Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - PC - 2008.06.23
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday, June 23, 2008 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES June 9, 2008 Regular Planning Commission Meeting IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. FROM THE FLOOR VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 350 Lorton Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea B — application for Parking Variance for conversion of retail space to financial institution (Wachovia Bank) (Rob Shine, applicant; Ann Sabatini, property owner; and Christy Bates, Callison Architects, architect) Project Planner: Erica Strohmeier VIL ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered lra bey routine.L—They are acted on pq. simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant; a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 2a. 2673 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1 — application for Design Review and Hillside Area s Construction Permit for main and lower level addition to a single family dwelling (Marwan Zeidan, applicant and property owner; and David Miraflor, designer) (40 Noticed) Project Planner: Lisa Whitman (continued from June 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting) 2b. 1459 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-3 — application for Amendment to Condominium Permit and Parking Variance for a new three-story, three -unit residential condominium (Dale Meyer applicant and architect; and Mike Prescott, property owner) (85 noticed). Project Planner: Ruben Hurin (continued from June 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting) 2c. 1277 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 — application for Design Review, Front Setback Variances and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new single family dwelling and detached garage (James Chu, applicant and designer; and Bob and Cindy Gilson, property owners) (60 noticed) Project Planner: Lisa Whitman Vill. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 2520 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1 — application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a single story addition to a single family dwelling (Robert Medan, applicant and architect; and Lee and Margie Livingston, property owner) (47 noticed) Project Planner: Lisa Whitman (continued from June 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting — Request to Continue by applicant) Page 1 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. COMMUNICATIONR CEIYE9 AFTER PREPARATdON OFSTAFFREPORT a / l 7 6/23/08 P.C. Meeting Comment re: 6/9/08 Minute 'rom: The Livingstons [livingroad67@sbcglobal.net] Agenda Item III gent: Monday, June 23, 2008 2:17 PM To: CD/PLG-Whitman, Lisa Cc: Robert Medan Subject: Re: Minutes of June 9 meeting CUMMUNICATIONRECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION Dear Lisa, OF5TAFFREPORT We would like to request a correction to the minutes of 9 June regarding the discussion about 2520 Valdivia Way. The second bullet of the homeowner's remarks currently reads: The neighbors made changes to the master bedroom suite installing a solid stucco wall on a patio; the wall doesn't allow views when seated in the residence. It should read: • The neighbors removed the glass patio door from. their master bedroom and closed. up that space with a stucco wall. They also replaced a four -foot fence with a six-foot fence; the new fence blocks the view when seated in the patio area. We would appreciate it if this change could be made to the minutes before they are approved. If the Commission decides not to incorporate the revision, please include this request in the record. Thank you for your consideration, Lee and Margie Livingston 2520 Valdivia Way 777-9035 06/19/2008 14:10 16507565907 THOMAS A NURIS 6/23/08 P.C. Meeting 1837 Hunt Drive Agenda Item #4 LAW OFFICES OF THOMA.S A. N'UR.IS 2171 JUNIPERO SERRA BLVD., SUITE 600 DALY CITY, CA 94014 (660) 756-0225 COMMUNICATIONREOEIr'EA Fax: (650) 756-59tl7 ,SIFTER PREPARATION OFSTAFFREPORT` Wednesday,.Tune18,2008 Honorable Planning Commission City of Burlingame VIA.F CSC IM-1L 1 o G96-379D AND It�AIt 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 RE: Proposed Project @ 1837 runt Derive, Burlingame, CA Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Our office represents,Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Vlahos who reside at 1.847 Ylunt Drive, Burlingame, CA which is located next door to 1837 Hunt Drive which is the subject ofthe proposed project before the Commission. I am advised by my clients that they have previously appeared before this Board on two prior occasions to express their opposition to the second story addition proposed for 1837 Hunt Drive as such an addition will negatively impact their views and light. Mr. and Mrs, Vlahos have lived at their home since 1970 and raised their children there. For the Vlabos family and especially Mrs. Vlahos, the most important part of their home has always been the kitchen and adjacent areas. This is where they basically live and spend most of their time. The thought of losing their southerly view as well as the sunshine which, will be blocked by the proposed construction of the second story addition at 1837 blunt Drive is most disturbing. The type of construction proposed far 1837 Huui Drive is not consistent with the homes on this block. Those who have wanted to extend their ].iomes with additions have kept them on ground level going into the spacious yards. By doing so, tb,eyhave addressed their need for additional space and have also respected and not encroached on the enjoyment ofvlews and, light of their neighbors. We believe that the needs of the owners of 1837 Hunt Drive for more space could and should be addressed in the same way bybuilding on the ground and not by the construction of a large second. story addition that does not fit the character of the block and. which negatively impact neighbors. Page 1 of 2 prom: cent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Lisa, Ron [ron@chudesign.com] Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:18 PM CD/PLG-Whitman, Lisa 'James Chu' RE: 1277 Balboa - Front Setbacks on Opposite side of Street Here is the front setback of the following houses: 1280 — 18'-2" 1276 — 18'-5" 1272 — 24'-10" 1268 — 19'-6" 1262 — 24'-9" 1258 — 24'-6" Let me know if you need more information regarding this. Thanks! Ron Cariaga Eriall: Ron4churlesign.corn WeY�siie; www,d'u�d@;ign,r..orn Chu Design & Engineering, Inc. CUSTOM HOME DESIGN & ENGINEERING .55 West 43rd Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Tel:(650)345-9286 x106 Fax: (650)345-9287 COMMUNICATION RECEI MD AFTER PREPARATION OFSTAFFREPORT ACt t`zc l 2c City of Burlingame =ReNomlParking Variance Address: 350 Lorton Avenue Meeting Date: June 23, 2008 Request: Parking Variance for conversion of retail space to a financial institution (Wachovia Bank). Architect: Christy Bates, Callison APN: 029-153-010 Applicant: Rob Shine, Wachovia Lot Area: 8,299 SF Property Owner: Ann Sabatini Zoning: C-2, Sub -Area B General Plan: Service and Special Sales Project Description: The applicant is requesting a Parking Variance to convert an existing 4,005 SF retail store (Black Sea Gallery) into a 3,882 SF financial institution (Wachovia Bank) at 350 Lorton Avenue, zoned C-2, Sub - Area B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. No work is proposed to the adjacent tenant space on the same property (Stacks Restaurant) at this time. There are no off-street parking spaces on this property. The existing building is non -conforming with regards to parking because there are no on -site parking spaces. The proposed conversion of uses creates an incremental increase in the number of spaces required on site because the parking ratio for a financial institution/office (1:300 SF) is more intense then the parking ratio for a retail use (1:400 SF). The parking requirement for the existing 4,005 SF retail space (Black Sea Gallery) is 10 spaces. Once that space is reduced to 3,882 SF (due to California Building Code requirements concerning ramps and exiting) and converted to a financial institution, the parking requirement for the space will be 12.9 spaces, which is an incremental increase of 3 parking spaces required on site. This Variance application is for the 3 additionally required parking spaces due to the intensification of use in the building that cannot be accommodated on the site. Although there is no parking available on the site, public parking is available on the street; in neighboring Lot D (surface lot with 49, 2-hour and 4-hour stalls) along Lorton Avenue and Donnelly Avenue; and in Lot (surface lot with 107, 1 0-hourstalls) along California Drive. The proposed financial institution will be open for business on Monday through Thursdayfrom 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, on Fridays from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, on Saturdays from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm and will be closed on Sundays. The applicant notes that the proposed financial institution will have a maximum of 13 employees working on site at any given time and will have approximately 20 visitors on the site at any given time. The applicant expects a maximum of 33 people on site at any one time, including all employees and visitors. Commercial Design Review is not required as part of this application because the changes proposed to both fagades do not exceed 50% of the area of those fagades. The project meets all other zoning requirements. The applicant is requesting the following application: Parking Variance for an incremental increase in the number of parking spaces required on -site due to the conversion of retail space to a financial institution (incremental increase of 3 spaces) (CS 25.70.010). 350 Lorton Avenue Lot Area: 8,299 SF mans date stamped: June 3, 2008 Existing Proposed Allowed/Req'd UL Retail k Sea Gallery) Financial Institution (Wachovia Bank) Financial Institution (C-2, Sub -Area B zoning district) 05 SF tot.............3,882 ...... Parkin= 1 space:400 . ................................................................ Office = 1 space:300 SF ............... ..... .................... Office = 1 space:300 SF ' I ces Required 12.9 Spaces Reuired2 12.9 Spaces Required' n order to complywith current building code regulations, the entryway openings to the building needed to be expanded Parking Variance 350 Lorton Avenue and therefore the overall square footage was reduced by 124 SF. 2 Parking Variance for an incremental increase in the number of parking spaces required on -site due to the conversion of retail space to a financial institution (incremental increase of 3 spaces) (CS 25.70.010). Staff Comments: Staff would note that Commercial Design Review is not required as part of this application because the changes proposed to the front fagade do not exceed 50% of the area of the front fagade (CS 25.57.010 b). See attached memos from the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, City Arborist and Fire Marshal. Erica Strohmeier Planner c. Christy Bates, Callison, architect. Attachments:' Application to the Planning Commission Variance Form Supplemental Form for Commercial Application Staff Comments Aerial Photo -2- Type of application: Design Review A'• variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit PROJECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT' 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 660.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingeme.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ Parcel #: ❑ Other: 19 Please indicate the contact person for this project it! vl ' APPLICANT project contact person13 PROPERTY OWNER. project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: C� Name:' V1 I lY1I Address: IUD I''C T(�?d^1rj� IYP�i' Address: �3nc> p�rjZgQ A/e, City/State/Zip: �Jf C�QVlG1 j CA- 6fL4(,0-Z_ city/State/ztp:-l__VWSbpy�D C+ 94+010 Phone: . �J, O — ` �.— hr'�� Phone: '?)I z — Fax: I Fax: E-mail:O�Pvi nIt�1P iJfJriNiGt,. ARCHITECT/DESIGNER G�1 Vl project contact parson. = OK to send electronic copies of documents,'• Name: Address: E-mail: 0 City/State/Zip: S 7 t t , I WA r1g 10 Phone: 2M - io23 - Fax: 2-Mo E-mail: C-V1Vir,.A- ( }'�We5g, ca.. 1t4,,Ovq , G0ti1,% — PROJECT Arch itectlDesiglner's Burlingame Business License #: ne)IL 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: Dater/Oe9 I am aware of the proposed applic nd herebyauthorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature:. ✓j.� Date submitted: !iJ Verification that the project.architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. (- n" i y tug ❑ Please mark one box above with an X to Indicate the contact person for this project. S;1Hantlou s1PC Application 2008,handcut . APR 2 8 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org CITY OF BURLINGAME R1 VARIANCE APPLICATION' n CEIV . s: 2 8 2008 CITY OF BLIHLING/, lE The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City s .Nwmaance (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. TNr✓ ��CISTINC:� �jtxll.DlNC� �l`fs �¢o��( LIfJ� Tn �Iw{�-�l'( U N�. `�-l'E � ► � t:11� �JC ISTI IJG ON -° S YS� 'PPcl2.k{ t�Cq , b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. T"T VJOUI�D PE. A �tAgDSHip `T-tt -XI, TI� jt)1 L p I I)Cq Tti 'f P b N- S (T-F plop {G I N Ca 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. 'fPitOUS USe VVAS F-O[TM t, , TP-DfOf��u k)Gc- tS A- lS �°C2lp � -zr--r. I D i' icy ^�?z 1 It� OCC-UF.r 1JC--f 14 'fvk�p�-� �5 Rq*1 QG CF>A-(, %S > Wt; �--(j MOOT Wn GI FKM CJ�� I, r V�� t�� 00,! CMfAWS j'CND >�P�i� W � d. How wi I the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk a� character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the l�leneralyj vicinity? _l I En r_ J (o G1Ru6--WP-e EXCEPT `2E(-oi,3 `C �NJCiz NC�s Tl� C')MF ->M", F-1�7CzUIMD /kr l sC $(t✓l7 �( �U�(' `i `� 1�fiCIJC� �RT�Wo� T, �T"' � -'AI N-MP. Handouts\Variance Application.2008 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame ore "T COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS Ra � BURLJNOAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FO B 1e �� "' RmrEC���'� Ek , .,m.�.•>°` APR 2 8 2008 1. Proposed use of the site CITY of E;URLIfgGAMP PLANNING Pr:P'r. 2. Days and hours of operation ^-R4 ��5�-(p l "j q'- 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type) 9�V l V t�+A Ch' l; AIFR��WO R 7 4. Current and proiected maximum number of employees (innh,llino n.x, pr) at rhi� 1 at7 13 N1dX Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of Operation AM to After 5:00 PM PM AM to After 5:00 PM PM AM to After 5:00 PM PM Weekdays Full-time Nn,CS � {� l� � � ' Part-time Weekends Full-time Part time 5. Current andprojected maximum number of visitors/customers who may 2 come to the site: p MAX Al- Existin In 2 Years r rola Tf I g In 5 Years Hours of Operation AM to After 5:00 PM PM AM to After 5:00 PM PM AM to After 5:00 PM PM Weekdays YEA-11k 5 Fq-ci- TR6,. 1 � Weekends 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and visitors/customers): _15R> k�kpl 7. Where do/will the owner and employees park? No �J(a T' V a)E 8. Where do/will the customers/visitors park? :'tEPT 9. Present or most recent use of sitell� 10. List of otherAteenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach list if necessary) GTP' t� _?t-_S-t-AtoL-WC-i COMMERCIAL.FRM Project Comments Date: May 29, 2008 To: X City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 ❑ 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 Parking Variance for a financial institution at 350 Lorton Avenue, zoned C-2, Sub -Area B, APN: 029-153-010 Staff Review: NIA 1. An encroachment permit for pedestrian protection will be required for exterior improvements. 2. Sewer backwater protection certification will be required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 5/29/2008 Date: To: From Subject: Project Comments April 28, 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 Parking Variance for a financial institution at 350 Lorton Avenue, zoned C2, Sub -Area B, APN: 029-153-010 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) Provide a site plan that includes the property boundaries. 5) Provide an existing floor plan. 6) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 7) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 8) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 9) 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. 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. 12) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 13) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 14) Provide a title block on the plans that includes the name of the owner(s) and the name, address, and phone number of the project designer. 15) No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of the current code for such division or group of occupancy. 2007 CBC 3406.1 Note: If the change in occupancy classification includes a change in "Occupancy Category" as prescribed in 2007 CBC Table 1604.5 then a complete seismic upgrade of the existing building may be required. 16) 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 H. Proposed i. Indicate sprinklered or non-sprinklered 17) Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described in the 2001 International Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29, Table A-29-A. 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) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel Reviewed by: Brooks MacNeil Date: 6/6/08 Project Comments Date: April 28, 2008 To: From Subject: ❑ 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 Parking Variance for a financial institution at 350 Lorton Avenue, zoned C2, Sub -Area B, APN: 029-153-010 Sta"eview: April 28, 2008 ' 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 ".Provide a site plan that includes the property boundaries. ��Provide an existing floor plan. 6) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 7) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 8) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 9) 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. 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. 12) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 13 Provide lighting at all exterior landings. rovide a title block on the plans that includes the name of the owner(s) and the name, address, and phone number of the project designer. 15) No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of the current code for such division or group of occupancy. 2007 CBC 3406.1 Note: If the change in occupancy classification includes a change in "Occupancy Category" as prescribed in 2007 CBC Table 1604.5 then a complete seismic upgrade of the existing building may be required. 16) 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 17) Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described in the 2001 International Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29, Table A-29-A. 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) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel 20) NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1, 4, 5, and 14 must be re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed Date: To: From: Project oComments Junell.2008 0 City Engineer (650) 558-7230 a Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 X City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff 0 Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 0 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney Subject: Request for Parking Variance for conversion of retail space to a financial institution (Wachovia) at 350 Lorton Avenue, zoned c-1, Sub -Area B, APN: 029-153-010 Staff Review: NIA Project reattiremeny (3) Three new 24 inch box size street trees, with tree grates, are to be installed within the City ROW. On the Lorton Ave. side: (2) two 24 inch box size, Ginko Biloba (madenhair tree) trees are to installed in appropriately spaced locations. On the California Dr. side: (1) one 24 inch box size, Red Oak (aver rubtum) tree is to be installed. All three trees are to be installed with tree grates. See attached example of acceptable specs. Approximate locations for the new trees have been marked for reference. See project site plan/accessibility plan, sheet #A-101. reviewed by: S-Etie os27-4-!-2 slate: 4":/,�od"' Date: To: From Subject: Staff Review: Project Comments Revised Plans Submitted June 3, 2008 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 13 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 a City Attorney Request for Parking Variance for a financial institution at 350 Lorton Avenue, zoned C-2, Sub -Area B, APN: 029-153-010 NIA 1. The building shall be equipped with an approved NFPA 13 Sprinkler System throughout. 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. §17.04 BMC 2. The fire protection underground shall be submitted and approved by the Burlingame Building Department prior to installation. 3. 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. Reviewed by: 7 -- i, Date: Date Project Comments April 28, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 ❑ Chief Building Official of 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 Parking Variance for a financial institution at 350 Lorton Avenue, zoned C2, Sub -Area B, APN: 029-153-010 Staff Review: April 28, 2008 Unable to review given the submitted drawings... Please submit existing floor plan with demolition notes & legend. New floor plan shall indicate new construction with legend. Reviewed by: �� `�9�; .- Date: 9 off, CS g '�;.i .' ': n �{ � - � YXS+fµ+✓.a* Y. >� 1K � r�P " rw A �Iw *C7,2'Sub.i:AA rea, B, k y� ¢ IA t. p' te }� Y�rry� +a�14, t •n�"`' .!,�i j� �4 ,Y �'tl`�yi � '�A.�ah �'`` 4 � � � �' S �n� �y� �. 'r.,�w•+,,,ra yrs 'M Aq: = e'.a �ot I4 hf. �t�YfJF �XY �u..� `�•4� 1� 1' � } y�Aq}� ?'{f �' 0J - �"9' 1 v'i� � ir�� � �ti y � � � • �r ]' L fi� � fig° n '�' y�y. � �A�F�' {� k�" � � ♦ 4.,. � v ews �i �' U.64� z t � �•+ � t Ej fit` �Y�' � � ��� �: b�+, r@ o ss ri ¢ f "*c Y+ '�u r�i�j,�./♦5 i v y r, }{fj�� \ fitr , a T¢✓ s ,�` ,� i. hr37`4' 49�', J/ `, z /I iC c,L ciNX d 1SS s p :'•` '. 4 F n St wf x irt¢ m F[6 tea. d" r r xis 14 {vF�; ,��(yVp�✓�i� i'ir'A ��,'`,��'�t e t��+' ci- O Y �W �Y F.z p��,^ry ¢L..7'M�5 't '^ @a r,�V�� S��VflSY �,f' ��'�.��✓�� a>.r y. ,: ,F 'all . _ T z r. ,i luny 1/�i 'i 3 Lorton Avenue 50 z�9 Jl &qj Item No. _ Consent Calendar City of Burlingame 17 Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2673 Martinez Drive Meeting Date: 6/23/08 Request: Design Review for a main and lower level addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Property Owner: Marwan Zeidan APN: 025-083-060 Designer: David Miraflor Lot Area: 11,786 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. Project Description: The existing two -level house and attached garage is located in the Hillside Area, contains 2,849 SF of floor area, and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing an addition that will add approximately 40 SF of covered living space to the rear of the upper level and 2150 SF of floor area to the lower level. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to demolish a 248 SF rear deck on the upper level and replace it with a 795 SF rear deck. The proposed rear deck is uncovered and therefore not included in floor area. With the proposed addition, the floor area will increase to 4650 SF (0.39 FAR) where 4872 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum allowed. With this project, the number of potential bedrooms will increase from three to four. Two parking spaces, one covered (20' x 20') and one uncovered (9' x 20'), are required for the proposed four bedroom house and will be provided in the garage and existing driveway. All Zoning Code requirements have been met. The following application is required: • Design Review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010, a, 5), and • Hillside Area Construction Permit (C.S. 25.61.020). 2673 Martinez Drive Lot Area: 11,786 SF Plans date stamped: June 12, 2008 EXISTING TO PROPOSED ADDN ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front 2" level): (1s „ 11 6' to front steps) 19 no change 15 0" or block average) 35 level): ....__....... ...__ -0" (to garage)')1 no change -0" (to two -car garage) Side (left 2"d level): 8'-7" (to LR) ........ 12 -6" (to new deck) __... . .._, _,..... -- --_., ......__. 7'-0" (left, 15t level): 8'-7" (to garage) 12'-6" (to FR) 7'-0" (right, 2"d level): 7'-4" (to BR) 13'-0" (to new deck) 7'-0" (right, 1st level): ..- . .... ._............. -----_. n/a 13'-0" (to master bath) 7'-0" Rear (2"d level): .._... 48'-0" (to MB) .... ,,........ ..... .................. - ...... __..,,,.__ 42 -0" (to new deck) .. _.,._........ __,............... ..... 20'-0' (1st level): ------...... 80'-0" (to garage) ....... -,,, 42'-0" (to MB) 15'-0" Lot Coverage: ..._.... 2440 SF _ ..-...._ 2958 SF --,.................... 4714 SF 21% .......... _........ ..... ....... ,........... 25% 40% FAR: 2849 SF .........--_,..... ..... , _... 4650 SF .......... . ........ 4872SF 2 0.24 FAR _ 0.39 FAR 0.41 FAR 1# 0f bedrooms: 3 4 3 ..------ -- --------, . Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2673 Martinez Drive Parking: 2 covered _. 2 covered _._.................. __ _.... .... ......... 1 covered (20' x 20') (20' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20) ....... _, ........ (9' x 20') _... _.................. . ... . (9' x 20') __..._ ..._..... _,_........ .................... _ _ . _---- Height: 22'-6" no change 30'-0" _.._......... . ..... pe: DH ....__., __,..- - en encroaches on left' __,..... __ ,__, _..................................._._ __.,, no change _- ---.. . ,._.... -.....-.,._ CS 25.28.075 1 Existing nonconforming condition 3 (0.32 x 11,786 SF) + 1100 SF = 4872 SF (0.41 FAR) 3 The storage area on the lower level is not considered a bedroom because it does not contain any windows. The family room on the lower level is considered a bedroom for parking purposes Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer and NPDES Coordinator. Also, please note that while this project was pending, Planning staff was cc:ed on the attached letterfrom James N. Casey (date -stamped April 30, 2008) regarding the maintenance of the eucalyptus trees at the project site. Staff also received a copy of an arborist's evaluation (date -stamped June 5, 2008) of the eucalyptus trees at the project site and has included it in the staff report. The arborist's report states that it does not appear the eucalyptus trees pose an imminent hazard or immediate danger. February 25, 2008 Design Review Study Meeting: At their design review study hearing on February 25, 2008, the Planning Commission had multiple comments on the proposed project and referred it to a Design Review consultant. The Planning Commission's comments focused on architectural details (including doors, railings, shutters, and windows), the clarity of the plans, and the consistency of the design. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer (date -stamped May 19, 2008): The design reviewer met with the architect and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project. In a report dated March 19, 2008, the reviewer notes that the applicant has revised the left, right, and rear elevations by replacing the balustrade that was originally proposed with an iron railing. On the front elevation, the shutters have been retained, the railing revised, the bay window refined, the garage door upgraded and detailed, and additional details have been added to the proposed front door. The design reviewer determined that the proposed addition is compatible with the architectural style of the existing neighborhood and structure because the proposed changes, although an improvement to existing conditions, will not significantly alter what is already there. In the report, the reviewer also notes that there will be no change to existing parking onsite, and therefore the proposed project will respect the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood. The reviewer also notes that the proposed structure will interface well with neighboring structures, and that the proposed new landscaping is in proportion to the mass and bulk of the structural components. The reviewer concludes that the revised drawings generally respond to the comments received from the Planning Commission at the design review study hearing, and are an improvement over the initial submittal. He noted that the iron work on the garage doors is not necessary, and encouraged further study of the rear deck railing. Overall, the reviewer supports the project because the overall concept is strong by expanding the lower level (and not adding a second story), minimizing the impact to the neighborhood. June 9, 2008 Regular Action Meeting: At their action hearing on June 9, 2008, the Planning Commission asked that the window trim detail be clarified and consistent throughout the structure, and that the wrought - iron detailing be simplified (June 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes). In a letter date -stamped June 16, 2008, the applicant notes that the plans have been revised to clarify the window trim and represent it consistently on all four elevations. The applicant also notes that the wrought iron detail on the garage door has been removed, and the wrought iron detail on the front and rear railings has been toned down, the -2- Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2673 Martinez Drive bushes have been trimmed, a railing has been added to the rear stairway, and the eucalyptus trees will be trimmed (response from applicant date -stamped June 16, 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; 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 by the Planning Commission in the attached minutes of their February 25 and June 9, 2008 meetings and the analysis of the design review consultant, that there is very little being proposed that alters the existing streetscape or massing of the house, and that the proposed house will interface reasonably well with the neighboring structures, 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 design of the project as a lower -level addition and on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's June 9, 2008 action hearing, that the impact on the neighbor is not great given the location of the addition, the project is found to be compatible with hillside area construction permit criteria listed above. 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: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 12, 2008, Sheets 1 through 6 and LC1, 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 April 6, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's April 6, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 9, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 9, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. 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; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; -3- Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2673 Martinez Drive 5. 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; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the 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; 8. 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: 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; and 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. Lisa Whitman Zoning Technician C. David Miraflor P.O. Box 6910174 Stockton, CA 95269 Marwan Zeidan 2673 Martinez Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Attachments: Response Letter from Applicant date -stamped June 12, 2008 Minutes from Action Meeting — June 9, 2008 Minutes from Design Review Study Meeting — February 25, 2008 Design Reviewer's Recommendation Letter from Larry and Grace Ngai, 2669 Martinez Drive, date -stamped June 6, 2008 me Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2673 Martinez Drive Story Pole Certification letter from Michael Lemke, date -stamped June 5, 2008 Report from Howard Linacre, Certified Arborist, date -stamped June 5, 2008 Letter from James N. Casey, regarding tree maintenance, date -stamped April 30, 2008 Letter from Larry Ngai, date -stamped February 25, 2008 Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Site Photos Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 13, 2008 Aerial Photo -5- From: RANYA HADDAD-ZEIDAN [roro_rhz@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 8:23 PM To: CD/PLG-Whitman, Lisa Cc: marwan zeidan Subject: Response to comments: 2673 Martinez Dr Hi Lisa, This email is in -regards to the Commission Comments from the June 9Th meeting. David Miraflor(Designer) made connections to our plans to reflect the following: * ONE Sink in the bathroom located on the proposed first floor plan.(not two) iEGEIVED JUN 1 6 2008 :rTY Cl- BURLINGA1,9F * Front Elevation window trims have been corrected & are consistent throughout the plan. * Wrought -Iron detail on the garage door has been removed. Wrought -Iron detail on front & back railing have been minimized. *Bushes have been trimmed *Tree's will be trimmed prior to the June 23rd meeting. We hope we responded to all comments made. Please let us know if any additional information is needed. Ranya & Marwan Zeidan CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: June 9, 2008 There'WQ,uld be a view blockage of the East Bay hills from the living roo ould be continued to allow a rev of options. Views from out r space are not protected; there is some view b age from interior of home, but not certain if it is Sig ' ' ant enough to be considered a subs tial impact. Would be important to ha all Commissioners view the erty and the view impacts in advance of action regarding the propose . Commissioner Auran moved to continue to the �3, 2008 regular Meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissio Vistica. Discussion of motion. None Chair Cauchi cal for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item until June 2 , 008. The motion passed 4-0- (Commissioner Lindstrom recused, Commissioners Brownrigg and Temon absent). This item con ded at 7.•40 p.m. item Lindstrom returned to the dais. 2673 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARWAN ZEIDAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND DAVID MIRAFLOR, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER• LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated June 9, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Mangan Zeidan, 2673 Martinez Drive; represented the applicant. Commission comments: On proposed first floor plan; two sinks in the bathroom are in an L-shaped configuration; would not be workable. On front elevation, three windows to right of door, a trim detail is shown that seems to go behind the shutters; this detail is not shown elsewhere on the house; should be consistent and spelled out on the plans; there is a "typical window detail' called out; the Commission assumes that treatment on all of the windows on the building; provide a clear representation of how the windows are being treated. The wrought -iron detail on the garage is overdone. A more consistent theme than previously; but need to have plans drawn accurately. Public comments: Byron and Miriam Maldonado, 1 Toledo Court spoke: 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes June 9, 2008 Concerned about the size of the addition at the rear; with construction, they will lose their view and will be looking at the deck. Have requested that neighbor trim his bushes, haven't seen the story poles because of the bushes. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Needs to be continued to allow window details to be correctly represented; and the property owner needs to trim the trees. Concern about railings; calm them down a bit, too ornate; and provide missing railing on steps. Doesn't believe that the impact on the neighbor is that great, given the location of the addition. Bring back as Consent Calendar item when ready. Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the application to bring back on Consent Calendar when trim details modified according to reduction; trim trees priorto bringing the item back and review railing details on front and rear. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve, The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and Terrones absent). This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 4. 37 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A CHANI,GES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SJNU{LE FAMIL l WELLING(PATTYANDANDREWJORDAN,APPLICANTSANDPROPERTYOWNERS:AND Reference staff repo dated June 9, 2008, with attachments. Community Dev pment Director Meeker presented the report, re 'wed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12� ditions were suggested for consideration. Noted that a ised window plan was submitted to the ommission at the meeting. Chair Cauchi opened the public hean Patty and Andrew Jordan, 2537 Hayward Dn an ictor Zvarich, building contractor, represented the applicant. When they reviewed the wind-esigns at the win w showrooms, felt that the grid pattern would impact views; only want rid pattern on upper part of ' ows on the full house. Commission comments- • Appre#ed the design of the plan submitted at the meeting; front windo as the primary concern. NN to match the grid pattern on lower window above the garage. comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes February 25, 2008 • There is an opportunity to beef -up the landscaping on the garage side to break-up wall, and g er side to soften appearance. Commissioner'V'isticamade a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar whe omplete. This motion was seconde�tl CommissionerAuran. Discussion of motion: • Perhaps consider a belly -band to b up the in ng of the side elevation, instead of a trellis element; however, could also be some f a trellis without need for a Variance. • Would hesitate to bring the trellis feature ay around the side; asymmetric fashion would be nice. • Windows may be sufficient to so n the appearance o ide, side elevation. • The proposal is consistent the character of the existin sidence. • Include vines on trellis t would wrap around the side; windowsbp, garage side will also break up mass. \ • North elevatio s mislabeled. \. • tncoura landscaping on the right side at the rear to soften appearance. Chair C chi called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when s have be evised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0. The Planning Commission's ad ' is dvisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 9. 2673 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARWAN ZEIDAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND DAVID MIRAFLOR, DESIGNER) PROJECTPLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Lisa Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Marwan Zeidan, 2673 Martinez Drive and David Miraflor, P. O. Box 6910174, Stockton; represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Commended the applicant for adding to under floor space to increase floor area. Questioned the need for all of the additional full baths. • Asked why the existing shutters are being removed; they add to the character of the home. • Noted that the plans are difficult to read. Difficult to visualize how the proposed house will look. • The proposed concrete balusters are too heavy and inappropriate for the design of the structure; consider something similar to the design on the front of the structure, or look to other similar homes in the area for ideas. • Noted inconsistencies in trim details between Sheets 4 and 6. • Drawings should show a clearer representation of the trim package. Noted neighbor comments regarding the Eucalyptus trees on the site; suggested working with the neighbor to address their concerns. • Noted that the proposed curved windows are not consistent with the design of the rest of house. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Unapproved Minutes February 25, 2008 Provide details of the designs of the front door and garage door. Design consistency is required. Current design is proposing one look at the front of the house and another at the back. Public comments: Byron and Marion Maldonado, 1 Toledo Court; adjacent property owner; noted that they have a view to the airport and the San Mateo bridge. They are concerned with view impacts. Before construction takes place, install story poles to show how high the building will actually be. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Requested the installation of story poles. Suggested referral to a design reviewer. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer, and directed the applicant to install story poles. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Discussion of motion: It is unfortunate that the drawings do not clearly show the design details. Massing is basically at deck level,, would be surprised if there is a view impact. Encouraged removal of Eucalyptus trees. Don't remove Eucalyptus trees until the story poles are constructed. Noted that trees can add something to views. Address design issues first. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer, with direction to the applicant to install story poles. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:32 p.m. 10. 260 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A - ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND-PE."31GN REVIEW STUDY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW B�PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW 12,403 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING N CULLINANE, APPLICANT,, KEVIN AND LISA CULLINANE, PROPERTY OWNERS; AND YERAND NILMEYER ---- -- Reference staff report dated F�.u-a�y 25, 2008, withents. Community Development Director, William Meeker briefly presented the project des . on. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public c� nt per Commission commen A for clarification regarding the location of the landscaped area on Bur me Avenue, near El Camino Real, is it in the right-of-way. Requested clarification regarding the request for a Parking Variance. 14 Design Review Memo City of Burlingame MAY 1 =` 7.Q08 Date: May 14, 2008 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 2673 Martinez Dr. Architect: Line 2 Design Planner: Lisa Whitman GIW OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DES=r. I have received and reviewed the revised plans (4/28/08) for 2673 Martinez Dr. I have visited the site and surrounding area. I reviewed the original submission to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's comments as presented in the meeting minutes. I met with the owner and architect about the project and reviewed an interim revision. The Planning Commission comments from the 2/25/08 meeting are as follows: ❑ Commended the applicant for adding to under floor space to increase floor area. ❑ Questioned the need for all of the additional full baths. ❑ Asked why the existing shutters are being removed; they add to the character of the home. ❑ Noted that the plans are difficult to read. Difficult to visualize how the proposed house will look. ❑ The proposed concrete balusters are too heavy and inappropriate for the design of the structure; consider something similar to the design on the front of the structure, or look to other similar homes in the area for ideas. ❑ Noted inconsistencies in trim details between Sheets 4 and 6. ❑ Drawings should show a clearer representation of the trim package. ❑ Noted neighbor comments regarding the Eucalyptus trees on the site; suggested working with the neighbor to address their concerns. ❑ Noted that the proposed curved windows are not consistent with the design of the rest of house. ❑ Provide details of the designs of the front door and garage door. ❑ Design consistency is required. Current design is proposing one look at the front of the house and another at the back. Public comments: ❑ Byron and Marion Maldonado, 1 Toledo Court; adjacent property owner; noted that they have a view to the airport and the San Mateo bridge. They are concerned with view impacts. Before construction takes place, install story poles to show how high the building will actually be. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ❑ Requested the installation of story poles. ❑ Suggested referral to a design reviewer. Revisions to original design: • Front elevation: The shutters have been retained. The garage doors have been upgraded and detailed. The bay window has been refined or made more accurate. The railing has been revised. The front door has been detailed. • Left elevation: The railings have been changed (balustrade removed). . • Rear elevation: The balustrade has been removed and replaced with iron railing. • Right elevation: The balustrade has been removed and replaced with iron railing. DESIGN GUIDELINES: Compatibility of the Architectural Style with that of the Existing Neighborhood: • There is very little being proposed that alters the existing streetscape or massing of the house. The modifications are improvements to what is presently there. 2. Respect for Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood • The attached two -car garage is not being changed and is compatible with the parking patterns in the neighborhood. 3. Architectural Style, Mass & Bulk of the Structure: • The revisions made to the initial proposal have improved the architectural style of the project. The mass and bulk are not really being altered with this proposal. 4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side: • The proposed house will interface reasonably well with its neighbors (similar to the existing house). There should not be view issues with the structure as it is the same as the existing. The expanded deck at the rear did not look like an issue. 5. Landscaping and its proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components: • The applicant has included new landscaping. I didn't do an extensive review of the landscaping, and noted the only comments in the minutes had to do with the eucalyptus trees. SUMMARY The applicant has revised the drawings and design to generally respond to the comments received. The shutters are being retained, the plan clarity has been improved somewhat, the concrete balusters have been replaced with wrought iron, there are new details now showing the front door, window, and railings. The curved windows have been deleted from the garage door. The revised design is an improvement over the initial submittal. There is relatively little to review other than some of the aesthetic choices being made. I informed the applicant that I didn't think the iron work on the garage doors was necessary, but ok if the owner wants that. I also encouraged, and still do, a little further study of the rear railing. I appreciate that there is now the desired consistency between the back and front of the house, but there is now a long, unbroken length of the railing. There does appear to be a series of intermittent posts, but not much detail about them. All in all I would encourage the owner to make a careful selection of these features, but wouldn't hold up the project for them. I support the project, especially due to the fact that the overall concept is strong; creating new space below rather than above where neighborhood impacts would surely be much greater. Randy Grange, AIA 3 y 2008/JUN/06/FRI ]0:37 AM PC Meeting 06.09.08 • 4154683608 Agenda Item 3 2673 Martinez Drive CEIVED i June 6, 2008 JUN ~ 6 2008 City of Burlingame Planning Commission CITY OF SURUNGAME 501 Primrose Avenue PLANNING OEM% Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: 2673 Martinez Drive Construction Planning Dear Planning Commission, Larry & Grace Ngai 2669 Martinez Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 COi(M111I "IONRE &A �tIFTER PR,CPARITIO,iIr o�sru�'REPORr We are not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on 6/9/06. However, per our letter dated 2/26/08, we want to make sure that the owners of 2673 Martinez Drive know that they must maintain their trees properly. During the recent stormy weather, a few branches and big leaves have fallen all over our yard to cause extra maintenance and clean up on our end. The overgrown Eucalyptus trees are becoming very threatening. We obviously do not want the trees to cause damages to our property or to the neighborhood. Please kindly remind the owner of their responsibility to maintain their trees properly. We would like to further emphasize the two points that were mentioned in our previous letter: 1) Trees -- The Eucalyptus trees are overgrown in the yard which requires proper maintenance or removal. A professional'arborist should provide an inspection and recommendation, if decided that these trees were unhealthy acid needed to be removed, it should be taken care of before beginning the construction. We have done the same before our renovation 4 years ago. Our Eucalyptus trees were also complained by out neighbors due to safety concern. After the Arborist's inspection and recommendation, we removed our trees as they were no longer healthy and might cause hazards. Our neighbor, Mr. Lynn, at 2665 Martinez also had the same Eucalyptus trees at one point. Unfortunately, a couple of them fell and broke the power lines in the rear and caused many problems a few years back, so he finally removed all of them as well. The previous owner at 2673 Martinez did try to maintain their trees; unfortunately, we are not sure if the new owner has been trimming the trees in the last 2-3 years. The trees at 2673 Martinez are now very top heavy in compared to the City well maintained trees on El Camino real. During stormy weather, we could only pray that the trees don't cause any hazards, Please be sure to obtain the proper arborist's recommendation and keep up the maintenance of these Eucalyptus trees. 2) Drainage — Proper or corrective drainage plan needs to be in place. There was substantial water coming from the house through our shared fence. We are not sure what caused the linkage but we noticed that there was a PVC pipe from their house facing our property on the fence line. They should have correct drainage system to divert the water to the street level and not toward our or other's property. The linkage or drainage from 2673 Martinez is causing excessive water on our planting area all year tong. Please be sure that corrective drainage is In place during construction. We appreciate your and the owner's attention to our concerns. Thank you. Sincerely, G I rry8,Gra eNg i wner of 2669 Martinez Drive, Burlingame Cc: Owner of 2673 Martinez Drive, Burlingame (mailbox drop oft) Page 1 of 1 AMERICAN LAND SURVEYING LICENSED BY BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS Daly City: 130 Moltke St., Daly City, CA 94014, Ph: (650) 300-7467, Fax: (415) 665-7467 Mailing Address: Post Office Box 2255, Sausalito, CA 94966 San Francisco: 2266 20th Ave San Francisco CA 94122 Ph: (415) 497-2505 Fax: (415) 665-7467 Date: 6/4/08 Attn: City of Burlingame Department of Public Works 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Location: 2673 Martinez Dr Burlingame, CA 94010 STORYPOLE CERTIFICATION COMMUNICATION RECEIVED .lFTER PREPARATION OFSTAFFREPORT PC Meeting 06.09.08 Agenda Item 3: 2673 Martinez Dr. The this letter certifies that the story poles erected for the residential project located at - 2673 Martinez Dr, Burlingame, CA , have been placed to the required heights as shown in the city approved plans. The six story poles positions were measured and the poles stand at the correct heights, to within the allowable tolerances of 0.02' or better. This concludes the report, so feel free to contact us with any questions or comments you have regarding this project during normal business hours. Sincerely, Michael Lemke Lie. No. 3603 Exp. 6/30/08 American Land Surveying 2266 20th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94116 Ph/Fx: 415-665-7467 Cell: 415-300-7467 Vs s 11,1111no-V L. IIS pacge 1 of 3 1 of 1 CITY OF 6URLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. b0/L!/Lurid VJJ; JJ oiuopoJI JG CITY of BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ;aCity Mall — 501 Primrose Road Planning olvision Burlingame, Califbmfa 94010-3997 PH: (650) 558.7250 FAX: (650)696.3790 ®ate: Project Address: Z6 �3 /ty1J,PT/�E� ��p �yRGiiY6/l�/� Assessor's Pare,el No.: a5vf.3060 Owner's Name: Aff MI-1—Y lat IM J This is to certlfy' that on f ' 4 D$ (date), the s#ory poles located on the above - Conformance site were installed or inspected by the undersigned, and found to be in conformance with the design, height, and location shown on the plans, elevations, and the attached stdry pole plan. For additional idformation, please contact me at,O. 3AP 74x,7 (phone no.) Title or a5 Register online for the City of Burlingame list serve at wrww.burlinaam®.ora n Here R"CDIVED JUN. -. 5 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. page 2 of 3 1:42 M p tv L2T�Z•09-470_031s J n Est u7- i tz` �. x.t—. kit RI9 Ir ` I r Oil ••*"tSI {.I4,� {({ �L• +, I T` I ' ` W O e- - qu IVO, Fr rN .v 6) RMI tt .. o...OT LE Y E-1, {��( \101, �} ( .d I V l - �✓ PY YR ..sue ig CD WETDRYYMpIT oNg I� W JUN — 5 2008 .. • .. •:� �;^ + \I / Y I • LT\ I'� IV � ^1,E-k � _`. .( � CITY OF BURLJNGALro t:7 Z . PC Meeting 06.09.08 Agenda Item 3: 2673 Martinez Dr. Howard Linacre, Certified Arborist I.R.A. WC-SM4" COMMUNI'4 CATIO V Norfolk Drive ?FAST F PORPRSPA"Rr Pacifica, California 94044 mailtw earwigz66peakeasy.net June 3'a, 2008 MarwanZeida"n In care of- 2673" Martinez Dr. Durlingame;-CA 320 El Bonito Way Millbrae, CA 94030 Cell 650-464-6761 Marwan67kaol.com Re: Tree Health and Safety Report for6 Eucalyptus or "Blue Gum" trees that stand- in the rear backyard of 2673 Martinez Dr. Dear Mr. Zeiden, As you requested, On May 28th, 2008 I went out to the site to assess the grove of 6 Eucalyptus trees- that stand in the rear of the backyard" at 2673 Martinez Dr. All the - trees appeared to be healthy and had full and well balanced canopies. There was I tree nearest the house that seemed to be a little thick with foliage and should be thinned out sometime in the future, although I don't believe there is any problem with it. 2 of the trees are double stemmed and are in the center of the grove. There is some chance of stem failure in this area between the two competing stems of these trees, but they didn't appear to propose an imminent hazard or immediate danger of failing anytime soon. If either of these two trees were to fail between the competing stems, the trees" would either fall to the gust or West away from any of the structures and would most likely get Hung up in the canopies of the other Eucalyptus trees if this were to happen. I believe that some routine thinning and light shaping of some of the branches would help in minimizing the chances of this to happen. All the trunk bases appeared sound and stable and I didn't see any signs of decay or mushrooms in any of the root zone areas. None of the trees were over 100 feet tall and there are no homes" or other significant structures within couple of hundred feet of these trees. I provided a Google Earth image of the site in the report to indicate the distance and location where these trees are from any home" and the direction that they would most likely fall if failure occurred between any competing stems. If I can be of further assistance, please give me a call. Thank you. Howard Linacre, C.A. I.S.A. WC-5304 RECEIVED JUN - 5 2008 1717Y OF BURLINGAME page 1 of 2 PLANNING DEPT. r� POJ JUN !� �008 page 2 Of 2 rr C)F r:_r- .j! s, an,: JAMES N. CASEY ATTORNEY AT LAW 1611 90REL PLACE 5AN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 550-341-7251 FAX 650-577-3903 April 28, 2008 Occupant 2673 Martinez Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Occupant: Last June this office contacted you about the concerns of Mr. William Sexton, owner of adjoining property at 2540 Valdivia Way, Burlingame, regarding the eucalyptus tress on your property. A copy of my letter dated June 11, 2007, together with a prior letter from Mr. Sexton dated April 30, 2007, are enclosed. Subsequent to my letter, you contacted me and represented that you would take action to correct the situation by pruning the trees. Mr. Sexton informs me that you not done as promised, and that the.trees continue to pose a danger to his property (and its occupants) as well as other neighbors. Mr. Sexton urges you to comply with your duty as a landowner to insure that the conditions on your property do not jeopardize adjoining owners. Please contact me immediately with assurances that steps will be taken in this regard. This matter has become so serious that Mr. Sexton is communicating his concerns to officials in the Burlingame city government. I await your reply. Very truly yours, James N. Casey cc: William Sexton Rosalie M. O'Mahony, Mayor AFi,j f G,, ZtibEf Page 1 of 4 " ` Occupant April 28, 2008 Page 2 Ann Keighran, Vice -Mayor Cathy Baylock, Councilmember Terry Nagel, Councilmember Jerry Deal, Councilmember Larry Anderson, City Attorney James Nantell, City Manager Randy Schwartz, Parks and Recreation Director (Trees) Lisa Whitman, Planning Department Christine Reed, Fire Inspector Sue Harris, Code Enforcement Doris Mortensen, City Clerk Design Review Planning Commission Beautification Committee Page 2 of 4 " JAMES N. CASEY ATTORNEY AT LAW 1611 SOREL PLACE SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 650-341-7251 FAX 650-577-3903 June 11,.2007 Occupant 2673 Martinez Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Occupant: This office represents Mr. William Sexton, owner of adjacent property located at 2540 Valdivia Way, Burlingame. I understand that. Mr. Sexton attempted to communicate with you regarding his concerns regarding the.eucalyptus trees on your property. Specifically, he is concerned that you have not pruned these trees as a prudent maintenance program would require. A copy of his letter to you is enclosed. To date you have failed to provide assurances to Mr. Sexton that you.will resolve the dangerous situation that you have allowed to develop. Please contact me immediately with your plan to safeguard the property adjoining yours. Failure to do so will expose you to significant liability, as well as threaten Mr. Sexton's property and the safety of those residing there. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, James N. Casey cc: William Sexton Page 3 of 4 ;, O-A YrWL cep v� 0444"eA -P/,w MA V /-47" w dam. *0) 31-2--56s1f AN a" 0 2008 T'd Page 4 of 4 DiXEIS M:WOUd T2:60 goof-TT-Nnr 2673 Martinez Drive Agenda Item #9 - 02.26.08 PC Mtg. Larry & Grace Ngai 2669 Martinez Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 February 25, 2008 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: 2673 Martinez Drive Design Review and Construction Dear Planning Commission, +faRAIMUNt �lTION C`Fwl 4tF7E!! PUPAW4 AA`STA1�Jm`RBPI�!R� We are not able to attend the meeting tonight, 2/25/08, due to family obligations. However, there are a few concerns that we would like the owner of 2673 Martinez Drive to keep in mind during his/her construction. 1) The Eucalyptus trees are overgrown in the yard which requires proper maintenance or removal. The Eucalyptus leaves and branches have consistently fallen over our yard all year long especially during raining and stormy seasons, and our pavestones have been stained in many spots. They have obstructed the sunlight which has been prevented me to consider placing solar panels on my roof for energy saving strategy. 2) Proper or corrective drainage plan needs to be in place. We are not sure if the irrigation or pool system is dripping water to the shared right side of our property, which is causing excessive water on our planting area all year long. 3) Do not place the Debris Box in front of my walkway to obstruct the access to the front entrance of my property. We appreciate their attention to our concerns above. Thank you. Sincerely, Larry Ng REEVED Owner 0 f2669 M rtinez Dri e, Burlingame CI FEB 2 5 200& GIIY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEFI. City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame ora ��CITY o� APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION a�1RLINGAj.�E Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit . Variance Special Permit Other H A"'("�PParcel Number: Project address: Z O -j w rnt-:�- /. APPLICA� NNT project contagt person? ❑ Name: Address: -Q 4--1 MrC �\ )O.Q _- City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): (e-mail):�C.�V< r7nt u. �'7(0.49 L ro ARCHITECT/DE GNER project contact person?❑ /CName:CL slj \ Address: City/State/Zip: - Phone �0 cc) (fax): (e-mail): PROPERTY OWNER project contact person? ❑ Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): Please mark one box with I] to indicate the contact person for this project, - 1, 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:_ [Q A ��9,(�/� Date:.. — I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner'ssignature:� -_)CM Z Date: Date submitted: I//_ i rip S:\Handouts\PCAPP. FRM Date To: From: Project Comments April 5, 2007 oa( 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 Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for a second story addition and first floor remodel at 2673 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-083-060 Staff Review: April 9, 2007 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: 4/06/2007 Project Comments Date: April 5, 2007 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 From: Planning Staff 13 Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for a second story addition and first floor remodel at 2673 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-083-060 Staff Review: April 9, 2007 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) 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 buildings. Go to http://Www.energV.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. 6) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. 7) 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. 8) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 9) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. Reviewed : .by Date: ��_ _ C E— Project Comments Date: April 5, 2007 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 a( Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for a second story addition and first floor remodel at 2673 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-083-060 Staff Review: April 9, 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: r -� Date: 9�„Q� Date To: From: Project Comments — April 5, 2007 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 R1 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 City Attorney Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for a second story addition and first floor remodel at 2673 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-083-060 btaTr Keview: Hpru a, zuu t 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. iiMIPA Project Comments Con't —2673 Martinez Drive — 2"d story addition, 1 st story remodel and hillside construction. 2) The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. The easement shall be protected from any site runoff. 3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls (if 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 around 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 Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. i Reviewed by: Date: 04/09/07 2of2 006 1� i;� -• iw •a AIR 2aIo2i2oos y . � �. .� nti'.. +.♦ � Li, � r y� AN n„} K t C�9 24/02/2006 j YA rya'dY-'FC d3�` /Me44YoU S k E}} a6:s Ft li', 3+3 Z I 24/02/2006 s 24/02/2006 Im 4! kg! RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION 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 and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a main and lower level addition to a single family dwelling at 2673 Martinez Drive zoned R-1, Marwan Zeidan, property owner, APN: 025-083-060; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 23, 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 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. 2. Said Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Hillside Area Construction 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 23'" day of June, 2008 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2673 Martinez Drive Effective July 4, 2008 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 12, 2008, Sheets 1 through 6 and LC1, 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 April 6, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's April 6, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 9, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 9, 2008 memo shall be met; 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; 4. 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; 5. 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; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the 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; 8. 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: 9. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2673 Martinez Drive Effective July 4, 2008 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; and 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD r BURLINGAME, 94010 + PH: (650)558-725250 0 FAX: X:(650) www.burlingame.org m . Site: 2673 MARTINEZ DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 23, 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 main and lower level addition to a single family dwelling at 2673 MARTINEZ DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 025-083.060 Mailed: June 13, 2008 (Please refer to other side) 016H16504325 00-270 mailed prom 94010 US 'POSTAGE: PUBLIC BEARING NOTICE Citv 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 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 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) k s," t � u b'� .. �� e"•Y �� ♦� 9°�_ IT - IT c+:ryr # \�, 4- rtry. �'•`•�.`•` bay 1��' Y y"� <r �{' Ir " A46 • N ry k+ ` TT "9 L it # I ♦$ R f�+. 4'�..r_, 01, Ll w "F grit �+.. t • � / ��..3. � { '<, sLf • n:..a✓� ' C k p k .Ri'. i .�INS r' �c.:,,a4 r1 � ♦ � L� Agg � �p iylJ City of Burlingame Item No. _ Amendment to Condominium Permit, Consent Calendar Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance Address: 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Meeting Date: 06/23/08 Request: Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance for anew three- story, three -unit residential condominium. Applicant and Architect: Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates APN: 029-100-070 Property Owner: Mike Prescott Lot Area: 5,790 SF General Plan Designation: Medium -High Density Residential Zoning: R-3 Adjacent Development: Multi -Family Residential CEQA: Section 15303 - New Construction or conversion of small structures, Class 3(b), construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (b) a duplex or similar multi -family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. Project Description: On October 23, 2006, the Planning Commission approved a Condominium Permit and Conditional Use Permit for building fora new three-story, three -unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-3. The plans approved by the Planning Commission where drawn by Hunt Hale Jones. A different architectural firm, Dale Meyers Associates, was hired to complete the construction drawings. While completing the construction drawings required for a building permit and responding to plan check comments during the building permit review process, the architect noted that several changes need to be made in order to address building permit plan check comments. A building permit has not been issued. The proposed changes affect the site plan, floor plans, roof plan, building elevations, parking layout and stairwayexiting from the subterranean garage. For a complete list of proposed changes to the project, please refer to the architect's letter dated March 13, 2008 (attached to staff report) and revised plans date stamped May 30, 2008. The applicant is requesting the following applications: • Amendment to Condominium Permit for changes to a previously approved new three-story, three -unit residential condominium; • Rear Setback Variance (15'-0" proposed to the stairway enclosure where 20'-0" is the minimum required rear setback on the third floor) (CS 25.32.075, b); and • Parking Variance for number of compact parking spaces (3 compact parking spaces proposed where 1 compact parking space is allowed) (CS 25.70.044). Parking: The project contains three, two -bedroom units and requires a total of eight on -site parking spaces (six spaces required based on the number of bedrooms, one guest parking space and one service vehicle space). Seven on -site parking spaces are proposed in the below -grade parking garage (four standard and three compact spaces), which is accessed from a driveway along the left side of the property. The parking layout in the original approval contained six standard and one compact space. However, a T-0" wide egress pathway in the subterranean garage to the exit stairway needs to be provided and wasn't accounted for in the original approval. The applicant is proposing to change two standard parking spaces to compact spaces in order to provide the required pathway. However, the addition of two compact parking spaces now requires a Parking Variance (3 compact parking spaces proposed where 1 compact parking space is allowed). A delivery vehicle space is provided in the circular driveway at the front of the lot. Stairway at Rear of Building: The architect notes that per building permit plan check comments, the previously approved open stairway at the rear of the building must be enclosed. As a result, the portion of the enclosed stairway on the third story does not comply with rear setback requirementand therefore requires a Rear Setback Variance (15'-0" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum required on the third floor). Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Lot Area: 5.790 SF Plans dated stamped: June 10, 2008 Previously Approved Proposed (06/10108 plans) Allowed/Required Delivery Vehicle Parking provided in driveway no change one delivery space Front Setback 55% no change 50% Landscaping (494 SF) (446 SF) Private Open Space: 87.5 SF/unit no change 75 SF/unit minimum Common Open Space: 404 SF no change 300 SF (134.6 SF/unit) (100 SF/unit) Landscaping: 75% soft landscaping no change 50% soft landscaping 224 SF 150 SF Summary of Project (including proposed changes): An existing one-story single family dwelling will be demolished in order to build the proposed three -unit residential condominium. All three units are similar in style and size and will have two bedrooms, a kitchen, living, dining and family rooms. Storage rooms are provided for each unit in the below -grade parking garage. The units range in size from 2,035 SF to 2,170 SF. The exterior of the building will have a stucco finish, wood clad windows and clay tile roofing. A decorative wrought iron railing is proposed for the balconies and entry gate at the front of the building. An affordable unit is not required for a residential development with four or fewer units. There is a total of 404 SF (134.6 SF/unit) of common open space proposed for the condominium project where 300 SF (100 SF/unit) is required. Planning staff would note that the common open space must have a minimum dimension of 15'-0". Therefore, the area between the stairway to the underground garage and building is not counted towards the common open space requirement since it is only 13'-0". Of the minimum required common open space (300 SF), 75% (224 SF) is proposed to be in soft landscaping (combination of ground and planter boxes) (50%, 150 SF minimum required). There is 87.5 SF of private open space per unit (75 SF/unit is the minimum required). The required private open space is provided on balconies at the front left corner of the building. There is an existing 18-inch diameter Red Oak tree at the front of the property in the city right-of-way which will remain. An existing 8-inch diameter oak tree in the front yard will also remain. Tree protection during construction will be required for these trees. In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multi -family residence is required to provide a minimum of one 24-inch box -size minimum non -fruit tree for every 2000 SF of lot coverage. For this project a minimum of three, 24-inch box size trees will be required to be planted on -site. There are no changes to the previously approved landscape plan which provided a total of two, 24-inch box size Fermleaf Full Moon trees and four, 24-inch box size Bloodgood Japanese Maple trees to be planted in planter boxes. Seven, 24-inch box size Blue Timber Bamboo trees are to be planted along the rear property line in the ground. Since the below -grade garage extends to the side and rear property lines, the trees in the rear yard are proposed to be planted in planter boxes. Six 24-inch box size Italian Cypress trees and four 24-inch box size Prarifire Crabapple trees are proposed at the front of the property. These trees would be planted in the ground. Additional landscaping including shrubs, groundcovers and other miscellaneous plants are proposed throughout the site. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the on -site reforestation requirements. The applicant is proposing 55% (494 SF) landscaping in the front yard where 50% (446 SF) is the minimum required. If a circular driveway is provided a special permit may be requested to reduce the required front setback landscaping to 45% (402 SF). The proposed project complies with front setback landscaping requirements (55%, 494 SF proposed where 50%, 446 SF is the minimum required). -3- Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 1459 Oak Grove Avenue 5. Appreciated applicant using glass fiber elements rather than stucco foam. No response needed. 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: Based on the facts and comments stated at the June 9, 2008, Planning Commission meeting minutes, that this three -unit residential condominium was originally approved by the Planning Commission, that the changes do not represent a significant change to the building envelope and do not increase the number of units, and that the changes reflect compliance with the 2007 California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, this application for an amendment to the condominium permit meets the criteria for permitting a residential condominium. 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. Findings for Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance: Based on the facts and comments stated at the June 9, 2008, Planning Commission meeting and included in the minutes, that the enclosed stairway provides direct access to rear -yard for greater usability, that the enclosed stairway is at the rear, center of the building and not visible front the street, that the enclosed stairway design is consistent with the design of the building; that there is no decrease in the total number of on -site parking spaces and that because in the future vehicles are likely to be smaller the increase in the number of compact spaces will not be detrimental to the parking for this building, this application will not be detrimental to properties in the vicinity and is compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. -5- Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 1459 Oak Grove Avenue 10. that one (1) guest parking stall shall be designated and clearly marked in the below -grade garage and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit or used for any kind of enclosure, but shall be owned, maintained, and kept available for guest parking by the condominium association; 11. that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association however at least one space shall be assigned to each unit; 12. that the below -grade parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 13. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall 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 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; 18. that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; 19. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 20. 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; 21. 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; 22. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; 23. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; -7- Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Ruben Hurin Planner c. Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, applicant Attachments: June 9, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes Applicants' Response Letter dated June 10, 2008 April 28, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes Applicants' Response Letter dated May 14, 2008 October 23, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Letter of Explanation, dated March 13, 2008 Email from Frank Bartaldo, dated June 6, 2008 Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 13, 2008 Aerial Photo BI CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes June 9, 2008 The exit door from the stairway shall be incorporated into the window pattern and augmented with a trim package that relates to the windows above. The main entry door design is acceptable. The matter should be placed on the Consent Calendar when it returns on the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Have the door be an architectural door that will add light to stairway, if possible. Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion to continue to June 23, 2008 and place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and Terrones absent). This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008 2. 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, THREE -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MIKE PRESCOTT, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 28, 2008. Commission comments: • Clarify the design of the accessory structure exiting the garage; looks too utilitarian; could have more character to encourage its use; make reference to the gate structure at the front of the property. • Changes on west elevation; the change is not an improvement at the entry portico. • Give more definition to ceramic tile decorative element at elevator. • Noted that the pillars are only cast stone on the first floor; concern that glass fiber elements on upper floors may age differently. • Appreciated applicant using glass fiber elements rather than stucco foam. This item was set for the Regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at T 17 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes VII. ACTION ITEMS October 23, 2006 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 ofthe public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 5a. 1535 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND ANEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GILBERT FITZGERALD AND CAROL MURPHY PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 5b. 1461 ALVARADO AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GEORGE AND ANDREA SCARBOROUGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERI A LEWIT 5c. 1426 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE (POKO KLEIN, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JENNIFER HAYDEN AND BILLY RYAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT 5d. 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, THREE - UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MIKE PRESCOTT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND HUNT HALE JONES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (88 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN a. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT; AND b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP (ACTION TAKEN AT PREVIOUS MEETING— OCTOBER 10, Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. CP Monroe noted that she would like to amend condition 8 of item 5d. 1459 Oak Grove Avenue, to include the wording "... and the trees along the rear neighbor's property line shall be evaluated by a certified arborist and protection measures defined and put into place before a building permit shall be issued." Chair Brownrigg noted that he would encourage this applicant to replace the tandem parking spaces shown on the original plans, because additional parking is always a benefit to the future property owners. Since this is not required parking, it is the choice of the property owner. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and as amended for 1459 Oak Grove and by resolution for each project. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Descriptions of changes March 13, 2008 Third Floor Plan 1. Items # 1 and 2 at the first floor are the same for this floor. Roof Plan 1. The tower roof on the west side has been revised to accommodate the change in the floor plan. 2. The roof plan on the south side has been changed due to the stair enclosure. 3. Extent of line under tower on the east side has been corrected on plans. Exterior Elevations North (Front) Elevation 1. Vehicular portal has been raised per building plan check comments. 2. Kitchen window has been changed from sliding to casement. West Elevation 1. Tower roof over stair and elevator has been revised. 2. Cased decorative tile added to blank elevator wall. 3. Roof configuration changed due to enclosing rear stair. 4. Elevator tower roof raised per manufacturer's specifications for hoistway clearance. 5. Windows in stair enclosure have been changed to elliptical windows with wrought iron detail. 6. Elevator enclosure wall has a decorative tile panel. 7. Entry to building has been revised with pilasters and wrought iron railing. South Elevation 1. Rear stair enclosed per building plan check comments. 2. Rear roof configuration revised per enclosing stair. 3. Second and third floor master bedroom center window changed from sliding to fixed with casement on sides. East Elevation 1. Enclosed rear stair and thereby reconfiguring rear roof shape. Page 2 of 3 CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben From: Frank Bartaldo [fbartaldo@unitedamericanbank.com] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 4:38 PM To: CD/PLG-Hurin, Ruben Cc: Kathy Bartaldo; CD/PLG-Meeker, William Subject: 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Page 1 of 1 PC Meeting 06.09.08 Agenda Item # 5 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Mr. Hurin I was in your office yesterday and left you a voicemail message earlier today pertaining to the proposed 3 unit condominium project at 1459 Oak Grove. My wife and I are the property owners at 1463 Oak Grove the property adjacent to this project. After reviewing the information and drawings for the condos I have no objection to the proposed building just some questions and possible concerns. Primarily it appears the main entrance to the building units will be facing our property with a five foot set -back. It appears extremely tight and depending on any landscaping or fencing that may be installed access to the proposed building could be difficult. Also there may be a possible negative affect on the ease of access for the tenants that occupy our building. The driveway way on our property that borders this property is used by 3 of our six tenants and is already very narrow. If at all possible I would appreciate a call to clarify these issues. Your cooperation will be much appreciated. Frank Bartaldo EVP/CAO United American Bank 101 South Ellsworth Avenue, Suite 110 San Mateo, Ca 94401 Phone: 650 579 1573 Fax: 650 579 1501 Email: fbartaldo a unitedamericanbank.com COMMUNICATION RECEIVED .AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited." This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email V1L ' ILIN -- 0 Z008 4,!T.' OF BURIA IGAME Page 1 of 1 6/6/2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT* 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 , www.buriingame.org .IVED WR 2 3 2008 R�AIZ 5Fj&jGlL—Ti IYtp �i t76y^L CITY OFHl1 LINCilME PLANNING DEPT. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.64.020 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 orwrite 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 ATTAUJED 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 from the denial of the application. SEE 4TTAIGHM 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. 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? Handouh\Vatlanm Applketfon.2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org GITY OF BURLINGAME VARIANCE,ARPICATIQN GO M P CT N-YZ IGI Q 62 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, -%J� qqq r eG 5-. 4..a c:..ol .d� 5 F-=L A--r-rA-Gtf0 MAR 2 e9 2008 CITY OF P.l,!s UNGAME PLANNING DE:P I. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. 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. 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? HandoutsWadance App[lcatlon.2008 Projecf Comments Date: February 21, 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 application for Amendment to Condominium Permit and Parking Variance for a new, 3-unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove, zoned R-3, APN: 029-100-070 Staff Review: February 25, 2008 Project Comments : D Date: 12/20/2005 To: ❑ City Engineer X Chief Building Official ❑ City Arborist ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for condominium permit, parking variance and conditional use permit for a new, 3-story, 3-unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-3, APN: 029-100-070 Staff Review: 12/27/2005 Page 2 of 2 10)Show the dimensions to adjacent structures 11)Show the distances to property lines or to assumed property lines 12)Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel 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)The accessible parking shown in the basement must comply with the accessibility requirements of the 2001 CBC. Specifically, no accessible parking is shown in the parking garage. Date: Project Comments Date: February 21, 2008 To: of 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 application for Amendment to Condominium Permit and Parking Variance for a new, 3-unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove, zoned R-3, APN: 029-100-070 Staff Review: February 25, 2008 All previous comments apply. Reviewed by: V V Date: 04/07/2008 PC Item # MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE: JANUARY 11, 2006 RE: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR 3UNITS, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP - RESUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 1, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY NO.2 SUBDIVISION - 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE CONDOMINIUM PERMIT The following comments which needs to be addressed prior to any action. IGENERAL: Show proposed drainage system and indicate that all roof and site drainage shall go to the street by gravity. In addition, storm drainage shall be connected to the city storm drain pipeline along Oak Grove Avenue. Show direction of drainage on adjacent property to confirm that no drainage enters this site or else that drainage needs to be included in the on - site system. 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. If large trees are to be removed, other plantings shall be shown on plans to help ameliorate the removals with the approval of the Parks Department. 4. Showrequired 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. 5. 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. 9. The garage exit pathways may not be through a parking space. Also, place bollard(s) or wall to keep vehicles from blocking exit routes. 10. Show the underground garage area vents on the plans. IV ARCHITECTURAL PLANS: Show design of trashroom and indicate size of receptacles, including receptacles for recycling. Confirm sizes needed with BFI. 2. Elevator sump drainage shall go to sanitary sewer and shall be separate from groundwater system which is to go to the storm drainage system. 3. On the Parking Level Plan and First Floor (Site) Plan, show adjacent site and street elevations for reference. 4. All building sections need to show site elevations and adjacent site elevations and shown to scale to give the relationship. 5. The sewer ejection system (shown in garage plans) does not indicate the pit, ventilation, etc. Sewer•ejection system must be on the emergency generator also. 6. Individual unit climate controls as well as separate shutoffs for gas, electric and water are required. VI TENTATIVE MAPS: 1. Add note that "#_ Condominium Units are as shown, Architectural Plans prepared by _ 2. The CCR's for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City Codes. Name c: Owner, Architect FAWP51THXS1C0ND0MAP.RVW (REVISED 00/98) ..,: Project Comments Date: 12/20/2005 To: City Engineer 00, Chief Building Official City Arborist City Attorney From: Planning Staff 111► Recycling Specialist Fire Marshal Q NPDES Coordinator Subject: Request for condominiumpermit, parking variance and conditional use permit for a new, 3-story, 3-unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove Avenue, zoned R-3, APN: 029-100-070 Staff Review: 12/27/2006 To comply with the City's NPDES Stormwater Permit, the project proponent shall incorporate the following measures to the maximum extent practicable: A. Site Design Measures: • Minimize impervious surface areas; • Minimize impervious area from being directly connected to the storm drain system; • Maximize permeability by preserving open space and using permeable surfaces where feasible; • Use landscaping to treat stormwater; • Use "Bay Friendly" landscape design (see handout). B. Incorporate all applicable source control measures (refer to the City of Burlingame's Local Source Control Measures List). C. Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls: • Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls continuously throughout the duration of the construction project or until permanent erosion controls have been established; • Address method(s) for diverting on -site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off -site runoff around the site; • Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on -site; D. Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: • Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; • Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material. 1 of 2 NEWDEVWPNIENT/RMVELOPNlEW LANd"ING FACT SIIUT j RAlry San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program wwzv_lloustobay_mg Who should use this Fact Sheet? • Development Project Applicants • City/County Planners • Landscape Maintenance Personnel • Landscape Architects • Homeowners Bay and Ocean Friendly Landscape Design and Maintenance Techniques What are Bay/Ocean Friendly Landscape Design and Maintenance Techniques? Bay/Ocean Friendly landscaping relies on alternative design, plant selection, and maintenance practices that decrease the need for pesticide applications as well as the amount of water runoff from landscaping. The quantity of pesticides entering our creeks, the Bay, and Ocean can be reduced by using techniques that: • Decrease the need for landscape maintenance by designing landscapes that minimize pest infestation and create low maintenance environments; • Select plants that are appropriate for local soil, climate, and other conditions; • Incorporate elements that reduce the potential for the pesticides to ran off the • Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces; • Use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to minimize pesticide usage; Refer to the back of this fact sheet for more design and maintenance tips. What is Integrated Pest Management? Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a decision -making process for managing pests. IPM relies upon monitoring to determine pest -caused injury levels and the use of a variety of less toxic methods of pest control. To minimize pesticide usage, IPM uses a combination of: • biological controls (e.g., natural enemies or predators); • physical or mechanical controls (e.g., hand labor or mowing); • cultural controls (e.g, mulching, discing, or alternative plant type selection); and • reduced risk chemical controls (e.g., soaps or oils) The IPM method uses the least hazardous pesticides only as a last resort for controlling pests. CITY G BURLJINGAME SAN MATEO COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM �NRT[Y JYN66• 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 f or 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 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. 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 fluids or vehicle 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 not 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 to the sanitary sewer system and may not be discharged to storm drain system. a 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 nozuJe assembly may be operated plus a minimum of one foot, whichever is greater. Page 3 of 4 RESOLUTION APPROVING, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and applications has been made for Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance for changes to an approved project for a new, three-story, three -unit residential condominium at 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Zoned R-3 Charles M. Prescott, property owner, APN: 029-100-070; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 23, 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 a categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section: 15303 - New Construction or conversion of small structures, Class 3(b), construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (b) a duplex or similar multi -family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units, is hereby approved. 2. Said Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A' attached hereto. Findings for such Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking 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 23 day of June, 2008 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance. 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Effective July 3, 2008 9. 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; 10. that one (1) guest parking stall shall be designated and clearly marked in the below - grade garage and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit or used for any kind of enclosure, but shall be owned, maintained, and kept available for guest parking by the condominium association; 11. that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association however at least one space shall be assigned to each unit; 12. that the below -grade parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 13. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall 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 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; 18. that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; Conditions of approval for Amendment to Condominium Permit, Rear Setback Variance and Parking Variance. 1459 Oak Grove Avenue Effective July 3, 2008 29. 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; 30. 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; 31. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 32. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 33. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 34. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 35. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; and 36. 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. 5 i tipr.. .. r " h ~ l i rg_ '�� �l! t '1 I f. . � `..i CyH ��.r. ,_ 4 ,, i E t r i ' t _.' I Fri i �. City of Burlingame Item No. Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances Consent Calendar Address: 1277 Balboa Avenue Meeting Date: June 23, 2008 Request: Design Review, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope, and Front Setback Variances for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Chu Design and Engineering Property Owners: 1277 Balboa Burlingame LLC General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 026-152-020 Lot Area: 6,000 SF Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house with a detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached one -car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 2,994 SF (0.60 FAR) where 3,009 SF (0.60 FAR) is the maximum allowed (project is 15 SF below the maximum allowed FAR). The proposed house requires front setback Variances for a front setback of 17'-10" to the first story and 22'-10" to the second storywhere a block average of 27'-9" is required for both. The project includes a detached one -car garage (307 SF) which provides one covered parking space for the proposed four -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 a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (CS 26.57.010); ■ Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side property line by 73 SF (CS 25.28.035 c); • First Story Front Setback Variance (17'-10" proposed where block average of 27'-9" is required) (CS 25,28.072, b, 1); and • Second Story Front Setback Variance (22'-10" proposed where 27'-9" is required) (CS 25.28.072, b, 3). 1277 Balboa Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans Date Stamped: June 12, 2008 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS L ! ) 1 22 10 r ; 2� 9 t6Jockaverag2) g ..—_�v_. �.... _._._.._.-_ C_._Y}±YyA_� i.?c_'.._ e_u..-�r Side (left, 15f fir): 11'-0" 4'-0" (left, 2"d flr): 11'-0" 4'-0" (right, 1st fir): 5'-0" 4'-0" (right, 2 d fir): 5'-0" 4'-0" - _.-_....._.. ..__..__.. ._ .. ----..-.-._.__......._-......-_-..-.. - ....__...........__...- .....------- (--------------------- Rear 1 st fir): 25'-10" 1514" (2"d flr): 43'-4" 20'-0" - - ..... - .,--------- - .. - .....__..._............................................................................ ... ..... ._-__...._....__..._ - - ..__...._.._..-..----... ._..........--......__ Lot Coverage: 1,967 SF 2,002 SF 39.3% 40% ------------ -...-- _---------.................. ...-----.._------- ---....-------------.._--------- ------ _.... FAR: 2,994 SF 3,009 SF 0.60 FAR 0.60 FAR' Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances 1277 Balboa Avenue consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Special Permit Findings for Declining Height Envelope: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's June 9, 2008 meeting, that with the proposed changes the projectwill be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Required Findings for a Variance: In order to grant the front setback variances, 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; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Findings for Front Setback Variances to the first and second story: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's June 9, 2008 design review study meeting, that the small size of the lot supports the variances, and that the existing homes are atypically placed furtherfrom the street since they are on larger lots resulting in a higher block average, the proposed project is found to be compatible with the Variance criteria listed above. 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 June 12, 2008, sheets A.1 through A.6 and 1-1.0, 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 May 5, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's May 8, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 9, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 12, 2008 memo shall be met; 3, that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the front setback Variances as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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; -3- Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances 1277 Balboa Avenue Minutes from June 9, 2008 Design Review Study Meeting Letter from Mark Gross to Planning Commission, date -stamped June 3, 2008. Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Form Variance Application Form Photos of Adjacent Properties Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 13, 2008 Aerial Photo -5- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes June 9, 2008 T. 1277 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FORA NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND BOB AND CINDY GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated June 9, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Commission comments: Provide information regarding setbacks on other side of the street. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo and Bob Gilson; represented the applicant. Variance requested due to shallow depth of lot; wish to preserve a useable rear -yard by bring house forward; second floor setback is still over 20-feet; the Variance relates to the location of the porch. Have reviewed the plans with the neighbors. Commission comments: • Front door looks like it is recessed, but not so on plan; which will it be (applicant - will be recessed); don't recess it so much that it opens into the living room. • A good design solution, given the size of the lot. • Style is appropriate given the style of other homes in area. • Trim piece on top of entry door appears to be similar to treatment of top of dormers; should probably be a bit heavier to work better with the columns. • Noted concern that every bedroom doesn't need to have a bathroom; perhaps more closet space and a "Jack and Jill" bathroom between bedrooms. • Be cognizant of maximum height limit so as not to exceed it. • On the right elevation, look at the consistency of shutter arrangement. • Consider making the porch brick to match the columns. Public comments: Ron Daher, 1273 Balboa Avenue; Wayne Walden, 1613 Easton Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke: Support the project; would like the Commission to approve the Variances; moving the house closer to the street provides more privacy for neighbors. Thinks that some of the other Colonials around town are designed better; eyebrow dormers should be placed back into the roofline. The front porch should have the columns extending down to the ground. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete, noting the following: The small size of the lot supports the Variances. 10 PC Mtg. 06.09.08 - Agenda Item #7 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mark Gross C IMMI NICATION CEIVU RE: 1277 Balboa. APN-152-020 P4MRPRRPARAT1Q?1 OPSTAPPREPORr Sirs: I am the owner of 1605 Easton Drive, a house that backs up against 1277 Balboa. I have serious concerns about the intended construction on that site. I am in favor of development in general, and have benefited by it, living in a house that was built on the site of a taller house. That being said, I am concerned that we will be boxed in by the sheer walls of tall houses on all sides, and given the odd nature of our lot, this will materially affect our enjoyment and use of property, as well as our resale value. As the attached photos make clear, the combination of our shallow backyard combined with the close proximity of the proposed new construction to the fence line, its height, and its depth, will severely compromise our privacy and the aesthetic of the backyard. This concern is amplified by the fact that the house to our left, the corner house at Balboa and Easton, also has tear -down potential, creating the "perfect storm" of three towering homes penning in a tiny backyard. Help! Our hope is.that the developer will consider not extending the new home any further back than the current home, and will offset the second floor enough that there isn't a sheer vertical_ wall within a few feet of the fence. I will be out of the country on Monday, but my wife will attend the planning meeting. We appreciate your consideration. Thanks. Mark Gross 1605 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA RECEIVED JUN - 3 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. see reverse side of this page I J 4 e City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 �� crrr o � t BUljLil'1GAME CITY OF'BURLIl lGAM SPi AL PERMIT APPLICATION www.burlin¢ante.ore The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). 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 blend ofmass, scale and dominant structural characteristics ofthe new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. The proposed colonial style residence with one car -detached garage is inconsistent with the existing single story home, but it is consistent with surrounding properties on the "west" side of Burlingame neighborhood with similar design and its mass/bulk. Due to the symmetrical architectural elements, a special permit is requiring for the declining height envelope on the right side, which only encroach less than two feet. 2. Explain how 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. The proposedstyleresidence is consistent with the bui [ding materials being use. The front porch, dormers at front, wood siding are all consistently used on this style, and it should blend well on this block without changing the character of the neighborhood. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The proposed single-family residence with detached garage is consistent with City Design Review Guidelines, and it complies with all zoning requirements, except for the right side declining height envelope that require special permit. 4. Explain how the 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. lfhat mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. Few trees will be removed (see landscape plan for tree replacement), but a complete new landscape plan for srecPERM.FRM entire lot is proposed. < � � t �.1 >3[ :`91w3a f .•�i :L F `k�`C;�p�i�* } �: i - , a 4 s1i.„� a d�' 1', � �, S I � :_-.... s* � `� * s �. � �u t'> +i � 4wsx r � ,.✓"��""`�, � xa. ! ; N x-a t�S y<t +i-. z�, 5 _ r �3 � t•� .sx h t,'C x,�z,� e-,;. , .�€ T,,, E S "fi; '+ t ^`-, ;'>+•"w"jt.sa tt..,r ,` sra ;� �s -' w' :�tr"` �r t�x .4.. � ,+ a ,a � P� ��q 3t L3 ? t ,- .... y," f �`� � ,. �'.::�"F "5-, .,=„P�.r Y= #: �' < t :f k ..,Y3a Y, r's••, F`-' *Y 1`: i`, 'sM$+ , 'k t' rz.. }>r;a �f a €s. y `w ""-�' '�� `�. 'x`x'y��rn v �3 q t , lu q, 3E T Project Comments Date: May 2, 2008 To: LrJ 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, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling with detached garage at 1277 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-162-020 Staff Review: May 5, 2008 Reviewed by: Date: i? J PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 12 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 13 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. 14 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. 15 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. 16 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, 17 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 18 The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 19 �� 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. 20 X The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re -submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations 21 _ The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 22 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. Page 2 of 3 S:W Public Works DirectoryWORMSTroject Forms\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc Proj ect Comments Date: May 2, 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, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling with detached garage at 1277 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-152-020 Staff Review: May 5, 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 htto://www.energV.ca.gov/titie24 for publications and details. 7) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. } 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) -Yc 9) 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 "Den" 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 re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed Project Comments Date: May 2, 2008 To: City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 7 From: Planning Staff Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ✓ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-372 City Attorney Subject: Request for Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling with detached garage at 1277 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-152-020 Staff Review: May 5, 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: Date: 05/12/2008 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances. 1277 Balboa Avenue Effective July 4, 2008 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 12, 2008, sheets A.1 through A.6 and 1-1.0, 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 May 5, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's May 8, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 9, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 12, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the front setback Variances as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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 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; 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, CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 601 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA94010 PH: (650) 558 7250 ® FAX: (650) www.burlingame.org or Site: 1277 BALBOA AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,.CA: Application for Design Review, Front Setback Variances and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new single family dwelling and detached garage at 1277 BALBOA AVENUE zoned R.I. APH 026.152-020 Mailed: June 13, 2008 (Please refer to other side) 016H16504325 fA,ned From 94010 us POSTAGE Ci�y ®f url6na�rne 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 appiication(s).n 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 areresponsiblefor inform tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you William Meeker Community Development Director (Please refer to other side) their Item # Action Calendar 2520 Valdivia Way The applicant has requested that the project be continued to a later date (see attached email). From: Robert Medan [robertmedan@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:58 PM To: CD/PLG-Whitman, Lisa Cc: The Livingstons Subject: 2520 Valdivia Way June 11, 2008 Re: Livingston Residence 2520 Valdivia Way Burlingame CA To: Lisa Whitman Planner Dear Lisa: On behalf of Lee and Margie Livingston, I would like to request that we postpone the hearing date currently set for June 23rd to a later unspecified date. We will be preparing additional revised design drawings for submittal for this later hearing. Please call if you have any questions Respectfully, Robert Medan AIA EItem # Action Calendar PROJECT LOCATION 1837 Hunt Drive Address: 1837 Hunt Drive City of Burlingame Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Side Setback Variance Item No. Action Calendar Meeting Date: June 23, 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 1,003 SF second floor. With the proposed first and second story additions, the floor area will increase to 4,101 SF (0.31 FAR) where the Zoning Code allows a maximum of 5,495 SF (0.40 FAR). The proposed project is 1,394 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 leftside 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 SETBACKS Plans June 12. 2008 Front (1st fir): I 23'-0" (to garage)' (no change) 15'-0" (2nd fir): n/a 55'-0" (to MB deck) 20'-0" Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive EXISTING PROPOSED TO ADDN ALLOWED/REQUIRED Side (left, 1st fir): 6'4" (to LR) FP _ 5`' T-0" (left, 2nd fir): n/a K ' 6( fi(to,N) T-0" (right, 1st fir): 15'-6" (to garage) 15'-6" (to bath 3) T-0" (right, 2nd fir): - --, n/a 35'76" (to stair) T-0" Rear (lstfir): 99'-0" (to BR3) 88-0" (to right rear bath) 15'-0' (2nd fir): n/a 85'-0" (to MB deck) 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,637 SF 3,279 SF 5,381 SF 20% ---- .,,___--- ----- 24% 40% Floor Area Ratio: 2,517 SF 4,101 SF -..,._,, --_._, 5,495 SF 0.19 FAR 0.30 FAR 0.40 FAR s # of bedrooms. ....__ 4 _, _, ----, 5 Parking: 2 covered ........- .. ....-_... - _ 2 covered (20'-0" W x 22'-0" L) (no change) (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered _.... ..__................ ...... ..... .... .. . (9.,x 20').... (9' x 20') w., ------ ght _ 20-5" 29'-0" -- 30-0" DHEnvelo e: p comp omplies S 175 SF' k - ---- --- ---- -..__---- ,--------- CS 25.28.075 1 Front setback to the garage is an existing nonconforming condition, a new two -car garage door requires a 35' front setback. 2 A side setback Variance is required for a 6'-8" side setback where, based on the width of the lot, a a 3 side setback is required. 3 (0.32 x 13,453 SF) + 1100 SF = 5,495 SF (0.40 FAR) The proposed project encroaches 17.5 SF into the DHE on the left side of the structure (0'-10" x 21'-0" = 17.5 SF) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineerand NPDES Coordinator. Please note that the neighbors at 1847 Hunt Drive submitted a comment letter on May 12, 2008 that includes their contact information and an invitation to Planning Commissioner's to view the story poles from their property. Also note that the story poles have been adjusted since the last Planning Commission meeting to show the reduction in the master bedroom addition. Regular Action Meeting (May 27, 2008): At the Planning Commission Regular Action meeting on May 27, 2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions concerning the design and details of the proposed addition and voted to continue the item until their comments could be addressed (May 27, 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes). The applicant provided a response letter, date -stamped June 11, 2008, and revised plans, date -stamped June 12, 2008, addressing the Commission's comments. Design Review Study Meeting (April 28, 2008): At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on April 28, 2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions concerning the materials, massing, and design of the proposed addition and voted to place the item on the RegularAction calendarwhen the plans have been revised as directed and story poles have been installed (April 28, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes). The designer submitted a response letter and revised plans, dated stamped May 14, 2008, to address 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: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; -2- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive 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 of a hillside area construction permit bythe 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 (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistentwith the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation forthe removal that is proposed is appropriate. 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. 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: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 12, 2008, sheets A-0, 1-1.0, A1.0, A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0, A3.1, A3.2, A4.0 and A5.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; -3- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 21, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's February 28, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 28, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the side setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will 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; 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. Lisa Whitman Zoning Technician -4- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive C. Bacilia Macias c/o Spatial Art Inc. 121 Scotts Chute Court El Sobrants, CA 94803 Attachments: Applicant's Response to Commission's May 27, 2008 comments date -stamped June 11, 2008 May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Regular Action hearing) Letter from Theodore Vlahos date -stamped May 12, 2008 Letter from Jim Vlahos date -stamped May 12, 2008 Applicant's Response to Commission's comments date -stamped May 12, 2008 Applicant's bulleted list of project revisions date -stamped May 21, 2008 April 28, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Design Review Study hearing) 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 June 13, 2008 Aerial Photo -5- ligamon I spalmol tl w IV IA 200f3 5141 Hilltop Dr. EL Sobrante, Ca 94803 Ph: (510) 669-1001 Fax: (510) 223.5100.:IHhJi> - ' " P IRLINGAPdE E-mail: melheck_2000@yahoo.com [)EP'Y, June 5, 2008 Lisa Whitman and Planning Commission Community Development Department -Planning Division 2"d Floor 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 1837 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, CA Subj: Response to Planning Commission meeting comments. Item #. 1. On the right elevations the windows in the staircase have been shrunk and obscured class will be used. 2. The outermost lights on the rear deck have been removed. 3. The rear deck has been brought in on both sides T-0". We did want to maintain the exit from the office. 4. The master bedroom has been reduced and the front deck has been removed. 5. After reviewing the rear deck design the ornamental railing in such a large area seemed to busy and would defeat the purpose of down playing the deck. The posts for the rail are wood since we felt the metal post and frame would feel too commercial. The wood railing plays well with the existing wood trellis. 6. The shed roof under the rear deck has been removed. 7. The hip details on the side elevations. 8. The fascia has been changed to lx8, typical. 9. Regarding the placement of the addition, we took great care in placing this addition and made many efforts to examine a first floor and/or split level addition, but as Mr. Dunning explained the loss of greenscape (pervious ground cover) would destroy the rear yard that the previous owner had obviously taken great care in creating, We appreciate the comments of the Commission and as we mentioned to the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Vlahos, that the concerns they have do not fall on deaf ears and we have addressed all the modifications presented to us by the Commission. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions Sincerely, Bacilia Macias Spatial Art, Inc. 510-223-5300 PLANNING LETTERM Page 1 of 1 6/11/2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BACILIA MACIAS, SPATIAL ART, INC., APPLICANTAND Reference staff report dated May 28, 2008, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: None Bacilia Macias and Melanie Heck, 5141 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante; represented the applicant. Described changes made to plans. Additional Commission comments: • Visited uphill neighbor and observed that views are reasonably protected, but concerned about privacy of neighbor; would suggest that windows on right elevation near stairwell be clerestory/glass block to preserve neighbor's privacy, also could install skylights for added light. Suggested that only two lights be provided on the deck; remove the two outermost lights. • Consider bringing in the upper balcony by a few feet on both sides to bring it further away from the neighbors. • Location of the addition is well considered; but some concern about view blockage from neighbor's kitchen; why wasn't a split-level considered (applicant: there are many trees that a good lawn area that the homeowner wishes to retain for children's play area). Asked about the size of some of the rooms on the second -floor, particularly the master bedroom with its 21-foot depth blocks the kitchen view; could be pulled back a few feet to reduce view impacts. Concerns regarding the deck off of the master bedroom creating more outdoor living space thatwill impact the neighbor; consider eliminating the front deck or bringing the balcony by a few feet on both sides to bring it further away from the neighbors. Like the idea of minimizing the impact of the deck rails, but feels an ornamental treatment for the rear deck may be more appropriate than what is shown on the plan. • Concern regarding the construction details of the balcony; would be tough to build; determine if it is feasible before construction. Roof overhang at second floor on left side elevation; appears to be hipped back; go ahead and let it engage the roof directly, without using a hip design. Detail on Sheet A5, fascia dimension needs to be clarified; suggest a smaller size fascia. Public comments: James Vlahos, 50 Platt Avenue, Sausalito; Theodore Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive; and Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive spoke; presented a letter to the Commission; concerned about mass and bulk and propensity for increasing the home size of all homes on the block; encouraged by comments regarding minimizing the mass of the proposed addition in order to preserve views. The existing 12 CiTY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 house is too small to accommodate the applicant's family; pushing the addition further back would detract from the usability of the yard; designers will take into account the suggestions made at this evening's hearing. Next door neighbor on downhill side, has a two-story house; there is a precedent for two-story homes in the area. Further Commission comments: Asked if the applicant realized that the entire house, with the exception of the garage, will be completely demolished to achieve the changes. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the application with direction to the applicant, as outlined in the discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: • Asked for uphill neighbor's contact telephone numbers for Commission to make arrangements for site visit. • The second floor plan appears to be very inefficient, • there could be a better design; though the addition is relatively modest; doesn't significantly impact views. • Also look at any possibilities to move mass of second story addition away from neighbor. Vice -Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). This item concluded at 9:14 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Auran recused himself due to a business relationship with the applicant for Item 8 (1317 Cabrillo Avenue). 8. 1317 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BOB AND CINDY GILSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated May 27, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Bob Gilson, 30 Woodgate Court, Hillsborough and James Chu, 55 West 43`d Street, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Clarified that the ridgeline will be at nearly 30-feet; it is a lot of mass; concern about being so close to the maximum height; could the height be reduced. Complimented the porch design. 13 Respectful members of the Planning Commission, My name is Theodore Vlahos. My wife and I live at 1847 Hunt Drive, which is north of the applicant's house. Almost 40 years ago my family and I drove through Hunt Dr. in Burlingame and fell in love with the houses on this block. The houses are all low with views, plenty of sunlight, and big back yards. Now comes the applicant and wants to change the aesthetics of the houses with a big box addition. The addition in my opinion is not to the best of the neighborhood because the second story will stick out like a sore thumb. The applicant is blessed with a big back yard, and it will be to the neighborhood interest if they build in the ground floor instead of adding a second floor, which is very big for any block. Wise members of the commission, I urge you to vote against this plan and if this is an inducement- Thank you in advance. Sin Theodore � Theodore Vlahos RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Members of the committee, On behalf of my parents, Theodore and Patricia Vlahos, we have always considered ourselves to be good neighbors and hope the applicants will be happy in their new home. Unfortunately, we must ask the applicants to revise their submitted plans. It is our contention that the proposed addition is not congruent with the original designers plans for Hunt Drive. The mass and bulk does not interface with the adjoining properties, nor are side and spatial qualities preserved. We respectfully submit that the view ordinance be enforced and our southerly views will be preserved. 8' e ly, J m ahos RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. SAI 4 5141 Hilltop Dr. EL Sobrante, Ca 94803 Ph: (510) 669-1001 Fax: (610) 223.5100 E-mail: melheck_2000@yahoo.com May 12, 2008 Lisa Whitman and Planning Commission Community Development Department -Planning Division 2"d Floor 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 1837 Hunt DPive, 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 tile 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 their home. The story poles will be installed before the next comnussion 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 LETTEM Page 1 of 1 5/12/2009 'anon Us SA I S i 101 adl- Ric 5141 Hilltop Dr. EL Sobrante, Ca 94803 Ph: (510) 669.1001 Fax: (510) 223-5100 E-mail: melheck_2000@yahoo.com May 20, 2008 Lisa Whitman and The Planning Commission Community Development Department -Planning Division 2nd Floor 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 1837 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, CA Subject: Comprehensive Responses to the April 28th 2008 Planning Meeting ❖ Arguments in favor of second story addition plan for 1837 Hunt Drive; WAY 2 1 2008 CIT,' I OF BUNG PLANNI IG D OI ➢ Design and location of the second story addition took into consideration the best placement for massing with regards to the adjacent neighbors and for the neighborhood's architectural integrity. ➢ Proposed addition does not block or obscure any sunlight at anytime during the day, including the winter when the sun is lower in the sky. ➢ No substantial view is being blocked. Uphill neighbor's view from kitchen is of 1837 Hunt's roof, backyard, the sky, and distant trees. The second story addition does little if anything to diminish the existing condition. Kitchen views to the south-east are unchanged. ➢ Addition is approximately forty (40) feet from 1847 Hunt Drive (uphill neighbor). ➢ Second story plate height was lowered by one (1) foot to minimize second story massing. ➢ Right side elevation has more architectural elements. ➢ Windows on right side elevation viewed from uphill neighbor's kitchen are primarily stairwell windows so there are no privacy issues. ➢ Next door neighbor at 1827 Hunt (down hill side) has a two story, seven bedroom house. Architectural revisions and additional detail added to the design since April 28th Planning Meeting. ➢ Windows —All changed from Anderson 400 Vinyl Clad to Pella Aluminum Clad. ➢ Front Elevation: • Master Bathroom/Stairwell Windows— dormer added to provide additional architectural element. • Wainscot Fagade — Changed from 12 inch slate to porcelain raised the with a tailored pattern. Pattern continues around the side of the house to a logical stop. Stone chair rail continues to encircle the rest of the house. • Front column detail- Base with porcelain raised tile with a tailored pattern. "x' w x i r- a J L:5 • Front door detail -Change from (2) 30 inch wood doors with 12 inch sidelites to 11re,e fo2to8 wood doors with glass panel and iron detailing. Off"OF F U, L_,U llu'ME • Second-5tdry Master Bedroom French doors -changed from (2) 36 inch double pappl!WRY1, slider to (3) - 30 inch French Panel doors. • Balcony railing changed to decorative iron railing. • Front lighting elements added to elevation 1't and 21d 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 bellyband • Stone Chair Rail added along with wrapped wainscot • 3 inch foam trim with stucco finish changed to 4 inch wood trim ➢ RearElevation • Lower deck modification - railing removed and structure rounded • 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 OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008 Additional Commission comments: Asked if the applicant proposes trimming the trees. Prepared not to get too involved in tree removal issues. Would like some clarification on which trees are to be removed. Plans call for removal of at least four trees. Two trees in the rear have branches protruding over property. In front yard, the removal of the two black Acacias and Eucalyptus trees has an active permit. There are two trees to be removed within rear. Would like to see story poles. Could also tape the trees that are to be removed in order to best address view impacts. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Leo Redmond, 2711 Martinez Drive; and Gill Yee, 2707 Martinez Drive; Black Acacia are on list of trees that the City Arborist would like to have removed. Once pruned, the tree will grow more and more and will require more frequent pruning. There is a wayfor reasonable people to workout the issues. The trees were encroaching upon the property at 2711 Martinez Drive, and the property owner had them trimmed by an arborist. The owner of the neighboring property has worked for years with the applicant to have trees trimmed and the distant Bay views restored. The trees are a problem in the front and rear of the property. The neighbor at 2711 Martinez Drive initiated mediation and made a generous offer with regards to the fence. Rescinded his offer due to lack of cooperation of applicant. They have done nothing to restore the view. Have endured a patchwork of materials on the roof of the Yee's house. Has diminished the value of 2711 Martinez Drive. The applicant is requesting special treatment on the part of the City. The applicant has not made any attempt to show the plans to the neighbor. Without a firm commitment to address the issues raised, the neighbor at 2711 Martinez Drive will not support the project. Requested installation of story poles; the project will have an impact upon the distant Bay views and the airport. Not opposed to completion of remodel. Further Commission comments: Requested that story poles be erected and trees marked so that the Commission can assess view impacts. Front entry element needs to have story poles as does the ridge line tying the elements together, and to the down slope corner. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the item until May 12, 2008, with direction to the applicant to erect story poles and mark trees that are scheduled for removal when the project is constructed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion and itpassed 6-0-1(CommissionerAuran absent). This item concluded at 9:09 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL, PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BACILIA MACIAS, SPATIALART, INC., APPLICANTAND DESIGNER: AND CHRIS DUNNING PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN 12 CITY OFBURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008 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. 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 likely go 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 Theodore Vlahos 1847 Hunt Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 650-692-4457 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Drive Burlingame CA 94010 Subject: 1837 Hunt Drive, April 28, 2008 Public Hearing Notice Follow Up Dear Planning Commission: RECEIVED MAY 12 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, On Monday April 28, 2008 a public hearing was held in regards to an application for design review, side setback variance and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1837 Hunt Drive. My wife Patricia Vlahos as well as my grandson Paul Vlahos attended the hearing to communicate our position on the proposed addition to 1837 Hunt Drive. Our residence is at 1847 Hunt Drive, directly next door and approximately 20 feet north of 1837 Hunt Drive. We have lived at 1847 Hunt drive for over 35 years. One of the key factors of our decision to purchase our home was the beautiful view from the entire left side of our home and the abundant natural sunlight thru-out the day.. Our primary living space ( kitchen , dining room and living room currently have a expansive view to the south ( looking over the current roof line of 1837 Hunt Drive) We have always viewed ourselves as good neighbors and in no way do we want to change that. However based on what we have learned in regards to the proposed addition to 1837 Hunt, we now feel that we do need to ensure our position is clearly understood. . Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the hearing. At the hearing my wife felt that she was not able to effectively communicate our position due to nervousness and incomplete information regarding the scope of the project. After seeing the plans the addition is considerably more that what we thought and would now like to go on record as objecting to the plans as they currently exist. The reason for our objection is that the addition will dramatically eliminate the view we currently enjoy on a daily basis as well as dramatically reduce the natural sunlight. These two factors are the primary reasons for our concern; a third reason is the impact the addition could have on our property values in the event we need to sell the home sometime in the future as we age. Lastly, a fmal concern we have is the design integrity of our neighborhood being compromised by addition upon addition on single story houses. We would like to invite members of the planning commission to our home to see the current view, natural sunlight, and get a better sense for what we feel would be compromised should current plans be approved. Thank you so much for your consideration. Sincerely, Theodore Vlahos WESTERN PACIFIC BOUNDARY & SURVEYING P.O. BOX 2442 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94064 (650) 787-1878 (650) 363-8930 fax survcleg@sbcglobal.net Ms. Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner Community Development Department Planning Division City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 fE•1AY 2 3 ZD08 GT'! OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Subject Property: 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,this 21 st day of May, 2008. Roger J. Clea , LS 5 (expires Decemb, 2008) �NI -Western Pacific Boundary LkSurveying Roger John Clegg - LS 7055 (M 787-187B P.O. Box 2442 (650) 363-8930 (Fox) Redwood City. CA 94064 e-rnall: survcl9g@,sbG9Iobal.r)ef I. Over 35 years of personal experience & service Third generation mld-peninsule surveyor (1918 - present) IIAV v )nno "IM _-:6 -A ......... ShElet, --- ---- of 1 vXY Date M Mr -31/ OL 6 F4-5/ 6" ✓ "711 E 41- " F .4-4- j -10// ytf EVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1Ep: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Typ of application: / PK Design Review LY Variance �`6� ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use Permit W Special Permit (Dlli~� ❑ Parcel Number: 025 - 3.21>-01-00 PROJECT ADDRESS:_ I8 37 A4UNr TnR-1Vt= APPLICANT project contact person ff" PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Z'RMITIF Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): _ (Home): (Fax): Name: C2kr-I S Dt Nvi n9j Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): 6 SO - �2 1 q " /0 _� (Home): (Fax): (E-mail): (E-mail): ARCHITECT DESIGNS project contact personJ.�.(' OK to send electronic copies of documents qa / Name: 43ci C-l' f i cL. _ lM ct Ca`C1 S �/o SP"L-+,cam( � Y -+ I rvG - Address: / _? / S co y-+S LL, l,ti-he- Gf . City/State/Zip: So6r-c"-M- G1q Phone (w)- SIO 0.23-S30c_� (Home): (Fax): tt Sio _ 2-2-3 - S1Qo (E-mail): 6 rVl0. ua,i - S 0 . toLo , rved- Please mark one box With I] to indicate the contact person for this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: /ZefL1- P/��k ;S / 0h go, ne l-o se-C'oh Ck S`'iv v� v Sin �12, - -r a wi r L,l ck t-U Psi 1 ✓t G 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: , 6/ r ` Date: z J t' V 1 am aware of the i proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this aPP�icltlo�Wtd".th(el�irii�g Commission. Property owner's signature Date: FFR 9, t1 7004 Date submitted: S:1HandoutslPC` p 't`o"1110 endout City of Burlingame Planning Department �, cirr u Bpj{LrIttGAME 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org L "::. rGa,l .,dt',..1 The Planning Commission is required bylaw to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). 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. 2008 L Explain why the blend ofmass, scale and dominantstructural characteristics ofthe new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. -VLV- vt". k ems- 40 -tKe 4F �W0 s+DYE. YKA/k AL kow gA,I iAevq jj%y prDpt)beck ctzCci.ii 5tn re- iv_c �-C&vncl S'-i-tow� a,4AA l-t �0 WA-0 yea, 6" 6a c.le- .{� ..U ThrL VtAIAtiloCt 04 V-c`� + i"S Ci�t�c (?,,,cv , `" vw� �VVI J Y-9e� 10 c,. e;2 i°, s cw. Ck •kv-e,&s -h,6A.:E ,fit` pw 0 wv- Skzt� • '{mot cx . 2. Explain how 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. �t Sri ear Y" eu Vt �'t u, c 5 -je.,t` tAre., co V r) 1�... V ov � uvl eta t u� a,? S U ('e�l��r S4, � i �e_ v> t ti ✓ Q c , ) LAAIU ke- c�-yt ft,� 5 iekp I�ut wt�- �rtv 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guide ines adopted by the city (C.5 25.57)? p W©V•�C% b1C.s-N'Ck IM1vt ,„, JVW— kro V VI% 9b, vwl'- . Kz I win w1 i G S W �tcxt W an, olr-e-C( i v ce AA VA 'in r ]'Gj 1 C� 1> t4aQ 1� o vt Se. 0-4` i, a L&V w-" ayl 'Dt,, - lam- S �Cu 1 Gwt� i' �1PI vU� .. 0v y 4. Explain how the removal of antees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the cty's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed far the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. rtAln, OVAP A . SPECPERM.PRM 3 11�2 �c�vtd S e a w an c� u r 1t �'i CT E' C, c��ru Ao`'4n, yy�aS�J `i I e f��cv� k o 0LL'i/t Avj W OL Cj VVIA Yl irwt us is „ a �uzrn 5 rk re. r--e-k W ood PL YLQ, Ac 3 TIC Gin S �} ti k S v� o v Ice Gl �o � r i {emu vl v-v� w k&y-e- cA.<,w,-� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 11 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org 11 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. —D" Uar T KG Oxf S IV Ll i, C/PP PizS� d Q J l d-Fly¢. oA,c(, , Lo+ 'fkQ- Sef1e-Y-,A - i ovl r-Sjela.Hc e A vwi t-% is »o'l- nor Ca.n b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of IX ha substantial ,.property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary CY hardship might result form the denial of the application, M, �r 'c (�� wiSkL<, 4o vytakp ' "i's komc Mez* +.e. Jv-oLxavt5 dtctJ. �ro�er is � t -3k �vGA& ik . fY-OF�-� 4t»2 vr�a k I h Gvn� e,x leN, s i q-A o m �� e�rG is f vr.5 rey l'G�9 n c� u Y% Y-IZ)4- c v b1e- -ho 1k4nM 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. a Ase.. ° g it vLi5 6c u a, -XL Q.0 c A 4-7 In v Ay`u-- o to nc� 1l,sz Q� S ic.LV- VV A I vo+ be, ot- V1a'varA YVD Y- 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? , S �i �w e. C3� t711 Y Cct i q k VWI` h I W� tn3z _ice ac ti F� v na 1V-V eM ` A, , ,�VIMSS�j 4 5&-li6\. cJe-- -Fr ovY HandoutsWariance Application.2007 lvu`Y1w S"fvrzi' c�Gu;�-C'— gip' •� VlQ icl k7 , ` V L�Iti �S S io CI Awn W1n S d✓I�Ir 5P°SI I J. Project Comments Date: February 21, 2008 To: d 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 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 _ Project Comments Date: February21, 2008 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, 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) 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) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 6) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 7) 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. 8) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential / non-residential buildings. Go to http://www.energV.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. 9) 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. 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 re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed Date: Project Comments-tee,,u February 21, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 1� 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 Revi77� � Date: Date: To: From Project Comments February 21, 2008 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist /(650) 558-7271 U 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 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: ���-� 2 �� Date: e Project Comments Date: February 21, 2008 To: 0 City Engineer 0 Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 0 Chief Building Official 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 0 City Arborist ✓ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (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 26, 2008 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, 2) The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or 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. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. r � 2 9, 2001 Reviewed by: [� Date: 0212812008 J fU?LfNC;I RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, 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 dwellinq 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 June 23, 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 1(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. 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 23ro day of June, 2008 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area=Construction Permit, Special Permit, and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive Effective July 4, 2008 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 12, 2008, sheets A-0, 1-1.0, A1.0, A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0, A3.1, A3.2, A4.0 and A5.0, 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 February 21, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's February 28, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's February 25, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 28, 2008 memo shall be met; 3, that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the side setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will 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; 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; 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; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit, and Setback Variance 1837 Hunt Drive Effective July 4, 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. CITY BURLINGAME COMMUNITY NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ° BURLINGAME, 94010 z� PH:(650) 556-725250 FAX: X:(650)6LID w www.burlingame.org 0 Site: 1837 HUNT DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the fallowing public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 1837 HUNT DRIVE zoned R-1. APN 025-320.040 Mailed: June 13, 2008 (please refer to other side) 016H16504325 OWU Mailed From 94010 LS POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlingame 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 applicatioh(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 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) ,Ay") il'M z♦ t �y Itc 0 4 11yA y) a 15 ^, ow . �pY ,tips �x• yy� , In .�.� S6Np �.. e�/ ��:,., �` �''o S rlEh%�r. svw �, �Q�� f o`' •� � �, �' +�'A`7rt �1 R 4'"' r` $ 1}+ ,� b _ �. y/ � t'I� ` � g \ ..,9,p�'t c � T `t�` + ,� / i x•+4 ��� �i o' �''r i Y I 1 Vk A ,+ ' L 6 b N y:. - w. ;,= day;1 z9y MAR�ppSA D ♦ ♦ �� I.,, flt 1•. ra+i r swh-t e X s, o 183 1 }t W 1' � R y a inn . F ♦�����J.� i e �� 1 L�. V i '�J1 + �� V tYM. r. y aw Y �q un i �a. ^ ,"' � � a3 � USDA►-E � e � a< A,1 1 ♦;; 1 •�, � �6�� ♦ � �� 1 � 0� Mis 9� 4 r'}��,1 �li r q.l r y.; Z C$ ��♦s Y I'� Wi � � a flog �+�ewS, ,F" 1 I i ao e v , ,tom" ATWATE DR jm— �v� ,i;' �'.♦ "�• �b 1�.r .., - < , ,4 1y fin. + � � k 1 �r, x-- �� � !♦ � �' " � �� � a �•��' !i @ M �s od",-'. u.,u 1�� ri x ttj °'A` t � Ion 1837 Hunt TM Drive k{{ � � 0•� f C 1 r City of Burlingame Item No. Design Review and Special Permit Regular Action Address: 1317 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: June 23, 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 APN: 026-.062-050 Property Owners: Bob and Cindy Gilson 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 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities orstructures, including one single-family residence, ora 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. 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 a new 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 54 SF (CS 25.28.035 c). 1317 Cabrillo Avenue Lot Area: 6,000_ SF Revised Plans Date Stamped: April 1, 2008 ORIGINAL PROPOSAL REVISED PROPOSAL ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS ..... _-..... .......... _.... Front (1st fir). .... ..._...... ,, ...... 20'-10" ....,._ -... 24'-10" .,, ............. .... _ ._., ...._,.,.._... 20'-10" (block average) (2nd fir) 24'_10' 28' 10 ... _. _.... ..._., 20'-10" (block average) Side (left): 10'-0" ......... --.... . ..__.......... 4'-0 (right): ..... .— 5'-0" -....... .... __.................. no change 4'-0" Rear (1st fir): ._..... 45'-8" ........... --, .... _ ., ..._.._ 4 V-8" ---......................... .....-......_........ 15'-0' . (2nd flr): 48'-2" .............. 44'-2" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: ...... -1..... ,,.... 2,145 SF ........................ ....__ __.._....... ... -....... __........................ ... ,,............ __. 2,400 SF 36% no change 40 n FAR. 3,367 SF 3,420 SF ._......_ .....----. 0.56 FAR no change 0.57 FAR' # of bedrooms. .. .._..... ... ....__.. _.... 5 .... ....... .......- ......... _ .._.._.- ......... no change ........ ............ ..... ,.......... Parking. 2 covered (20 x 20') _.__........... , _ .. _........ _........... ................................................ .... .I ... ......... ... 2 covered (20 x 2.0') ..... ... _ _.. — .. 1 uncovered (9 x 20') ....._ ....... ......., _ _., no change _. .... ---- -.... __ ... __. _.. 1 uncovered (9' x 2U) .-..___.. Height. 30'-0" 25'-7" ... ...... _................ 30'-0" DH Envelope. _............. ..... ...... _.... __ 105.3 SF ......... ....... ........ ....... _,, 54 SF .... ,...... ,....,,._........ ._, _._............ CS 25.28.075 Design Review and Special Permit 1317 Cabrillo Avenue (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 54 SF (CS 25.28.035 c). Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer and NPDES Coordinator. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on May 27, 2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding the mass of the proposed house and the relation of the proposed houseto the surrounding neighborhood (May27, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission voted to place the item on the Regular Action Calendarwhen the plans had been revised as directed. The applicant submitted revised plans and a response letter to the Planning Division on June 11, 2008, that included the following changes: the house was moved away from the front property line by an additional 4'; the overall height of the house was reduced from 30' to 25-7" because of changes to the plate height and to the roof pitch; additional trees have been added to the landscape plan; and other changes were made to proposed materials (see response letterfrom applicant, date stamped June 5, 2008, and revised plans, date stamped June 11, 2008). The applicant also submitted a photo montage, as was requested by the Planning Commission, to show how the proposed house will fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. Please refer to the copy of the May 27, 2008, Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission concerns. 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; 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 a Special Permit: In orderto 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 oraddition 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 forthe removal that is proposed is appropriate. 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: -2- Design Review and Special Permit 1317 Cabrillo Avenue that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped, June 11, 2008, sheets A.1 through A.6, landscape plan and boundary and topographic survey, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint orfloor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and the NPDES Coordinator's April 25, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's May 14, 2008 memo, and the Fire Marshal's April 28, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. 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; 4. 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; 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; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submita Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. . 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,120.W 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 foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, setthe building footprint and certifythe firstfloor 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; 11. 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; -3- Design Review and Special Permit 1317 Cabrillo AV617UO 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 13. 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. James Chu, applicant and designer. Attachments:' Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, dated June 5, 2008 Minutes from May 27, 2008 Design Review Study Meeting Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Form Photographs of streetscape Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 13, 2008 Aerial Photo KII CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC 55 West 43" Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403 Tel: (650) 345-9286x110; Fax (650) 345-9297 June 4, 2008 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: New Residence @ 1317 Cabrillo Dear Planning Commissioners: We have made the following revisions/responses to your comment for the above reference project per May 27, 2008 meeting. Architectural: 1. House has been moved 4 "feet back. 2. Finish floor has been lowered 1'-6" and roof pitch has been changed from 10:12 to 8:12 resulting to a lower ridge line (4'-5" below maximum allowed). 3. 4020 Skylight has been added over the sink at the kitchen area. 4. Wood trim around the side entrance into the nook area has been enlarged. 5. Exterior light on the rear elevation has been removed. 6. Beam above the columns at the porch has been added. 7. Size of columns at porch has been reduced. 8. Patio area under the porch has been enlarged. Landscape: 1. Two new street trees have been added and the two proposed trees in front of the porch have been enlarged from 24" box to 36" box for additional screening. 2. A tree has been added at the rear by the family room for additional screening. James Chu James Chu Principal € IUN - 2008) JTY OF BURUNGAIIE.. ! Al,INi"1 -1 1EF=r. ytc . �v. i, _ __ ✓11 . �'�- . '+ .;�' �" � ` � tti "'�''-�J,'4F r.."" �yy !4�• .ko�y��"�.Kf`�rY�� { IX" ri r i M 1 �,. a t ommiM 16�I�L-g 4r I , kd- rFF \ ` 1 T ro 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION —Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Auran recused himself due to a business relationship with the applicant for Item 8 (1317 Cabrillo Avenue), 8. 1317 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BOB AND CINDY GILSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND CHU Reference staff report dated May 27, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Bob Gilson, 30 Woodgate Court, Hillsborough and James Chu, 55 West 43 Street, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Clarified that the ridgeline will be at nearly 30-feet; it is a lot of mass; concern about being so close to the maximum height; could the height be reduced. • Complimented the porch design. Concern about the amount of impervious pavement. • The trim around the nook on the left side of the house appears skimpy. • Some of the bedrooms are quite small; some of the rooms would be difficult to furnish. • Concern that the porch is pretty minimal, not very deep; neighborhood has a lot of small stucco homes, design is somewhat foreign to the neighborhood; but concerned about the massive porch columns; could be made a bit more delicate to fit with the rest of the house, creating more usability on the porch; look at the existing design vocabulary of the neighborhood. • Concerned about lack of light into the kitchen, try to reduce need for artificial lighting, suggest adding a skylight above the kitchen sink to bring in more natural light. Would like to have ridgeline brought down. Setback the home by an additional three to four feet to reduce the face print of the structure on the street. ® Eliminate exterior light on right elevation. • Specify that columns have no seams. • Porch could use a bit of re -working; add more substantial trim or beam above the columns. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Public comments: Peter Wu, 1315 Cabrillo Avenue; Rolando Pasquale, 1316 Cabrillo Avenue; Sue Martinez, 1321 Cabrillo Avenue; Pat Gioml, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Frank Lowe, 1333 Cabrillo Avenue spoke. Pushing the residence back will have more of an impact on neighboring property. The house doesn't blend with the neighborhood. The house is completely out of character with the neighborhood; is a monster house when compared with other homes on the block; all other homes are one-story; this one should be one story. Telling that moving the residence back could impact the maneuvering of cars on the lot. Being built for nothing but resale. Neighbors would likely back off if builder would commit to living on the property for five years. Provided a photograph taken today of 14 CITY OFBURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 the "Our Lady of Angels" school yard, showing shadows; consider where shade and shadow impacts will be following the construction of a 30-foot structure. Asked that the project be deferred to consider what the shade and shadow impacts will be; should be submitted to the school for review. Allowing the Special Permit will devalue adjacent property. The home will overpower the street. The charts displayed at hearing do now show the size of the residence being demolished. Should be able to compare what is being removed with what is being built. No consideration given to the dream houses of the long-term residents in the neighborhood. The architect states that the new owner of the building requested the number of bedrooms and bathrooms; who owns the property? Should be totally re -designed. Need to consider privacy of neighbors. Should consider requiring replacement with alike house. One of the last blocks in the neighborhood without a large number of monster houses. Build a house that is consistent with the neighborhood, but economically feasible for the developer. Additional Commission comments: Is there someway to reduce the 30 foot height of the structure? There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: • Reminiscent of a recent project on Drake Avenue in terms of improper fit in the neighborhood; the design needs to consider what best fits with the community; be sensitive to the neighborhood character. • A photo montage would be helpful to show how the house will fit in with the neighborhood. • Bring back with a softer design for the roof. • Encouraged the architect and applicant to spend some time with the neighbors and getting a better sense of the neighborhood. • Neighbors need to take case for more stringent standards to the legislators. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Vice-ChairTerrones called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (CommissionerAuran recused, Commissioner Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:56 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. Commissioner Lindstrom indicated thathe has a potential conflict of interest related to Agenda Item 9 (2520 Valdivia Way) and would be recusing himself. He stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers, and the meeting, at 9:57 p.m. 2520 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 15 MAY lUUy �' CI Y 01- �9 13 a 1317 /3 /S _-4 � r��1/'wc�"PC-✓ (/y.��Y /��'e.d`�%� ,may i iI,�,�J/1�.�+q 1 ��e-a-�e�, max- �e�e� "�c����zQy-G��__.� �Qz�/✓���.�Z�`� COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PkEPARATlO� OFSTAFFREPORT 1317 Cabrillo Avenue Agenda Item #8 - 05.27.08 PC Mtg. 3iA7 Ld Z�l Qv, mo lot", ww -7 FCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ^ BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Et1,RLIN4iAfv1E p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COA7161 I Type of application: APR 2 f 2008 F' Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use Permit 2"" Special Permit ❑ Parcel Number: CITY oP BURL �`j /' � �.�}p� � ,may � /t PfA IN � D�¢7 PROJECT ADDRESS: I I I Cif 'f✓1 \ I �L �J V I A-7Ia —a (( JJ APPLICANT project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: PROPERTY OWNER project contact person❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: r�y- ��onr��. Address: ��G/ Address: //?? City/State/Zip: ity/State/Zip: Phone (w Phone (w): (Home): (Fax): (��}}---Cyy/� (E-mail): ARCHITECT/DESIGNER OK tos nd I 14-Name6HU Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (Home)::� _ (Fax): r(/t=v t (E-mail). ��✓ PROJECT DESCRIPTION! (Home): (Fax): (E-mail): project contact person R� Gople of ocum nts l3_, J. �� ZC-,. 'hd At i 1 Please mark one box with IM to indicate the contact person for this project. AFFAD'AVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herell is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, n�� belief. �+ 'Applicant's signature:_Kl 1. �T VLI Date: I am aware of the proposelication and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. ( ) e , ` � I� Property owner's signature � Date: Date submitted: S1Handouts\PC Application 2007.handout City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame_.ore CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION The Planning Comtission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). 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 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. The proposed new Craftsman style residence with two car -detached garages is inconsistent with the existing single story home, but it is consistent with surrounding properties on the "west" side of Burlingame neighborhood with similar design and its mass/bulk. Due to the symmetrical architectural elements, a special permit is requiring for the declining height envelope on the right side, which only encroach less than 2 feet. 2• Explain how 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. The proposed style residence is consistent with the building materials being use. The front porch, dormers at front, wood siding are all consistently used on this style, and it should blend well on this block without changing the character of the neighborhood. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? El The proposed single-family residence with detached garage is consistent with City Design Review Guidelines, and it complies with all zoning requirements, except for the right side declining height envelope that require special permit Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the cty's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. A complete new landscape plan for entire lot is proposed. APR 2 1 Z008 CIIY OF BURLIiNGAME PLANNING UEPT. E. P � � �� • � 1 Project Comments Date: April 24, 2008 To: of 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 PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS l & I"- %Wkj Project Namc• !E- /d� Project Address:�FjILC The following requirements apply to the project 1 � A property boundary survey shall be preformed 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.) Q q4 �v -,t44 yam ey "60,6;�604titie� i 2 _ 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. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 09-1 5 sanitary sewer lateral fgois 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. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project 9. 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. 10. 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 1 of 3 Wprivate developmenAPLANNING REVIEW COM ENTS.doe PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be 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 __. 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 U:\private development\PLANNING REVIEW COMNIENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. 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. 25. 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 U:\private development\PLANNING REVIEW CONMENTS.doc Date: To: From P Project Comments April 24, 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 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://wvvw.energy.ca.gov/title24 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: Project Comments April 28, 2008 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 d City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 X 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 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backfiow 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. RECEIVED APR 2 9 2008 G1Tv or r:. 'IN'AME PLANN Iy(si uc:PT. Reviewed By: Christine Reed CfU - .. Date: 4-28-08 Project Comments 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 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 W aQ esP.. e u N ryar�• pap U Q 'a0 ryv U e �o w �. �I ems" .J M. 411 69 Pad z a2 �!� 6� y e a� s "�. k $ 3i s sn HH�a ap N �Yk k �' Hill t.E a ¢ gk e $ E_ g 8J° 1 8 a+ EE gg gp�S 5 pp gg l :i N 1 1 1 1 S1' a. a i l 1 Ill ;��& m o3�e 1� M� 3ps y� B'�§p 5 M, e$¢ t qx .. 3 iIa�§ ba 4 al @ 3 A &n4 li3�z �� �g� Mill a { ggs §g S �8e 5bii a d B l4 �2 fill mull HiMI ti. n gg 6 InpT iE It b9 pp r +� ggba tltl@@'a 55k 33a a 'k S B$"yf '�gB o6�pi �n zyS I M , d b g X g ei bd a .y E4�"$ FE.k sf d 5@ ` s5a;�� & se T al shy ��. @ P g y�g�a sg';a g5nHill g a , , WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SOIL EROSION? U 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 e construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2, 000 time that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects th, hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and wat( and increase its chances of eroding. The loss of soil from a construction site results in loss of topso! minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in th landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it did our culverts, flood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroy wildlife and damages recreational areas such as lakes and rc servoiIs. As an example, road and home building in the Oakland hill: 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, 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 with 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. a�ssoanno,u //�� pp //��//''�� O BAY AFEA' EAST BAY REGIONAL /iLX'71.a mvEFx,nExrs PARK DISTRICT LdeleF9ia�eRvsat ap , .(A46}841-9�3R o+aotdf�Wre'Bfvd. 7- PROTECTING EROSION CONTROL CAN PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY AND PREVENT FUTURE. HEADACHES Vegetation -stabilized Bare Slope: Headaches Slope: Security and Liability ' ^ J1 i • soil in place • mudslide danger .� •� '�% • minimum of loss of topsoil 1, erosion • clogged storm ° •'t'... •' • fewer winter clean- i� J drains, flooding •tC• �?+. -'• up Problems problems r:3 0', ty�•,{. ,.rr •protection for •expensive house foun- deanup " dations • eroded or '•"�/�// buried house•` foundations %�I •, i., fir.'•' f••i� 4•.. TIPS FOR THE HOMEOWNE] "Winterize" your property by mid -September. Don't wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need winter protection. Final landscaping can be done later. Inexpensive measures installed by fall will give you protection quickly that will last all during the wet season. In 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. WHAT YOU CAN DO TO CONTROL EROSION �m 'Il�li° 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 and prevent future headaclies 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 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 Iand 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 fits appearance. • As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation on all areas that are not to be paved or otherwise covered. 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 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- ricuiture 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 190% 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. • . :.,,s'�"yi✓yi(e'a &umn'r :a�$ld` .. -.. phonecial hydraulic mulch applicators —who also provide other erosion control services -- are listed under "landscaping" in the book. � .,':y:� �.., fix., .: •:�ti'�., Mats of excelsior, jute netting and plastic sheets can be ef- fective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with the soil and fastened securely to work effectively. Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage con- tainers ox routed into Iawns, planter boxes and gardens. Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mos- quitos, too, Excessive runoff should be directed away from Your house. Too much water can damage trees and make foundations unstable. STRUCTURAL RUNOFF CONTROLS Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent ways to transport water across your property so that it doesn't cause erosion. To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dump- ing it into nearby lots, streets, streams and channels, you need ways to reduce its volume and speed. Some exam- ples of what you might use are: • Riprap (rock lining) —to protect channel banks from erosive water flow • Sediment trap —to stop. runoff carrying sediment and trap the sediment t'! R°1 r.w Storm drain outlet protection —to reduce the speed of water flow- ing from a pipe onto open ground.or into a natural channel • Diversion dike or perimeter dike —to divert excess water to places where it can be disposed of properly 's...s�.n....-.V.,�,,,..nwY,,,�(5 i .e`.'. Yf4c'rY�. Y ,may • Straw bale dike —to stop and.detain sediment from small unprotected areas (a short-term measure) • Perimeter swale—to divert runoff from a disturbed area or to contain runoff within . a disturbed area " f( y3tx S fit§ SF�g�°2Nr'yi�S�tJ�P���! • Grade stabilization structure —to carry concentrated runoff down a slope jute netting landscaping !'u�U>grtiirr'Oillr)d,\4Jc,r: ,:. .. hydraulic mulch \ p "lhy5 ' plastic sheeting �' -�---- " `:C•: r,^,: kill',;. dike. d a� conservahee Cam' ditch RESOLUTION APPROVING, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and applications has been made for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new two-story single Gilson, property owners APN: 026-062-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 23, 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 a categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303 (a), which states that 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. 2. Said Design Review and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review 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 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 23rd day of June, 2008 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit, 1317 Cabrillo Avenue Effective July 3, 2008 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped, June 11, 2008, sheets A.1 through A.6, landscape plan and boundary and topographic survey, 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 the NPDES Coordinator's April 25, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's May 14, 2008 memo, and the Fire Marshal's April 28, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. 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; 4. 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; 5. 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; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction. plans before a Building permit is issued; 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; 8. 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; 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; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit. 1317 Cabrillo Avenue Effective July 3, 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 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; 11. 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; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot I. the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 13. 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) www.burlingame.org17 a p- • Site: 1317 CABRILLO AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road Burlin ame CA 9 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-l. APN 026-062-050 Mailed: June 13, 2008 (Please refer to otherside) A copy of the appl the meeting at the 016H16504325 00,279 Mailed From 94010 US POSTiAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of BUri%naame Road, Burlingame,rCal•fornla "`. ` b; :s If you challenge the subject applbatton(s);h court,.'y raising only those issues you or someone else raise described in the`notibe or.in wiritten correspondence prior to the public hearing. iy_be reviewed prior to enfat 501 Primrose a maybe limited to at the public hearing, elivered'to the city at or Property owners who receive this `noifice are responsible for;nforming their tenants about this.notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558 1250 Thank you. William Meeker Community Developmerit Dlrecfor PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) 4�x �v+✓s :: �'Y } {'jr4` �'4. it 4k.. ,'M1,i ~a y� P :...�-t..i'i'` z S w� �r [t t � a x �s. �"w ,v x� � qb t,`Y�, xa � y �`.y, ''�s 5,�. � !8'% R�•?a £< �, ! £' s Ilk :. N 43, i� � (A,g ' ".0 it 9'}♦a' t4➢ ����� Mom✓ er e4. hP ' V+ 1 Y y.� .•� 3'�1Y'� i � � � 'i1 �a�� �;. F � .!�>� 73 � "� n < 'jvYyr1�•`' ��'',�'��- fi.'Z� ,, ✓ i� ` f � � +� Ra" A9 airy Si p ♦i ♦' `% .v.r nCDOk � r's. �i iM�. 4 s. IrT-�' �\♦�`r.. ht ,� gg�y 1i�k�s,` ,� _ t�? �, .1 O + �>uN ' Al te'. CO 3 'tdLTV 1317 Cabrillo Avenue „i ifko �F �° .<"� ,/' a,�Y � ,� -`:� rw•- �� ,� i i > t� £ e75,�� E:, City of Burlingame Item No. Amend Conditional Use Permits for the Action Calendar Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project Address: 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive Meeting Date: 06.23.08 r Request: Amendment to Conditional Use Permits 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-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 would 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 thatwould cause significant environmental impacts towhich 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 that the 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. Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive 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, the applicant proposes to eliminate the mound, and create an additional parking area at the base of the helipad. The helipad would be in the same location and at the same elevation (compared to sea level) as was proposed in the Previous Project, but would be on a raised platform ten feet above grade. The revised helipad design was reviewed by Heliplanners, aviation planning consultants, for compliance with the appropriate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards. The 48-foot square landing pad would be surrounded by a six-foot side safety net. The deck surface would be at least ten feet above the surrounding grade to allow for ten -foot tall vehicles to circulate near the helipad as required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics permit requirements. The proposal for parking adjacent to the helipad has also been determined by Heliplanners to be acceptable. The applicant is also proposing to add a canopy along the west fagade of the POB from the garage elevators to the main entry. The purpose of the canopy is to provide weather protection for pedestrians traveling from the parking garage to the Hospital and POB. The design and materials of the canopy will be similar to the other canopies proposed, with a steel support structure with glass and aluminum panels above. The project requires the following application: • Amendment to conditional use permits for changes to the approved Peninsula Hospital Replacement project and for height greater than 35 feet. 1783 El Camino Rea111501 Trousdale Drive Revisions to Professional Office Building 1 —4 A— ..3r n'3 Plans date stamped: Mav 20, 2008 PREVIOUS PROJECT REVISED PROJECT 5/20108 Plans ALLOWED/REQUIRED Floor Area: 149,074 SF _ 179,074 SF ...........---- _......,._ . N/A - -.,,,, ..... ....... ....... --.-- ---- Height' 111'to top of roof 126..,_ to top of roof Conditional Use Permit req'd for Buildings over 129' to penthouse 144' top of penthouse 35 feet high (proposed hospital building is 141' tall) ___.......... _ .............. _,..... ,........ Parking .. --- Garage: 809 - - spaces .__..... ---- -- Garage: 822 spaces -- -. ._------------. . ....... 1540 spaces per parking Surface: 681 spaces Surface: 739 spaces study (zoning code Total: 1,490 spaces Total: 1,561 spaces requires 918 spaces) Height is measured from the average top of curb elevation along El Camino Heal. Conditional Use Permit required for structures greater than 35 feet tall. Environmental Review of the Proposed Addition: An Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council on November 15, 2004 has been prepared for the project (refer to attached Peninsula Medical Center Replacement Project Addendum to the EIR, May 2008). The Addendum compares the impacts of the Revised Project with the impacts of the Previous Project as originally approved. Table 3-1 provides a comparison of the Revised Project with the Previous Project. -2- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive While the analysis in the Addendum covers all potential impacts addressed in the original EIR, the primary focus of the analysis is Visual Quality and Transportation, which includes traffic and parking. The applicant has provided visual simulations comparing the Previous Project and the Revised Project, and a traffic and parking analysis was also prepared. Visual Quality: The addendum notes that the Revised Projectwould 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 order to provide accurate background conditions for when 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. -3- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 EI Camino Rea1/1501 Trousdale Drive 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 whetherthe 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. Planning staff would propose the following revision to the condition: 118. that the applicant shall propose a mitigation monitoring panel composed of District, applicant, City, and neighbor (including both residential and commercial) representatives to coordinate issues regarding compliance with conditions of approval and mitigation measures as well as neighborhood concerns and questions related to the construction of the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project. The panel shall operate during the period that the project is under construction and shall be disbanded upon project completion. The applicant shall also appoint a single point of contact to respond to questions and complaints regarding the construction and operation of the hospital under this approval. The proposed panel and contact process shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal and NPDES Coordinator. Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission study meeting on May 27, 2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding this project (May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter dated June 12, 2008. The applicant has also submitted a copy of the originally approved site plan, and a section of the proposed helipad date stamped June 10, 2008 in response to the Commission's questions. Listed below are the Commissions' comments. Please refer to the attached letter from Mills Peninsula Health Services dated June 12, 2008 for the applicant's responses. Commission Comments: • Application well done, but would like the following items addressed: provide a business plan, uses for the expanded building, and whether or not the helipad will be built. • Would like to see an original site plan to compare to new site plan. • Section through the helipad area should be provided. • With respect to Huebner letter, what is the plan for parking management post -construction? • Adding primary healthcare jobs is good for Burlingame. • The building's vocabularywas balanced in thirds; would like to see if there is a means of restoring the balance in the design; something to give the middle third of the building increased weight to balance the top. • Attendant parking is discussed as a potential solution to parking issues post -construction; plan and give thought ahead of time if valet parking is to be provided as part of the plan. • Review the key conditions that are outstanding with a status report; particularly with respect to the public art piece. Parking Management: Planning staff would note that an ongoing concern raised by the neighbors has been parking for the hospital spilling onto nearby residential streets. At this time, there is sufficient parking in the parking garage and elsewhere on site to meet the parking requirements of the existing hospital. However, the parking available in the garage is not as convenient to the location of the existing hospital building as the surface parking in the rear and the on -street parking on Ogden and Davis Drives, and when the surface lot is full, some hospital employees (and guests) have been parking on the street. ME Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real11501 Trousdale Drive The applicant has been responding to this concern in a variety of ways. First, employees were informed that they were to park in the garage and not on the street and stickers were issued to employees to place on their car to help monitor employee parking. This approach was not completely successful, and some employees continued to park on the street. The applicant has been posting security guards during shift changes to direct employees and guests attempting to park on the street to the available parking areas on site. This approach has been successful and is helping to change parking habits during project construction. However, it is acknowledged that this is not a long term solution. In order to fu rther address this issue, the applicant has instituted a revised parking policy for employees (refer to attached Parking Policy and Guidelines revised 6/08). This policy requires all employees to have parking decals or placards displayed on their vehicles, and designates certain on -site parking areas for the different shifts. The policy notes that employees are prohibited from parking on City streets adjacent to the hospital and notes that failure to follow this requirement will result in disciplinary action. It is proposed that Condition No. 22 be modified as follows: 22. that, the applicant shall do a baseline study and then monitor parking usage quarterly throughout construction, and if the monitoring reports, resident complaints and/orstaff observations demonstrate that parking for this project is occurring off -site, the hospital shall propose modifications on -site to address the increase above the baseline which shall be approved by the City Engineer; and the approved necessary changes shall be implemented as soon as feasible by the hospital operator; and that the hospital shall abide by the Mills Peninsula Health Services Parking Policies and Guidelines as revised 6108, which prohibits parking by employees on public streets and establishes disciplinary action for employees who violate this policy. Planning staff would note that there are now no restrictions on how long a vehicle may park on the neighborhood streets. When the new hospital is built, the on -street parking will not be as convenient to the new hospital and office building, and the on -street parking by employees and guests should diminish. However, it has also been suggested that the neighbors may want to consider applying for a Resident Parking Permit program for the area immediately adjacent to the hospital. Residents on these blocks would be issued parking permits (two permits per household for a fee of $50 per year), and any other vehicles would be limited to two-hour parking. This is a new program which is being operated on a trial basis in certain neighborhoods for the next six months. If the program is successful, it will be offered to other neighborhoods requesting the program. Public Art: The Planning Commission also asked about the status of the condition of approval requiring the installation of public art. As noted in the applicant's response letter, a proposed selection process will be submitted to Planning staff for review in the near future. In February, 2007, it was determined that the proposal for public art should be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and that a subcommittee should be appointed to work with the applicant on the selection of the artwork and the appropriate placement. The current Hospital Subcommittee consists of Commissioners Brownrigg and Vistica (Commissioner Osterling was also apart of this subcommittee). Once the proposal has been reviewed by the subcommittee, it would be brought to the Planning Commission for action. Planning staff would note that this condition is required to be completed prior to issuance of the demolition permit for the existing hospital building. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant an amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permits for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement project, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, 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; -5- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action to amend Condition No. 94 should be taken by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. For administrative consistency, affirmative action should include all the original conditions of approval along with the amendments to conditions. Revised Conditions are shown in bold and italics. Conditions: General: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 10, 2004, Sheets A0.01 through PS7, including topography, grading, utilities, landscape plans, floor diagrams, site plans, phasing plans, site section, elevations, parking structure plans, etc., and as shown on the perspective drawings of the Pedestrian View along El Camino Real at Medical Office Building and the View from Davis Drive Property to the South date stamped November 10, 2004 as they may be refined pursuant to Condition #5; and the Office Building shall be built as shown on the plans date stamped May 20, 2008, Sheets A1.00, A1.01, A2.00 through A2.06, Canopy Plan and Section, Elevations and Section; (Planning, Building) 2. that the project shall include a hospital with a floor area of not more than 441,000 square feet and a medical office building with a floor area of not more than 150,000 180,000 square feet; (Planning, Building) 3. that the project shall provide a minimum of 44W 1540 parking spaces, with 809 822 spaces in the parking garage and no more than twenty (20) percent of the required parking shall be in compact parking spaces; (Planning, Building) 4. that construction shall be carried out in the phases described in the Environmental Impact Report and the phasing plans dated September 10, 2004; (Planning, Building, Public Works) 5. that the approved exterior design of the hospital, medical office building and garage shall be further refined bythe applicant pursuant to Planning Commission and City Council direction, and the refined designs shall be submitted to the City Plannerfor review and approval priorto issuance of the building permit for the parking garage; if the City Planner determines that the submitted exterior designs are inconsistent with the exterior design approved by the Commission and City Council, the design shall be forwarded for review and approval to the Planning Commission; in any event the emerging and final design of the medical office building, hospital and parking garage shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their information; and that any material changes in floor area, design, or use shall require City approval of an amendment to this use permit; (Plan ning) 6. that the applicant shall record an access easement between the Mills Peninsula Health Services property at 1811 Trousdale Drive and the adjacent Peninsula Hospital District property to the south before closing the El Camino Real access to the existing hospital, and that prior to issuance of a building permit for the garage, the applicant shall record an access easement or otherwise demonstrate legal irrevocable access for construction and parking ingress and egress between the merged Mills Peninsula Health Services properties along El Camino Real and the Peninsula Hospital District property to the west, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney; (Public Works) Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive 7. that an application shall be submitted and recorded for a lot line adjustment for the exchange of 35 feet of street frontage along Trousdale Drive from the east side to the west side of Magnolia Gardens Care Center between Mills Peninsula Health Services and Magnolia Gardens Care Center prior to the issuance of a building permit for the parking garage; (Public Works) 8. that the two parcels with frontage on El Camino Real that are owned by Mills Peninsula Health Services shall be merged and the map recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for the parking garage; (Public Works) 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the medical office building, the three parcels remaining after compliance with Condition #8 shall be merged, the map shall be recorded, and the zoning shall be changed to Unclassified for the resulting parcel; (Public Works) 10. that if the actions described above in Condition #9 and all prerequisite conditions are not complete within five years of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the City shall review and modify the Conditional Use Permit as appropriate; (Planning) 11. that no building permit shall be issued to any structure whose required parking is on a separate parcel; (Building) 12. that any improvements forthe replacement hospital structure shall meet all requirements of California law and shall be approved by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development; (Building, Planning) 13. that within three years of completion and occupancy of the new hospital facilities and medical office building, the existing hospital structure and its support facilities shall be demolished and all on -site and off -site improvements completed, inspected and approved by the city; (Building, Planning, Public Works) 14. that no later than the last phase of hospital construction (demolition of the existing hospital), the applicant shall meet with the property owners in the Davis Drive neighborhood to discuss whether or not the proposed landscaped area and improved pedestrian access from Davis Drive to the hospital site, which is shown on the approved plans, shall be provided or the site shall be used for an alternative use; and that if the parties cannot agree, the issue shall be decided by the Planning Commission; (Planning, Neighborhood) 15. that any future development on the 4.15 acre undeveloped area to be left for future use ordisposition by the Peninsula Hospital District shall require a conditional use permit from the City of Burlingame and shall be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act; (Planning) 16. that the applicant shall apply for and receive approval, including required permits, from all other regulatory public agencies as necessary and required prior to the issuance of a building permitfor the parking garage, including but not limited to the California Department of Transportation, the San Francisco Water District/ SF PUC, the Federal Aviation Administration, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, the San Francisco Air Quality Control Board, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, and San Mateo County Transit Authority; (Planning) 17. that in the event of any discrepancy between adopted EIR mitigation measures for the project and these conditions of approval, or between any of these conditions of approval, the most stringent requirement shall apply; (Planning) 18. that the applicant shall pay for and designate an appropriate area to locate a significant piece of public statuary, art orfountain in the gateway area along El Camino Real at a location no furthersouth than the medical office building approved by the Planning. Commission; this proposed art work shall be selected and reviewed using a process with public input developed by the City for the selection and placement of public art and shall be installed at the time of the final landscaping and hardscape on this corner of the site; the public art shall be substantial enough to become a focal point for the -7- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real11501 Trousdale Drive gateway and site and to help mitigate the location of the parking structure; the applicant shall pay to install the artwork and maintain it after installation; (Planning) 19. that the surface parking area which is a part of the lease agreement for this development should be available through good faith negotiations with the lessor and hospital operator to facilitate future development of the remaining 4.15 acre site by the Peninsula Hospital District and reduce the extent of surface parking on the total site; required parking forthe hospital can be met after CEQA review by joint use of an appropriately located and sized multi -level parking structure by amendment to this conditional use permit; (Planning) Traffic, Parking and Transportation: 20. that neither the hospital or medical office building nor any other use on the site shall charge employees, clients, patients or visitors for the use of on -site parking without an amendment to the conditional use permit, for which the application shall include traffic and circulation studies documenting the impacts of a pay -for -parking program on the site access, on -site circulation, use and shift of use of on -site parking, impact on access to and from any part of the site, and any possible impact on off -site and on -street parking in the vicinity of the hospital and medical office building; (Planning) 21. that the applicant shall develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the hospital and medical office building which shall be approved by C/CAG and the City of Burlingame consistent with C/CAG requirements, and that the required facilities for the TDM program shall be included in the plans for each facility prior to filing the plans for the new hospital structure with the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development or issuance of a building permit for the parking garage, whichever comes first, and shall be installed and/or implemented prior to occupancy of each structure; (Planning) 22. that the applicant shall do a baseline study and then monitor parking usage quarterly throughout construction, and if the monitoring reports, resident complaints and/or staff observations demonstrate that parking for this project is occurring off -site, the hospital shall propose modifications on -site to address the increase above the baseline which shall be approved by the City Engineer; and the approved necessary changes shall be implemented as soon as feasible bythe hospital operator; and that the hospital shall abide by the Mills Peninsula Health Services Parking Policies and Guidelines as revised 6108, which prohibits parking by employees on public streets and establishes disciplinary action for employees who violate this policy; (Planning, Public Works) 23. thatfoliowing the completion of construction and occupancy of the replacement hospital, the applicant shall monitor parking usage quarterly for the first three years; if any quarterly study indicates that the on -site parking required is inadequate, the applicant shall identify solutions in consultation with the City Engineer and shall implement the approved improvements in a time frame established by the City Engineer; (Planning, Public Works) 24. that no construction traffic shall use the Davis Drive access to the hospital, and no employees associated with the construction shall use the Davis Drive entrance to the site or shall park on Davis Drive or nearby residential streets; (Public Works, Neighborhood) 25. that to monitor the effectiveness of traffic access, circulation and parking during the entire construction period, including construction trucks and equipment, the applicant shall hire an independent traffic consultant to conduct a baseline parking and traffic study prior to the start of garage construction and to update the study quarterly during each critical phase of construction, and the baseline and intermediate studies by the traffic consultant shall be reviewed by the City Planner prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage; and that the applicant shall resolve any unanticipated problems identified through these traffic and parking studies and/or by the City Engineer within 15 days; (Public Works, Planning) Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive 26. that the recycling deposit for the demolition of the existing hospital structure that is required pursuant to Condition #96 will be retained until the Davis Drive entrance is closed and landscaped to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the CityArborist, and that the City may use these funds to close the Davis Drive entrance as required; 27. that the applicant shall include language in all construction documents prohibiting all construction traffic from using the Davis Drive entrance; (Planning) 28. that the applicant shall provide a plan for traffic control for each phase of construction, to be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the next set of permits required forthe project; (Public Works) 29. that at no time shall any person connected with the operation of the hospital direct, order or encourage parking off -site, and the hospital shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that staff and employees park on the site itself in the parking provided pursuant to this approval; (Public Works, Planning, Neighborhood) 30. that the relocation and reconstruction, including paving and striping, of the Magnolia Gardens Care Center's required parking (west side lot) shall be done priorto the time thatthe construction entrance at Magnolia/Trousdale is built, with the final provision of a total of at least 26 on -site parking spaces for Magnolia Gardens; (Planning, Building) 31. that existing parking on the east side at the Magnolia Gardens Care Center shall not be demolished or restriped until the new west side lot parking is in place, construction of the west side lot shall not commence until the City has approved all required permits, and all construction shall be completed within 90 days;(Planning, Building) 32. that use of the fire access lane on the south side of the property shall be limited to pedestrians and emergency vehicles only; (Planning) 33. that trucks shall not be left more than 48 consecutive hours on the hospital site, either at the loading docks or in the parking areas; however, this condition shall not applyto a truck that is directly attached to the technology dock; (Planning) 34. that the hours fordelivery at the hospital loading dock off El Camino Real shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays; these hours do not apply to non -routine delivery of medical equipment or consumable medical supplies that are required for urgent or emergency use in the following 24 hours; holidays are defined in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 13.04.100; these hours shall be posted in clear public view and each vendor shall be notified of the hours of delivery; (Planning) 35. that the applicant shall install and/or replace streetlights along the projectfrontage on El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive, and the size, design and location of the streetlights shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and shall have CalTrans permits prior to installation; (Public Works) 36. that the hospital operator shall permanently maintain an off -site supplywarehouse to be used to stage deliveries to the hospital in smaller trucks for the duration of this permit, and that if this warehouse supply system is materially altered, the hospital shall pay for an independent traffic analysis of the change in the number and size of trucks used for deliveries, and shall provide appropriate mitigation as determined by the Planning Commission by amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; (Planning) 37. that the hospital shall inform and require all vendor trucks to use El Camino Real and city -designated arterial streets and not to use adjacent residential streets (collector or local) in traveling to orfrom the hospital, and failure to comply shall result in a review of the use permit; (Planning ) 38. that the applicant shall pay the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee based on peak hour trips generated by the hospital and medical office building; with the fee for the hospital paid in two installments, one-half at the time of city approval of the project and one-half before demolition permits 10 Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 Ei Camino Real11501 Trousdale Drive are issued for the existing hospital building; and the fee for the medical office building paid in two installments, one-half within 90 days of City Council certification of the Final EIR and one-half before the final inspection is scheduled for the medical office building; (Planning) 39. that the applicant shall replace the bus shelter on El Camino Real as directed by SamTrans and shall obtain all approvals for adjusting the location of the bus stop from required agencies prior to installing the curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements on the El Camino Real frontage of the site; (Public Works) 40. that, because of the importance of providing continued access to the Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center from Trousdale between El Camino Real and Magnolia, the applicant shall prepare a traffic study to modify the left -turn movement/lanes into the hospital site to retain the existing left -turn pocket on Trousdale eastbound into the Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center, and, working with the City Engineer, determine how these changes can be most safely implemented including modifications to the mitigation monitoring plan which will clarify and improve access to both the hospital and shopping center; the identified solution shall be incorporated into the roadway improvements on Trousdale to be installed by the applicant; (Public Works) Signals: 41. that the applicant shall design, install and pay for any and all necessary upgrades to traffic signals including at Trousdale/Magnolia and El Camino Real/Trousdale intersections, as well as roadway restriping, and other transportation improvements required by the project, as described in the project plans dated September 10, 2004, the EIR for the project, and in the transportation Mitigation Measures set forth below; (Public Works) 42. that traffic signal plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for all changes to traffic signals due to the project, and the plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to implementation pursuant to encroachment permits; (Public Works) 43. that prior to issuance of the demolition permit for the existing hospital building, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or otherform of security acceptable to the City Attorney to cover the estimated cost of installation of a single traffic signal at the new Trousdale Drive emergency/staff entrance, which improvements, if necessary, shall be installed within three years of the date the security is provided. The applicant shall conduct traffic counts at the Trousdale/emergency entrance intersection approximately twelve months after the start -of -service date of the new hospital to determine whether the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices peak hour signal warrants are met or exceeded at the new entrance, and if so, the applicant shall pay for the cost of installing said traffic signal improvements to City standards and requirements. In the alternative or in combination with improvements at the Trousdale/emergency entrance and if determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, the applicant shall pay for the cost of installing appropriate traffic control improvements at the intersection of Trousdale and Ogden or Marco Polo Way, provided that in no event shall the applicant be responsible for total costs, construction or installation greater than the dollar amount of the security provided for the one traffic signal; (Public Works) Helipad: 44. that a State Heliport permit shall be issued by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, for the replacement helipad prior to the issuance of a building permit for the medical office building; (Planning) 45. that the helipad shall be operated within the criteria of the State Heliport Permit and that no more than eight helicopter trips shall arrive at the hospital within any single month, with a maximum of 24 trips per year and that the only exception without amendment to this permit shall be in the event of natural or declared emergency; (Planning) -10- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/9504 Trousdale Drive 46. that helicopter service to the site shall cease during construction as required by the Federal Aviation Administration and the CalTrans Division of Aeronautics; (Planning) 47. that the primary helicopter flight path shall be the approach from the northeasterly direction over the intersection of El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive as shown on the Flight Path Layout dated September 29, 2004, prepared by Heliplanners Aviation Planning Consultants, and that the westerly flight path arc shall only be used when strong wind conditions prevent the use of the primary flight path; helicopters shall not use the westerly flight path arc without Planning Commission review and approval except in emergency situations; (Planning) 48. that before the Peninsula Medical Center is identified and/or licensed to operate as a regional trauma center, the Planning Commission shall review and rule on any physical changes caused, including changes in helicopter and emergency service vehicles, and determine how the implementation of these changes will have the least impact on the safety and environment of the residents and businesses in the area; (Planning) Public Works/Engineering: 49. that curb and street elevations and detailed driveway profiles, as well as driveway transitions, foreach phase of work shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of construction permits for that phase of work; (Public Works) 50. that detailed plans for the curb, gutter and sidewalk realignment at the Marco Polo entrance shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the commencement of work on the entrance and in the Marco Polo staff parking lot and that the driveway at Marco Polo Way shall be redesigned to be perpendicular to the street to provide safe sight distance forvehicles exiting from the parking lot, and the design shall be approved by the City Engineer before issuance of an encroachment permit; (Public Works) 51. that all changes required within the right-of-way of Trousdale Drive for this project shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works pursuant to the encroachment permit process and approved for each phase by the Department of Public Works prior to implementing each phase; (Public Works) 52. that any damaged asphaltic concrete pavement along the project frontage on Trousdale Drive, El Camino Real and Marco Polo shall be repaved to pre -project conditions; (Public Works) 53. that, for each phase of construction, the applicant shall post a performance bond payable to the City of Burlingame for an amount sufficient to construct all required improvements for that phase of the project which are located within the public right-of-way including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, road way construction, utilities, traffic signals and street lighting to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to issuance of any permits for that phase; (Public Works) 54. that detailed plans for the modifications proposed to the medians along El Camino Real shall be reviewed and approved by CalTrans and the Burlingame Department of Public Works pursuant to the encroachment permit process and approved for each phase by the Department of Public Works prior to implementing each phase; (Public Works) 55. that the applicant shall, at its own cost, design and construct public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphaltic concrete pavement, street furniture and other necessary appurtenantwork along the El Camino Real frontage of the site, Trousdale Drive between El Camino Real and the Magnolia Gardens Care Center property, and the entrance at Marco Polo Way in compliance with the streetscape guidelines in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, and the improvements shall be designed by a civil engineer, approved by the City Engineer, and installed by the project, and that the design of these improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer priorto issuance of the building permit for the parking garage; (Public Works) Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdafe Drive 56. that the applicant shall submit detailed plans for the loading dock entrance on El Camino Real, including a complete dimensional layout, to the Department of Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit for the medical office building;(Public Works) Water, Sewer and Drainage: 57. that the hospital shall design in and employwater conservation measures as adopted forthe region or specifically by the City during construction and operation; ( Planning ) 58. that the applicant shall submit detailed plans for the proposed new water connection and sizing to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the building permit for the parking garage, and shall incorporate any on -site or off -site improvements deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works; (Public Works) 59. that prior to the issuance of the building permit for the parking garage, the applicant shall provide plans as approved by the San Francisco Water Department for the realignment of the SFPUC water line, including details of tie-ins and turn -outs, and all work associated with the realignment shall be coordinated with the Department of Public Works; (Public Works) 60. that, before issuance of the building permit for the medical office building, the applicant shall submit an updated sanitary sewer analysis of the public sewer system atthe project site to assess the project flow effect of the proposed new sanitary sewer connection to the Department of Public Works, together with anticipated demands on the sanitary sewer system and the 1740 Rollins Road pump station, and shall incorporate any on -site or off -site improvements deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works; (Public Works) 61. that the applicant shall relocate, restore or replace any City facility affected ordamaged bythe project, or of insufficient size, and shall replace any such facility in kind; (Public Works) 62. that prior to issuance of the building permit for the parking garage the applicant shall submit detailed plans to address storm and surface drainage on the site which identify potential impacts on CalTrans, the adjacent neighbors and the City's storm drain system, and shall comply with NPDES requirements to keep as much drainage on -site as possible, and shall incorporate any improvements deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works; (Public Works) 63. that, for each phase of construction, the applicant shall submit detailed plans for all City utilities in public rights -of -way adjacent to and affected by the work to the City Engineer, who shall approve the plans prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of the project; (Public Works) 64. that all irrigation systems and plantings shall follow the City's water conservation guidelines and each facility within the project shall be appropriately metered as determined by the City Engineer; (Public Works) 65. that all on -site catch basins and drainage inlets shall be protected during construction so that no debris can enter them, and all catch basins shall be stenciled with a City -provided stencil; (Public Works) 66. that the applicant shall submit an overall site drainage and erosion control plan for approval prior to the issuance of the building permit for the garage, and the plans shall conform to the guidelines and requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program; (Public Works) 67. that, for each phase of construction, the site drainage and erosion control plan shall be refined and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of the project; (Public Works) 68. that the hospital shall store a minimum of 30,000 gallons of water for firefighting, plus an additional 150 gallons of drinkable water per licensed bed on the site at all times; -12- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Reat/1501 Trousdale Drive Safety and ADA Access and Compliance: 69. that the hospital shall work with the Burlingame Police Department to identify and inspect installation of appropriate security surveillance devices along the all pedestrian pathways including the fire access lane, and the effectiveness of these devices in providing security shall be reviewed jointly each year, with improvements made as necessary; (Police Department) 70. that a safety and security measures shall be installed over or around the cooling towers and that there shall be an alarm system and surveillance provided for oxygen storage bunker; (Planning Department, Building) 71. that a pedestrian access way that is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act shall be provided from El Camino Real to the main entrance area of the hospital and medical office building; (Building, Public Works) 72. that all work shall be done in conformance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Building, Public Works) 73. that pedestrian access along all street frontages shall be provided continuously throughout construction and shall comply with ADA requirements; (Pubic Works) Building Division: 74. that a set of plans clearly showing the division between the portions of the project that are under the jurisdiction of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and the portions that are under the jurisdiction of the City of Burlingame shall be approved by both OSHPD and the Burlingame Building Official and provided to the Building Official before plans for the medical office building shall be accepted by the Building Department for plan check; (Building) 75. that the applicant shall verify compliance with the California Building Code for building type, occupancy group, allowable area, allowable area increases, height, sprinklers, property lines or assumed property lines, exiting plan, accessibility, and minimum plumbing facilities according to Appendix Chapter, Table 29-A, for both the parking garage and the medical office building; (Building) 76. that all improvements for the Medical Office Building and garage shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; (Building) Fire Department: 77. that Fire Department access shall be consistent with Section 902 of the 2001 California Fire Code, including clearly identified fire lanes and curb parking restrictions consistent with the Burlingame Municipal Code Section 17.04.025; (Fire) 78. that canopies and vegetation along fire lanes shall maintain clear heights of 13'-6" to provide clearance for fire and emergency equipment; (Fire, City Arborist) 79. that turn radii and surface support capabilities of fire lanes shall accommodate the largest fire department apparatus within San Mateo County and fire lanes shall not exceed sixteen (16) percent in slope at any point; (Fire) 80. that fire flow requirements shall be consistent with Appendix IIIA and IIIB, and fire sprinklers shall be provided for all structures over 2000 square feet, with consideration forfire sprinklers being applied to fire flow reductions to be negotiated with the Fire Marshal, and additional considerations shall be made to ensure roof tip standpipes achieve a minimum pressure of 100 psi at the outlet; (Fire) 81. that fire pumps shall be diesel driven or have secondary power supplied by emergency generators with an on -site fuel supply of 48 hours of more;(Fire) 82. that Fire Department connections for standpipes and fire sprinkler systems shall be located within 50 feet of a fire hydrant;(Fire) -13- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive 83. that a post!ndicatorvalve shall be provided for each separate building and so located as to beat least two-thirds the height of the building awayfrom the building, and control valves and separate shut-off valves shall be provide for each floor of each building and electronically monitored; (Fire) 84. that fire alarm annunciation shall be identified by each smoke compartment and/or by each floor for buildings equipped with a fire alarm system (required for all buildings in excess of 20,000 square feet), and that activation shall clearly identify the location of the device and remote annunciation shall be visible from the exterior of the building, in a location to be approved by the Central County Fire Department; (Fire) 85. that the applicant shall receive approval by the Central County Fire Department for the location of the fire control room in the hospital structure, and the fire control room shall be clearly shown on the floor plans, prior to issuance of a building permit for the medical office building; (Fire) Landscaping: 86. that any land area which is to remain undeveloped and not specifically landscaped as shown on the approved plans, including the 4.15 acre area to be left for future use by the Peninsula Hospital District, shall be hydromulched and planted with materials which will meet NPDES erosion control requirements and shall be properly irrigated and maintained with ground cover until the use of the land changes; (Public Works) 87. the applicant shall submit a report from a certified arborist citing measures to be taken to protect trees during construction, particularly the redwood grove behind the Magnolia Gardens Care Center, and that report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit for the garage and that protection shall be installed for each phase of construction as required by the City Arborist before grading and/or building permits are issued for the phase of work; (City Arborist) 88. that planters with irrigation shall be installed as approved by the Planning Department and City Arborist on the upper roof level of the parking garage as shown on the landscape plans before an occupancy permit shall be issued for the garage, plant materials shall be approved by the City Arborist; and vines shall be planted atvarious locations at the base of the parking garage structure on both the El Camino Real and Trousdale sides to break up the mass of the building and blend it into the gateway landscaping and design at this corner and along these street frontages, the City Arborist shall review the selection of vine and its irrigation and proposed maintenance program; (Planning, City Arborist, Building) 89. that the landscaped setback areas along El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive and along the entire south property line parallel to Davis Drive shall be irrigated and maintained by the hospital operator; (Public Works) 90. that the approved landscape plan for the site shall be further refined in the following stages by the applicant pursuant to Commission direction prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit for (1) the construction of the new emergency/replacement entrance to the existing hospital, (2) the installation of the San Francisco water main on the south side of the property, (3) the construction of the new main entrance and parking garage (to include landscaping construction detail along Trousdale and El Camino Real street frontages) and (4) the demolition of the existing hospital (landscaping of the remainder of the site); and the refined plans at each of these stages shall include detailed tree protection measures including long-term maintenance programs, and planting, irrigation and hardscape plans and shall be submitted to the City Planner and reviewed by the CityArboristwho will make recommendations, the plans will then be forwarded to the Planning Commission for information; during each period of construction the City Arborist shall inspect the site for compliance with the approved installation plan; if the project landscaping causes an unusual level of inspection by the City Arborist, the costs for inspection shall be reimbursed by the applicant to the City; (Planning, City Arborist) -14- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive Noise: 91. that truck deliveries, pick-ups, collection of trash and other wastes and other truck service noise - generating activities shall be prohibited prior to 7:00 am and after 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sundays and holidays or as stated in the Municipal Code, Section 10.40.039; (Planning, Neighborhood) 92. that the testing of the emergency generators shall be limited to once per week or the minimum required by law, whichever is more frequent, and if possible, shall occur between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays only; (Planning, Neighborhood) 93. that the oxygen storage tanks adjacent to the loading dock shall be filled no more than three times a week, and only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.; (Planning, Neighborhood) Construction Noise: 94. that because of the impact on the residential neighborhood along the southern property line of the hospital site, there shall be stricter construction hours imposed for this project; construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and holidays as defined in CS 13.04.100; the construction noise restriction in the condition shall not apply to work done within the building after it is fully enclosed; prior to 9:00 a.m., work should be focused on the northern portions of the site and the buildings; Recycling: 95. that the applicant shall submit to the City a recycling plan for each structure to be approved prior to issuance of the demolition permit for that structure, and a site inspection for compliance shall be required prior to each new phase of construction; (Building) 96. that a recycling deposit and compliance report shall be required for each phase of the project; (Building) 97. that the hospital and medical office building shall have a recycling plan approved by Allied Waste and the City and shall continuously recycle as much of their waste stream as is possible and insures the public health; (Building) CONDITIONS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Traffic, Parking and Transportation 98. that during construction and demolition of the existing hospital, at the direction of the City Engineer, the applicant shall evaluate the operation of the Marco Polo/Trousdale intersection whenevera traffic safety/operation problem is identified by the City, and the applicant shall install whatever interim solution the City Engineer determines to be appropriate for the duration of the phase of construction or the event causing the problem; (Public Works, Neighborhood) Davis Drive Access 99. that the Davis Drive access to the hospital shall be open only to hospital staff during construction and when demolition is occurring; the Davis Drive access shall be regulated by kiosk with security officer or by card actuated gate between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily; outside of these hours the entrance shall be closed by a gate or chain; the use of this staff access shall be monitored priorto any construction to establish a current baseline of the use and then quarterly during construction; should the usage during construction exceed 100% of the current baseline usage, the applicant shall review with the City Engineer ways to reduce the level of use; the determination of the City Engineer may be appealed to the Planning Commission; should the staff gate access prove to be inadequate or exceed the 100% of current baseline and become a neighborhood nuisance the applicant shall meetwith the neighbors and the City Engineer to discuss appropriate and safe alternatives, the City Engineer shall -15- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive determine an appropriate and safe the alternative solution, and the applicant shall install or construct the necessary facilities; (Public Works, Neighborhood) Landscaping: 100. that before the end of 2004, the applicant shall undertake a feasibility and cost study for undergrounding and connecting to the houses the electric and any other utilities currently placed along the shared property line between the hospital site and Davis Drive and, provided it is possible and economically feasible to underground just the utilities behind the north side of Davis Drive; and based on the conclusions of the feasibility and cost study, the applicant shall work with all the affected parties to determine if the utility work is feasible, how the costs to underground would be shared and its effect on landscaping; all of the affected parties must agree on the program and the timing for accomplishing the work in the context of the landscaping and other construction and operations on the hospital site; (Planning, Neighborhood) 101. that the applicant shall investigate the feasibility including P.U.C. approval of moving the San Francisco Water Line Easement along the rear of the properties facing Davis Drive north to increase the planting area between the property line and easement to at least 15 feet, the City Engineer shall review the study and shall determine the viable setback; however that setback shall be no less than 10 feet at any point except where the existing line connects to the new line at Balboa extended; (Public Works, Neighborhood) 102. that the applicant shall build a wall or fence between the rear of the Davis Drive residences and the replacement hospital's landscaped areas along the southern property line of the hospital, the wall or fence shall be built at a location and of a common design agreed to by all parties; if the parties cannot agree the Planning Commission shall select the location and type of wall or fence prior to the completion of the installation of the San Francisco Water Main in the new easement; (Planning, Neighborhood) 103. that the landscaping within the area between the rear of each of the property lines on Davis Drive and the San Francisco Water Line Easement shall be selected by each property owner from a palette of trees and shrubs provided by the applicant and approved by the City Arborist, with each property owner receiving individual assistance from the project's licensed landscape architect; selection of all trees and shrub sizes shall be based on achieving the design intention of the landscape plan including the maximum growth in a reasonable time given the species, location including utilities and landscape objectives, and any discrepancies between property owner and applicant shall be arbitrated by the CityArborist; the applicant, with permission, shall install trees on private property if it is determined that such planting is a reasonable or better way to address the wind or visual impacts caused by the project; the entire planted area on the hospital site shall be irrigated with irrigation in place within 30 days of planting, and the landscaping shall be installed as soon as the segment of the water line along the hospital's south property line is installed unless it is necessaryto wait fora better planting season ortiming as determined bythe CityArborist; (Planning, CityArborist, Neighborhood) 104. that the parking lot landscaping on hospital property at the southern property line west of the San Francisco Water Line Easement shall be selected by each adjacent Davis Drive property owner from a palette of trees and shrubs provided by the applicant and approved by the City Arborist, with the objective of providing a 20 foot tall vegetative screen for the property line fences and to extend the overall pattern of landscaping for the replacement hospital site; this landscaping and its irrigation system as approved by the CityArborist shall be installed in a planter area no less than 4 feet in width on the hospital side of the replacement property line wall orfence; the plant size at installation shall be based on achieving the design intent of the landscape plan including the maximum growth in a reasonable amount of time given the species, location including utilities and landscape objectives, disputes shall be resolved by the City Arborist; planting and irrigation shall be installed no later than the second phase of construction of the replacement hospital; and that the applicant shall provide individual landscape consultation to each property owner in order to determine the best solution for -16- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive screening along the hospital property line, with mutual agreement this could include plantings on the private property side, if it is agreed that it is the best location to achieve the landscape goals for the location; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood) 105. that because the maintenance landscaping is so important to achieving the growth goals and to the quality of the hospital project, the property owner shall be required to provide intensive professional maintenance of all landscaped areas and to maintain all irrigation systems in operating condition, failure to do so shall result in Planning Commission review of the use permit; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood) 106. that if the eucalyptus trees at the end of Albemarle Drive cannot be retained, the applicant shall investigate relocating them within the planting area between the hospital's southern boundary and the San Francisco Water Easement; if this is not a viable option as determined by the City Arborist, the applicant shall with the cooperation of the City plant a tree variety selected by the City Arborist, at a size selected by the City Arborist, which will achieve at height of at least 25 feet in six years and a maximum height of at least 60 feet, irrigation shall be provided to this cluster of trees and they shall be planted with irrigation when the water line installation is completed and before a building permit is issued for the medical office building; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood) 107. that the area on the north side of the San Francisco Water Main Easement adjacent to the replacement hospital shall be raised with the approval of the P.U.C. by an earthen berm and planted with a massing of redwood trees and othervarieties of tall growing trees and shrubs which will grow to a height to screen the view of the lower and closer portions of the new hospital structure from view of the near by residents; the selection and various sizes of plant material and trees as well as the irrigation system, shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to installation, no trees installed shall be smaller than 24 inch box size, and this landscaping and its necessary grading shall be installed before issuance of the demolition permit for the existing hospital structure; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood) 108. that the design of the grading and landscaped area between the replacement hospital and the rear of the properties along Davis Drive shall include drainage which will retain all surface and subsurface drainage on the hospital site and which will accommodate as necessary existing natural surface and subsurface drainage now occurring from adjacent private properties; the City Engineer shall approve all site grading and drainage plans affecting this area prior to commencement of the work to relocate the San Francisco Water Main; (Public Works) 109. that the applicant shall evaluate the impact of the proposed hospital structure on the wind velocity and turbulence on the properties adjacent to the south property line of the hospital site, this study shall be completed by the mid -point of Phase Two of the construction (installation of the San Francisco water line) so that landscaping along the southern property line east of the Davis Drive access can be adjusted to mitigate any changes to prevailing wind velocity or turbulence caused on the adjacent properties, landscape consultations with individual property owners shall include this information and address the wind issue; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood) Noise: 110. that noise levels of the future cooling towers will not exceed the noise levels of the existing cooling towers during full operation along the southern property line of the hospital. The baseline ambient and design criteria is to be defined as an hourly measurement during a 24-hour continuous measurement period. In addition, the ambient is to be defined as the L10 as required in the General Plan; (Planning, Neighborhood) 111. that the future ambient noise of the project shall be designed to not exceed the existing baseline ambient by more than 3 dBA during full operation along any property line of the hospital. The baseline ambient and design criteria is to be defined as an hourly measurement during a 24-hour 5VA Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Reai/1501 Trousdale Drive continuous measurement period. In addition, the ambient is to be defined as the L70 as required in the General Plan; (Planning, Neighborhood) Construction Impacts 112. that the applicant shall adhere to all NPDES and air quality requirements throughout construction, and shall meet with homeowners or tenants at their request and provide individually negotiated and reasonable on -site mitigation for observed impacts of dust and particulates from the replacement hospital construction, landscape installation or demolition of the existing hospital; (Public Works, Building, Neighborhood) 113. that during the construction of the replacement hospital, the demolition of the existing hospital and the final landscaping of the site, parking on the Peninsula Hospital site shall be limited to employees, staff, patients, patient visitors and construction workers only during the hours of their employment on the site; on site parking shall not be used for off -site parking for any other facility or service and shall not be used by any employee, staff, or member of the community for extended parking when they are not on the premises; (Planning, Neighborhood) 114. thatforthe duration of the project construction and any use of the site for a hospital and medical office building, no on -site parking required bythe municipal code or by city approval for staff, employees, or users of Peninsula Hospital shall be leased, loaned or otherwise obligated to any other user or business; (Planning, Neighborhood) Construction/Design 115. that the south tower of the hospital facing Davis Drive shall be clad in translucent spandrel glass with a low reflectivity rating (reflectance out) of 9% to limit the amount of interior light emitting to the exterior, and that all hospital rooms above the third floor level facing the Davis Drive side of the property shall include interior design which shall encourage occupants to stand back at least 3 feet from the window, all windows shall be provided with blinds or coverings, and glazing shall reduce light transmission at night; (Planning, Neighborhood) 116. that, if feasible given the location of protected trees, the agreement of adjacent commercial property owners to the north, the amount of grading/fill required to achieve appropriate slope and the approval of the PUC regarding appropriate protection of the San Francisco water line and its facilities in the area as determined by the City Engineer, to reduce the heavy truck traffic immediately adjacent to the single family residences on the south side and west end of Davis Drive during the phase of construction which includes the demolition of the existing hospital, there shall be a truck entrance to the site established and maintained from Marco Polo Drive, in addition to the existing Marco Polo staff entrance; and should it be feasible and necessary during other phases of construction for more than two days a week for heavy trucks to stage or access the site from Marco Polo the applicant shall provide a second access to Marco Polo sooner; if this additional entrance causes a relocation of staff parking on site, the applicant shall submit a plan to the City Engineer for approval to show how this parking will be accommodated elsewhere; the approved plan will be implemented immediately as directed by the City Engineer; (Public Works, Neighborhood) 117. that prior to removal of hazardous materials and demolition of the existing hospital, the applicant shall meet with the neighbors to discuss the methods of removal to be used, the precautions being taken, the timing of the various activities, and how possible impacts on their properties can be cooperatively addressed; (Public Works, Building, Neighborhood) 118. that the applicant shall propose a mitigation monitoring panel composed of District, applicant, City, and neighbor (including both residential and commercial) representatives to coordinate issues regarding compliance with conditions of approval and mitigation measures as well as neighborhood concerns and questions related to the construction of the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project. The panel shall operate during the period that the project is under construction and 9U Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Rea111501 Trousdale Drive shall be disbanded upon project completion. The applicant shall also appoint a single point of contact to respond to questions and complaints regarding the construction and operation of the hospital under this approval. The proposed panel and contact process shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage; (Planning) 119. that the applicant shall establish a mitigation fund to address concerns of immediate neighbors regarding issues such as dust, noise, and landscaping during construction of the project. The proposed mitigation fund and process shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage; (Planning) 120. that the project sponsor shall install planters at the upper deck (roof level) of the El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive sides of the garage upon completion of garage construction; (visual quality; Planning) (VQ 1.1) 121. that the project sponsor shall agree to develop and implement a Construction Visual Improvements Plan that would make visual improvements to construction zones within a given construction phase and between phases if the zone is not scheduled for construction activity or will remain unused for a period greater than six months; construction zones subject to this mitigation measure shall be defined by the City Planner, and.shall consider the size of the area, the nature of the construction activity, and the proximity or visibility of the area to public vantage points or residential uses; the Construction Visual Improvements Plan shall be implemented by the project contractor(s) and must be approved by the City Planner; the intent of the plan is to aesthetically improve portions of the project site thatwould remain unimproved for an extended period and screen the construction zone from view by passersby along the public streets and sidewalks, or to make the zone usable for MPHS employees, patients, and the public; possible improvements in the plan include, but are not limited to, the following (if timelines other than six months are specified below, the shorter of six months or the time specified below shall apply): a. the project sponsor shall clear a construction zone of construction debris and remove construction equipment whenever construction is not anticipated for at least two weeks; b. if a site is a construction zone, but no construction activities are scheduled for more than one month, the project sponsor shall be responsible for regular garbage removal and watering of any existing landscaping; c. the project sponsor shall ensure fencing is removed or visually treated around construction zones that front onto El Camino Real, Trousdale Drive, Marco Polo Way, or Davis Drive in a manner deemed acceptable by the Chief Building Official, in orderto promote safety, connectivity through the site, and pedestrian friendliness; d. if a site is not in use as a construction zone for more than six months due to demolition or construction of a structure, the project sponsor shall improve the site with landscaping (e.g., trees, shrubs, and groundcover), passive recreation/open space facilities (e.g., benches, picnic tables), decorative fencing and/or seating walls, and pedestrian and bicycle routes that connect to adjacent open spaces; pedestrian/bicycle networks shall be defined by and to the satisfaction of the City Planner; e. the project sponsor shall install all landscaping as early as possible to decrease visual impacts of construction; (visual quality; Planning, Building) (VQ 6.1) 122. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for lengthening the left -turn pocket on northbound El Camino Real (to westbound Trousdale Drive) from about 180 feet to 375 feet; this improvement would eliminate left -turning vehicles from blocking traffic flow along northbound El Camino Real and satisfy the queue storage requirement; note that under cumulative conditions, a lengthier turn pocket (475 feet) is required, as described in Mitigation Measure TR-12.1 below; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.1) -19- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 EI Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive 123. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for converting the eastbound through lane on Trousdale Drive at El Camino Real to a shared left -through lane; the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the existing dedicated left -turn lane to provide 145 feet of storage (a 35-foot extension) for vehicles turning left; the left -turn pocket (145 feet) and the extra capacity in the shared left -through lane (about 380 feet) would be sufficientto accommodate the 400-foot queue length; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.2) 124. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the southbound left -turn pocket on El Camino Real at Trousdale Drive an additional 100 feet; this measure would require the removal of a portion of the median strip; this measure is necessary because, by adding project traffic to the other turning movements at this intersection, signal green time is taken away from the southbound left -turn movement; longer turn storage is needed; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.3) 125. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the eastbound left -turn pocket on Trousdale Drive at Magnolia Avenue to 175 feet; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.4) 126, that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the westbound left -turn pocket on Trousdale Drive at Magnolia Avenue/Main Entrance to 175 feet; adequate distance is available between the main entrance and the El Camino Real intersection to accommodate the left -turn pocket requirements identified in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2 and this measure (in a back-to-back configuration) plus a 20- to 60-foot taper; (transportation; Public Works) JR 2.5) 127. [DELETED (see Conditions 41 and 124)] 128. that the project sponsor shall implement an attendant parking program to increase the parking supply during critical phases of construction; the project sponsor shall fully fund a mitigation monitoring program (Program) that will enable City of Burlingame to monitor parking demand on a quarterly basis throughout the critical phases of construction; the Program shall also provide an alternative that could be quickly implemented should the monitoring show that the parking deficit remains; (transportation; Public Works) JR 9.1) 129. that the project sponsor shall adjust the property line and constructthe proposed replacement parking area at the northwest end of the Magnolia Gardens Care Center property priorto demolishing existing parking area and both property line adjustments may occur on the same map; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 9.2) 130. that the project sponsor shall complete the roadway improvements needed to mitigate the project traffic impacts (i.e., Mitigation Measures TR-2.1 through TR-2.5) before the end of Phase 2, to ensure that construction traffic would have a less -than -significant impact; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 10.1) 131. that the Revised Project with cumulative development would result in LOS E operations on the El Camino Real/Trousdale Drive intersection during the AM & PM peak hours; one turn lane is insufficient to accommodate this high turn volume; the project sponsor shall be responsible for ensuring that sufficient capacity is available by converting the eastbound Trousdale Drive through lane to a left -through lane, which would require the signal to operate in a split phase scheme in the east -west direction; converting this lane would improve operations to LOS D, reducing this impact to a less -than -significant level; (transportation; Public Works) JR 11.1) 132. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for lengthening the left -turn pocket on northbound El Camino Real (to westbound Trousdale Drive) from about 180 feetto 475 feet; this improvement would eliminate left -turning vehicles from blocking traffic flow along northbound El Camino Real and satisfy the queue storage requirement; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 12.1) 133. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the southbound left -turn pocket on El Camino Real at Trousdale Drive an additional 100 feet; this measure would require the removal of a portion of the median strip; (transportation; Public Works) JR 12.2) 20 Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive 134. that the project sponsor shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor, and these practices shall be provided to the City Planner for approval prior to the issuance of building permits; a, maximizes the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors; such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: • use heavy-duty mufflers forstationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisyareas of the site or around the entire site; • use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; • locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and • minimize backing movements of equipment; b. use quiet construction equipment whenever possible; c. impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically -powered tools; compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment; other quieter procedures, such as drilling ratherthan using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible; . d. prohibits unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; e. select routes for movement of construction -related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Planning Department so that noise -sensitive areas, including residences, hotels, and outdoor recreation areas, are avoided as much as possible; include these routes in materials submitted to the City Planner for approval prior to the issuance of building permits; f. designate a noise disturbance coordinator who will be responsible for responding to complaints about noise during construction; the telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and shall be provided to the Burlingame Planning Director; copies of the construction schedule shall also be posted at nearby noise -sensitive areas; (noise; Planning, Public Works, Building) (NO 1.1) 135. that to reduce particulate matter emissions during project demolition and construction phases, the project sponsor shall require the construction contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); the project sponsor shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: a. cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; b. water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily; c. use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; d. pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non -toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas; e. sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork phases of construction; f. provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streetsfrom the site; g. enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non- toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); h. limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; i. install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and j. replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; (air quality; Public Works, Building) (AQ 1.1) 136. that Mills -Peninsula Health Services (MPHS) shall retain a qualified environmental specialist (e.g., a Registered Environmental Assessor or similarly qualified individual) to inspect existing buildings subject to demolition for the presence of asbestos, polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs), mercury, lead, or other hazardous materials; MPHS shall submit the report to the City prior to demolition, together with an explanation of how the project will address any issues identified in the report; if found at levels that require special handling (i.e., any building material containing 0.1 percent asbestos, paint that -21- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Re8111501 Trousdale Drive contains more than 5,000 parts per million of lead, or any building materials known or suspected to contain PCBs or mercury), MPHS shall manage these materials as required by law and according to federal and state regulations and guidelines, including those of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), BAAQMD, California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), County of San Mateo Health Services Agency (CSMHSA), and any other agencywith jurisdiction over these hazardous materials (hazardous materials; CSMHSA, Building, Planning) (HM 1.1) 137. that in the event that contamination is visually discovered during construction activities, MPHS shall be required to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment; this investigation shall involve the collection and analysis of soil and groundwater samples as directed by the site assessment consultant; sampling shall extend at least to depths proposed for excavation, and samples shall be tested for elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, or lead, if any; soil and/or groundwater samples shall be collected throughout the project site as directed by the site assessment consultant; this assessment shall be completed by a Registered Environmental Assessor, Registered Geologist, Professional Engineer, or similarly qualified individual prior to initiating any further earth -moving activities at the project site; if it were determined by sample collection and analysis that petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, or lead is present in soil and/or groundwater samples, the impacted materials shall be segregated and stockpiled separately from non -impacted soils throughout the construction phase; if deemed necessary by the local oversight agency, some impacted materials shall be mitigated prior to construction; soils with elevated petroleum hydrocarbon, VOC, or lead concentrations may require excavation and off -site disposal; soils with concentrations above regulatory threshold limits for petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, or lead shall be disposed of off site in accordance with California hazardous waste disposal regulations (CCRTitle 26) orshall be managed in place with approval of DTSC, CSMHSA or the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board; (hazardous materials; CSMHSA, Building, Planning) (HM 2.1) 138. that in the event that contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered, MPHS shall comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities regulatory requirements for hazardous materials/waste health and safety plans; the Site Health and Safety Plan shall establish policies and procedures to protect workers and the publicfrom potential hazards posed by residual contamination issues at the site; the plan shall include items applicable to site conditions, such as: • identification of contaminants; • potential hazards; • material handling procedures; • dust suppression measures; • personal protection clothing and devices; • controlled access to the site; • health and safety training requirements; • monitoring equipment used during construction to verify health and safety of workers and the public; • measures to protect public health and safety; and • emergency response procedures; • if petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the soil or groundwater proposed for the use of be ckfill or disposal, the handling and disposal of the contaminated soil or groundwater shall be governed by the applicable local and federal hazardous materials regulations; (hazardous materials; Public Works, Planning, CSMHSA) (HM 2.1) 139. that in the event that runoff induced by the Revised Project implementation would enter the Caltrans storm drainage system under SR-82, the project sponsor would immediately contact Caltrans for necessary review and approval; (hydrology; Public Works, Caltrans) (HY 1.1) -22- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino ReaU1501 Trousdale Drive 140. that the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent polluted runoff from flowing into public drainage facilities during construction of the proposed facilities; the SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution in storm water runoff during construction; the SWPPP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Burlingame and other appropriate agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), prior to issuance of any grading or building permit; (hydrology; Public Works) 141. that the project sponsorshall submit an application to the Cityof Burlingame's Parks and Recreation Department Director for a tree removal permit and meet the replacement requirements of the Tree and Vegetation Ordinance (Municipal Code, Title 11.06.020); included with the permit application shall be a landscaping plan that illustrates species, numbers, and sizes of replacement trees; (biological resources; City Arborist, Building) (BR 1.1) 142. that the project sponsor 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 priorto 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 layerof 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) (BR 1.2) 143. that the removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible; if no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys shall be required; if it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity; survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey; therefore, if vegetation or building removal is not started within 21 days of the survey, another survey shall be required; the area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist; in the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; (biological resources; City Arborist, Planning) (BR 2.1) -23_ Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 EI Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drfve 144. that the project sponsor shall revise the preliminary planting plan to give preference to native trees; suggested native tree species, subject to approval by the City Arborist, include California sycamore, box elder, Monterey cypress, and Monterey pine; (biological resources; City Arborist, Planning) (BR 3.1) 145. that the project sponsor shall include methods of water conservation in the Proposed Project's buildings and landscaping; these methods shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. install water -conserving dishwashers and washing machines, and water -efficient centralized cooling systems in the hospital and MOB; b. install water -conserving irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation and automated irrigation systems); c. design landscaping with drought -resistant and other low -water -use plants; d. install water -saving devices such as water -efficient toilets, faucets, and showerheads; (utilities; Public Works, Building) (UT 5.1) 146. that the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts: a. if potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity (within approximately 50 feet) 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; 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; b. if the find is determined to be a historical or unique archaeological resource, and if avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical excavation of those portions of the site thatwould be adversely affected; the plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non - redundant archaeological data to address important regional research considerations; the work shall be performed by the archeological or cultural consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports; such reports shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center; construction in the vicinity of the find shall be accomplished in accordance with current professional standards and shall not recommence until this work is completed; c. the project applicant shall assure that project personnel are informed that collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project is prohibited by law; prehistoric or Native American resources can include: chart or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat -affected rock, or human burials; historic resources can include nails, bottles, orother items often found in refuse deposits; d. if human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e); in general, these provisions require that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately; if the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner shalt notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American shall be notified by the Commission and given the chance to make recommendations for the remains; if the Commission is unable to identify the most likely descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be re -interred with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance; if recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem. (cultural resources; Planning) -24- Amend Conditional Use Permit for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project 1783 El Camino Real/1501 Trousdale Drive Maureen Brooks Senior Planner Attachments: Response Letter from Mills Peninsula Health Services dated June 12, 2008 May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Form Letter from Robert Mervin, CEO, Mills Peninsula Health Services dated 1/15/08 Letter from Anshan + Allen dated April 30, 2008 Staff Comments Aerial Photo Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 13, 2008 Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project Addendum to the EIR (Final), May, 2008 c: Chris Ovlen, Mills Peninsula Health Services, applicant _25_ �� Mills -Peninsula Health Services A Sutter Health Affiliate June 12,2008 Maureen Brooks Senior Planner City of Burlingame Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Planning Commission Comments — May 27"', 2008 Dear Ms. Brooks: 1783 El Camino Real Burlingame, CA 94010 650.696.5400 E-MED" CI"rY OF BURLNGAME PLANNING DEPT. Included is a summary response to the published comments (Italic) of the Plarming Commission, pertaining to the MPHS request to amend the Conditional Use Permit for the Professional Office Building. Application well done, but would like the following items addressed: provide a business plan, uses for expanded building, and whether or not the helipad will be built. The intended use for the larger building is unchanged with the proposed expansion. MPHS hospital support services will occupy roughly 80,000 square feet of the building. Approximately 100,000 square feet of tenant space, including 19,000 of the proposed 30,000 additional square feet are planned to be used as Physician Offices. See MPHS POB Building Data sheet for expanded information on planned hospital services and allocation of space. The following excerpts from a January 15"', 2008 letter from Robert Mervin, CEO, Mills Peninsula Health Services, to James Nantell, explain in further detail the planned business use for the Tenant Space of the POB. This vision, driven by the forecasted need for physician office space, remains unchanged at this time. "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." "MPMG is evaluating the possibility of fornning a non-profit, multi -specialty group practice (a `medical foundation') to provide a vehicle for the enhanced recruitment of physicians for our community." A 100 Top U.S. Hospitals Award Winner www.mills-peninsula.org "....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." "By planning now for adequate physician presence in the connected building, Burlingame and Mills -Peninsula will be ensuring a complete health care resource tuunatched by anything in the Bay Area for many years to come." A copy of this letter, in its entirety, is included in this packet. • MPHS remains intent on construction of the helipad. We currently have an approved project budget allowance for the construction of the helipad. The revised proposal, which includes a site plan with 62 additional surface parking spaces, maintains the helipad program component, modified to accommodate the added parking spaces needed. Would like to see an original site plan to compare to new site plan. • For reference, an original site plan has been provided for inclusion to the review packets. See Sheet A1.10 Site Plan (for reference only). Section through the helipad area should be provided. • For reference, a site section line, showing grade through the current approved helipad has been added to the proposed helipad elevation drawing. See revised Sheet A1.01Helipad. With respect to the Huebner letter, what is the plan for parking management, post construction? MPHS acknowledges that it has been a challenging task to keep hospital parking off the neighborhood streets. In an effort comply with the Conditions of Use, and maintain good neighbor relations, MPHS has adopted newly revised language into our Parking Policy and Guidelines document. The revised language specifically addresses the issue of employees parking on adjacent surface streets. A Policy Update has been posted, and Managers have been directed to review the new language with staff. The Policy Update also includes direction for implementing an escalating disciplinary process for policy violators. See Parking and Policy Guidelines, Revised 6/08. • The plan for post construction parking management remains unchanged. Per Condition of Use #23: "that following the completion of construction and occupancy of the replacement hospital, the applicant shall monitor parking usage quarterly for the first three years; if any quarterly study indicates that the on -site parking required is inadequate, the applicant shall identify solutions in consultation with the City Engineer and shall implement the approved improvements in a timeframe established by the City Engineer, (Planning, Public Works)." Also, during construction MPHS will monitor parking at each phase of construction and will implement an attendant parking program during critical phases of construction. See Letter to Maureen Brooks, May 13, 2008, Re: POB Additional Floor, Attendant Parking and Mitigation Monitoring. • 62 parking spaces have been added to the final program in accordance with the additional projected parking demand of the added floor, as detailed in the proposed Addendum to the FIR, May 2008. • MPHS recommends implementing a permit parking plan to help mitigate hospital parking on the adjacent neighborhood streets. ' • MPHS believes that the lure for employees to park on neighborhood streets, as opposed to the designated areas, will be greatly diminished with completion of the new facility, as the new building is significantly further from the neighborhood streets, and closer to the parking garage and site surface parking. Adding primary healthcare jobs is good for Burlingame. • Agreed. For addition details, see Case for Expanded Professional Office Building letter from Robert Merwin, CEO, Mills Peninsula Health Services, to James Nantell. The building's vocabulary was balanced into thirds; would like to see if there is a means of restoring the balance in the design; something to give the middle third of the building increased weight to balance the top. This comment was directed towards the east facade, fronting onto El Camino Real. Several of the published renderings show the building in perspective, somewhat obscured by mature trees. As a result, it is possible to misinterpret the previous design as being divided into nearly equal parts of base, middle, and top. In fact, the glass curtain wall which defines the top two floors of the building extends from the first floor (one level above the street) all the way up to level five. The middle portion of the facade, marked by the dining terrace and glass wall of administration offices, is a smaller -scale element within the greater field of the curtain wall --- similar to a large bay window or.porch. The addition of the sixth floor increases the height of this curtain wall portion from four stories to five, but doesn't change the design concept of a mid -level element within a larger field. The true design intention is more clearly visible in the 2-dimensional, black and white, elevations of this east facade. See attached images. Attendant parking is discussed as a potential solution to parking issues post -construction; plan and give thought ahead of time if valet parking is to be provided as part of the plan. At the time there is no plan for valet parking, however we have studied valet parking as a future option. There is sufficient space at the circle drive to accommodate a valet parking kiosk. MPHS currently operates a valet parking service at the Mills Health Center in San Mateo, contracting with an outside vendor. Should the organization decide to introduce valet parking at the Peninsula Medical Center Campus, a similar program could be easily implemented. Review the key conditions that are outstanding with a status report; particularly with respect to the public art piece. • Condition No. 14: MPHS will facilitate a meeting with the neighborhood regarding the use of the improved Davis Drive access to the Hospital, in accordance with the timeframe (no later than the last phase of construction) mandated in Condition No. 14. • Condition No. 18: MPHS, working with the hospital art consultant, Editions Limited, has drafted an outline for the proposed selection process of the public art commission referenced in Condition No. 18 of the Use Permit. This document is undergoing final internal review, and will be submitted to Planning for comment the week of June 16"', 2008. • Condition No.117: MPHS will facilitate a meeting with the neighborhood regarding all aspects of hazardous material removal from the site as outlined in, and in accordance with the timeframe (prior to removal of hazardous materials and demolition of the existing hospital) mandated in Condition No. 117. In addition to the published comments from the Planning Commission Meeting, cone ents from the floor by Ms. Pat Giomi were noted by the MPHS staff. These comments are addressed below: Reduced building step -backs are now not as farfrom the neighbors. • Step backs in the building design have not changed on three of the four sides of the building, including the south side, which faces the neighbors. The west side step back, which faces the Circle Drive drop-off and Hospital West Tower, is proposed to be reduced from 30' to 15'. Skilled Nursing at Peninsula was relocating to the newly acquired.Magnolia Gardens Skilled Nursing Facility, and would diminish SNFbed capacity at the Peninsula Campus. • MPHS will relocate SNF services to, and remodel the Magnolia Gardens facility. The SNF beds will operate as part of the Peninsula Campus. The net result is a significant increase of overall bed capacity at the Peninsula Campus to better serve the connlunity. Also please note that this is an inpatient hospital service, irrelevant to the POB add floor. Please let me know if there is any clarification, or additional information necessary to further assist in the review process. Sincerely, Christian Ovlen Mills -Peninsula Health Services MPHS POB Building. Data 6.10.08 OFFICE BUILDING AREA CALCULATIONS Approved POB Proposed POB MPHS Tennant Total MPHS Tennant Total Lower Level 32,890 0 32,890 32,890 0 32,890 Levell 31580 0 31,580 31580 0 31,580 Leve12 3420 27579 30,999 3420 27579 30,999 Leve13 0 26570 26,570 0 27875 27,875 Leve14 11000 15570 26,570 0 27875 27,875 Leve15 0 0 0 11000 16875 27,875 Penthouse 665 0 665 665 0 665 Totals 79,555 69,719 149,274 79,555 100,204 179,759 MPHS PLANNED HOSPITAL SERVICES IN POB Lower Level Kitchen, Lab, Medical Records, Medical Library, Infection Control, Environmental Health and Safety Level 1 Servery, Dining Room, Conference Center, Security, Hospital Adminisration, Nursing Administration Level 2 On Call Physician Sleep Rooms, Medical Use Tennants Level 3 No Planned Hospital Services, Medical Use Tennants Only Level 4 No Planned Hospital Services, Medical Use Tennants Only Level 5 Renal Dialysis, Medical Use Tennants Mills -Peninsula Health Services Originated By: Security Department Origination Date: 11/88 Last Reviewed Date: 1/06 Last Revised Date: 1/07; 6/08 TITLE: PARKING POLICY AND GUIDELINES POLICY: All persons employed by or associated with Mills -Peninsula Health Services are required to abide by the following parking guidelines. Be aware that these guidelines differ for each facility. Failure to follow these guidelines will result in disciplinary action, which can include termination. 2. Parking Decal(s) are required for each employee or auxilian vehicle at Peninsula Medical Center utilizing the facility parking lot. The Decal can be obtained from the Security Department and should be permanently affixed on the inside of the lower left hand (driver's side) corner of the vehicle's rear window. 3. Placard(s) are required for each auxilian vehicle at Mills Health Center utilizing the facility parking lot. The Placard is obtained from the Security Department and is placed on the vehicle's rear view window mirror. PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER Parking is available according to the following criteria: • Day Shift Employees and Auxilians - Garage P3, Staff Lot & Marco Polo Lot - Auxiliary specified spaces • Evening Shift Employees: - Garage P1, 2, 3, and 4, Staff Lot & Marco Polo Lot. - Auxiliary specified spaces after 2 p.m. ■ Night Shift Employees: - Garage P1, 2, 3, and 4, Staff Lot & Marco Polo Lot - Auxiliary specified spaces 11:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. All employees and auxilians are prohibited from parking in restricted zones, i.e., red, yellow and white zones, Emergency parking lots, Loading Dock parking lots, and areas designated for doctors and visitors lots (except night shift). • All employees and auxilians are prohibited from parking on the City streets adjacent to the hospital. (example: Davis Drive, Marco Polo and Trousdale). Failure to follow this requirement will result in disciplinary action, which can include termination. Off duty employees and auxilians who are visiting patients and park in a visitors lot should leave a note on the dashboard explaining they are visiting a patient and how they may be contacted in the hospital. Violation of these guidelines may result in the employee or auxilian receiving a Parking Citation, vehicle being towed at your expense and/or disciplinary action from Mills -Peninsula Health Services. MILLS HEALTH CENTER Parking is available according to the following criteria: ■ Parking is assigned from the parking waiting list and will be issued to benefited employees scheduled 64 hours a pay period or more. ■ Special parking permits will not be issued ■ Employees and auxilians with assigned parking must have a parking decal or auxilian placard issued by Mills -Peninsula Health Services in order to park in any of the garages or lots. • If an employee terminates, transfers from the Mills Health Center, or their scheduled hours change to less than 40 hours a pay period, their assigned parking will be revoked. Mills Health Center parking areas are: ■ Mills Health Center parking garage ■ Baldwin Lot —Comer of Baldwin Avenue & South San Mateo Drive • Second Avenue Public Garage — Corner of Second Avenue & El Camino Real and managed by the City of San Mateo (50 decals) Until such time that you are assigned a parking space, you are responsible for your parking arrangements. There are metered parking spaces available in the vicinity of the Health Center that can accommodate ten hours parking (this includes spaces available to the public in the Second Avenue Public Garage.) Employees may not use "visitor" parking spaces at Mills Health the all -day parking rate when they exit the parking lot at the end parking privileges (i.e., use of visitor validations) will result Employees and auxilians must park in assigned parking lot. Employees and auxilians may not do any of the following: ➢ Park in visitor parking and pay ➢ Park in visitor parking and use department validation stickers ➢ Park in Emergency Department lot at awn [ time ➢ Park in Medical Arts Building (all levels) ➢ Park in Doctor's parking spaces ➢ Park behind Cancer Center ➢ Park in Mickelson Parking lot (no matter how short the visit) ➢ Park in loading dock Center and then pay of their shift. Abuse of in disciplinary action. ➢ Park in Surgery Center level ➢ Park on adjacent streets to Peninsula Medical Center, i.e. Marco Polo, Davis Drive and Trousdale Drive • Inter Facility: If you don't have assigned parking at Mills: ➢ Use shuttle ➢ Public parking 3 �� Mills -Peninsula Health Services A Sutter Health Affiliate May 13, 2008 Maureen Brooks Senior Planner City of Burlingame Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: POB Additional Floor, Attendant Parking and Mitigation Monitoring Dear Ms. Brooks: Summarized solution: 1783 El Camino Real Burlingame, CA 94010 650.696.5400 Mills -Peninsula Health Services proposes a zero -net change outcome to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (June 2004), as it relates to the project parking shortfall from the beginning of construction Phase 4, through the completion of Phase 5. We will maintain mitigation measure TR-9.1 (Attendant Parking and Mitigation Monitoring) as well as the projected Operation Parking Demand of 1,386 spaces (Table 2-7). This will be accomplished by reducing the allowable occupancy of the MOB, from the start of Phase 4 through the completion of Phase 5, from 66% to 54%. Detailed explanation: The Draft Enviromnental bripact Report, Table 2-7, indicates a project complete Operation Parking Demand of 1,486. This includes a required 10% increase to the actual projection. The Burlingame Mills -Peninsula Hospital Parking Analysis Update (April 2008), associated with the proposed additional floor to the POB, demonstrates a project complete detnand of 1,540 spaces, also including a 10% increase, for a difference of 54 needed spaces. During Phases 4 and 5, the June 2008 Draft EIR demonstrates a parking shortage, requiring that MPHS hold MOB occupancy to 66% during these phases, reducing the overall demand by 100 spaces, from 1,486 to 1,386. The remaining parking shortage is to be managed through mitigating measure TR-9.1 (Attendant Parking and Mitigation Monitoring). A 100 Top U.S. Hospitals Award Winner www.mills-peninsula.org In order to achieve the same demand (1,386) for Phases 4 and 5 that exist before the add floor, MPHS will hold maximum occupancy of the MOB to 54%. The Burlingame Mills -Peninsula Hospital Parking Analysis Update (April 2008), indicates a projected Medical Office Building Parking Demand of 337 spaces (Table 2). The overall required reduction of Medical Office Parking is 154 spaces in order to meet the target 1,386 from 1,540. 154 is 46% of 337, leaving 183 (54% of 337) space available for the 54% occupied MOB. Please let me know if a more detailed explanation is necessary. Sincerely, Christian Ovlen Mills -Peninsula Health Services 1"S Mills -Peninsula Health Services A Sutter Health Affiliate 1783 El Camino Real Burlingame, CA 94010 January 15, 2008 650.696.5400 James Nantell, City Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: The Case for an Expanded Professional Office Building on the Peninsula Medical Center Campus in Burlingame Dear Mr. Nantell: 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 (gst) 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 100Top U.S. Hospitals Award Winner www.mills-peninsula.org 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 -rime 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 MPIIS 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). 1 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. 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 resource 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 you, qertd? . Merwin CEO, Mills -Peninsula Health Services Cc: William Meeker, Director Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Approved Minutes May 27, 2008 FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; referenced the Peninsula Hospital study item (Agenda Item 2). Requested that the Commission ask for the following information: a business plan and types of services that will be provided in the professional office building. The application does not specify what the use of the additional floor will be. Currently, if a bed is not available at the hospital, it is because someone hasn't been able to be moved to a skilled care facility. Skilled nursing that was planned to be at the hospital is being moved to 1720 Trousdale (Magnolia Gardens). The helipad may well not be built due to lack of funds. The Commission should insist that the helipad be built. The additional floor will not be set back as far from the neighbors as far as originally planned. Space could be rented out to persons not practicing at the hospital. 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 Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 27, 2008. Commission comments: Include discussion in staff report of City Council's desire a few years ago to allow additional restaurants on Broadway; use this information to support request. Be cognizant of design of fire sprinkler requirements, especially if at front of property. Would be a good addition to Broadway. This item was set for the regular Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. 2. 1783 EL CAMINO REALI1501 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE 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 Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 28, 2008. Commission comments: • Application well done, but would like the following items addressed: provide a business plan, uses forthe expanded building, and whether or not the helipad will be built. • Would like to see an original site plan to compare to new site plan. • Section through the helipad area should be provided. • With respect to Huebner letter, what is the plan for parking management post -construction? • Adding primary healthcare jobs is good for Burlingame. • The building's vocabulary was balanced in thirds; would like to see if there is a means of restoring the balance in the design; something to give the middle third of the building increased weight to balance the top. • Attendant parking is discussed as a potential solution to parking issues post -construction; plan and give thought ahead of time if valet parking is to be provided as part of the plan. • Review the key conditions that are outstanding with a status report; particularly with respect to the public art piece. This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. TV �j A9 C1d1EWL. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.568.7250 • f: 650f696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Other: Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel Number: 02s-t23134 QZ lz3-Ot2 0 25 - l7-3-I00 r 025 -1Z3- 13o PROJECT ADDRESS: 1501 TROUSDALE DRIVE, BURLINGAME Oz5-123-h APPLICANT project contact person 9 PROPERTY OWNER project contact person❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents 0 OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Mills -Peninsula Health Services Name: Peninsula Healtheare District 7SS3 El r�-u.i.Lw� Address: 1501 Trousdald Drive Address: 1600 Trousdale Drive Suite 1210 City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone(w): (650) 696-7604 (Home): (650) 576-3493 (Fax): (650) 696-5134 (E-mail): OVEenC@sutterheaith.org ARCHITECTIDESIGNER 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 City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone(w): (650) 697-6900 (Home): (Fax): (650) 652-9374 (E-mail): cheryl.fama@peninsulahealthcaredistric *Contact Persons: Christian Ovlen Larry Ko.lierer Please mark one box with IM 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. 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: l Zo o I am aware of the proposed applic ti n-and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: &\HandoutslPC Application 2007.handout City of Burlingame - Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P (650) 558-7250 • F (650) 696-3790 • www.burllnciame.org CITY OF BURLINGAME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION 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. SEE ATTACHED 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? SEE ATTACHED 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? SEE ATTACHED Rev 06.2007 CUP.2007.FRM 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. ChyOeurlwgmle ConaWWWUS0mw1APV izi.o8 mm:a 4P Mills -Peninsula Health Services A Sutter Health Affiliate January 15, 2008 James Nantell, City Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED JAN 15 2008 1783 El Camino Real Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME 650.696.5400 PLANNING DEPT, RE: The Case for an Expanded Professional Office Building on the Peninsula Medical Center Campus in Burlingame Dear Mr. Nantell: The new Peninsula Medical Center is designed as a state -of -the art healthcare facility to meet the needs of our community in the 2l t 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 100Top U.S. Hospitals Award Winner www.mills-periinsula.org 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 TrousdalelEl 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 1 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. 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 15`, 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 resource 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. K erwin CEO, Mills -Peninsula Health Services Cc: William Meeker, Director Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner 1§25410 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 JAN 1 5 Z008 CITY or BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1783 El Camino Real 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 213r 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 fall 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, rnulti-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.org 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. hi 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 1 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. 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 15`, 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 leaderslrip, 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 resource 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 Architecture Planning Interior Design San Francisco Seattle Boston London April 30, 2008 Maureen Brooks Senior Planner City of Burlingame Community Development Department Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 ANSHEN+ALLEN 901 Market Street 415 882 9500 tel San Francisco, California 94103 415 B82 9528 fax Inquire@anshen.com www,anshen.com RE: Design Revisions to the Professional Office Building Dear Ms. Brooks: Nil. NY 6 2008 CSffY C& 6!!ttLINGAME PLANNING OCPT, Since the time of the Planning Commission approval in November, 2007, Mills -Peninsula Health Services has proposed two revisions to the design of the Professional Office Building. Canopy at West Facade A new canopy is being proposed for the west facade, fronting the main entry plaza. This canopy provides weather protection for pedestrians traveling from the parking garage to the Professional Office Building and Hospital. The design and materials of the canopy will be similar to the other canopies at the new Hospital — comprising a steel support structure with glass and aluminum panels above. This canopy is proposed to extend all the way along the western facade of the Office Building, from the elevators on the upper level parking garage, to the drop-off zone and main entry to the new Hospital. Additional Building Area In order to provide the space required for a multi -specialty medical practice group in the Professional Office Building, Mills -Peninsula proposes to add approximately 30,000 square -feet of area to the building. The bulk of this additional area (27,000 sf) is accommodated by adding a full level onto the building — as a fifth floor. The remainder of the required area is provided by expanding floors three and four, by projecting the western facade approximately 15' to the west. In the original design, these upper floors were set back from the lower floors by approximately 30', so this revised design proposal reduces this dimension in half. The addition of a fifth floor would bring the height of the Office Building up to align with that of the new Hospital, thereby creating a consistent height of building mass along El Camino Real. These design revisions are critical to the efficient operation of the new Peninsula Medical Center. They will help Mills -Peninsula Health Services continue to improve the quality of care for the community of Burlingame. Sincerely, ��' / /0 ' - I{evin M. Day, AIA Associate Principal Anshen + Allen, Architects Date: To: From Project Comments February 11, 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 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 hftp://www.enerQv.ca.gov/title24 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 ii. Proposed i. Indicate sprinklered or non-sprinklered 12) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel 13) 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 14) Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described in the 2001 International Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29, Table A-29-A. 15) All NEW non-residential buildings must comply with the requirements of AB-2176 Sec. 42911 (c) [2003 — 2004 Montanez] as follows: a. Space for recycling must be a part of the project design in new buildings. b. A building permit will not be issued unless details are shown on the project plans incorporating adequate storage for collecting and loading recycled materials. Reviewed CENTRAL COUNTY PRL DQPARTMC—NT Serving ilke Town of i- 11gkormugi, and tine City o{ qurlingame 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, On 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: 1. 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. 13QQ Rollins Road, &,lingame, Cry Q4010 (650) 558-7600 F—ax : (650) 344-9950 David P. Ogorzalek Mills Peninsula Hospital POB February 13, 2008 Page 2 7, Locations of Fire Department Two-way Communications System shall be approved by the CCFD Operational staff prior to final. If you have any further questions regarding this project or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Rocque J. Yballa Fire Marshal cc: Planning Building Shulamit Rabinovich Christian Ovlen Larry Koller 13QQ �ol�ins Road, B-,rJingame, CA Q4010 (650) 558-7600 F—ax : (650) 344-QQ50 Project Comments 0 Date: February 11, 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 E& 1 0 �L108 d Fire Marshal OT o-5u« w (650) 558-7600 Ivivilvr I Gu4je L)Epr ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney 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. 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. o:...:........� k, ,. Date: ProjectComments Date: January 30, 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 Q NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 City Attorney 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: February„S, 2008 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 BMPs in plan sheets. Ensure that sufficient amount of erosion and sediment control measures are available on site at all times. The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Incorporate source control measures to prevent stormwater pollution associated with post -construction phase (see attached City of Burlingame Model List of Structural Source Control Measures and Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 15.14, available on line at www.burlingame.org. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. ------------- Also, facility may be subject to pre-treatment requirements, i.e. sewer discharge permit. Please contact Donna Allen at the Office of Environmental Compliance at 650/342-3727. Also please refer to the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 15.10 Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations at www.burlingame org. Reviewed by: Date: 02/04/2008 CITY O� BURLINGAME S,AN MA,TEO 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 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 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. 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 fluids or vehicle 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 not 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• 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 r t D tl E k G B S' 5s J� k n H b'4 y�sv s€6- � A&B dill 11 lip w p hipgs a�; to li ; §py g€giddy bCk ti `� r�� �r=:•� a� t y s� pi @�i��pEgg� i9gE.`•d� ( gat EA ai (3 i�$E� • �� dai�i, {��� Eypp; p}$; r�dBa, y� 0A ddd 9 MMC �i gg g r bD £ � tr 19e■,p k a 7 bA n ��t L� • �d �•E�A ipt8 � g3 p z D.• pEg ;E 4 '1t 8 a�' 7 �wpE.$ f47 ak Jim �S XX$ial E y, , iat� .d � egg 7 a��td gill litto p E 33 ZY• a�d�ge;g,aEayS� RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, an application has been made for amendment to conditional use permits for the 201-110. WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 23, 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 Final Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council on November 14, 2004 for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project, and the Addendum to this EIR dated May, 2008 which was prepared to analyze the amendments to the project, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that the proposed revisions to the Previous Project would not cause new significant impacts not identified in the previous EIR, and no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts. Further, no changes have occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the project that would cause significant environmental impacts to which the Revised Project would contribute; and no new information has become available that shoes that the Revised Project would cause significant environmental impact. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required. 2. Said Amendment to Conditional Use Permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Amendment to Conditional Use Permits 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 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 23Id day of June, 2008 by the following vote: Secretary i ° Fs � }�naJ .r': '" .4ti.._�..�iktih .,,. r I ' ♦ 1 ♦ � r�G t a � YI ri �� '� t f It !Y City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 337 Clarendon Road Request: Design Review for a second story addition to a single family dwelling Property Owner: Jose and Rosalba Tapia Applicant and Architect: Jose Jimenez General Plan: Low Density Residential Item No. Design Review Study Meeting Date: 6/23/08 APN: 029-183-060 Lot Area: 6,515 SF Zoning: R-1 Summary: The existing one-story house with an attached two -car garage on a corner lot contains 1,961 SF (0.30 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add a three -bedroom, approximately 690 SF second story addition to the existing structure. With the proposed addition, the floor area would increase to 2,657 SF (0.41 FAR) where 2,985 SF (0.46FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 328 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. With the addition, the number of bedrooms will increase from two to five. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached two -car garage (20'-6" x 21'-1" clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') in the driveway comply with the on -site parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: Design Review for a second story addition (CS 25.67.010, a, 5). 337 Clarendon Road Lot Area: 6.515 SF Existing mans sate Proposed (to Addition) scam ea: June 3, 2008 Allowed/Required SETBACKS Front (1s' fir): __, 22 10" itentry) (no change) 15'-0" or block average) d __......... .......i2" flr);_............ .. n/a _.. _ _. ._ 58' 8„ (to stairs) ......... 20' 0„ Side (right, 9st f/r): 16 2" (to LR) (no change) 7 6 " (right, 2nd flr): n/a 16'-2" (to BRs) 12'-0" (left, Is fir): 6'-0" (to BRs) (no change) 4'-0" (left, 2nd fir): n/a ... 7'-3" 4'-0" Rear (9sf fir): 33' 4" (to garage) (no change) ._..._. 15' 0" (2nd fir): n/a ..,.__... 33'-4" (to BR4) 20'-0" Lot Coverage 1816 SF ......_.. 1884 SF ......... _..__ 2606 SF 28% 29% ..__...._ 40% FAR: 1,961 SF 2,657 SF 2,985 SF' 0.30 FAR 0.41 FAR 0.46 FAR l0.32 x R 51 F SF) + 900 SF - 2 985 - S , F (0.46 FAR) Application for Design Review 337 Clarendon Road Existing .......... ---., __ ....._... Proposed .... _.... ..... Allowed/Required # of bedrooms: 2 5 Parking: _...._......... 2 covered 2 covered (20'-6" x 21' 1 ") (no change) (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered ..... ....._........ ......... ...�9 x_20 _......... _................ .....____ _...... ........ ..... ._... 9' x 20' .. Height: 16'-4" ........ .... ------------------- --------- ...... 24'-9" _.......... ._...... _ 30'-0" DH Envelope: n/a complies see code Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineerand NPDES Coordinator, Lisa Whitman Zoning Technician C. Jose Jimenez 178 Ravenwood Court Lathrop, CA 95330 Jose Tapia 337 Clarendon Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attachments Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Photos of Adjacent Properties Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 13, 2008 Aerial Photo -2- FFF 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 Type of application: ❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Other: El ❑ Conditional Use Permit Special Permit ❑ Parcel PROJECT e LA iZe" APPLICANT project contact person X t OK to sendelectronic copies of documents 2K Name: J f " c;� E Z, Address: 1-7 8 fZAy >J U.SOO b G"( PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: Z25;,6, �P IA Address: 5�;l C LMZE DQ O QC5 City/State/Zip: C_. J t--V 2OQ O-r- 9S33D City/State/Zip: ?—)uRu u, auc- CA %0/'Q Phone(w): # (pS0 330-032? (Home): .56 7 `9' -3 —/51q (Fax): email): _ �S©sue aC SO Ib�SiCsat��S CobI ARCHITEGT65&IGNER project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents Name: J'®5 I -L t<3 rrp Z Address: 178' 62A�Ecxlc�Ioa� Csi'- City/State/Zip:�C�xt�-P� ' 5" f Lrz Cam. �S3-3O Phone (w): G Sp v 30"0 32-9 (Home): 6 Se % `I' 3 -1 LIR / (Fax): Phone(w): _kM - 615-%gZ�ry_7p/O (Home): LM —Gir��zr (E-mail): cnn lc_�2lz co t-1 rFthecontact ne box e erson ect. (E-mail): �J�s� l� r.t tjE SiCrtis�es CoA-1 ram, t; r r� rD Ptt„ Iv2d3 u:.:.r PROJECT DESCRIPTION: � �+'�' '' —�--• — �y�% o A vI 5[Zor-sa S�o� t�D�IToN AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the hest of my knowledge a " Applicant's signature:_ Date:_ /0-t.1..2trD'7 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: /n — 3 — p j Date submitted: S:\Handouts\PC Application 2007.handout Project Comments Date: December 28, 2007 To: From Subject: Staff Review: of 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 for a first and second story addition at 337 Clarendon Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-183-060 Weds., Jan. 2, 2008 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: 01/02/2008 Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: Project Comments December 28, 2007 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 XChief 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 337 Clarendon Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-183-060 Weds. March 26, 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.ener.gy.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. 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 ch23_� nate a least tw et ve any roof suurffac�e�within ntten (feet. Reviewed by: Date: %/ 2- 47`_ Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: Project Comments December 28, 2007 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 t97Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition at 337 Clarendon Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-183-060 Weds., Jan. 2, 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: — e�'� Date: Date: To: From Subject: Staff Review: December 28, 2007 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 for a first and second story addition at 337 Clarendon Road. zoned R-1. APN- n29-1R3_nFn Weds., Jan. 2, 2008 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 Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition at 337 ClarendonRoad, zoned R-1, APN: 029-183-060 2) The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. 3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls: 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. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: Y 1 Date: 01/07/08 ` ON CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA94010 t: PH: (650)558-7250 • FAX:(660) �^ m www.burlingame,org ejojbk Site: 337 CLARENDON ROAD The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council (bombers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling 337 CLARENDON ROAD zoned R-1. APN 029-183-060 Mailed: June 13, 2008 (Please refer to other side) 016N16504325 00.270- vwied From 94010 US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Berlingame 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) 1G a f$a ® tr, r y 7T4 h"t"k . 1 .,v`t' l rx���� ray � r d r � a� y� j ��'��;�. r4�+hr � 'L U'' r♦ ���}'' t":1 RA r x s i r� k av ryry UP: �. f Fsnt.9�4t s � T yr' to t .� t'�dW x z'� 3864 {,O -J"r �t^6 �� rot ♦ - y z > %,a.r3x w q9y fO��:t41 G�VI' K f Ft S'S� ♦ ,..r � ♦�g ♦ .e'-,." \ i '>' �},v r r� ♦"zi a a $ f�.t �r e c�i ti . 6ry^r*3��; � ! < \Y? � ♦ t"�' r1X.`Y ! i50 � r d � L �� ys.z s: n: A��► " t � x " f ♦ k Pr" ) ;. �' i� m! 1�(j�``V �I•I, �>� ♦Yj'"e `- � e�1 a*�r � f � 1' :� ! } MYV f ..�0' µa ♦, I♦fa'`S"'. t / Y ���.S jJ t V v or 4a't'•E it y •,e1i r f�" �y N ';ti+t+ 4 iNl ty}+�+,�az Za OW, 4. ,, a�INN, 'W��D,r "'AS i s arH Y� e a ^'m$ rA1Q, , xf _ 17 A vt 33 I \�d t♦ ` t z v� Y� 40 'F♦ NiY Clarendon I - 1 w! CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM DATE: June 18, 2008 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 23, 2008 FROM: Lisa Whitman, Zoning Technician SUBJECT: FYI — CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: On August 14, 2006, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review, Front and Side Setback Variances, and Parking Variance for a first and second story addition (August 14, 2006, P.C. Minutes). An FYI for minor revisions, including changes to the windows in the kitchen, was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2007. A building permit was issued on June 5, 2007. On August 13, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a design review amendment that allowed the applicant to change the window grids and exterior siding, and to enclose the rear porch (August 13, 2007 P.C. Minutes). The project is nearing completion. The applicant is now requesting approval for as -built changes to the structure (see previously approved and proposed Building Elevations, date stamped June 11, 2008). The proposed changes are clouded. Changes include the removal of stone pillars at the base of the front steps, enclosing rafter tails, removing two brackets from above the front porch steps, removing a bellyband from the right elevation, and removing the stone veneer finish from the base of the left elevation. Additionally, the applicant is requesting .to change the material of the front walkway from brick to bluestone to match the front porch. The changes and reasons for making the changes are provided in the applicant's letter, dated June 11, 2008. 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 Mark Robertson, designer, dated June 11, 2008 August 14, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes Previously Approved and Proposed Building Elevations, date -stamped June 11, 2008 MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o 1 6/11/2008 ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME - PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: KNIFSEND RESIDENCE 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE BURLINGAME Permit # B07 — 0093 RE: REQUEST FOR FYI ON MINOR EXTERIOR REVISIONS AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING STAFF FOR PROJECT FINAL. Dear Commission Members, Our Project Contractor (Tom McGovern) requested a planning review inspection as his prelude to seeking final. During the inspection, it was concluded that a few odds and ends should be cleared up with an FYI for Commission review. Response to Planning Comments from 6/16/2008 memo: Note: Revisions made to plans shown as&REVISION, "As Builts", 6/11/2008, by MR. 1) Stone pillars at Entry Stone Pillars felt to bulky and crowded and clients opted for a lighter handrail. appearance. Front and Side Elevations show new stair / rail configuration. 2) Rafter Tails Enclosed The Knifsends visited my Ark Way house when it went up for sale and they particularly liked the look of the eves on that house. They requested that their eves be revised to match. (I was hoping they would — until I got this memo that is.) All eaves removed from drawings. Took all day. 3)Over Entry Gable and Brackets The Entry Porch was getting much to busy for the clients taste after we changed the exterior to shingles. Because of the busyness of the shingles, the plients much prefer the simpler format as drawn. 918 E. GRANT PLACE. SAN MATEO. CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399 MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o )Uhd 6 �Io i,UJ nE. 4) Riuht Elevation Bellyband Again when the project was changed to shingles things got too busy and it was decided to eliminate some of the banding to town things down. 5) Left Elevation Stone Veneer The house is only 4ft. off P.L. at this elevation. The Sidyards are covered by mature 10 ft. shrubs and no one can see the bottom of this wall. There is a Redwood solid fence at the front of the property to enclose the Sideyard. It was silly and wasteful to put resources into this wall 6) Front Path from Brick to Bluestone. Clients felt it more appealing to have the path match the new front porch. The only reason brick was originally shown was because there was existing brick at the time of design. It made no sense after the house was built. In addition to the above comments, I found a few other items of change during my walk- through: A Sheet Metal ornamental hood was added to the chimney flue. The Rear Elevation Patio (right side of house) was lowered to grade as drawn. Shows on Left Elevation as well. This concludes our revisions. And I must say it's a great looking house. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, .T c Mark Robertson. of Ft F_ (,RANT PLACE. SAN MATEO. CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 correct the detail on the plans and on the building, provide an accurate representation on the plans of what was actually built and address Commission comments. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: might be advantageous for the applicant to install a mock-up of the dentil or other architectural feature on the site before next review, could consider a dental soffit under the eaves, dental molding applies to the eaves on the first and second floors. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny this application without prejudice with the direction to redesign as noted. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstain) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. C. Auran returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. 7. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FARHAD ASHRAFI AND DEBBIE KAUFMAN, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS; FRANK KNIFSEND, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report August 14, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if a parking variance for covered parking space dimension is required since the length was increased to 20'-0'; staff noted that the applicant can verify that the proposed dimension is 20'-0", if so a parking variance would not be required. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Fran Knifsend, property owner, and John Stewart, designer, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, represented the project; confirmed that the size of the garage has been increased to 20'-0" clear interior dimension; the owners settled on a Craftsman design; submitted signed petitions of neighbors in support of the project; at the study meeting the Commission noted that the Dogwood tree in the rear yard near the Acacia will not do well together and asked if the Acacia tree can be removed and the Dogwood tree replaced with another tree from the Street Tree list, the neighbor would like to keep the Acacia tree, one option is to not plant a Dogwood tree next to the Acacia; submitted a letter from contractor noting that keeping the existing foundation, floor structure and walls will save the owners $20,000 in costs; the existing garage roof will be rebuilt so that the ridge is centered, the garage will contain stucco siding; the stone veneer will be continued at the same height around the entire house; rafters will be 32 inches on center throughout the house; downspouts will be round with a half -round gutter. Commission asked why water table was changed to stone veneer; architect noted that the stone is more irregular than brick, is more consistent with the proposed style, chimney will also contain stone veneer and will be gas vented. Commission noted that the revised design is handsome and consistent throughout.' Commission asked what is the size of the columns proposed at the front; architect noted that the double columns will be 12" x 12". Commission asked the architect to clarify the size of the driveway pavers and if it will be a contrasting color; architect noted that the driveway pavers will be 8" x 12" with contrasting colors. Commission noted that the proposed citrus trees along the left side property line adjacent to the concrete patio at the rear of the house will be messy at maturity, not a good landscape screen, evergreen large scale shrubs would work better, such as Bay Laurel; architect agreed. Commission noted a concern with the 4x knee brace and noted that a 6x knee brace would look better. Commission commented that the 2x corner trim is too small and suggested that a 4x comer trim be used; architect noted that a 2" x 4" trim will be used. 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 Sigrid Geiger, 1237 Cabrillo Avenue and Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke. Noted that she would like to keep the Acacia tree because it blocks the view of a telephone pole, cannot move the telephone pole, there are large trees behind the lots which provide nice screening for rear yards, the property owners are good neighbors, asked that the Commission approve the project and let them build the house they have wanted for a long time; current design is more charming than the previously proposed, worked hard to address the Commissions' concerns, the final design does not resemble the existing house but it does give a sense of home, this is a good addition to the neighborhood; in a letter dated April 5, 2006, the architect notes that in other cities variances are not required for existing nonconforming conditions, however they serve a good purpose in Burlingame, do not cause problems that other cities have. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that the architect worked with existing house to create a good design and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 24, 2006, sheets Al through A7, L1.0 and Sheet 1, Boundary Survey; and that any changes to building materials including casement windows throughout, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that 6"x wood knee braces and 2"x4" corner trim shall be used; that the citrus trees along the left side property line adjacent to the concrete patio at the rear of the house shall be replaced with large scale evergreen shrubs, such as Bay Laurel; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10, 2006, memo, the City Engineer's April 10, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's April 7, 2006, memo, Recycling Specialist's April 24,2006, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 2006, memos, shall be met; 3) 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; 4) 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; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty ofperjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roofridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) 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; 9) 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; 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniforni Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or fall demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 13, 2007 The use of the parking space works now, but invalidate the Variance if the footprint of the property changes. The hardship supporting approval of the Variance is the oddly shaped lot. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that onsite parking at 1545 Carol Avenue shall remain as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 21, 2007, Sheet 1; with a 9' x 20' paved parking area in the front setback accessed by a curb cut on Carol Avenue and a 14' x 20' covered parking space in the rear of the property accessed by a curb cut on Barriolhet Avenue; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 12, 2002 memo shall be met; that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 4. that the Variance will be come invalid if building envelope changes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. 4. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENTTO DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANTAND DESIGNER; FRANK AND ROBIN KNIFSEND, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated August 13, 2007, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Mark Robertson, 918 East Grant Place, San Mateo, represented the applicant. Commission comments: Appreciated that the applicant submitted an application for approval of the proposed change, prior to making the change during construction. Public comments: There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m Commissioner Terrones 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, Sheets Al, A2, A6, A7, L1.0 and Sheet 1, Boundary Survey (date stamped July 24, 2006) and Sheets A3 through A5 (date stamped July 16, 2007); and that any changes to building materials including window type, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that 6x wood knee braces and 2" x 4" corner trim shall be used; that the citrus trees City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 13, 2007 along the left side property line adjacent to the concrete patio at the rear of the house shall be replaced with large scale evergreen shrubs, such as Bay Laurel; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10, 2006, memo, the City Engineer's April 10, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's April 7, 2006 and July 30, 2007 memos, Recycling Specialist's April 24, 2006, memo, and NPDES Coordinator's April 10, 2006, memos, shall be met; 3. 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; 4. 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; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6. that prior to 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; 7. 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; 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; 9. 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; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial orfull demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:28 p.m. 5. 1648 BARROILHET AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND CABANA (MATTED AND ALISA FERRARI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JERRY DEAL, JD ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 4