wainscot We hope our comprehensive responses, the additional details, and the enhanced design can assist the City of Burlingame Planning Commission to approve this project. Sincerely, Bacilia Macias Chris Dunning Spatial Art, Inc. Property Owner 510-223-5300 650-219-1077 CITY OFBURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION- Unapproved Minutes April28, 2008 - Reference=staff=report=dated April-28,--2008--i ith—attac4Me—nts: Zoning Tachni- ian Whi man nefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Melanie Heck and Basilia Macias; 5141 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante and Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Questioned the decision to keep slate veneer on front, but not continue it around the structure. • The neighborhood has a preponderance of brick veneer; will not serve the intended purpose unless carried through. Also concerned about the size of the twelve inch squares. The rear elevation appears to have balconies on top of balconies. No details on posts supporting the decks, may intend to provide detail, but not shown. Reference the design guidelines to look for ways to refine scale and design. Main concern is broad left side elevation, two-story wall, not consistent with the style of the house. The addition looks stacked on top of the house. Provide more articulation. Right elevation contains a lot of stucco and no articulation or detail. Massing looks layered. • Shift addition over and center door. Concerned'about use of vinyl windows. _.. • Clarify that wood trim, not stucco foam trim, will be provided. Public comments: Patricia and Paul Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive; would like the addition to not be too high, want home to blend with neighborhood and retain views, Additional Commission comments: Usually insist on story poles. Are their distant views from her house? Noted that there is space to lower the plate heights to reduce view impacts. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar, with direction to the applicant to install story poles. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: Commissioner Vistica noted that he wouldn't support motion, the design should likelygo through a design reviewer since applicant has not worked in the City. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when story poles have been erected and plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-2- 1 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom dissenting, Commissioner Auran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:33 p.m. 13 (( yak°. - WESTERN-FAVF MAY 2 12008 BOUNDARY & SURVEYING P-O, BOX 2442 CITY OF BURLINGAME REDWOOD CITY, CA 94064 PLANNING DEFT. (650) 787.1878 (650) 363-8930 fax surveleg@sbcglobal.net Ms, Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner Community Development Department Planning Division City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Subject Prope&. Lot 4 Block_ 49, Book 59 of Recorded Subdivision Maps, at Page 22 filed in the Office of the San Mateo County Recorder on December 9, 1963; A.P.N.: 025-320-040; _ Commonly known as: Christopher Dunning Residence, 1837 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, CA . This letter certifies that on May 20, 2008, I, Roger J, Clegg, LS 7055, personally checked the story poles erected on the subject property and found that all locations, as shown on the approved Story Pole Plan dated 5/15/08, had story poles erected to the specified heights within 1"+/-, and that the tops of the poles were within 20 of plumb from the story pole points, as set by this office on May 15, 2008. Respectfully submitted Phis 21st day of May, 2008. Roger J. Clegf, LS �5 (expires Decemb 1, 2008) ,:.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Typ of application: J FDesign Review P/ Variance C566J\ ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use Permit W Special Permit (bk) ❑ Parcel Number: ®Z PROJECTADDRESS: 3 % J utJ - ID R-1VF__ APPLICANT project contact personB" PROPERTY OWNER project contact person❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): _ (Home): (Fax): Name: �C3W"IW '1G Address:'- City/State/Zip: 1(lp(C.) Phone (w): 6 0 -- .2 i q - /0 ,-/ '] (Home): (Fax): _ (E-mail): (E-mail): ARCHITECT DESIGWi project contact personX OK to send electronic copies of documents Name: t3A+Ci/tc7k- MacgGfS Address: /,�Zt S c e Ls C., uf'e- �f 40 City/State/Zip: 51� So b 6/'-1 c'J ?M63 Phone (w): S t a _ 2 3 ._ 3 o (Home) (Fax): t� :_22-3IocS Please mark one box with El to indicate the contact person for this project. (E-mail): rve+ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 4- S 4 v­;�, 'i) 5� C 11 O�(2 - (1 a v) i vt,,1 d�U C,(1 'I r1 Ci u AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature:. 011'C Date:a t. G 6 I am aware of the proposed application and herebyauthorize the above applicant to submit this a lli' f 9i : r. PP PP 8.n e lanni Commission. r--� Property owner's signature: ice° ;� Date: F'FR 9 n 2008 Date submitted: _ }� _1 S:1Handouts%PC'I p41v i�lb '2, f ,�;P66dout e Ao- ( 4z,;, vi1v� 5 J i'�x cv� i o e> �� r too r) as iG u.Aj rn,4&-4-vi- L 5 Gt re, S � fry uv�n a tL*-- 4,v, 4�Ae P v-o pl V b -j� `� -0-N', 5 `� PC �ie GAS t`) a S v� o lCeL iti v {� ✓l s ✓vo SUS' 1 � l y�hi� IPa. L .tYs � . �i , ' - fie° , & e V 7 ri ram' pt b pA �* OMAN1 I Y y� 4# d P Sw n j Ip IPMreR`t?$rr r` � -� { ' AMt iY r /at, y tea° xf r RanMM yy et'y'£ Y !• -3 7 * C'CI .t 6 _.2iiij Project Comments Date: February 21, 2008 To: d City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 m City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ® Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 11 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1837 Hunt Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-320-040 Staff Review: February 25, 2008 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway and other necessary appurtenant work. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 2/28/2008 door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. Note: The area labeled "Office" is a room that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement. 10)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 11)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 12)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 13)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet. Sec. 2113.9 14)NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1 and 9 must be resubmitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed Project Comments Date: February 21, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit and Variance for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1837 Hunt Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-320-040 Staff Review: February 25, 2008 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approvai indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: Date: RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICALEXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW —,HILLSIDE — AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT, AND SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review. Hillside Area Construction Permit. Special Permit. and Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1837 Hunt Drive, zoned R-1, Dunning Family Trust, property owner, APN: 025-320-040; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 27, 2008, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption per CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class I(e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the area in which the project is located in not environmentally sensitive. 2. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit, and Setback Variance are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit, and Setback Variance are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo, Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May, 2008 by the following vote: Secretary l'i:Fl-1Fi Conditions-of=approval=for Gategorical=E-xemption, Design=Re-view Hillside=Area=Construction -- Permit, Special Permit, and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive Effective June 7, 2008 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. 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; and 12. 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. mr-® j^F Address: 1317 Cabrillo Avenue City of Burlingame Item No. D Design Review and Special Permit Design Review Study Meeting Date: May 27, 2008 Request: Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Chu Design and Engineering Property Owners: Bob and Cindy Gilson General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 026-062-050 Lot Area: 6,000 SF Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing two-story house with an attached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two -car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,367 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed (project is 53 SF below the maximum allowed FAR). The project includes a detached two -car garage (427 SF) which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five -bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for anew two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (CS 25.57.010); and Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side — property line by 105.3 SF (CS 25.28.035 c). 9317 Cabrillo Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Revised Plans Date Stamped: April 1, 2008 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS ........ ._......_ ._......_ Front (9st fir): ........................... 20'-10" ............. ............ ...._ .............. _...... ----................... ., ............ 20'-10" (block average) ..._... (2nd fir): ........ 24'-10" .... -- .....__----.._.. ._............. 20'-10" (block average) Side (left). 10'-0 , ........_-__ ....... ....--- . ............... 4'-0" (right): ......._ ---- ._......_. _......_ 5'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st fir). ._........ ......... ----... 45'-8" ......... .... ..... ...... . .......... ...... ..-- ........ 15'-0" .._......... (2nd fir): _................. _ _._... 48'-2" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: _............................. 2,145 SF ... --............................. .._.. -- ..._...... ---..... ...... ......_. 2,400 SF 36% 40% FAR. ........ 3,367 SF ............................... ...-----..__ __ . .----- 3,420 SF ....... 0.56 FAR ......... . . ..... 0.57 FAR' # of bedrooms. _....... ............ 5 _..__.. .._.__... _. _._,............... ... ---....... Parking. . 2 covered (20' x 20') ............. -- ...... __ . -... _. _.......... ....... __ .... ........ 2 covered (20' x 20') ......... ..__..... , _......_. 1 uncovered (9' x 20') .... ---..... 1 uncovered (9' x 20') ...... ---_._., __. ... __ _ Height .._........ _ ...... 30'-0' - — -.......... � ._.................. .._....--- 30 0 DH Envelope, 1 105.3 SF . ....... ........... ........................ _....__. CS 25.28.075 " (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF= 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side property line by 105.3 SF (CS 25.28.035 c). II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD a BURLINGAME, CA 94010 II p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www,burlingame.org Type of application'. APR 2 t 2008 � Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use Permit [ Speelal Permit. ❑ Parcel Number: CITY OF PURI INQANAF I 'LA INS"JDAU PROJECT ADDRESS; Lam/ IIyi�'I �I dt// APPLICANT project contact person❑ PROPERTY OWNER project contact person i OK to sends electronic coples of documents ElI OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ a CWOMAMMA5090 Address: Phone YsA � �1 0" (Home): (Fax): r-mail): ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact personB3 PROJECT Phone (w): _ (Home): _ (Fax). (E-mail): Please mark one box with to indicate the contact person for this project. AFFAD'AVITISIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herelr is true and correct to the best of my knowledgg�e��n���� belief. � Applicant's signature:c4 aL, Date: 1 ,im aware of the propose application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. l ) 1 Property owner's signature Date: Date submitted: S:1Handouts\PC Application 2007.handoui Date: April 24, 2008 To: City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1317 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-062-050 Staff Review: April 28, 2008 1. See attached. 2. City standards require a warp section within the driveway area. The warp section is not shown on plans and must remain within property line projection to the curb. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 5/14/2008 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 _-4" The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject to City Engineer's approval. 22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re -submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 UAprivate developmenAPLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc Date: April 24, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1317 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-062-050 Staff Review: April 28, 2008 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). 2) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 3) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 4) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines. 5) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 6) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential / non- residential buildings. Go to http://www.energV.ca.govItitle24 for publications and details. 7) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. 8) On the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line. 9) Indicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the property line will be built of one -hour fire -rated construction. (Table 602) 10) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. 11) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 12) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 13) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 14) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet. Sec. 2113.9 Date: To: From Subject: April 24, 2008 City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 City Attorney Request for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1317 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-062-050 Staff Review: April 28, 2008 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. Include a list of BMPs and erosion and sediment control measure plan as project notes when submitting plans for a building permit. Please see attached brochure for guidance. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: Er Date: 04/25/2008 Water and wind carry soil from our Bay Area land down into our streams, lakes and the Bay. This soil carries with it pollu- tants such as oil and grease, chemicals, fertilizers, animal wastes and bacteria, which threaten our water quality. Such erosion also costs the home construction industry, local government, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars a year. Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding. The loss of soil from a construction site results in loss of topsoil, minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in the landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it clog our culverts, flood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys wildlife and damages recreational areas such as lakes and re- servoirs. As an example, road and home building in the Oakland hills above Lake Temescal tilled the lake to such an extent that it had to be dredged in 1979 at a public cost of $750,000, NEED MORE INFORMATION? ABAG has produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion called "Money Down the Drain." It is available for showing to any interested group. Call ABAG Public Affairs at (415) 841-9730. ABAG has also published a "Manual of Standards for Sur- face Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively "th designs and practices for erosion prevention, sedi- .ent control, and control of urban runoff. The manual addresses problems and solutions as they apply to California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from ABAG and is available on reference at many local libraries and in city and county public works and planning depart- ments. USDA Soil Conservation Service personnel are willing to provide more information on specific erosion problems. This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park District. c`soc,ngory I EAST BAY REGIONAL OAMGBFV P EA �ovExxuexrs PARK DISTRICT Ba �#566'3k9hna93vd. VMAT YOU CAN DO TO on all areas that are not to be paved or otherwise . covered. CONTROL EROSION Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of dol- lars a year. We lose valuable topsoil. We have to pay for damage to roads and property. And our tax money has to be spent on cleaning. out sediment from storm drains, channels, lakes and the Bay. You can protect your prop- erty and prevent future headaches by following these guidelines: BEFORE AND DURING CONSTRUCTION • Plan construction activities during spring and summer, so that erosion control measures can be in place when the rain comes. 1• Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site design will help you avoid expensive stabilization work. Preserve existing vegeta- tion as much as possible. Limit grading and plant removal to the areas under current construc- tion. (Vegetation will naturally curb erosion, improve the appearance and the value of your property, and reduce the cost of landscaping later.) • Use fencing to protect plants from fill material and traffic. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable as- phalt or porous paving blocks. • Preserve the natural contours of the land and disturb the earth as little as possible. Limit the time in which graded areas are exposed. - • Minimize the length and steepness of slopes by benching, terracing, or constructing diversion "`• structures. Landscape benched areas to stabilize the slope and improve its appearance. • As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation • Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water, restricting traffic to certain routes, and paving or gravel- ing access roads and driveways. 1134"161401 • Grass provides the cheapest and most ef- fective short-term ero- sion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To find the best seed mix- tures and plants for your area, check with your local nursery, the U.S. Department ofAg- riculture Soil Conserva- tion Service, or the University of California Cooperative Extension. Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable envi- ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy -to -obtain mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips and straw. Straw mulch is nearly IGO% effective when held in place by spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber (tackifters), by punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tack- ing a netting over it. • - • • i�/.1ay�l[P��2,-q'� .Sty/ ;p^v • • �°"94ii?ra`•'�9 FL"n� '�m5y'`s#f,�p']��ip'� •- ••- • ��IDpSE.;,ea'iir10o�iA'�.,i;in�.Ci�u�.e OWNERS. the p7ne book. j COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DF A1�T' 076y1650432S Uwww.burlingame.org 501 PRIMROSE ROADBURLINGAME, CA94010i�cq qPH: (650) 558-7250 ®FAX: (650�iJ�a gas -POSr GE Site: 1317 CABRILLO AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the PUBLIC HEARING following public hearing on TUESDAY, MAY 27,.2008 at NOTICE 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1317 CABRILLO AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 026.062-050 Mailed: May 16, 2008 (Please refer to other side) A copy of the application and plans for this project rYtay be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s),in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivei-ed`to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are' responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) Address: 2520 Valdivia Way Meeting Date: 5/27/08 Request: Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a single story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant/Architect: Robert Medan Property Owners: Lee and Margie Livingston General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 025-171-050 Lot Area: 11,966 SF Zoning: R-1 Summary: The existing single -story house with an attached garage is located in the hillside area and contains 2,181 SF (0.18 FAR) of floor area and three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing an approximately 162 SF addition to the front and 764 SF to the rear of the existing structure. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 3,107 SF (0.26 FAR) where 4,929 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum allowed. Since the new addition will have a plate height of 10'-0" in the expanded living/dining area and I V-0" on the front porch, design review is required. The proposed house will be 1,822 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. With the proposed project, the number of bedrooms in the house will increase from three to four. Two parking spaces, one covered (10' x 20') and one uncovered (9' x 20') are required. The existing attached garage (17'-10" W x 20'-6" L) and existing driveway will meet the parking requirements. A Hillside Area Construction Permit is required for construction at this location. All Zoning Code requirements have been met. The following applications are required: • Design Review for a single family dwelling addition having a plate height greater than nine feet above finished floor (CS 25.57.010, a, 2); • Hillside Area Construction Permit for an addition to an existing structure (CS 25.62.020); and Table 1 - 2520 Valdivia Way Lot Area: 11,966 SF Plans date stamped: May 14, 2008 EXISTING TO PROPOSED ADDN ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS .... - Front: ............. ..._..... ...... 15'-0" (to garage) ...__.... ....-- -- -- -- 36 -0" (to kitchen) __ .........---........._. .......... ...---- - ............ -- 15'-0" (or block average) Side (right): 5'-0" (to garage)' 38'-6" (to BR3) ­_­................... ...__, .........._. 7 -0 (left): 14'-4" (to BR1) 18'-0" (to bath2) _._....__, .................. ... ...- 7'-0" Rear, 64'-0" 37'-6" (to MB) ......... ------ 15'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,205 SF 3,230 SF ........- -- - _ .. _.__.., ......... ......... 4,786 SF 18% 27% --- 40% ------- -... _ ... ...................... -, .. _.._ _ ..-..--... FAR: 2,181 SF 3,107 SF 4,929 SF 2 ........ _....._, 0.18 FAR 0.26 FAR 0.41 FAR # of bedrooms. .................... .....--- 3 -------- ------ .-. ..,------------ .... ._ 4 ----.,,........ ........... --- Parking: ...... _... --- 1 covered 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (no change) ( 10x 20 1 uncoveree d (9' x 20') (9' x 20') COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 601 PRIMROSE ROAD a BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 o f: 660.696,3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Ty a of application: Design Review Cl Variance d Other: ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel Number: PROJECT ADDRESS: JA-t--6 N I'A L,)/--J APPLICANT project contact person flf OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Address: Zi 30 1i0) Xbzzlf Af-- City/State/Zip: 417 LLjAZEO c i TT7�z Phone (w): i7 -��'%% (Home): 2q�-►r�l -09vi, PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: G�/� G��i�/Ulo/7r�•+J Address: _ 'L S� i��� ��1//,q /ri4j" City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (Home): 77 -7— 9 035 _ �.. (Faz)`.. �% 7_ 3 V_.... (Fax): (E-mail): (E-mail): ARCHITECTIDESIGNER project contact person9 OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: t_"14H Address: City/State/Zip: -RECEIVED Phone (w): MAR 1 8 2008 (Home): CITY OF BURLINGAME (Fax): PLANNING DEPT. (E-mail): Please mark one box with-0 to indicate the contact person for this project. AFFADAVITISIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning (Commission. Property owner's signature: Date:._ /`fit c l 10, d 08 8 Date submitted: SAHandoutsWC: Application 2007.handout . \ :Lij Date: March 18, 2008 To: Y City Engineer (650) 558-7230 0 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 0 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff d Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 13 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit at 2520 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-171-050 Staff Review: March 24, 2008 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway and other necessary appurtenant work. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required.. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 3/24/2008 15) On the plans show that all openings in exterior walls, both protected and and percentage of the openings proposed. v . *16) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. 17) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 18) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 19) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 20) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet. Sec. 2113.9 NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 16 must be re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Date: Reviewed ,.....: �— _244� Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: March 18, 2008 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 m( Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit at 2520 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-171-050 March 24, 2008 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: Date: CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r 0161-116504325 BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �= $00,2 T 0 PH: (650) 558-7250 s FAX: (650) 6 - �� n www.burlingame.org?y `r; toaT ^r Mailed From 94u10 US POSTAGE Site: 2520 VALDIVIA WAY The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the fallowing public hearing on TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a single story addition to a single family dwelling at 2520 VALDIVIA WAY zoned R-1. APR 025-171-050 Mailed: May 16, 2008 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlinaame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; California. If you challenge the subject application(s).in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or inwrittencorrespondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this &lice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department DATE: May 20, 2008 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Erica Strohmeier, Planner Director's Report Meeting Date: May 27, 2008 SUBJECT: FYI — REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 2537 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Floor Area Ratio Variance, for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling was originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 25, 2007 (June 25, 2007 P.C. Minutes attached). A building permit was issued on February 8, 2008, and the project currently under construction. The applicant is requesting changes to the'gfid pattern on many of the simulated, true.divided lite wood windows that were originally approved with the project (see previously approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped May 6, 2008). The applicant submitted building elevations and a letter, dated May 6, 2008, describing the changes to the window grids. The design of the first and second story addition, other than the change to the grid pattern on many of the proposed simulated true divided lite wood windows, remains unchanged. A copy of the originally approved and proposed elevations (date stamped May 6, 2008) are included for your review. Planning staff would note that because of these minor revisions to the windows, it was determined that the project could be reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Erica Strohmeier Planner ATTACHMENTS: Letter from property Owners, date stamped May 6, 2008 Approval Letter, dated July 9, 2007 June 25, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes Previously approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped May 6, 2008 City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 July 9, 2007 Patty and Andrew Jordan 2537 Hayward Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jordan, Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the June 25, 2007, Planning Commission approval of your application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and floor area Variance became effective July 6, 2007. This application was to allow for a first and second story addition at 2537 Hayward Drive, zoned R-1. The June 25, 2007 minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 11, 2007, sheets A-1 through A-8 and Landscape Plan, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the existing height of the row of Birch and Cypress trees on the property shall be determined and noted for the record. As long as the trees exist on the property, they shall be maintained at a height no greater than the height measured at the time of building permit issuance; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's March 5, 2007 memos shall be met; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the front setback variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. 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; 7. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural wo® Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org Q: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. June 25, 2007 Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7.20 p.m. 5. 2537 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (PATTY AND ANDREW JORDAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND GEORGE SKINNER, ARCHITECT) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 25, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. George Skinner, 4231 Terrace Street, Oakland, represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Have dimensions of pergola been confirmed by Planner? (Yes) • Plans for railings don't.reflect What architect describes (Craftsman detailing), Revise plans to reflect what is intended. • While trees are in full bloom, it is difficult to determine view impacts of addition. Should stipulate that the row of Birch and Cypress trees be topped to current height in future, as long as they exist on the site, as a condition of approval. • Planning Commission supported request for a Variance from maximum FAR in orderto permit a more inviting porch design that benefits the appearance of the neighborhood. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, Burlingame, doesn't think it is an imposition to include the stipulation to keep the trees topped to the current height as a condition of approval. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 11, 2007, sheets A-1 through A-8 and Landscape Plan, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the existing height of the row of Birch and Cypress trees on the property shall be determined and noted for the record. As long as the trees exist on the property, they shall be maintained at a height no greater than the height measured at the time of building permit issuance; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's March 5, 2007 memos shall be met; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the front setback variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department DATE: May 20, 2008 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 27, 2008 FROM: Lisa Whitman, Zoning Technician SUBJECT: FYI — CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1315 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1. Summary: On September 24, 2007, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review and Variances for front setbacks and lot coverage for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and detached garage at 1315 Edgehill Drive, Zoned R-1 (September 24, 2007, Planning Commission Minutes). At the Design Review Study hearing on August 27, 2007, the Planning Commission requested that taller plant materials be added to the landscape plan to break up the mass of the addition. In the revised Landscape Plan date -stamped September 10, 2007, the applicant replaced all the 5-gallon plantings with 15-gallon plantings, but did not change the plant species proposed. Therefore, the Planning Commission's approval of the project clarified their request and required that the following change be brought to the Commission as an FYI item: "that larger scale plant materials, rather than larger container size, shall be added to the landscape plan and a revised landscape plan shall be brought back to the Commission as an FYI after changes are made;" A revised Landscape Plan was submitted to the Planning Division on May 13, 2008. The Escallonia and India Hawthorn along the left elevation have been changed to Eugenioides and Blue Hibiscus. Planning staff confirmed with the City Arborist that Eugenioides and Blue Hibiscus are larger scale plant materials than what was previously proposed. Therefore, the revised Landscape Plan is responsive to the Commission's request. Other than the proposed changes described above, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. Planning staff would note that because of these minor revisions, it was determined that the project could be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Lisa Whitman Zoning Technician ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Fred Strathdee, architect, dated May 13, 2008 September 24, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 27, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Previously Submitted Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1, date -stamped September 10, 2007 Revised Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1, date -stamped May 13, 2008 '• STRATHD . MAY13,2008 ,ARCHITECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME BUILDING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 RE: CHABO RESIDENCE 1315 EDGEHILL ROAD B07.0432 PLAN CHECK RESPONSES: ,.- ATTACHED ARE. COPIES OF THE REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN. AS REQUESTED BY THE -... PLANNING COMMISSION, 1 HAVE REVISED THE PLANT SELECTION AND THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO SHOW LARGER SCALE PLANT MATERIAL. SINCERELY, ,GJ FREDERICK R. STRATHDEE ARCHITECT FRS:ELS 147 Leslie Dr - San Carlos, California 94070 - Tel: (650) 637-1820 - Fax: (650) 631.-7768 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 27, 2007 9. 1315 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RAF] AND AIDA CHABO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND FRED STRATHDEE, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Fred Strathdee, 147 Leslie Drive, San Carlos, represented the applicant. Commission comments: • On landscape plan, look at shrubs and other materials. Taller materials would be beneficobreak up mass of addition. e uiWvv55u cad windows with simulated true divided lights. • On the left elevation, the bedroom egress windows appear to be too small, need to revise on the plans. • Clarify spacing on balustrade on front steps. Public comments: none There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed. Additional Commission comments: Stated that the Variance request could be supported because homes in the area look like they have been built to the property lines, the proposed design is consistent. To require differently of this property owner would deprive him of property rights. Noted that the size of the lot is also a factor in considering the Variance. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the regular Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the regularAction Calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (CommissionerTerrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. 10. 2000 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DII LEWIS, AZLIL WORKS, APPLICANTAND DESIGNER; AND CATHERINE WONG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Senior Planner Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Dii Lewis, 531 441" Avenue, San Francisco, represented the applicant. Commission comments: Asked if the applicant is selling the property. 9 I ! & DEVELOPMENT 147 U4w Drh%San Culm, Califomia 940 50)637--ISM fw(650)63I,7768 =A-%oatkft@c mtnet CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department DATE: May 19, 2008 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: 5/27/08 FROM: Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Peninsula Hospital Construction Project — Revised Complaint Logs for March and April, 2008 As a courtesy, the applicant for the Peninsula Hospital project has been providing the Planning Commission with a copy of the construction complaint log on a monthly basis. The complaint logs for March and April, 2008 were previously provided to you for your information. Since that time, the March and April complaint logs have been revised to reflect additional complaints. These revised logs are attached for your review. � c >0 a) O W w c 0 N Y f 0 w ° E L y z 0 00 a) o m �20�0`�Y>3 .-c., O 0 w .0 O O N m N N U C O L ja ,= a1 M E m> Oa7 • NO n ON _ j N Q N G O c 0 Z '� 0 a) V) 0) N a) 0) c c O N 0- .-c., 'o M 0 .o O a a) O� 0 'c- c a) O U 0 0 E c cO c c E n 0,b O) OC O La) LO U_N a)a0NVO .O` CU OE O o n) 0)a Faro w c N 3 � ayv) U m c 4 �L. 0 •� a O 'O E o 0 0 0 0— 0 (6 O .0 m m m �O F=- oa .n U co c O rn C Y (0 O. T 0) � c`o 3 U O O O O 0 a w q T O O U Y E� O N a1 N �- E � m ao q L o Z d c a o E H c N 0� 0) '5 2 in = o 0 00 O m m N C O 0 N Y c a E 0 U 0 E m z C N21 0 (D y .a E C .° O G E E o d 0 0 y . 3 C) N p m N y a) E 'Ow E• O U L O a) .0 N N Y 0. O, 7 y y N C 0) 0 C a7 -0 @ 'N •'G U 0 U C O N O a) L a7 a• y 0 (D— N L o N C C (0 ,=0 N 'L' N N N N o o a) y 00 N N N .° — `y' E L (0 C ca E N ti (a .Y O ° N N C E 'C y 3 C '= O. N a a) O .0 .0 y 'S .n O O m c o ,y a7 y o o -0 co m c m o 0 3 0 o o o d m° � a 3 E c o o o t- N y y C 0- 0 p (p Q> EiC ° C E O -O N 'Q U N O N T w- _O N I� w- ' O 3 0) a) N 01 6 p 0 C y E 0 E C> ro 0 I- C o Y`0 m U o c ai a co E> c o 0 -o r 0 0 U a1 V 3' m° g° a 2 m~° E -0'� `o L M a ro o` Q a 'o °$ m w° c c a� in L v a c C c° 3 c (n ay L N O y o N N 0)— 01 y° 0 Q> E .L-• O m -0 a3 LL L w L al 0 a) n L cr y 0 2 a> -o m d o 3— 0 a) -o a c 0 V y m c o ,C: 0 _o ,.-0— 3 o E E E- 3 c m 0 v Q m y a)-0m(acE o° N N 0 N= `C V— p a L C 7 p� O O .°C a) 6 N a) ID i— m y L° c y a L L E L 0 2 w 3 y L V 2 C m O m a) N O 0 y 0 0 D O Co ca L Q E E OF 0 � Y N G � •y o a m n m c y o Co 3 E y ° m m v _ d m E a 71