Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2015.01.26Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, January 26, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 12, 2015 Regular Planning Commission Meetinga. PC draft Minutes - 1.12.15.pdfAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1813 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Minerva Abad, MDA Design, applicant and designer; Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners) (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. 1813 Ray Dr - Staff Report 1813 Ray Dr - Attachments Attachments: Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2015 January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1448 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Peyling Yap, applicant and property owner; Jeff Chow, designer) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin (this item has been continued) b. 3155 Frontera Way, zoned R -1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new wireless facility (antennas and equipment) on an existing residential apartment building (Ashley Woods, applicant; V-One Design Group Inc., designer; Skyline Terrace, property owner) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin c. 3155 Frontera Way - Staff Report 3155 Frontera Way Attachments Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 2313 Poppy Drive - zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a major renovation and a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope (Jonathan James, William Wood Architects, applicant and architect; Edward Cho, property owner) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 2313 Poppy Dr. Staff Report 2313 Poppy Dr. Attachments Attachments: 1123 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling and a Special Permit for height (Tim Raduenz, Form + 1 Design, applicant and designer; Philippe Bachmann, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit b. 1123 Lincoln Ave - Staff Report 1123 Lincoln Ave - attachments Attachments: 2940 Dolores Way, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation including a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Johnny Darosa, Darosa & Associates, applicant and designer; Sanford Lau, property owner) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber c. 2940 Dolores Way - Staff Report 2940 Dolores Way - Attachments Attachments: 1217 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front facade of an existing storefront (Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and designer; Green Banker LLC, property owner) (31 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin d. 1217 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 1217 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 1217 Burlingame Ave - Recvd After 1 Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2015 January 26, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Commission Communicationsa. City Council regular meeting January 20, 2015b. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on January 26, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 5, 2015, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. 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. Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/26/2015 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 12, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bandrapalli called the January 12, 2015 meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and GumPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.November 24, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the November 24, 2014 minutes with the following amendment: >Agenda Item 8d (1547 Vancouver Avenue); note that Commissioner Yie was recused for non-statutory reasons. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - b.December 8, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve minutes of December 8, 2014 as submitted. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Kay Meskin, Graffeo Leathers: Concerned that a number of businesses are only open certain days, others seem to be closed most of the time, and still others appear closed even if open. This is not good for the rest of the businesses in the area. Permits for new businesses should be for uses that include offices and showroom type businesses that will contribute to the area. Many of the businesses do not bring people to the area. 6. STUDY ITEMS None. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015 January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1209 Mills Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage (Kristin Bergman, Bergman Design, applicant and designer; Kitisak Larlarb and Kali Taylor, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner DeMartini noted that he would recuse himself from voting on the Consent Calendar item (1209 Mills Avenue) as he owns property within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum6 - Recused:DeMartini1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Proposal to consider amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance Section 25.30 C-1 District Regulations, to remove restrictions on food establishments and health services above the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area. (1121 noticed and newspaper notice - The Examiner 1/9/15 and e-newsletter notification) Contact: Catherine Barber Senior Planner Barber provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Why is there the requirement for a conditional use permit for health service uses on the second floor? (Meeker - Uncertain why the requirement was imposed.) >Why is there currently a restriction upon the number of food establishments allowed in the Broadway Commercial District? (Meeker - the restriction was put in place as a means of ensuring that those uses did not take over the retail presence in the District.) >How are fast food restaurants and outdoor dining treated? (Meeker - fast food type restaurants are covered in one of the categories of food establishments defined in the Zoning Ordinance. Outdoor seating within the public right -of-way is allowed through approval of an encroachment permit granted by the Public Works Department.) >Did the survey regarding the Broadway Commercial District that preceded the October, 2014 community meeting lead to the suggestion to eliminate the conditional use permit requirement for health services? (Meeker - the request to lift this restriction arose from the small group discussions held during the event.) >Noted that during the discussions regarding the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, the issue of second floor uses was addressed; there was a desire to allow uses that add to the vitality of the district.) >Is skeptical that lifting the food establishment restriction will alleviate the concern regarding vitality of the district, but is not opposed to the change. >Noted that second floor health service uses may bring more people into the district. >Noted that uses that the City does not have the ability to impose operating hours upon uses that are permitted by right. >Suggested looking at the full range of uses allowed within the district to ensure that the proper mix is achieved to enhance vitality. (Meeker - Agreed, and noted that this will become part of a larger discussion that will occur during the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015 January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: Dave Simpson, Broadway property owner: Retail sales in Redwood City have declined due to the existence of new restaurants within the downtown area. This could happen on Broadway. His business services the restaurant industry. Understands the restaurant industry. All restaurants want to be full at the same time; can create traffic problems . (Commissioner - requested clarification that the retail uses do not do as well given the large number of restaurants.) Noted that most of them do not exist anymore; there is very little retail remaining. Betty Wolff, resident on Laguna: All for making Broadway more vibrant, but it will never be like Burlingame Avenue. Is concerned with parking if more restaurants are allowed. A lot of people who own businesses do not live in the neighborhood. Notice a lot of people parking in the adjacent neighborhood due to the inadequate parking. More restaurants may tax the existing sewer system in the area. Restaurants need to convey to their people where to park. Gunnell Bercholz, resident on Laguna: Near her property people can park all night. Parking is not monitored by the police. People have been known to sleep in their cars. More restaurants will exacerbate the rat infestation problem in the area . Restaurant people have too much garbage outside; it is overflowing and creates a rat problem. Ann Hinkle, owner of Earthbeam: Is a healthcare provider. Is delighted to see the amendment lifting the requirement for a conditional use permit for health services on the second floor. Former City Planner indicated that healthcare businesses would occupy parking for a longer period of time than other forms of businesses. Will increase exposure of other retail businesses on Broadway. The conditional use permit application fee caused another individual that wanted to open such a business to be driven away. John Kevranian, Chairperson of the Broadway Business Improvement District: Hears some of the concerns regarding parking and the potential loss of retail. There are currently retail vacancies on Broadway; more restaurants will bring more foot traffic to the area. The restaurant moratorium creates a commodity; there is no flexibility in terms of moving a restaurant to another property. Several of the parking lots in the area have long -term parking; some of these could be converted to shorter term parking. Employees could be directed to park at more remote lots within the area. If neighbors have concerns regarding parking on the residential streets, then the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission can be approached to impose restrictions that may alleviate the observed problems. Garbis Bezdjian, 1199 Broadway: Feels it is fair to contact other restaurant owners on Broadway to see if they want more restaurants in the area; the existing operators will not want more restaurants. Need different types of businesses that can create more foot traffic. With respect to the survey, noted that a survey was completed a number of years ago; noted the results of that survey. Feels the City's survey from 2014 was not accurate. Feels that the staff is running the City, should be the City Council. How would someone go to a healthcare business on the second floor if there is no elevator. Feels he has been discriminated against for the past fourteen years; that leads for new tenants are sent elsewhere. Ross Bruce, AVR Realty: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015 January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Have attempted to nurture retail in the district by restricting certain business types on Broadway, but it has not been successful even with current restrictions. Feels that allowing the market to flex as the culture changes may help to fill the vacancies on Broadway. Wants to see fewer vacancies. Unidentified Broadway business owner: There are four vacancies on the block where his business is located. Disagrees with staff's representation of the vacancy rate. Feels that the Broadway District has been left behind and more attention has been paid to Downtown Burlingame. The Broadway interchange construction will disrupt the area for the next few years. There is inadequate parking; with more restaurants this will be worsened and people will go elsewhere. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >How many properties are within the District; what is the vacancy rate? (Barber/Meeker - roughly 44 individual properties. There is a 1% vacancy rate which represents four tenant spaces.) >Referenced the changing retail landscape, other options for such businesses. Can't conclude necessarily that restaurants are the culprit in the downturn of retail on the street. >Noted that he is frequently asked where employers can send their employees for meals. >Is supportive of anything that can be done to invigorate the district. >Is aware that there can be parking problems in the area. >Has not perceived any preconceptions on the part of staff in the survey or the staff report. >There may be other means of addressing the parking issues. >There are also means of addressing the trash issues that have been raised. >Lifting the restriction can allow the district to reach a state of equilibrium. >There will be more people looking for places to eat as the Bayfront becomes more developed. >May not be the silver bullet, but worth a chance. There may need to be adjustments made to other uses in the area as well. >Doesn't believe the proposed amendments will solve the problem, but likely will not make it worse. >Broadway is not an easy place to get to; parking is problematic. >If you provide businesses that people want, patrons will come, if you don't they won't. >Not having parking isn't the worse thing in the world. >Doesn't feel that this is a complicated problem. Investments made in properties (e.g. restaurants) that need some work could go to help invigorate the district. >The Broadway merchants need to look at their businesses to ensure that businesses that are there are vibrant. >Hears concerns regarding the number of nail salons on Broadway. >Is imperative upon each landlord to consider the businesses that they bring in to the district. >The individuals expressing reservations cause him pause. Should more research be done? >Has seen the dramatic changes in Redwood City; it is largely a function of the vitality that the restaurants bring to the area. >Feels that the changes have been directed from the community through the elected body. >A couple of the vacancies have been present for some time. Hard to believe that restaurants would push out retail uses. >Other issues raised regarding the trash, parking problems and people sleeping in the cars are issues that will continue to exist and must be addressed. >Has noticed that amongst the restaurants on Broadway, many are not open full time. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to recommend to the City Council, adoption of an ordinance eliminating the limitation on the number of food establishments within the Broadway Commercial District while retaining the requirement for a conditional use permit for such uses, and eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit for health service uses above the first floor within the District. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015 January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.818 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Kevin Lake, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Ex-Parte Communications: >Commissioner Loftis spoke to the property owners. >Commissioner Gum spoke to the left and right side neighbors. Site Visits: All Commissioners had visited the property. Community Development Director provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. JoAnn Gann represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Clarified that the entire home will be restuccoed. (Gann - yes.) >Could some of the finer details be revisited, for example the a -braces. Could appear like a stucco box; perhaps corbels under the bays. >Clarified that the stoop will remain as is. (Gann - yes.) >Noted the greater amount of windows on the rear. Looks like the scale is a bit different. (Gann - are attempting to take advantage of the beautiful yard.) >Noted that the concrete driveway on the left side tiers into the neighbor's yard. Clarify this detail. >Noted an ambiguity in the drawing for the left rear roofline. (Gann - will correct.) >Understands that all of the windows will be aluminum -clad wood windows with the existing windows to be replaced to match the new. >Would have preferred to have pages showing comparisons between existing and proposed elevations. >Likes the massing. >Consider adding window grids to add to the bungalow feel. (Gann - will consider.) >Very relieved at how the design fits in with the neighborhood, especially given the size of the home. >Will there be plantings along the front to soften the appearance? (Gann - yes.) Public Comments: None. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to direct that this item be brought back on the regular action calendar when modified in response to the Commission's direction. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015 January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - b.1512 Ralston Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Jim and Pei Lu, property owners ) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Ex-Parte Communications: There were no ex-parte communications to report. Site Visits: All Commissioners had visited the subject site. Senior Planner Barber provided a brief overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: None. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Chu - not at this time. A driveway separates it from the apartment building next door.) >Feels that the left window behind the chimney on the front elevation looks misplaced; consider a different arrangement or a transom window and use that as the bed wall. >Consider looking at improving the massing of the second -story dormer on the front above the entry door. (Chu - noted that the living room has higher ceilings that restricts making a change in this area.) >The front entry feels a bit closed off; perhaps because of the proximity to El Camino Real. >The front bay on the second floor could climb up the roof a bit so that it can be centered. >With respect to landscaping; revisit the use of Oak that is not accepted by the City Arborist. >Assumes the planting area is owned by the City; work with the City to ensure that work that is done doesn't impact the parking lot screening. >Noted the fallen tree in the rear yard. >Likes the design. >Feels like there is a lot of hardscape; look at this. (Chu - will refer to the landscape architect. Lot is deeper than normal. Could consider putting in a Hollywood driveway.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to direct that this item be brought back on the regular action calendar when modifications have been made as requested by the Commission. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye:Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum7 - Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015 January 12, 2015Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Loftis noted that he will forward an electronic copy of the Community Center presentation to the Commission. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.FYI: 114 Howard Avenue - review of proposed changes to previously approved Design Review project Approved as submitted. b.Commission Communications Nothing to report. c.City Council regular meeting January 5, 2015 >The City Council adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element. >The City Council considered adoption of the proposed Density Bonus Ordinance. Changes were requested to be made to the text; therefore, the ordinance will be reintroduced by the City Council at its meeting of January 20, 2015. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on January 12, 2015. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on January 22, 2015, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. 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. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 1/20/2015 PROJECT LOCATION 1813 Ray Drive Item No. 8a Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1813 Ray Drive Meeting Date: January 26, 2015 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Minereva Abad, MDA Design APN: 025-212-120 Property Owners: Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang Lot Area: 5754 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The existing one-story house with an attached one-car garage contains 1,744 SF (0.30 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a first floor addition at the front and right sides of the house and a second floor addition at the rear of the house. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,891 SF (0.50 FAR) where 2,941 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 50 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR. W ith this project, the number of potential bedrooms is increasing from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached garage complies with current code standards for a covered parking space (12’-5” x 21’-0” clear interior dimensions provided where 9’ x 18’ is the minimum required for an existing garage). One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 1813 Ray Drive Lot Size: 5,754 SF Plans date stamped: January 14, 2015 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 11’-0” (to attached garage) 21’-4” 16'-8" (block average) (2nd flr): n/a 39’-4” 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 4'-11" 3’-6” no change 6’-0” 6'-0" 6'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 37’-5” n/a 39’-5” 37’-11” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1844 SF 32% 2097 SF 36.4% 2302 SF 40% FAR: 1744 SF 0.30 FAR 2891 SF 0.50 FAR 2941 SF 1 0.51 FAR ¹ (0.32 x 5754 SF) + 1,100 SF = 2941 SF (0.51 FAR) Item No. 8a Action Item Design Review 1813 Ray Drive 2 1813 Ray Drive Lot Size: 5,754 SF Plans date stamped: January 14, 2015 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (12’-5” x 21’-0”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) no change 1 covered (9' x 18' for existing) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 15’-8” 23’-3” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on November 10, 2014, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (November 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes attached). A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section. The applicant submitted a response letter, dated January 15, 2015 and revised plans date stamped January 14, 2015 to address the Planning Commission’s questions and comments. Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the designer and property owners to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated December 30, 2014, for a detailed review of the project. Several significant revisions were made to the project including changing the architectural style of the house to craftsman, reducing the second floor plate height from 9’-1” to 8’-1”, changing the roof configurations on the first and second floors, changing the window style throughout the house, changing the siding from stucco to horizontal lap and board and batten wood siding, adding eave brackets and changing the design of the front porch and garage door. The design review consultant concludes that based on the revisions made to the design, she can support approval of the proposed project. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Design Review 1813 Ray Drive 3 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 January 14, 2015, sheets A-1 through A12 and L-1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 3, 2014 and August 29, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s December 24, 2014 and September 3, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s September 9, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s August 28, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s September 4, 2014 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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 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; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; Design Review 1813 Ray Drive 4 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Minerva Abad, MDA Design, applicant and designer Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, property owners Attachments: Design Review Analysis, dated December 30, 2014 Applicant’s Response Letter, dated January 15, 2015 November 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Kenton S. Wong, dated November 15, 2014 Application to the Planning Commission Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 16, 2015 Aerial Photo Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1813 Ray Drive, Zoned R-1, Yao Shengzhe and Liu Chang, 1813 Ray Drive, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owners, APN: 026-073-230; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 26, 2015, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review 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 26th day of January, 2015, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 1813 Ray Drive Effective February 5, 2015 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 14, 2015, sheets A-1 through A12 and L-1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 3, 2014 and August 29, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s December 24, 2014 and September 3, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s September 9, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s August 28, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s September 4, 2014 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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 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; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 1813 Ray Drive Effective February 5, 2015 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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 Conditional Use Permit Address: 3155 Frontera Way Meeting Date: January 26, 2015 Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new wireless facility (antennas and equipment) on an existing residential apartment building. Applicant: Ashley Woods, Agent for Verizon Wireless APN: 025-320-210 and -220 Property Owner: EQR Skyline Terrace LP Lot Area: 29,316 SF (APN: 025-320-210) Architect: V-One Design Group, Inc. 147,122 SF (APN: 025-320-220) 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, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Class 3, consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Background: The Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on February 6, 2012 (Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities is attached for review). The purpose of this ordinance is to maintain and more importantly, to facilitate modernization of Burlingame’s communications infrastructure in a manner that improves the quality of the City’s environment, the pleasant aesthetics of the City’s neighborhoods, the City’s architectural traditions dating to the early 20th century and the visual quality in the non-residential areas of the City. More specifically, the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal law and regulations, the location of communications facilities in the City of Burlingame in a manner that recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the City’s aesthetic traditions. Site Description: The site is located along the city limits between Burlingame and Millbrae. It is surrounded by multifamily and single family residential uses and is bounded by Trousdale Drive, Frontera Way and Highway 280. The subject property contains two, three-story multifamily residential apartment buildings (3133 and 3155 Frontera Way). The development is considered to be nonconforming because it is a multifamily residential use in an R-1 zone (single family dwelling). In 1964, the City Council granted a variance to construct the apartment buildings in a single family dwelling zone (R-1). Project Description: The applicant, Ashley Woods, agent for Verizon Wireless, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless communications facility (wireless facility) on an existing residential apartment building at 3155 Frontera Way. An application for a Conditional Use Permit is required for any new wireless communication facility where co-location is not proposed. The proposed wireless facility consists of the following components:  Five (5) panel antennas on existing stairwell walls (three antennas on the south wall and two antennas on the west wall).  Eight (8) radio remote units (RRU’s) (equipment associated with the panel antennas) on the inside face of a stairwell wall (see Antenna Plan on sheet A-2 and North Elevation on sheet A-3).  An equipment enclosure (12’ x 18’ area enclosed by an 8’-0” tall CMU block wall) located on the ground behind the parking area. The equipment enclosure would house equipment cabinets for the wireless facility, an emergency generator and other associated equipment necessary for the wireless facility (see Lease Area Enlargement and Elevation on sheets A-2 and A-6).  Power and fiber lines between antennas and equipment, located underground and in a cable tray. Item No. 8c Action Item Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way 2 EQR Skyline Terrace LP owns the subject property containing the apartment buildings (APN: 025-320-220), as well as a smaller vacant parcel south of the site along Trousdale Drive and Highway 280 (APN: 025-320-210). The proposed antennas would be located on the main parcel and the equipment enclosure would be located on the vacant parcel. The applicant notes that “the development of this facility will further enhance Verizon’s Northern California wireless network by allowing its customers seamless access to Verizon’s nationwide network of services”. For more detailed information about the proposed project and why this location was chosen, please refer to the attached Project Description submitted by the applicant, date stamped October 8, 2014. Panel Antennas and Radio Remote Units: A total of five (5) panel antennas are proposed to be mounted on the exterior walls of an existing stairwell, located on the west side of the building; three antennas on the south wall and two antennas on the west wall. The proposed antennas would be concealed in stealth structures, comprised of screening panels designed and painted to match the concrete building wall. The stealth panel along the west wall measures 6’-9” tall x 8’-8” wide and measures 43’-0” above grade to its highest point; the stealth panel along the south wall measures 8’-9” tall x 18’-4” wide and measures 45’-0” above grade to its highest point. To show how the proposed stealth panels would screen the panel antennas, the applicant provided existing and proposed photo simulations from three viewpoints (see attached). A total of eight (8) radio remote units (RRU’s) (equipment necessary for the panel antennas) are proposed to be installed on the inside face of the stairwell wall and therefore would not be visible to the public (see Antenna Plan on sheet A-2 and North Elevation on sheet A-3). Equipment Enclosure and Power/Fiber Lines: The project also includes installing a 12’ x 18’ equipment enclosure located at-grade behind the parking area. Currently, this is a flat area consisting of soil and is not being used by the apartment development. The enclosure would be constructed of an 8’-0” tall CMU block wall and would house equipment cabinets, an emergency generator and other associated equipment necessary for the wireless facility (see Lease Area Enlargement and Elevation on sheets A-2 and A-6). Previously, the enclosure consisted of slatted chain link fencing. However, in order to mitigate any concerns regarding noise emitted from the generator, the applicant is now proposing to construct the enclosure with a CMU block wall. There are no existing trees to be removed or new trees proposed to be planted in the area of the proposed enclosure. In addition, no existing parking spaces would be eliminated as part of this application. In her letter dated January 6, 2015, the applicant notes that “Verizon plans to install faux ivy around the equipment enclosure to compliment the surrounding area and tall trees that border Highway 280”. The applicant plans to provide photos, a sample and supplemental information to the Planning Commission at the public hearing. All associated power and fiber lines for the wireless facility will be run underground and then up the building wall by way of a cable tray along the south side of the stairwell, painted to match the building. Public Outreach: Pursuant to the City’s ordinance, the applicant is encouraged to perform an early stage outreach with residents and property owners near the proposed wireless facility in order to address and, if possible, resolve any impacts of the proposed facilities on the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant notes that an open house informational meeting was held on September 11, 2014 at the site in the Social Room of the apartment building (see attachments provided by the applicant). Emails were sent to residents of the apartment building two weeks in advance of the meeting and fliers were posted on doors and elevators the week of the meeting. The applicant reports that one person attended the meeting. Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way 3 As requested by the Planning Commission, a second outreach and information session was held on Monday, December 22, 2014. Both the residents of the apartment complex and all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were notified of this meeting. The notices were revised to more clearly explain the proposed project, as suggested by the Planning Commission. A copy of the notice and meeting flyer is attached for review. The applicant reports that three persons attended this meeting. Planning staff posted a copy of the notice for the January 26, 2015 public hearing on site next to residents’ mailboxes and mailed the public hearing notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the property. Radio Frequency Study: An evaluation of the proposed wireless facility was prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated June 26, 2014, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields (see attached full report). The report concluded that operation of the proposed base station “can comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment”. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Parks and Stormwater Divisions. The Building, Fire and Engineering Divisions had no comment on the proposed application. Study Meeting: At the November 24, 2014 Planning Commission study meeting, the Commission asked the applicant to provide responses to the questions listed below about the proposed application (November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes attached). Response to these questions can be found in the attached response letter, dated January 6, 2015. Revised plans, date stamped January 7, 2015 were also submitted to address the Planning Commission’s comments.  Was the applicant involved with notification for the informational meeting? (Woods - yes, she was in contact with the property owner; created an e -mail notification and posted notices on all doors and in the elevators .) Concerned that the notice for the informational meeting makes no reference that a wireless antennas structure is being proposed. In the future, there should be more specifics regarding what is actually being installed.  With respect to the landscaping around the equipment on the ground, noted that when touring the property that there is no landscaping present. Is the landscaping proposed? (Woods - are not planning to install any additional landscaping other than that which is already present along Interstate 280.) Should seriously consider adding landscaping as indicated on the plans in the final design; it is encouraged when wireless facilities are proposed in residential districts.  Feels that it is good that notification was provided, but in the public outreach section of the zoning ordinance, also encourages that property owners in the area be noticed; encouraged extending the noticing area outside of the apartment complex in the future.  Would like to know if there are any other options outside of the residential apartment building that could work. Could the equipment be co -located with equipment installed by another provider in the area?  The radio frequency (RF) study notes that the worst case scenario exposure to residents is 35% where 100% would be the maximum acceptable level; want know where that is exactly and is that reading based on the resident being inside the apartment building all of the time. The study is not clear whether it addresses impacts to residents inside or outside the building. Is a resident sitting outside on their balcony for two hours a day exposed to hazardous conditions? Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way 4  Be clearer regarding the noise emitted from the generator.  Is there typically another meeting before moving forward? Encouraged conducting another informational meeting to provide more information to the residents. Encouraged providing the residents with some of the materials provided to the Commission. Location Preference Order: The City’s ordinance requires that in determining the location of proposed wireless communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order listed below. Wireless communication facilities must be located where feasible in the locations listed below by descending priority. If applicable, the applicant shall include an explanation of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location (please refer to the attached Project Description submitted by the applicant for reasons this location was chosen). 1) Locations within Non-Residential Zoning Districts, which are more than five hundred (500) feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts and which are not within the Burlingame Downtown Districts. 2) Non-Residential Zoning Districts within five hundred (500) feet of Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts, and the Burlingame Downtown Districts. 3) Residential Zoning Districts. If located within a residential zoning district, the following guidelines apply:  Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) or designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from view by means of stealth design, stealth structures, architectural integration or screening.  Co-located in existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provisions of this chapter.  In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antennae, and to the extent feasible, control equipment.  In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure. Design Criteria: The goal of the City’s regulations is to reduce to the greatest extent possible all visual impacts resulting from the installation of wireless communications facilities. Stealth design and stealth structures for these facilities shall be considered the normal standard for all wireless communications facilities. Non-stealth designs and structures shall not be approved without evidence, independently verified, that it is not possible (using best efforts by applicant) to stealth such facilities. Applications shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the following criteria. If the applicant’s proposed facility cannot comply with the following criteria, the application shall include a detailed explanation of why it is not reasonably feasible to comply with the criteria (please refer to the attached Project Description submitted by the applicant for an explanation of why some criteria are not met). (a) Wireless communication facilities should be co-located where feasible and where the co-location does not create an adverse aesthetic impact due to such factors as increasing the bulk, the height or the amount of noise created by the proposed co-located facilities. (b) Wireless communication facilities should to the greatest extent feasible, not be located in Residential Zoning Districts. Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way 5 (c) Wireless communication facilities should be designed, located and constructed in a manner that minimizes visual and auditory impacts of the facilities. The wireless communication facilities shall blend into the surrounding environment and/or shall be architecturally integrated into a structure, considering the color, design and character of the surrounding context (e.g., public art, clock towers, flagpoles, trees/vegetation, rocks, water tank, existing office/industrial buildings, and church steeples). Specifically, the proposed facilities shall comply, to the greatest extent feasible, with the following: (1) The facilities should be concealed, screened or camouflaged by the surrounding topography, vegetation, buildings, or other setting. (2) The facilities should be proportional in size relative to surrounding and supporting structures and ability for co-location by other providers. (3) Roof-mounted facilities should be, out of view and screened; these facilities shall be set back at least one foot from the edge of the roof for every one foot of antenna height and shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height above the roof surface. (4) Wall-mounted facilities should be compatible in scale and design with the building, shall be flush mounted, i.e., not extending from the face of the building more than twenty-four (24) inches and shall be painted and/or textured to match the wall of the building. All cables and brackets, wires, shall also be hidden. (5) All facilities should be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials. (6) All concealing, screening, painting, camouflaging and/or use of stealth designs and stealth structures should be consistent with Section 25.77.010 (Purpose) including, but not limited to, promoting wholesome, attractive, harmonious and economic use of property, building construction, civic service, activities and operations in conformity with and preserving the overall aesthetics of City neighborhoods including its character and its century old architectural traditions. (d) Where applicable, appropriate landscaping should be installed in and around the proposed wireless communication facilities. (e) Any exterior lighting on the facilities should have a manual on/off switch and be contained on-site. (f) Ground equipment of the facilities should be concealed, screened, camouflaged or hidden using stealth design, stealth structures, underground installation or landscaping and fencing. (g) Signage in, on or near any facilities should be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact. (h) Wireless communication facilities should be discouraged in areas subject to the City’s hillside construction permit as designated in Section 25.61.010; if facilities cannot be avoided in the hillside areas, then visual impacts should be eliminated through stealth design, stealth structures and landscaping. (i) Support wires for structures should be discouraged. (j) The wireless communication facilities should be designed to discourage unauthorized access. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, 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; (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; Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way 6 (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 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 conditional use permit to install a new wireless communication facility, consisting of five panel antennas, eight radio remote units, an equipment enclosure housing equipment cabinets for the wireless facility, an emergency generator and other associated equipment necessary for the wireless facility and power and fiber lines between the antennas and equipment, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the date of approval. At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year term, the applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community Development Director; 2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 7, 2015, sheets T-1, LS-1 through LS-3 and A-1 through A-7; 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 4. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless Communications); where any conflicts exist between the applicable provisions of that chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall apply; 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 for the Administrative Use Permit; 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 an amendment to the Administrative Use Permit; 6. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the FAA, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless communication facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are made applicable to existing facilities, the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency. Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner’s expense, revocation of any permit or imposition of any other applicable penalty; 7. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted a non-reflective material consistent with the color scheme on the building; Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way 7 8. that any exterior lighting on the facility shall have a manual on/off switch and be contained on-site; 9. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact; 10. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant shall provide verification by independent qualified experts that the RF (radio frequency) levels of the facility complies with FCC regulations and with the City noise regulations; 11. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of commencement of the facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the facility’s compliance with federal and state regulations and of the facility’s compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of approval. The applicant shall also provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant and verifiable confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility; 12. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information for the applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for emergency contact; 13. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial assurance, in a form acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that its use is abandoned, its operation is ceased or the approval is terminated; 14. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance and repair does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or change the number, type, dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment; 15. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and repairing the facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development Department; 16. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause, including degradation from wind and weather, shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business days from the time of notification by any person or entity; 17. that backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages or for testing during a set period; 18. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; 19. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation; Conditional Use Permit 3155 Frontera Way 8 20. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period: (1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed operation; or (2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. 21. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facility is sited shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Ashley Woods, applicant Attachments: Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, letter dated January 6, 2015 November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Application Project Description, date stamped October 8, 2014 Photo Simulations Proof of Outreach Evaluation of Base Station, prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated June 26, 2014 Coverage Maps Existing and Proposed Facility Maps Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 16, 2015 Aerial Photo BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 24, 2014 a.3155 Frontera Way, zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new wireless facility (antennas and equipment) on an existing residential apartment building (Ashley Woods, applicant; V -One Design Group Inc., designer; Skyline Terrace, property owner) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the applicant and got a tour of the property. There were no other ex parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: -Will this be a ten year lease? (Hurin - applicant can clarify the length of the lease.) -Was staff involved in the notification of the neighbors of the public hearing or the informational meeting? (Hurin - not for the informational meeting, but the City coordinated noticing for the public hearing before the Planning Commission.) Ashley Woods, for Verizon Wireless, represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: -Was the applicant involved with notification for the informational meeting? (Woods - yes, she was in contact with the property owner; created an e -mail notification and posted notices on all doors and in the elevators.) Concerned that the notice for the informational meeting makes no reference that a wireless antennas structure is being proposed. In the future, there should be more specifics regarding what is actually being installed. (Woods - made note of this comment.) -Is the lease for ten years? (Woods - the is lease is for 25 years.) -What will happen to the equipment at the end of the lease? (Woods - at that time Verizon would review the installation and replace with new equipment.) -The location is good and the antennas are blended well with the environment; doesn't seem to obstruct views. -With respect to the landscaping around the equipment on the ground, noted that when touring the property that there is no landscaping present. Is the landscaping proposed? (Woods - are not planning to install any additional landscaping other than that which is already present along Interstate 280.) Should seriously consider adding landscaping as indicated on the plans in the final design; it is encouraged when wireless facilities are proposed in residential districts. -Noted that there are a good number of trees on the property; assumes there is no need to remove the trees in order to get a better signal. (Woods - there will be no trees removed or pruned.) -Feels that the notice for the informational meeting is confusing and reads more like an advertisement; does not really read like a public notice. -Feels that it is good that notification was provided, but in the public outreach section of the zoning ordinance, also encourages that property owners in the area be noticed; encouraged extending the noticing area outside of the apartment complex in the future. -Would like to know if there are any other options outside of the residential apartment building that could work. Could the equipment be co -located with equipment installed by another provider in the area? Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/22/2015 November 24, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -The radio frequency (RF) study notes that the worst case scenario exposure to residents is 35% where 100% would be the maximum acceptable level; want know where that is exactly and is that reading based on the resident being inside the apartment building all of the time. The study is not clear whether it addresses impacts to residents inside or outside the building. Is a resident sitting outside on their balcony for two hours a day exposed to hazardous conditions? -Be clearer regarding the noise emitted from the generator. -What was the concern of the person who attended the outreach meeting? (Woods - wanted more information about the installation.) -How many residents are there? (Woods - in this building there are approximately 180 residents.) -Assumes that the study found that exposure is limited to the rooftop level. Did the study include exposure below the roofline? (Woods - anywhere at the ground, one is around 4% below the maximum exposure rate. The emissions to the residents of the building are around 1 to 2% of the maximum exposure limit.) The hazardous area then is at the roof level? (Woods - the plans show where the hazardous areas are on the roof level.) -How is someone getting on the roof made aware of the presence of hazardous conditions. (Woods - signage is placed on the door to the rooftop, within the rooftop area and on the equipment enclosure .) Concerned that someone may not pay attention to the signs. (Woods - residents do not have access to the roof for safety reasons. Only the property managers and maintenance personnel are permitted on the roof.) Perhaps a perimeter fence could be placed around the area of hazardous exposure. -Is the generator automated? (Woods - yes, Verizon can set so that it runs during the day to blend in with ambient sound.) The residents need to be aware of the presence of the generator; could create a disturbance when activated periodically. -Is there typically another meeting before moving forward? (Woods - can do so if it is something that the Commission wishes to occur.) Encouraged conducting another informational meeting to provide more information to the residents. Encouraged providing the residents with some of the materials provided to the Commission. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. No action was required of the Commission. The item will appear on the regular action calendar when complete. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/22/2015 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Conditional Use Permit for a new wireless communication facility consisting of five panel antennas and associated equipment at 3155 Frontera Way, Zoned R-1, Eqr Skyline Terrace Lp, P.O. Box 87407 Ledger #29266, Chicago, IL, 60680, property owners, APN: 025-320-210 and 025-320-220; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 26, 2015, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Class 3, consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure, is hereby approved. 2. Said Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use 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 26th day of January, 2015, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit. 3155 Frontera Way Effective February 5, 2015 Page 1 1. that the conditional use permit to install a new wireless communication facility, consisting of five panel antennas, eight radio remote units, an equipment enclosure housing equipment cabinets for the wireless facility, an emergency generator and other associated equipment necessary for the wireless facility and power and fiber lines between the antennas and equipment, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the date of approval. At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year term, the applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community Development Director; 2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 7, 2015, sheets T-1, LS-1 through LS-3 and A-1 through A-7; 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 4. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless Communications); where any conflicts exist between the applicable provisions of that chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall apply; 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 for the Administrative Use Permit; 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 an amendment to the Administrative Use Permit; 6. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the FAA, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless communication facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are made applicable to existing facilities, the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency. Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner’s expense, revocation of any permit or imposition of any other applicable penalty; 7. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted a non- reflective material consistent with the color scheme on the building; 8. that any exterior lighting on the facility shall have a manual on/off switch and be contained on-site; 9. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit. 3155 Frontera Way Effective February 5, 2015 Page 2 10. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant shall provide verification by independent qualified experts that the RF (radio frequency) levels of the facility complies with FCC regulations and with the City noise regulations; 11. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of commencement of the facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the facility’s compliance with federal and state regulations and of the facility’s compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of approval. The applicant shall also provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant and verifiable confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility; 12. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information for the applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for emergency contact; 13. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial assurance, in a form acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that its use is abandoned, its operation is ceased or the approval is terminated; 14. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance and repair does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or change the number, type, dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment; 15. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and repairing the facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development Department; 16. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause, including degradation from wind and weather, shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business days from the time of notification by any person or entity; 17. that backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages or for testing during a set period; 18. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; 19. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit. 3155 Frontera Way Effective February 5, 2015 Page 3 20. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period: (1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed operation; or (2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. 21. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facility is sited shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 Register online for the City of Burlingame list serve at www.burlingame.org PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for installation of a new wireless facility (antennas and equipment) on an existing residential apartment building (Skyline Terrace Apartments) located at 3155 Frontera Way, Burlingame, CA. Applicant: Ashley Woods, agent for Verizon Wireless Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) APN: 025-320-210 and -220 Project Description: The proposed application includes installing five (5) antennas mounted on the exterior walls of an existing stairwell, concealed in stealthed screening panels designed and painted to match the existing building wall (three antennas on the south wall and two antennas on the west wall). The facility will also contain associated equipment in a pre-fabricated equipment enclosure constructed of concrete block wall, located on the ground behind an existing parking area. Power and fiber lines between the antennas and equipment would be installed underground and in a cable tray. A copy of the site plan, floor plans, photo simulations and more detailed information will be available at www.burlingame.org under the Community Development Department’s “Wireless Communications” web page and may also 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. If you have any questions regarding this proposal or the review process, please contact the Planning Division at (650) 558-7250. William Meeker Community Development Director Posted: January 16, 2015 City of Burlingame Hillside Area Construction Permit and Design Review Address: 2940 Dolores Way Meeting Date: January 26, 2015 Request: Hillside Area Construction Permit and Design Review for a major renovation including a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Architect: Johnny Darosa, Darosa & Associates APN: 025-302-280 Property Owner: Sanford Lau Lot Area: 11,748 General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property slopes upward from the street and currently contains a single story house with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The rear yard currently contains an attached trellis and a swimming pool. The applicant is proposing a major renovation to the house including a first floor addition and a new second story. The total proposed floor area is 4,746 SF (0.40 FAR), where 4,859 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum allowed. This total includes foyer area that is counted as two floors as per C.S. 25.08.065(b)(1), which requires that open spaces within a structure that are higher than 12 feet in height be calculated as two floors. The proposal includes demolishing the rear trellis and filling in the existing swimming pool. The proposed addition will increase the number of be drooms from 3 to 4. The existing attached garage is currently non-conforming at only 19 feet wide by 15 feet deep. As part of the proposed renovation, the applicant will increase the garage depth from 15 feet to 20’6”, so the garage will meet the standards for two covered parking spaces. There are two uncovered parking spaces (9’ x 20’) in the driveway leading to the garage. These parking spaces meet the code requirement for on-site parking for a 4-bedroom house. No trees are proposed to be removed with this application. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first floor addition (C.S. 25.61.020); and  Design Review for a second floor addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a)(2)). 2940 Dolores Way Lot Area: 11,748 SF Plans date stamped: January 6, 2015 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 27'-0" 0' No change- 27’-0" 27'-0" 15'-0" (or block average) 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 17’-0" 8'-0" 17'-0" 8'-6" 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 57'-0" 0'-0" No change- 57’-0” 57'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,667 SF 22.7% 2,960 SF 25.9% 4,699 SF 40% Item No. 9c Design Review Study Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2940 Dolores Way -2- EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED FAR: 2,564 SF 0.22 FAR 4,746 SF 0.40 FAR 4,859 SF 0.41 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Parking: 1 covered¹ (19' x 15') 2 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (19' x 20'-6”) 2 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered² (18' x 18' for existing) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.28.075 ¹ Existing, non-conforming condition ² (0.32 x 11,748 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,859 SF (0.41 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division, Parks Division, and Stormwater Division. Catherine Barber Senior Planner c. Johnny Darosa, applicant and architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Photos of neighborhood, date stamped October 21, 2014 Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 16, 2015 Aerial Photo PROJECT LOCATION 1217 Burlingame Avenue Item No. 9d Design Review Study City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review Address: 1217 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: January 26, 2015 Request: Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront. Applicant and Designer: Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, designer APN: 029-204-040 Property Owner: Green Banker LLC Lot Area: 4,050 SF General Plan: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Zoning: BAC Current Use: L’Escape Spa, personal service use (spa and massage) Proposed Use: Heavenly Couture, retail clothing store Allowable Use: Retail apparel is a permitted use. Summary: The applicant is proposing to replace an existing personal service business, L’Escape Spa (spa and massage) with a new retail apparel business, Heavenly Couture, at 1217 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC. This application includes changes to the exterior facade of the commercial storefront along Burlingame Avenue, which measures 9’-4” in width. The existing wood door, wood framed bay window and tile above and below the bay window would be removed; the existing wood trim above and below the clerestory windows would remain. The applicant is proposing to install a new polished white metal framed storefront window and door system and to replace the existing wood framed clerestory windows with new metal framed clerestory windows. The entry to the space would be recessed to match in the same way as the existing front entry. Retail uses located on the first floor within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan shall be exempt from providing off-street parking (CS 25.70.090 (a)). Therefore, no additional off-street parking is required for the proposed retail apparel business. The following application is required:  Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront in the BAC Zoning District (CS 25.32.045). Staff comments: See attached memos from the Building, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and designer Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s Letters of Explanation, dated December 9, 2014 Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed January 16, 2015 Aerial Photo Item No. 9d Design Review Study