Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout535 Almer Road - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Condominium Permit Item # 7a Action Item Address: 535 Almer Road Meeting Date: 11/25/02 Request: Application for condominium permit for a new three (3) story, four (4) unit residential condominium project. Applicant and Property Owner: Manoochehr Javaherian Designer: Glush Design Associates Lot Area: 9,140 SF General Plan: High Density, Multi -family Residential Adjacent Development: Multi -family Residential Section: 15303 - New Construction or conversion of small structures, Class 3(b), construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (b) a duplex or similar multi -family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. Existing Use: Two-story single family dwelling. Proposed Use: New 3-story, 4-unit residential condominium. APN: 029-111-060 Zoning: R-3 Project Description: The applicant, Manoochehr Javaherian, is requesting a condominium permit for the construction of a new three (3) story, four (4) unit residential condominium. The existing single family dwelling currently on the site will be demolished in order to build the proposed four -unit condominium. Three, three - bedroom units and one, four -bedroom unit will be located on the first, second and third floors over below -grade parking. The site will be excavated to accommodate the enclosed below -grade parking garage. The first floor contains two, three -bedroom units (third bedroom for Unit 1 is located on the second floor). The second and third floors each contain one unit which are larger in size. The building will have stucco siding and a tile roof. Gas and electric meters will be located at the front left corner of the building. The water meter (underground) and fire valve connection will be located towards the center of the lot in front of the proposed building. Location of these utilities are shown on the site plan (sheet A2). The applicant is requesting the following applications: • Condominium Permit for construction of a new 3-story, 4-unit residential condominium (CS 26.30.020); The proposed project complies with all setback requirements. The R-3 District Regulations allow below -grade garages to extend into the required setback only if the uppermost portion of the garage does not extend above natural grade. The existing grade along the east side property line slopes down approximately 2'-5" from the rear to the front corner of the lot. The east wall of the garage will remain below grade. The columns adjacent to the east wall of the garage (shown on sheet A.3) are set back an additional 2'-0" to comply with the 7'-0" side setback requirement. The applicant is proposing to install a wrought iron grate over the opening between the garage wall and the first floor wall (shown on Site Plan, Cross Section B-B and Building Elevations). The iron grate will extend a maximum of 10 inches above grade (12 inches allowed). Planning staff would note that the proposed condominium complies with the 35' building height review line. The rotunda at the front right corner of the building encloses a stairway which provides access to each floor. Because the rotunda also provides access to the roof, it is considered rooftop equipment. The zoning code allows an exception for rooftop equipment which exceeds the 35' height limit as long as the area does not exceed 5% of the roof area and is not more than 10' above top of parapet. The rotunda falls within this exception (4% roof area, 2'- 9" above top of parapet proposed). Based on the number of bedrooms per unit (2.5 parking spaces per unit are required), a total of 10 on -site parking spaces must be provided. Of the required parking, one guest parking stall has been designated. Of the required Condominium Permit 535 Almer Road parking spaces, 80% or 8 spaces must be covered. With this project, all of the 10 parking spaces will be provided in the below -grade garage (8 standard, 1 guest space and 1 disabled accessible space). One substandard extra parking space is provided along the left wall of the underground garage (8' wide x 20' deep). A 24'-0" clear back-up aisle is provided for all parking spaces. A vehicle is capable of exiting the site in three maneuvers or less from all designated parking spaces. There is a total of 1,595 SF (399 SF/unit) of common open space proposed for the condominium project where 400 SF (100 SF/unit) is required. Of the required common open space, 100% is proposed to be landscaped. There is 175-336 SF in private open space per unit (75 SF/unit is the minimum required) provided in balconies and at -grade patios. The applicant is proposing 60% (713 SF) landscaping in the front yard where 60% is the minimum required. The applicant provided a Landscape Plan (Sheet L-1) indicating proposed landscaping on the site. Currently, there are three existing trees on the site: a 32-inch diameter black acacia and a 49-inch diameter oak at the rear of the site and an 8-inch diameter tree towards the front of the site. The existing 32-inch Acacia and 8-inch tree will be removed. In addition to existing tree to remain, the landscape plan indicates that there will be nine new 24" box size trees provided on the site. A minimum of four landscape trees are required by the Reforestation ordinance (one tree for every 2,000 SF of lot coverage). The City Arborist notes in his October 2, 2002, memo that the arborist's report on the oak tree, dated February 26, 1999 (submitted for the original project in 1999) appears to be accurate and that there will be no impact to the oak tree as long as the guidelines are met. The City Arborist is requiring an additional arborist's report to address tree protection guidelines such as providing construction fencing around the oak tree. Since the project includes new construction of no more than four units, this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Continued Action from November 12, 2002 Action Meeting: At the November 12, 2002 action meeting, the Planning Commission noted that the proposed 18% driveway slope and the 9 and 10-foot plate heights were acceptable and that the project had a nice design and was an improvement over the previous project (November 12, 2002 P.C. Minutes). The Commission expressed a concern with the request for a side setback variance, noting that there are no exceptional circumstances or hardships on this property to justify a variance. The Commission continued this item and directed the applicant to consider options to eliminate the side setback variance. The applicant followed the direction given by the Commission and eliminated the side setback variance created by a portion of the underground garage rising above grade. The applicant submitted revised plans and two sections (8 %2" x 11"), dated stamped November 18, 2002, showing the columns along the left wall of the garage moved in an additional two feet to comply with the 7'-0" side setback requirement. The garage wall is still located 5'-0" from the side property line, but this wall is totally below grade and therefore may encroach into the side setback without creating a side setback variance. Details 1 and 2 (81/4" x 11"), show a cross section of the proposed garage wall, relocated column and wrought iron grate at two locations (see section points on site plan and garage plan). The details show that the columns will be located 2'-0" in from the underground garage wall. The wrought iron grate will slope up a maximum of 10 inches above grade. The applicant noted that the wrought iron grate will not be visible from the street since it is located behind the proposed wooden fence. Relocating the columns affected two parking spaces, the two extra parking spaces not required by code. Parking space #3 was replaced by two 7' x 9' storage rooms. The second extra space (space #4) is now a substandard parking space (8' wide x 20' deep). A total of 10 code compliant parking spaces are provided where 10 are required for this project, one of these is designated for guest parking. 2 Condominium Permit 535 Almer Road At the action meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed 18% driveway slope. The City Planner noted that a variance for 18% driveway slope is not required. The code allows a driveway slope of up to 15%, 15-20% slope requires review by the City Engineer and over 20% slope requires approval by the Planning Commission. The Senior Engineer noted that he did not oppose the 18% slope as long as there is a useable vertical curb. The revised garage plan notes that a useable vertical curve is provided at the 18% slope. A letter, dated November 12, 2002, was submitted by Mr. Sorenson at 525 Almer Road. In his letter, he notes that he is not opposed to the project, but would like to see two conditions added: that a fence be built along the south property line and that the existing Black Acacia tree be removed. John Bauer and Donald Larking, 525 Almer Road, spoke at the action meeting and noted that they would like to see a condition added that the applicant regularly trim the Oak Tree which extends onto their property. Planning staff would note that a condition has been added regarding the fence. The Planning Commission may add a condition requiring the removal of the Black Acacia tree and/or trimming of the Oak Tree, but generally these condition are not added as part of the project. Table 1 • 535 Almer Road Proiect Data Current Application 4 Units (11/25/02) Previous Approval 7 Units (11/13/00) Allowed/Required Front Setback: First: 16'-1" 16'-1" 16'-1" Second: 16'-1" 16'-1" (block average) Third: 16'-1" 16'-1" Side Setback (L): Garage: 7'-0" n/a 7'-0" First: 7'-0" 8'-0" 7'-0" Second: 9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" Third: 9'-0" 10'-0" 9'-0" 10'-0" (4th floor) Side Setback (R): First: 8'-0" 10'-2" 7'-0" Second: 101-0" 10'-2" 8'-0" Third: 10'-0" 10'-2" 9'-0" 10'-2" (4th floor) Rear Setback: First: 18'-10" 15'-0" 15'-0" Second: 20'-4" 15'-0" 15'-0" Third: 20'-4" 20'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 49.9% (4,568 SF) 49.9% (4,569 SF) 50% (4,570 SF) Height: 35'-0" 35'-0" 35'-0" Parking: 10 spaces 18 + 2 tandem 10 spaces 100% covered (14 required) 80% must be covered 100% covered Guest Parking: 1 guest space 5 guest spaces 1 guest space Total On -Site Parking: 10 spaces 20 (18 + 2 tandem) 10 spaces 3 Condominium Permit 535 Almer Road Current Application 4 Units (11/25/02) Previous Approval 7 Units (11/13/00) Allowed/Required Driveway Slope: 18%' 15% 15% Front Setback Landscaping: 60% (713 SF) 64% (748 SF) 60% (713 SF) Private Open Space: 175 — 336 SF 75 — 298 SF 75 SF Common Open Space: 1,595 SF 1,110 SF 400 SF 1 18% driveway slope approved by Public Works. History: On June 7, 1999, the City Council approved a mitigated negative declaration and condominium permit for a four-story, 7-unit residential condominium project at this site (June 7, 1999 C.C. Minutes). On November 13, 2000, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the approved mitigated negative declaration and condominium permit which included a reduction in the number of residential units from 7 to 6, revisions to balconies and to the size and placement of windows (November 13, 2000 P.C. Minutes). The approved project was never built. The applicant notes in his letter, dated October 15, 2002, that there are many unresolved issues with building a 6-unit building on this site. These issues include high construction costs for the two -level subterranean parking facility and use of steel frames throughout most of the structure, possible future problems associated with portions of the underground parking structure extending to the property line, and less than desirable 8-foot ceiling height limitation necessary to maintain a 4-story layout at the front portion of the building. To address these concerns, the applicant has developed a new project with fewer units. The applicant is now submitting a new application for a proposed 3-story, 4-unit residential condominium. Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that extensions of up to one foot in the side setback have been allowed in the past without a variance so long as no visual obstruction is created. However, it is important to insure that basement grading elevations are correct so that the structure does not rise above the elevations shown. The one foot has been used in the past to address minor variations which occur during construction. Criteria for Permitting a Residential Condominium: The criteria for permitting a residential condominium are based on three City Council actions: P.C. Resolution 7-79 addressing open space requirements; P.C. Resolution 5-80 with findings addressing development standards, and Ord. 1015 establishing condominium subdivision regulations. The intent of these actions is outlined as follows: a) a new condominium project shall conform to all applicable zoning regulations and General Plan; b) review of a condominium project shall include its effect on sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community, and public health, safety and welfare; including but not limited to impact on schools, parks, public utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking, and other community facilities and resources; and c) the condominium project shall have a legal Tentative Map filed with the City Engineer prior to approval. 4 Condominium Permit 535 Almer Road Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action on the condominium permit should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. A tentative condominium map has also been submitted in order to create the parcel for the condominiums. The tentative and final parcel map is being processed concurrently with the planning application. While the map should be included for consideration in the public hearing, action on the map should be taken separately and should be a recommendation. 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 Department date stamped October 15, 2002, sheets A.1, A.5 through A.7 and C-1 (Boundary and Topographic Survey), date stamped November 1, 2002, sheet L-1, and date stamped November 18, 2002, sheets A2, A2a, A.3, A.4, and A8; with 1,595 SF of common open space and a 16'-1" front setback; and that the landscaping, including trees, shrubs, ground cover and vines shall be planted as shown on the revised Landscape Plans (sheet L-1), date stamped November 1, 2002; 2. that a wooden fence, with a maximum height of 7'-0" above highest adjacent grade (6' solid with 1' of lattice), shall be installed along the south property line (rear property line between 535 and 525 Almer Road); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 6 and October 23, 2002 memos, the Chief Building Official's September 9, 2002 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 9, 2002 memo, the City Arborist's October 2, 2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's September 9, 2002 memo shall be met; 5. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 67.66' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Almer Road (32.66') for a maximum height of 35'- 0", and that the rotunda at the front of the building which rooftop access shall have a maximum elevation of 72.33', or 39'-8" from average top of curb, and that the rotunda shall not exceed 5% of the rooftop area; 6. that the finished grading of the garage floor, the finished slab of the garage floor, the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the construction and framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage finish grade shall be 25.25', the garage floor finished floor shall be elevation 26.41'; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 35.24'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 45.24'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 55.24; and the top of ridge elevation shall be 67.66'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that incursion into the side setback for the basement vent grate and the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 7. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 8. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 5 Condominium Permit 535 Almer Road 9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 10. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 11. that the applicant shall receive a Tree Removal Permit from the City before removing the existing 32- inch diameter Black Acacia tree at the rear of the lot, and that a building permit shall not be issued before such permits are issued; 12. that the amount of impervious surfaced area within the dripline of the existing oak tree in the adjacent common and private open space shall be determined by an arborist's report and approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit and the root zone of the tree shall be protected during construction based on an arborist's report as approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector; and the paving of impervious surface in the rear common and adjacent private open space shall be not expanded without an amendment to this condominium permit; 13. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 14. that an irrigation plan consistent with the City's water conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit; 15. that the underground parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and that no portion of any parking area and/or egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities, there shall be no storage of automobiles, boats or recreational vehicles within assigned or guest parking stalls; and that the none of the parking spaces shall be rented, leased or sold; 16. that the guest parking shall not be assigned to any unit and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association for the use of all visitors to the site; and that `guest parking stall' shall be marked on the guest parking space and shall be located in a code compliant parking stall; 17. that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association; 18. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 19. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 6 Condominium Permit 535 Almer Road 20. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 21. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 22. that the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 23. that the design of the new building shall incorporate the seismic standards of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition; 24. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame for structural stability; 25. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 26. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on - site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 27. that off -site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on -site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 28. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 29. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off -site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 30. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 7 Condominium Permit 535 Almer Road 31. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 32. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 33. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs, shall be routed through buffer strips where possible and shall be filtered through fossil filters or other petroleum absorbent system inserted into stormwater inlets prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all filters on at least a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 — April 1) or as required by the City upon inspection; 34. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 35. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 36. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 37. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 38. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA; 39. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer's expense if necessary; 40. that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 41. that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 42. that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 43. that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to Almer Road; 44. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; 8 Condominium Permit 535 Abner Road 45. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; and 46. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance. Ruben Hurin Planner c: Manoochehr Javaherian, applicant Glush Dada, Glush Design Associates, designer 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 12, 2002 7. 535 ALMER ROAD — ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, FOUR -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GLUSH DESIGN ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (103 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCES B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report November 12, 2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Forty-five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked the Public Works department representative, Senior Engineer Phil Monaghan, if the applicant submitted written analysis regarding the 15% driveway slope verses the 18% slope, and does Public Works object to an 18% slope. Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan noted information on the slope of the driveway was submitted with the variance application, reducing it to 15% would require that the building be moved back on the lot, do not oppose 18% slope as long as there is a usable vertical curve. Code states up to 15% slope is o.k., between 15-20% needs review by City Engineer and over 20% slope need Planning Commission approval. Commissioner asked if this requirement is related to allowing access for emergency vehicles. Senior Engineer Phil Monaghan stated that is it not for emergency vehicle access, but to allow vehicle access into and from the garage without bottoming out. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. G'lush Dada, project designer, noted that this project was reduced from 6 to 4 units, in the process some of the bulk has been reduced. Commission asked why the number of units was reduced, was it because the cost of providing sub -grade parking for six units, because the shell of the building appears to be the same. Project designer explained that the changes to the project were due to construction cost, but also market demand changed to higher end units. Commissioner asked why applicant could not provide a 15% driveway slope and what would happen to design if project met the 15% driveway slope. Designer noted that there is a 5% transition slope from the curb, then 18% to another transition slope, the first parking space is a disabled accessible space which requires an 8 foot height clearance, need the 18% slope to meet the height requirement for that first space. Meeting the 15% slope would result in the loss of two extra parking spaces; can not move the building back because of the oak tree, the parking space maneuvering would be too tight. Commission expressed concern with the side setback variance, what is the hardship, seems easy enough to remedy this situation by reducing the width of the two extra parking spaces provided, since they are extra they are not required to meet the code required parking dimensions. Designer noted that the side setback variance is for underground encroachment, would rather have a side setback variance than a parking variance for 9 foot wide spaces, would have trouble opening and exiting the car with narrower parking space width. Commissioner asked why there is a need for 12 parking spaces, why not use the extra space for storage. Designer noted that because of the size of the units there has been sufficient storage supplied inside the units, guest parking is always a problem so they decided to provide two extra spaces on -site. Commissioner expressed concern with 9 foot plate height on first and second floors and 10 foot plate height on third floor, couldn't design work with 8 foot plate heights, bulk needs to be reduced. Designer explained that the third floor is going to be the owners unit and change in plate height would not be proportionate to interior room size and design, and noted that there is not a 9 foot plate height through out the unit, only in family room and main living areas, bedroom plate height drops down. John Bauer and Donald Larking, 525 Almer Road, had the following comments on the project: worked with the neighbors on this project, has gone from 8 to 6 to 4 units; concerned with Black Acacia at the rear of the lot, would like to see it removed; would like a condition added to the approval that a wooden fence be 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 12, 2002 constructed between 525 and 535 Almer Road; would like condition added that the Oak tree that extends over the property line and hangs over at the roof of 525 Almer be trimmed regularly; o.k. with 9 foot ceiling height on all floors; no complaints on bulk; this building will add value to the area; applicant did excellent job; there is a lack of adequate on -street parking in this area, support providing extra parking on -site, not less; project will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. CP Monroe noted a variance is not required for driveway slope between 15 and 20%, over 20% require a variance and is not an issue here since the maximum slope proposed is 18%. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the forty-five conditions listed, support the project because the mass and bulk have improved over the last approval, project has more interest along the streetscape, doesn't want parking to shrink so side setback variance is supported based on the preservation of the oak tree and the extra parking. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Discussion on the motion: nice design; improvement over previous approval; do not see the hardship to justify the variance; no exceptional circumstances for the variances, this is not a remodel, it is new construction with no limitations, need to comply with the code; only minor adjustments are needed to comply with the side setback requirement and the driveway slope, without changing the project much; do not want to set a precedent with this variance since this is a good sized flat lot, easy to move wall in 2 feet without major impact on parking; would like to see plate height reduced, no need for large plate heights, will not affect design; o.k. with driveway slope proposed and plate height, creates sense of openness inside; volume of variance requested is small, only wrought iron grill in side yard, this is a trade off for the parking; would like to add condition of approval that fence be constructed between 525 and 535 Almer Road. CA Anderson asked if the Commission wanted to add two conditions to required that a wooden fence be placed on the property line between 525 and 535 Almer Road and that an arborist report be prepared to address protection of the oak tree during the construction and its maintenance following construction. The report should be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist before issuance of the building permit, the maker and second of the motion agreed. Chair Keighran called for a roll call on the motion to approve. The motion failed on a 4-3 (Cers. Bojues, Keighran, Keele, and Vistica dissenting). C. Vistica moved to continue this item to have the applicant look at options to eliminate the side setback variance. The motion was seconded by Chair Keighran. Comment on the motion: driveway slope at 18% o.k.; plate height o.k.. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Since there was no action take, this action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:49 p.m. 8. 18 L CAMINO AL, #180 — ZONED -1- APPLICATION F ' CONDITIONAL U ` PERMIT R REAL EST AND FINANCIA INSTITUTION US - (MARY J. WONG • ' PLICANT; BURLINGAME ROFESSIONAL B LDING, PROPER OWNER) (15 NOT ED) PROJECT PLANNER: BEN HURIN Referen staff report Novemb 12, 2002, with atta ents. CP Monroe presented the report, r -sewed crite ' and Planning Dep rtment comments. Six conditions were ggested for con 'deration. Co issioners noted th a is no parking r quired but what if the applicant has 60 -mployees? ommissioner asked C. Attorney if we are . lowed to regulated the n ber of employees CA Anderson 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA October 28, 2002 Council Chambers III. MINU IV. PPROVAL OF Chair Ke Co an called the sion to order at 7• esent: Commis Vistica Absent: 0 ber 28, 2002, regular meet 0 p.m. ners Auran, Bojues, Kei g of the Planning an, Keele, Osterling and mmissioners: Brownrigg ived at 7:05 p.m.) Staf resent: City Planner, Mar . et Monroe; Planner, Rube ' urin; City A orney, Larry Anderson; Sen Engineer, Phil Monagha The minutes of the Octo er 15, 2002 regular mee ng of the Planning Commission were appred as mailed. GENDA There were no cha ges to the agenda. V. FROM THE LOOR There were n VI. STUDY EMS public comments. 1. 535 ALMER ROAD — ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, FOUR -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MANOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GLUSH DESIGN ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioner Brownrigg arrived at 7:05 p.m. Commissioners asked for the following items to be addressed: • Project includes two more parking spaces than the 10 required, since those do not need to comply with city dimensions, can the columns be redesigned or shaped to eliminate the parking variance for the remaining 2 parking spaces; • there needs to be more detail on the elevation to explain the materials and detail on the building including trim, windows, etc.; • plans show retention of both the Black Acacia and Oak, would prefer the Acacia be removed to improve the environment for the Oak tree which should be retained, protected and maintained; • would like the shrubs on the left side changed to a species which will grow to a height of 15 feet to 20 feet, if not taller; • would like a front elevation which shows how the building will look when the landscaping is five years old; • The slope on the driveway should be made to conform to the 15% maximum allowed without review; and • Since height is an issue, would like to see reduced -sized plans for the previous application. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. NATLSQA1_ 1e4213U4HT I 120\I GRADE —LP 77<\ `jPj,�''�j,� 1 dp . ►•D20( WuN1D C c c) • • 4 DET,is,1 EP cs:=1j C.12Er� RECEIVED NOV 1 8 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. w, -FOE_ otQbEYZ_ J3OND cr RY-t t__&- rj r, • 0 . to • •c 1 W/Yry_V•y ED Fa y -iNc ae-cZEt c.-'i- bota • " • b S:DETTANI RECEIVED NOV 1 8 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 525 Almer Road, Apt. # 110 Burlingame CA 94010 Telephone (650) 343-5378 Hon* 7 /1/1Z/02 535 Al v /zoopi COMMUNICATION RECEIV5.0 AFTER PREPARATION OF $TAFF REPORT. Henry H. Sorensen Fax (650) 343-8472 November 12, 2002 Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 RECEIVED NOV - 8 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Ladies and Gentlemen: Subject: 535 Almer Road This letter is being written in response to the Public Hearing Notice regarding the subject property, informing me that a hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 12, 2002 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers. This project has been before this Commission several times in the past, in various forms, the latest time was at the Commission's meeting on November 13, 2000--a copy of the minutes of that meeting is enclosed. First let me say that I am not opposed to the issuance of a condominium permit, side setback and parking variances for a new, three-story, four -unit residential condominium by Manoochehr Javaherian, applicant and property owner. After all, the request is for a reduction in the number of units from six to four and should further alliviate some of the concerns this Commission had when they rejected a previous application from the same applicant on April 26, 1999. But , I do have two concerns about this project that I feel should be addressed by this Commission. My first concern is that the new landscape plan received by your department on Ocober 15, 2002 does not show that a new fence along the southern property line will be included. I would like to see a condition added that the owner be required to build a six - foot "good -neighbor" fence with an additional one -foot of lattice on the top along the South property line, similar to the fence built by the developer of 530 El Camino Real. My other concern is that the plans do not require the removal of the large, diseased, Black Acacia on the South property line. The landscape plan does indicate that the owner's 'current' intention is to remove this tree but I feel that a condition for its removal be included in any condominium permit approval, inasmuch as this tree has grossly encroached on our property for years --as shown in the enclosed photo taken from an adjoining property on November 6, 2000. I feel that both of these concerns can easily be addressed with a condition being added to the approval Thank you for your interest in my concerns about this project. Sincerely yours, enry H. rensen cc: All Planning Commissioners Mr. Larry Anderson. City Attorney Copy of Minutes of Planning Commission of 11/13/2000 Copy of photo of Black Acacia taken 11-6-2000 Picture of Black Acacia taken on November 6, .2000 from Arbor area of 530 El Camino Real showing, tree encroachment and West wall of our building at 525 Almer Road. UNAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 13, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the November 13, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 27, 2000 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with a correction to page 9, at the end of paragraph 1, add "The motion was seconded by C. Osterling". IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved with the following changes: Item 11 - 1443 Howard Avenue and Item 13 - 800 Airport Boulevard were both continued to the November 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. V. FROM THE FLOOR Henry Sorenson, 525 Almer Road, asked that the project at 535 Almer Road be called off the consent calendar and a public hearing held. There were no further comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1360 BROADWAY - ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRY CLEANING PROCESSING PLANT (GUNADI KISMOHANDAKA, APPLICANT; JAMES AND STELLA WU, TRS AND VICTOR S. WU, PRfPF.RTY (1WNF.RR) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commissioners asked: is the applicant was expecting to make any exterior improvements to the building, if so what; will the applicant be asking for a sign exception; will cleaning be brought from other business sites or dry cleaning agencies to be processed at this location; do they have any idea what they might do to the exterior. There were no further questions and the item was set for the November 27 action calendar providing the information requested is submitted to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. 1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minute November 13, 2000 2. 1243 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A CLASSROOM USE (TRAFFIC SCHOOL) (ROCKY COLOGNE, ROCKY COLOGNE'S COMEDY TRAFFIC SCHOOLS, APPT.TCANT: PT -ITT .T.TP T-T SHAMTT.TAN PT AT, PR()PPRTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commissioners asked: the summary of the findings of the Parking District Parking Study did not address parking availability in the evening hours, please add; they expect to increase the number of employees from 1 to 5 in five years, is this correct;. on which two evenings each week will they have classes; if there is to be such an increase in employees in 5, years will the number of classes at this site also increase, if so by how many; do not see the exceptional circumstances relating to the property for the parking variance, response to item A of the findings is not adequate; if class size is 11 and will have 5 employees in future will the size of the classes be limited, explain. This item was set for the action calendar on November 27, providing all the information requested is submitted to the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 3. 1155 CALIFORNIA DRIVE - ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION. FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TANNING FACILITY (JOANNA CORKERY, APPLICANT; MANSA CONSTRUCTION COP POR ATTfN, PR OPFR TY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioners asked: how can one employee manage three tanning areas and a skin care area at once, explain; parking provided on site, cannot see detriment, would ask that this item be placed on the consent calendar for the November 27 meeting. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. 4. 1550 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED C-4 - APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCES, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FOUR-STORY, 130-ROOM HOTEL (PIETRO PARTNERS, APPT.TC:ANT; RAYSHORP. HOT.T)TNGS, PR()PPRTY f1WNP.R) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commissioners asked: page 1 of the plans shows ten feet between the curb and property line, does this mean that the side walk in this area will be 10 feet wide; if there are any notes from the subcommittee meeting on this project could they be included in the next packet; provide detail on site drainage, has bio-swale filtration been included, if not how is drainage handled to address into the bay and possible pollution; want to compliment the applicant this is a good application and he has been responsive; do not see any substantial detrimental effects, is not possible to design within all the Bayfront Design Guidelines, so would ask that this item be placed on the consent calendar; would like applicant to take another look at the tree species selected to be sure that they are adaptable to that environment and will withstand the wind, if necessary now is the time to change; applicant listened to our suggestions, moved the building to the front of the site; subcommittee wanted landscaping that looks like it belongs on the bayfront doesn't want it to feel like a park. Chairman Luzuriaga directed that this item be set on the consent calendar for the November 27 meeting providing that all the information requested can be provided. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 5. 1390 ROLLINS ROAD - ZONED M-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AT ITC) RAT PS (RR ANT)ON T.AWRPNCFS APPT.TCANT; F.RTC T.TTNT)QTTEST, PR()PPRTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the staff report. The Commission asked: does the California Building Code require a fire rated separation between the auto display area and the repair shop area; the applicant should be made aware of the 2 City ofBurlingame Planning Commission U ;roved Minute November 13, 2000 C. Osterling moved that this item be placed on the consent calendar for the next meeting, the addition is being placed at the location of the lowest existing roof so it will have the least possible effect on the height of the house and the depth of the uncovered parking space is an existing condition which is not changed by the proposed addition to the house. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the calendar at the next meeting. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS — Review of City Council regular meeting of November 6, 2000. CP Monroe summarized the actions related to the Planning Commission at the November 6,2000 meeting. C. Deal asked if staff had a list of some changes to the zoning code which the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee had discussed at their last meeting and also those that have been identified from recent Planning Commission actions. Staffnoted that there was a list begun and that it was probably time to consider doing another omnibus zoning code update, it has been two years. If C. Deal could pass on his list staff will put something together for commission review early in 2001. M. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Luzuriaga at 10:45 p.m. UNAPPRO V ED MINUTES 11.8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minute November 13, 2000 city's signage requirements. This item was set for the consent calendar at the November 27 meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department on time. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 6. 535 ALMER ROAD - ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chairman Luzuriaga moved the application for 535 Almer Road, item 6, from the consent calendar to the regular action calendar at the request of an adjacent property owner. No other items remained on the consent calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 6. 535 ALMER ROAD - ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FROM 7 TO 6 UNITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNRR; KAMR AN PHCANTP(1TER, APCHTTFCT) A. AMENDMENT TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report, 11.13.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty-nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Kamran Ehsanipour, 205 Park Road, Suite 207, Burlingame, architect for the project, was available for questions. Henry Sorenson, 525 Almer Road, noted that he is not opposed to the changes in the project, the number of units is reduced from seven to six, but has two concerns; the plans do not show a fence along the south property line adjacent to his property which was promised with the previous project, would like to see a condition added that the developer be required to build a six foot high good neighbor fence with an additional one foot of lattice along this property line; the other concern is with the Black Acacia tree located on property line, intention of the applicant is to have the tree removed, would like to at least see the acacia cut back to the property line because it overhangs his property is messy and affects roof, the tree removal permit was issued but has expired do not know if it will be renewed; would like a condition added that the tree be trimmed to the property line. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minute November 13, 2000 Mr. Ehsanipour responded that the tree is right on the border, it may not be feasible to trim at this time, it might kill the tree, intends to remove the tree at a later date, but is willing to include required trimming as a condition of approval subject to an arborist's review and recommendation regarding type of trimming. Commissioners asked how close the tree is to the property line. The applicant responded that it is right on the border, the trunk probably crosses the property line. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: would like to add a condition that a fence be required along the south property line, six feet high with an additional one foot of lattice; tree is on the property line, cannot just trim it to the property line, would rather see it go back through the Parks and Recreation Department for a tree removal permit and have it removed. C. Deal moved to approve the amended negative declaration and condominium permit application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 18, 2000, Sheets A-01, A-02, and A 1 through A-16, including building materials and exterior finishes; 2) that the amount of impervious surfaced area within the dripline of the oak tree in the adjacent common and private open space shall be determined by an arborist's report and approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit and the root zone of the tree shall be protected during construction based on an arborist's report as approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector; and the paving of impervious surface in the rear common and adjacent private open space shall be not expanded without an amendment to this condominium permit; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that a six foot high solid board fence with an additional one foot of lattice shall be required along the south property line; 5) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area and any increase in the lot area and/or floor area shall require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 27, October 14, and October 2, 2000 memos and the March 15 and March 25,1999 memos, the Fire Marshal's February 22, 1999 memo, and the Senior Landscape Inspector's March 10, 1999 memos shall be met; 7) that the underground parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and that no portion of any parking area and/or egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities, there shall be no storage of automobiles, boats or recreational vehicles within assigned or guest parking stalls; 8) that storage units shall be installed as shown and no storage areas shall extend into the required parking spaces; 9) that the guest parking shall not be assigned to any unit and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association for the use of all visitors to the site except that tenant parking shall be allowed within designated guest parking spaces between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. as enforced by the homeowners association in the five guest parking spaces provided on -site; 10) that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association; 11) that a security gate system installed across the driveway shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the garage by pushing a button inside their units; 12) that the furnaces and water heaters for each unit shall be located in the mechanical/laundry room as shown on sheets A-7, A-8, A-9 and A-10 and all such facilities shall be in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 13) that the trash enclosure shall be located at the front of the building as shown on sheet A-7 in a dimension large enough to accommodate recycling bins; 14) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 15) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the Board of Directors of the 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minute November 13, 2000 condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees for all appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture;16) that the applicant shall receive a Tree Removal Permit from the City before removing either one or both of the 49" oak and the 32" black acacia trees, that a building permit shall not be issued before such permits are issued, and that if both trees are removed the Planning Commission shall review the revised landscape plans for the common open space; 17) that the design of the new building shall incorporate the seismic standards of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition; 18) that the project shall be. required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 19) that all drainage on site will be required to be collected and pumped to Almer Road; 20) that the developer shall pay a proportional share based on his lot area for the installation of an 8" minimum ground water pump line on Almer Road to the storm drainage system on Almer Road and Bellevue Avenue (required to be installed by the developer at 530 El Camino Real). If the developer does not install the new line he will be required to pay for the development's portion of the installation cost. The City Engineer determined that the development fee shall be $6,000.00 for the storm ground water line proposed on Almer Road as adjusted annually using the cost index of the Engineering News Record (fee based on a 4.5% share of the Engineer's estimate prepared by MacLeod and Associates). If the City Engineer determines that the pipe will not be installed at the time of development, the developer will make a cash deposit to the City for a portion of the estimated cost prior to issuance of a building permit for his construction. The City will use this deposit at the time of the pipe installation for this /development's share of the cost; 21) that this project shall comply with the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 22) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 23) that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application; 24) that an irrigation plan consistent with the City's water conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit; 25) that an arborist's report showing how the street trees and the existing 32" diameter black acacia and 49" oak will be protected during construction, to be approved by the Parks Department, shall be prepared and implemented; 26) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 27) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Burlingame Municipal Code; 28) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA; 29) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities; 30) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 31) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 32) that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site will be required to be collected and pumped to Almer Road; 33) that approvals will be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators must be so housed that they meet the City's noise requirement; 34) that the sump pump for the underground garage will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system and that the drainage grate for the driveway shall go to the storm drain system; 35) that all on -site drainage inlets or the sump pump basin for the underground garage shall provide a petroleum absorbent system for treating all drainage flows from the automobile parking area; 36) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 37) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minute November 13, 2000 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 38) that this project shall not exceed 35'-0" (67'-5%z") in height as measured from average top of curb (32'-5%z") at the front of the property and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 39) that all utilities to this site shall be required to be installed underground; any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; and 40) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City, and recommend to City Council approval of the Tentative Condominium Map. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. There was no comment on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the negative declaration and condominium permit and recommend approval to City Council of the Tentative Condominium map and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advied. The item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 7. 832 FAIRFIELD ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION (TODD VARLAND AND AMY WELCH, APPLICANTS AND PRC)PPRTY Mk/NPR SITAR C)N WTT.RC)N, DPSICTNFR) Reference staff report, 11.13.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the family room was counted as a bedroom. Staff noted that it was not counted as a bedroom because there is a stairway which is open to the room. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Todd Varland, 832 Fairfield, applicant, noted that at the last meeting, they were asked to address three items, the deck has been reduced in size and made more compatible with the style of the house, the downstairs shower has been removed and bathroom size reduced, they removed the bathroom on the first floor and relocated the laundry room there. Commission noted that the building code does not allow a garage to open up directly to a room which is used for sleeping purposes, there are three options, can eliminate the door from the garage to the family room, provide a corridor, or add a condition which requires that this room not be used for sleeping purposes. A member of the audience asked how much the height of the building will increase. The applicant noted that there will be no increase in height.. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: regarding the floor area ratio variance, the basement is existing, cannot tell the applicant to eliminate it; proposal is similar to others on the block, have responded to all concerns raised by the commission, would like conditions added that if the house is ever demolished, the floor area ratio variance goes away, and that the family room cannot be used for sleeping purposes. C. Keighran moved to approve the project, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 26, 2000, sheets A.1 - A.4, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or 6 G'LOSH DESIGN ASSOCIATES Residential & Commercial Building Design City of Burlingame Planning Department. 1399 Rollins Road Burlingame, California, 94010 Attn: Ruben Hurin, Planner Re: New Condominiums, 535 Almer Road, Burlingame RECEIVED NOV - 1 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, NOV./1/2002 Response to the comments : (Refer to comments letter dated Oct./29/2002) • Regarding parking- correction done on A.3 • Regarding more info.- detail and material information added, see A.B. • Re. black Acacia and Oak,- see landscape plan. • Re. shrubs- info. Added by landscape architect. • Re. front elevation in future- landscape architect provided colored front elevation. • Re. driveway slope- we already explained, why we are keeping 18% slope on variance application. • Re. previous application- info provided by owner. • Re. bathroom in backyard- due to easy access to only 4 units, we prefer not to provide. Respectfully. Fred dabir Glush Design Associates 6572 NORTHRIDGE DR. • SAN JOSE, CA 95120 • Tel: (408) 268-1665 • FAX: (408) 268-2022 HAD/JAMS SIMILAR RECESSED INI NDOIN WOOD TRIM RECEIVED NOV - 1 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. NEW CONDOMINIUMS 535 ALMER ROAD OWNER:INAN000HER JAVAHERIAN BURLINGAME, CA NOV - 1 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. THIS WAS PREPARED FROM A SKETCH PROVIDED BY GLUSH DESIGN ASSOCIATES. THE TREE OVERLAY IS TO INDICATE THE APPROXIMATE SIZE OF THE LANDSCAPING AFTER A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD. RANSOHOFF, BLANCHFIELD, JONES, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND SITE PLANNING EX.) T E. ishcTipjt;;i: 1,_01, for a •possible teen cen r and determine whether to allocate $4000 from reserves for the development of plans and coordinata review of possible sites in Burlingame. For the past four years there has been discussion of a p i,ssible teen center in Burlingame by Burlingame Together, Park & Recreation Commission and City Council. It has been determined the heavy use of the Recreation Center and parking and neighbor problems restrict the ability to dedicate any major area there for teen use. The Depot has been ment oned as a possible "coffee house" site for young people but the limited size of the building,` inabili to add any major facilities and the heavy traffic on California have been cited as problems with that si ► At the March 6, 1999, Teen Summit hos by Burlingame Together, a committee of youth any adults was formed to study options for a teen nter. The studycommittee would like to request an . i itect be hired to refine the committee's wo and provide visual representations of what is being • _.ested. Three students, Leah Belisha Tong Zhao and Meagan. Rafferty reviewed the discussions an' ,eeds of the teen facility group. Council discussed: attended a League wor would serve, who would staff it; middle sc the cart before the horse, should find a loca something to work with; thanked all the yo waste, it good beginning; obse tion and staffing and number o Councilman Galligan noted h y get along great; committee d then find a place; really ld be considered; talking e anything on wish list th n this plan or spend it o no worse off than no will not go hours of ope transit corrido and sometimes needs and desires thought the depot sh site ready now, don't said we can spend $400 if it doesn't work then we a starting point but we need to help these young people hop about teen centers, asked what age group the center ool and high school students have different.needs; putting on first and define the age group, then architect has g people who worked on these. committees, this work ed other teen centers, San Mateo and Redwood City, clients; should be thinking about leasing a place along s family hasboth middle and high school age students would like to have drawings to be able to envision ink we need a teen center. :Vice Mayor Knight out spending $4000 on ideas, when we have this t we can't do in the depot. Councilman Spinelli the depot with some of the things the kids want, Mayor Janney agreed the depot is a good ho have been working for years for a facility. Councilman Galligan moved to approve spending $4000 0 ' architectural concept plans for ,a teen center. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. Further di ussion ensued; noted an architect needs a site in order to make plans; find a facility and; then hire the ar l'tect; use the depot site for a coffee shop and see how it's used. The motion failed on 2-3 vote, Vice : • r Knight, ,Councilman Spinelli and Councilwoman O'Mahony voting no. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT,535 ALMER ROAD City Planner reviewed her memo of May 19, 1999, which recommended council hold a public hearing and take action. The applicant, Manoochehr Javaherian, submitted a request for a four story, seven unit residential condominium project with 17 on site parking spaces at 535 Almer Road. The lot is currently developed with a single family house.. Because it is more than four units, a negative declaration was prepared by staff. The primary environmental issues were storm /sewer capacity and two trees of protected size on the site. Neither of the trees were planned for removal so mitigation was implementing protection during construction and on -going maintenance. The Planning Commission denied this request on January 11, 1999. A major issue at the hearing was the two protected trees. The resident in the ground floor unit at the rear of the adjacent condominium (525 Ahner) was opposed to`retention of the Black Acacia and Oak trees because of the mess and damage they were causing to his property. In response to these concerns, the applicant applied to the, 2 Burlingame City Council June 7, 1999 Beatification Commission to remove the Black Acacia at the rear of the lot. According to an arborist, the tree could be retained with cabling. The Beautification Commission granted this request and another neighbor appealed that decision. Action of the Beautification Commission is independent of the Planning Commission. The applicant wished to retain the Oak tree. On April 26 the Planning Commission voted to deny the project without prejudice. The applicant appealed. She responded to council questions. Mayor Janney opened the public hearing. Sandi Nichols, attorney for applicant, reviewed her letter of June 1, 1999; the project meets or exceeds all city requirements, some commissioners were on the fence regarding denial without prejudice; the project was redesigned once to meet commission's direction; reviewed size of project, number of units and comparison with neighboring projects; though trees at back were not scheduled for removal, the applicant applied for permission to remove the Acacia because of a neighbor's objection to it; she showed photographs of other buildings in area. The mayor asked for comments in support of the project. A woman in the audience said she supported the project but did not wish to speak. Elisabet Sahtouris, 1477 Floribunda, .did not oppose the project but did not want to see the trees removed; also object to height of project, have few homes left in the neighborhood, condos are changing the area; hoped council would -save the trees. The mayor then asked for comments in opposition to the project. Mr. Fredell, 1477 Floribunda, objected to the size of the project and the loss of trees and increased traffic. Nancy Carpenter, resident in area, objected to the size of the project. Henry Sorensen, 525 Almer, rebutted the letter of June 1 from attorney Nichols. Sandi Nichols and the architect, Kamrom Ehsanipour, rebutted. They noted the tree at the from was only 8 inches in diameter; will replace with three trees to provide more greenery than now to protect neighbors view; will replace with 24 inch box trees, neighbors can participate in choice of tree; requested approval. The hearing was closed. The hearing was reopened for a resident of 1477 Floribunda who wished to speak; wanted to protect the 8 inch tree which is actually 10 inches in diameter; without the tree the new building will be visible from every window in her condo; generally objected to all the large condos being built in area. The hearing was closed. Council discussed: concerns were for drainage, parking, traffic, landscaping and bulk, all these concerns have been adequately addressed by this project; they are providing more parking than required, excellent landscaping and the bulk is no worse than other development in area; our city needs to provide more housing units; attended the commission meeting where this project came up very late in the evening and three commissioners were on the fence; this project meets all code requirements and needs no variances; the State expects our city to provide housing and this area is zoned for high density residential use and was zoned for that a long time ago, people have to realize that any small houses are likely to be replaced by condos in this area; would like to see more open space at the front of project but the open space is at rear, agree it is bulky looking; applicant has made a good faith effort to reduce size; the driveway on each side (one for 530 El Camino) mitigates the bulk by providing more space between developments. Councilman Galligan moved to approve the Negative Declaration. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony and carried unanimously. Councilman Galligan moved to overturn the Planning Commission and approve the project. Seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony and carried unanimously by voice vote. City Attorney said he would prepare a resolution for approval for adoption at the next meeting. 3 a June 7, 1999 Burlingame City Council PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION ACTION ON A PRIVTI TREE REMOVAL AT=535'ALMER ROAD 7,.: Senior Landscape Inspector reviewed his memo of May 27, 1999, which recommended council hold a public hearing and take action. In.March 1999, Joan Lutz, owner of property at 535 Almer, applied for a permit to remove a 105 inch circumference Black Acacia as part of a new condominium project. Plans originally submitted indicated the tree would remain. The Beautification Commission heard this request at its May 6 meeting and voted to approve the request for removal. A neighbor, Elisabet Sahtouris, appealed the decision. Council asked if granted, are applicants required to remove the tree; can we.direct 'that the tree must be removed. Staff noted that the permit only; allows tree removal, does not require it; if tree remains it must be cabled to reinforce the split crotch. Mayor Janney opened the public hearing. John Bower, 525 Almer, said his main concern is the tree limbs which overhang his condo building; asked the tree be removed. Henry Sorensen, 525 Almer, support removal, tree encroaches on property and is damaging a retaining wall. Elisabet Sahtouris, appellant, noted the arborist report does not state the tree is dangerous; it's a protected tree, it keeps temperature down and produces oxygen, it's a magnificent tree and should remain. Will McGowan, Beautification Commission, stated commission voted to allow removal because of the split crotch, the age of the tree and the damage to neighbor's .retaining _ wall; neighbors can trim any branches which overhang their property; noted nobody would plant such a tree in that area, the Oak tree is more important and the Acacia's removal .willaid the Oak tree's growth, in a short time the Oak will infill where the Acacia is removed. The hearing was closed. Council discussed: see no harm in giving the owner an option to remove the tree; tree is near the end of its life span; owner is planning excellent landscaping and planting five new trees; the commission does not take a tree removal lightly. Councilwoman O'Mahony moved to uphold the Beautification Commission with hope that the tree is removed. Seconded by Councilman Galligan and carried unanimously 5-0 on voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCE AT 330-340 BEACH ROAD - RESOLUTION 55-1999 APPROVING SAME City Planner reviewed and take action. The applic proposing to convert the 11,78 laboratory with lab area, office a space at 330 B increase from 36 the site is landscape h Road will rem 9 currently pro . The excepti percent where 15 per nt is required front 30 feet where 80 ercent is requ parking requirement fro 36 to 40 parkin warehouse/office use, they are 19 parking spa the requested change in use d the property must n the entire site. The applicant n es the only way to pr Planning Commission voted 4-3 deny the request. T memo of May 12 1999, which re and property owner, Covalent, a SF warehouse/office tenant space at 3 d storage. The remaining 9,943 SF adjo in unchanged. The number of parking s ided) to 40 with: the intensification in us required are (1) a variance for total s d (2) a conditional use permit for 15 d. The proposed intensification in aces. Because of a variance g on site now. This previous become conforming in parking for all uses on ide parking is to eliminate landscaping. The e applicant appealed to council. The ended council hold a public hearing 'cal technology firm, is each Road to a high-tech g warehouse/office aces required will . Currently 11 percent of to landscaping of 7 ercent landscaping in the se increases the on site ted for e is voided by June 7, 1999 4 Burlingame City Council City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 city's s' age requirements s item was set for th consent calendar at the ovember 27 meeting toviding all the ' formation is subm' ed to the Planning Dep ent on time. This it concluded at 7:30 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 6. 535 ALMER ROAD - ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. :.aairman Luzuriaga moved the application for 535 Almer Road, item 6, from the consent calendar to the regular action calendar at the request of an adjacent property owner. No other items remained on the consent calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 6. 535 ALMER ROAD - ZONED R-3 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FROM 7 TO 6 UNITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY (1WN1 R; KAMR AN FHSANTPOTTR ARC.HTTRCT) A. AMENDMENT TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staffreport, 11.13.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning nepartment comments. Thirty-nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions or staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Kamran Ehsanipour, 205 Park Road, Suite 207, Burlingame, architect for the project, was available for questions. Henry Sorenson, 525 Almer Road, noted that he is not opposed to the changes in the project, the number of units is reduced from seven to six, but has two concerns; the plans do not show a fence along the south property line adjacent to his property which was promised with the previous project, would like to see a condition added that the developer be required to build a six foot high good neighbor fence with an additional one foot of lattice along this property line; the other concern is with the Black Acacia tree located on property line, intention of the applicant is to have the tree removed, would like to at least see the acacia cut back to the property line because it overhangs his property is messy and affects roof, the tree removal permit was issued but has expired do not know if it will be renewed; would like a condition added that the tree be trimmed to the property line. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 Mr. Ehsanipour responded that the tree is right on the border, it may not be feasible to trim at this time, it might kill the tree, intends to remove the tree at a later date, but is willing to include required trimming as a condition of approval subject to an arborist's review and recommendation regarding type of trimming. Commissioners asked how close the tree is to the property line. The applicant responded that it is right on the border, the trunk probably crosses the property line. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: would like to add a condition that a fence be required along the south property line, six feet high with an additional one foot of lattice; tree is on the property line, cannot just trim it to the property line, would rather see it go back through the Parks and Recreation Department for a tree removal permit and have it removed. C. Deal moved to approve the amended negative declaration and condominium permit application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 18, 2000, Sheets A-01, A-02, and A 1 through A-16, including building materials and exterior finishes; 2) that the amount of impervious surfaced area within the dripline of the oak tree in the adjacent common and private open space shall be determined by an arborist's report and approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit and the root zone of the tree shall be protected during construction based on an arborist's report as approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector, and the paving of impervious surface in the rear common and adjacent private open space shall be not expanded without an amendment to this condominium permit; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that a six foot high solid board fence with an additional one foot of lattice shall be required along the south property line; 5) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area and any increase in the lot area and/or floor area shall require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 27, October 14, and October 2, 2000 memos and the March 15 and March 25, 1999 memos, the Fire Marshal's February 22, 1999 memo, and the Senior Landscape Inspector's March 10, 1999 memos shall be met; 7) that the underground parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and that no portion of any parking area and/or egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities, there shall be no storage of automobiles, boats or recreational vehicles within assigned or guest parking stalls; 8) that storage units shall be installed as shown and no storage areas shall extend into the required parking spaces; 9) that the guest parking shall not be assigned to any unit and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association for the use of all visitors to the site except that tenant parking shall be allowed within designated guest parking spaces between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. as enforced by the homeowners association in the five guest parking spaces provided on -site; 10) that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association; 11) that a security gate system installed across the driveway shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the garage by pushing a button inside their units; 12) that the furnaces and water heaters for each unit shall be located in the mechanical/laundry room as shown on sheets A-7, A-8, A-9 and A-10 and all such facilities shall be in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 13) that the trash enclosure shall be located at the front of the building as shown on sheet A-7 in a dimension large enough to accommodate recycling bins; 14) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 15) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the Board of Directors of the 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees for all appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 16) that the applicant shall receive a Tree Removal Permit from the City before removing either one or both of the 49" oak and the 32" black acacia trees, that a building permit shall not be issued before such permits are issued, and that if both trees are removed the Planning Commission shall review the revised landscape plans for the common open space; 17) that the design of the new building shall incorporate the seismic standards of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition; 18) that the project shall be required to meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 19) that all drainage on site will be required to be collected and pumped to Almer Road; 20) that the developer shall pay a proportional share based on his lot area for the installation of an 8" minimum ground water pump line on Almer Road to the storm drainage system on Almer Road and Bellevue Avenue (required to be installed by the developer at 530 El Camino Real). If the developer does not install the new line he will be required to pay for the development's portion of the installation cost. The City Engineer determined that the development fee shall be $6,000.00 for the storm ground water line proposed on Almer Road as adjusted annually using the cost index of the Engineering News Record (fee based on a 4.5% share of the Engineer's estimate prepared by MacLeod and Associates). If the City Engineer determines that the pipe will not be installed at the time of development, the developer will make a cash deposit to the City for a portion of the estimated cost prior to issuance of a building permit for his construction. The City will use this deposit at the time of the pipe installation for this /development's share of the cost; 21) that this project shall comply with the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 22) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 23) that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application; 24) that an irrigation plan consistent with the City's water conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit; 25) that an arborist's report showing how the street trees and the existing 32" diameter black acacia and 49" oak will be protected during construction, to be approved by the Parks Department, shall be prepared and implemented; 26) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved cen ml station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 27) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Burlingame Municipal Code; 28) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA; 29) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities; 30) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 31) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 32) that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site will be required to be collected and pumped to Almer Road; 33) that approvals will be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators must be so housed that they meet the City's noise requirement; 34) that the sump pump for the underground garage will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system and that the drainage grate for the driveway shall go to the storm drain system; 35) that all on -site drainage inlets or the sump pump basin for the underground garage shall provide a petroleum absorbent system for treating all drainage flows from the automobile parking area; 36) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 37) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2000 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 38) that this project shall not exceed 35'-0" (67'-5Y2") in height as measured from average top of curb (32'-5Y2") at the front of the property and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 39) that all utilities to this site shall be required to be installed underground; any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; and 40) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City, and recommend to City Council approval of the Tentative Condominium Map. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. There was no comment on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the negative declaration and condominium permit and recommend approval to City Council of the Tentative Condominium map and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. The item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 7. 832 FAI RATI IELD ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION F ARIANCE, AND SPEC '1' PERMIT FOR DECL SECOND -STORY ADD. ' ION (TODD VARL ()PPRTY C)WNPRS S • RON WTI „SON TWSTCT DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA G HEIGHT ENVELOPE R A FIRST AND AMY WELCH, AP ICANTS AND Refe- nce staff report, 11.13.00 ith attachments. City Pler presented the report, re ' -wed criteria and Planning D:. artment comments. Fo conditions were suggesteor consideration. Commi : on asked if the family room as counted as a bedroo - . Staff noted that it was n . counted as a bedroom be . use there is a stairway which is open to the room. Chairman Lu . ga opened the public he. ng. Todd Varland, 832 F. irfield, applicant, noted that at the last meeting, they ere asked to address three ' -ms, the deck has been red ced in size and made more compat..le with the style of e house, the downstairs ower has been removed d bathroom size reduced, they r oved the bathroo on the first floor and reloc - ed the laundry room ther Co 'u ssion noted that the builng code does not allow a ,arage to open up directly to a r s eping purposes, there are ee options, can eliminat; the door from the garage to th corridor, or add a conditiwhich requires that this oom not be used for sleeping p audience asked how mu the height of the buildin • 11 increase. The applicant not in height. Chairman uzuriaga closed the publ" hearing. Commission dis ssion: regarding the floarea ratio variance, the baseme to eliminate i , proposal is similar to oth:, on the block, have responded would like onditions added that if th; ouse is ever demolished, the the famroom cannot be used fo - sleeping purposes. m which is used for amily room, provide a rposes. A member of the that there will be no increase is existing, cannot tell the ap. cant all concerns raised by the co . ission, or area ratio variance goes a : y, and that Ceighran moved to approve is e project, by resolution, with , - following amended conditio' : 1) that the projec shall be built as shown on plans submitted to the P1. i : Department date stamped • tober 26, 2000, s - ets A.1 - A.4, and that any c i . ges to the footprint or floor ea of the building shall req ' e and amendmen o this permit; 2) that any ch ' ges to the size or envelope of + e first or second floors, w 'eh would include : dding or 6 BURITINGAME ^1.11.41Y d ..4111 co ;;;;oe 9RORATEO MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT To: From: Date: Planning Department City Engineer November 6, 2002 Re: Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map for 4-Unit Portion of Lot 13, Block 8, Map of Burlingame Land Company No. Road, PM 02-06 I have reviewed the tentative map together with the condominium permit plans. comments shall be addressed prior to building permit issuance; I GENERAL: 1. Condominium, 2 - 535 Almer Show all existing sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter to be replaced with new. The following 2. Project plans currently show a driveway slope of 18% which exceeds the maximum driveway slope of 15%. The driveway shall be revised to meet the maximum allowed slope of 15%. 3. Show design of trashroom and indicate size of receptacles, including receptacles for recycling. Confirm sizes needed with BFI. 4. The CCR's for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City Codes. 5. Owner shall pay to the City a development fee for the storm groundwater line proposed on Almer Road. This fee will be based on a 4.5% share of the Engineer's estimate prepared by MacLeod and Associates. Cc: Owner, applicant U:\VICTOR\Projeds\Private1535AJmer2.wpd 4, CITY .r 1i 0� BURLINGAME /.4114 �•` oD NNW s/ QPOR4TED To: From: Vi Subject: P1 Staff has MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT October 23, 2002 . ng, Engineering Di ; ision I GENERAL: Review for 535 Almer Road ted the preliminary review for the project and comments are as follows; 1. Show proposed drainage system and indicate that all roof and site drainage shall go to street frontage. Show direction of drainage on adjacent property to confirm that no drainage enters this site or else that drainage needs to be included in the on -site system. (Response dated October 10, 2002 by MacLeod and Associates is acceptable.) 2. Since this whole site is to be developed below street or adjacent grade, approvals will be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump system shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators must be so housed that they meet the City's noise requirement - see attached plan check sheet. Proposed pump and generator are to be shown. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 3. According to maintenance records, the sanitary sewer system in this area is in poor condition and has been prone to problems with tree roots. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for this project to identify the project's impacts to the existing sanitary sewer system and associated mitigation measures. (See Public Works memorandum dated October 22, 2002) 4. If any waste fixtures are lower than the City upstream manhole, project plans shall indicate UPC required backwater valves or show sewer ejection system. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 5. If large trees are to be removed, plans shall show new proposed plantings to help ameliorate the tree removals. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 6. Show required seven foot (7') minimum clearances at parking garage floor areas not just floor to floor. Provide room for all pipings, ducts and fire sprinklers. Disabled parking shall have access and parking area at eight feet two inches (8'2") clear. (Response dated October 10, 2002 by Glush Design Associates is acceptable.) U:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\535AImer.wpd 7. All utilities to this site must be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site must be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 8. The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. Indicate that new curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting this site shall be designed by a civil engineer, approved by the City Engineer, and installed by this development. (Response dated October 10, 2002 by MacLeod and Associates is acceptable.) II SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS: 1. Curb, street elevations and a detailed driveway profile are needed. For flood protection, the driveways to all below -grade parking areas must have a high point either at property line or on site that is 12 inches above proposed flow line of street. Back of sidewalk elevation must be at 2% from projected top of curb through driveway. Transitions both up and then down at the street are required as are transitions at the lower level. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 2. All transformers needed for this project shall be indicated on project plans and installed underground on this site or behind the front setback. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 3. All irrigation systems and planting shall follow City's water conservation guidelines. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 4. Rear landscape area shall drain to street or to a storm drainage system without pumping. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 5. Show route of piping from drainage inlets. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 6. Show the location for the fire sprinkler connection that is proposed. All fire system work shall conform to the City's current procedures for underground water systems. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 7. All on site catch basins and drainage inlets shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction so no debris will be dumped into them. The City will provide a stencil. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 8. Grading and drainage plans need to submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) III PARKING: 1. Show underground and at -grade parking slab elevations. Maximum slope in any parking space is 5%. Show drainage pattern. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) U:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\535AImer.wpd 2. Provide all on site drainage inlets or the sump pump basin for the underground garage with a petroleum absorbent system for treating all drainage flows from the automobile parking areas. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 3. Dimension the structural columns and dimensions with respect to parking stalls. Columns that are on the side of parking spaces are to be clear of vehicle's side door access and should be at least two feet (2') clear of the rear of the stalls to facilitate maneuvering. (Response dated October 10, 2002 by Glush Design Associates is acceptable. However, the minimum 2' dimension shall be indicated on the project plans.) 4. Provide a sequential dimensional layout of all parking spaces and show remaining structure dimensions (widths and lengths) to confirm structure's dimensions. (Response dated October 10, 2002 by Glush Design Associates is acceptable.) 5. The underground garage walls are at property line with little or no clearances. How are they going to be constructed without easements on adjacent property? Show how excavation is to be made on property with room also for back of wall drainage or propose alternate system. (Required prior to building permit issuance) 6. If applicable, add bollards or whatever on all exterior sides of parking stall(s) to define parking space and to not allow encroachment into common area. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 7. Show callbox/intercom system to all units from driveway in front of security gate and at the top of the driveway so guests may have access to guest parking spaces. If no gate is planned, install conduit to all units so that if gate is installed in the future, the system may be easily installed. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 8. Provide driveway profile with 2% from top of curb (6" high minimum) to back of sidewalk and transition to a high point, on site or at property line, at 12" above flow line of street. Transitions at top of driveway and at bottom required to the approval of the City Engineer. Project plans currently show a driveway slope of 18% which exceeds the maximum driveway slope of 15%. The driveway shall be revised to meet the maximum allowed slope of 15%. (Response dated October 10, 2002 from MacLeod and Associates indicates owner 's request for a variance for 18% driveway slope. Public Works Department requires documentation to demonstrate that the 15% driveway slope cannot be constructed.) 9. The garage exit pathways may not be through a parking space. Also, place bollard(s) or wall to keep vehicles from blocking exit routes. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 10. Underground garage area vents shall be shown on the project plans. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 11. If private storage areas are provided above the parking stalls, these storage areas shall meet the seven foot (7') minimum clearance. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) U:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\535AImer.wpd 12. Project plans shall indicate which parking spaces belong to which unit. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) IV ARCHITECTURAL PLANS: 1. Show design of trashroom and indicate size of receptacles, including receptacles for recycling. Confirm sizes needed with BFI. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 2. If there are any private storage spaces other than in the units and above the vehicles, indicate them on the project plans. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 3. On the Parking Level Plan and First Floor (Site) Plan, show adjacent site and street elevations for reference. (Response dated October 10, 2002 by Glush Design Associates is acceptable.) 4. Elevator sump drainage shall go to sanitary sewer and be shown on project plans. A backwater valve shall be installed for elevator sump drainage below the sanitary sewer. Elevator sump drainage shall also be separate from groundwater system which is to go to the storm drainage system. (Response dated October 10, 2002 by MacLeod and Associates is acceptable.) 5. All building sections need to show site elevations and adjacent site elevations and shown to scale to give the relationship. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 6. The sewer ejection system shall be shown in garage plans and indicate the pit, ventilation, etc. Sewer ejection system must be on the emergency generator also. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 7. Individual unit climate controls as well as separate shutoffs for gas, electric and water are required. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) U:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\535AImer.wpd V TRAFFIC STUDY: 1. Project plans shall include a site access study and circulation plan. If completed by a Traffic Engineer, please have it titled and signed. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) VI MAPS: (FOR STUDY MEMO ONLY -SEPARATE MEMO FOR FINAL) 1. The property boundary survey by a licensed land surveyor is acceptable. 2. The condominium map to the Engineering Division in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act is acceptable. 4. Show exact building setbacks both below and above grade. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) 5. The CCR's for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City Codes. (Required prior to building permit issuance.) Cc: Syed Murtuza, City Engineer Philip Monaghan, Senior Civil Engineer U:\VI CTOR\Projects\Private\535AImer.wpd MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT October 22, 2002 To: en From: ( ict w ='j ong, Engineering Division Subject: 5 : A r Road Staff has reviewed the maintenance records and videotaping of the existing sewer mains within the vicinity of the project site. The existing sewer main in front of 535 Almer Road does not appear to have any capacity problems, however the downstream sewer mains along Floribunda Avenue are affected by tree roots which causes obstruction of flows in the sewer mains. These sewer mains are on the City list of frequent maintenance areas to keep free from tree roots. The estimated flows generated from this project appears to be insignificant for a net increase of three condominium units. However, any additional flow will add to the existing sewer problems at the downstream sewer system at Floribunda Avenue and California Drive due to the poor condition of the existing sewer mains. U:1VI CTOR\Projects\Private\535AIme rSS.wpd ROUTING FORM DATE: September 6, 2002 TO: City Engineer 7Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for condominium permit and tentative map for a new four -unit condominium building at 535 Almer Road, zoned R-3, APN: 029-111-060. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, September 9, 2002 All U443 "Icirl cv' l'Pi cp Reviewed By- Date of Comments: /,cam--L_ DATE: September 6, 2002 TO: City Engineer _Chief Building Official ✓ Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for condominium permit and tentative map for a new four -unit condominium building at 535 Almer Road, zoned R-3, APN: 029-111-060. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, September 9, 2002 Reviewed By: ��/'��/� Date of Comments: , cN ROUTING FORM DATE: September 6, 2002 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist ✓City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff RECEIVED OCT - 3 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. SUBJECT: Request for condominium permit and tentative map for a new four -unit condominium building at 535 Almer Road, zoned R-3, APN: 029-111-060. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, September 9, 2002 !—Qort-QS pvist /l6' yAit 02/ c/ `t iJ0Podk. a Uc z6c-c cc,;.q ,OGLE Ml�i�. flwz4 -t6i 0061AS0-4-6 S d— /Le60-721-" % 2E� GU-i c. c,u,oy8 /6_ , 2 /Lev A.(1) 171,14) cv { R f,GI isizJD 5 •1 t S R-6 Qv t 2-4-9 1,z4644-4a cAeK 45)1Sfillivat cni. E-6-AiC44o-G Reviewed By: ✓ /. Date of Comments: /o/V, 2_ b5u44=114 . ?'Q•1700 -EON 18:04"FAX 65034498.48 . KAM AN EHSANIPOU2 AI MAYNE TREE EXPERTS Co. PAGE RECEIVED MAR .21999- CITY OF,BURLINGAME • PLANNING DEPT. Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.. tpal LicENS110. ORI ERS CiRTIPIED ARboAtS'rs KErnior H D.'hiring biter RICHARD L. $LUNTINOTON vice manta Mr. .Kamran. Ehsani?our 205 Park Avenue, Suite 207 Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 535 Almer, Burlingame Dear Mr. Ehsatlipour: STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO; 27s743 PEST CONTROL ADVISORS ANb. OPERAToRs February 26, -1999 • 535 t3RACATO ROAD, STE. A SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TELEPHONE: (650) 59374400 - FAX: (650) 593-4443 E MAIL: iafo@mapa.tree.com On February 26,. 1999, we met to -discuss the most recent development -plans • (dated 2-17-991 for 535 Almer Road in Burlingame. These plans show a corner of the building being 8 feet northwest af. the live oak. Tile corner comes . towards the tree and as roots- generally radiate out, it is rare that a large root • is encountered. I therefore feel the impacts will be minimal, and a pier and grads beam footing is not necessary. .I ''placed. the coiner • 18 feet -west of the approximate property 'line, and changed - the footing. to • $, feet northerly of the trunk, and finally 8 feet northwest, as .previously stated. I . then probed with an 18 inch shovel blade at the . corner • and 3 feet north .and west along the foundation lines. I found 3 roots in, the upper 6 inches. of soil; a 1 inch, a 2 inch and a 2 1/2 inch on. the weiterly line. On the northerly side I found several 1. to 2 inch • • diameter roots in: the. upper 4-6 inches of soil. I found some larger roots at a deeper level, . but they were 'further away from. the corner and I believe - • caning them would have minimal impact. Again,. I believe the proposed plans- will not have a significant .impact' to tree health -or . support. • A general. recommendation for trees in construction would' be . to deep root' fertilize. fin; this tree I recommend 500 gallons of . a 22-1444 solution -applied in April . and August, 1999. The coat would be around $325 per application. -You also requested • some general pruning recommendations. The tree has already had several large limbs stubbed and - they are -starting 'to .. sprout. These sprouts may eventually replace the removed • growth, but they haveinherently. weak structures. I. 'do- not. recommend, removing these stubs due to the • increased risk of trunk decay. At this -time 1' would clear only the east building by 3 feet- and thin 'the tree by one-third. This would cost around $1000. • Shsaniponr 2-26.99. Pg.• 2 I. believe this report. is accurate .and based on sound arboricultural principles. Sincerely` Richard L. Huntington Certified Arborlst WC# 0119 RLHsdcr • ROUTING FORM DATE: September 6, 2002 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal 1/Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for condominium permit and tentative map for a new four -unit condominium building at 535 Almer Road, zoned R-3, APN: 029-111-060. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, September 9, 2002 z w , ietAk1-3vA Pam-- cwric teurLil v(4)64.-th ram-rPct;14 oj. -e11-7 cA sob, CovA4k-1--AZIAn /LIAD eilAt41-0 ate&X t .1�. ue.c-ram , u- pfre- .40'"u'Zd`""' s* trP-i:-/- Un`Gi as.) (1,e, v 106n,„ 0„1_ 1404,43- 'rep JAAac9, aAv._ cim076,1AA7LiA 04/au5L---h . Reviewed By: Date of Comments: Obi-- City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other ✓ Parcel Number: 0 2 C/ •- / / / 060 Project address: 635- /1-1 Er) ex Recel. APPLICANT Name: Mai/cede ,cialt2r''1 uv� Address: / 02 / VA ru C+ ean City/State/Zip: l'1f/11, /cz•" . Ca It;) s �- Phone (w): (L St) 2 0_S - 3 S'i y (h): iL ) -f-26C�_3 (f): (C�Th) 6 z- 4-1-/ i0 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: ri? -/c.1S /; !) c's, aCaik Address: S 72 /✓Q►Ji r- ebz. r • City/State/Zip: jc') ,Sc (t47S /2 Phone(w): (2/C402 •S'- I -(:a (h): G'e((4©S)A707—/3?_ i (f): (z/cOS)yCS—Z0`Z PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 7 O ct,� %ALLY" 1n,-) ejz/l0/ c PROPERTY OWNER Name: -c Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): (f): Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. RECEIVED S E P - 5 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: Cy I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission vAs�_ , Property owner's signature: Date: c1 Date submitted: 91 y, (l PCAPP.FRM M. Javaherian 1029 Vista Grande Millbrae, CA 94030 October 15, 2002 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Proposed 4-Condominium Project, 535 Almer Road, Burlingame, CA Dear Members of the Planning Commission: With this letter, I would like to explain my reasoning for applying for a revised plan, which calls for a reduction of units from 6 to 4, for the above referenced site. By way of background, a 7-unit plan was previously approved by the City Council for the referenced property. The original plans corresponded to a significant construction cost, which included a two -level subterranean parking facility and use of steel frames throughout most of the structure. As a result, I was forced to reduce the number of units to 6. Unfortunately, even with 6 units, the revised plan remained problematic. These problems included the continued need for a two -level parking facility, the fact that the underground portion of the parking facility would extend to the property lines throughout the site, the threat of future problems, and the less than desirable 8-foot ceiling height limitation necessary to maintain the 4-story layout in the front of the property. As a result, I have convinced myself to go through the cumbersome, time-consuming, and costly task of developing new plans for the property. Given the hardships we face with respect to the shape of the lot and the need to protect the Oak Tree, the new plan consists of a lesser number (i.e. four) of larger units that I believe will address the above issues. Specifically, the new plan calls for a more spacious, generous design which will also be more in demand. The new plans, which are attached herein, include a top unit for my own use. I appreciate this opportunity to notify you of my revised plans and look forward to working with you and your staff to finalize the plans in an expeditious manner. Sincerely yours, M. Javaherian RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 535 ALMER ROAD Application for condominium permit and side setback variance for a new three- story, four -unit residential condominium at 535 Almer Road,- zoned R-3.• (APN: 029- 111-060) The City of Burlingame Planning. Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, November 25, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose. Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed November 15, 2002 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING.{ NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this,projectrmay be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning x; Department at %501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you chalkngef the subject applicatiun(s) in court; you m y be limited to raising only,iho eejissues;you or; someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the:„notice or:.in; written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing: . Property ova ers who reeeivethis notice are responsible ford tenants . abot this; node For additional information; ple 558-7250. Thank y9u. �� tt Margaret Mona City Planner (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a condominium permit for construction of a new, three-story, four -unit residential condominium at 535 Almer Road, zoned R-3, Manoochehr Javaherian, property owner, 1029 Vista Grande, Millbrae, CA, 94030, APN: 029-111-060; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 25, 2002, 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'tiiere is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303 - New Construction or conversion of small structures, Class 3(b), construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (b) a duplex or similar multi -family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units, is hereby approved. 2. Said condominium permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such condominium permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. • CHAIRMAN I, Ralph Osterling , 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 25th day of November, 2002 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and condominium permit. 535 Almer Road effective December 2, 2002 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 15, 2002, sheets A.1, A.5 through A.7 and C-1(Boundary and Topographic Survey), date stamped November 1, 2002, sheet L-1, and date stamped November 18, 2002, sheets A2, A2a, A.3, A.4, and A8; with 1,595 SF of common open space and a 16'-1" front setback; and that the landscaping, including trees, shrubs, ground cover and vines shall be planted as shown on the revised Landscape Plans (sheet L-1), date stamped November 1, 2002; 2. that a wooden fence, with a maximum height of 7'-0" above highest adjacent grade (6' solid with 1' of lattice), shall be installed along the south property line (rear property line between 535 and 525 Almer Road); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject -to 'la:ining Commission review; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 6 and October 23, 2002 memos, the Chief Building Official's September 9, 2002 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 9, 2002 memo, the City Arborist's October 2, 2002 memo, and the Recycling Specialist's September 9, 2002 memo shall be met; 5. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 67.66' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Almer Road (32.66') for a maximum height of 35'-0", and that the rotunda at the front of the building which rooftop access shall have a maximum elevation of 72.33', or 39'-8" from average top of curb, and that the rotunda shall not exceed 5% of the rooftop area; 6. that the finished grading of the garage floor, the finished slab of the garage floor, the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the construction and framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage finish grade shall be 25.25', the garage floor finished floor shall be elevation 26.41'; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 35.24'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 45.24'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 55.24; and the top of ridge elevation shall be 67.66'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that incursion into the side setback for the basement vent grate and the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 7. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 8. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and condominium permit. 535 Almer Road effective December 2, 2002 page 2 10. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 11. that the applicant shall receive a Tree Removal Permit from the City before removing the existing 32- inch diameter Black Acacia tree at the rear of the lot, and that a building permit shall not be issued before such permits are issued; 12. that the amount of impervious surfaced area within the dripline of the existing oak tree in the adjacent common and private open space shall be determined by an arborist's report and approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit and the root zone of the tree shall be protected during construction based on an arborist's report as approved by the City's Senior Landscape Inspector; and the paving of impervious surface in the rear common and adjacent private open space shall be not expanded without an amendment to this condominium permit; 13. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 14. that an irrigation plan consistent with the City's water conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit; 15. that the underground parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and that no portion of any parking area and/or egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities, there shall be no storage of automobiles, boats or recreational vehicles within assigned or guest parking stalls; and that the none of the parking spaces shall be rented, leased or sold; 16. that the guest parking shall not be assigned to any unit and shall be owned and maintained 6y the homeowners association for the use of all visitors to the site; and that `guest parking stall' shall be marked on the guest parking space and shall be located in a code compliant parking stall; 17. that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association; 18. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 19. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and condominium permit. 535 Almer Road effective December 2, 2002 page 3 20. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 21. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 22. that the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 23. that the design of the new building shall incorporate the seismic standards of the California Building Code, 1998 Edition; 24. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame for structural stability; 25. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 26. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on -site or immediately, downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 27. that off -site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on -site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 28. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 29. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off -site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and condominium permit. 535 Almer Road effective December 2, 2002 page 4 30. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 31. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 32. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that -discharges to an interceptor; 33. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs, shall be routed through buffer strips where possible and shall be filtered through fossil filters or other petroleum absorbent system inserted into stormwater inlets prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all filters on at least a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 — April 1) or as required by the City upon inspection; 34. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 35. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 36. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 37. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 38. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA; 39. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer's expense if necessary; 40. that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 41. that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 42. that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and condominium permit. 535 Almer Road effective December 2, 2002 page 5 43. that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to Almer Road; 44. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; 45. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; and 46. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance.