The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About601 Ansel Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame ITEM #� . ��;;.,; Negative �ecdarc.r,�a�an , , ,-. ,,. Address: 601 An�e� .�.��.�a� Meeting Date: 1/13/97 Request: Negative I��;laraiion fc�r n�ew thr.ee-s�c�ry, 2�-ur�it a�a.rtment building at 601 Ansel Avenue, zoned R-3. Ar. ��gr�c�e g�arking Iot fc�at� �and�er tii� building g��vides space for the required 38 parking stalls fo�*� e ';S. +ane..'bedroor.� ��, �` ;,:.. Applicant: N. I�T,'.C��L��.y. � AP�I: 029-100-180, 190 & 200 Property Owne� : .�;cs�� 3�-c��aa�� Lot Area: 2141ei ��'s ;,, , General Plan de.��-i��m�A�se�a� ��i�1�.1'i1-�11�?i ��1t1S3� ��S1CIy�tial Zoning: R-3 Adjacent Devei��at; �,�:�altip�� a,a�a�y ��sid�r��i��ll CEO.A Status: I��'�r t� ��,�a��e I��cdar�ti�z� ��P , Previous Use: �� 1�.�`a��.:,s€��r��te: ��ts �c��z��g �rs� � ii��l �� i�� dwelling units , :;_ _ '�F>�::;� � . � _ . .. Proposed Use: 'F�i��s��c�z�;°p �a-��ni� ��:�� a�,ii�if��; Summary: The �,��z��n�: i� ;��+�Y�S�r��,�`��c,�� y�=�t�:�� i�ui��;=ng with parking on grade under two floors of living ��F '�� 6�� As�s�i ��=�::a��be9 g�:��.t�' 8��-�. �"�� structure will have 25 one-bedroom apartment units a��:��i;��, ��y�.�aY� �'�.��i'��c ➢i�i�� u�it �n the first floor. Parking to code requirements is grca��e�7� ��t 3?� �aarl::�g s�s:�:�, ?�� o��z� and 7 ur�covered (80% covered where 80% is required). Th� fir�t fx�ox° t��s one one-b�s�:��; rlis.�.�led acczssible unit. The second and third floor each contain twelve o��-��son� units. 'T�;e rane--�ed-�or,i u�its range in size from 710 SF to 750 SF, with patios and �lecks f=a��- eu.ch uc��t. Tl��e �s�c�j�c;t h.�s landscaped front, exterior side and rear setback areas; the interior sii�`: :ii:ti�aCI�C 1S F2V� c;ii�lj ,�'.v�L1(Ii �3� It 1� used for parking access. The second story also has a landscaped irr�i�;�a�: ��xr�'�.�c��c ��.� ��z�� ,r�,�;+�. : The site now consi�g� �� A�e 1�r�;�; �� :� �f Y�� t��l�i�g ��uts. The applicant intends to merge the three lots to create z?A,41� S�' Yct. The �a.ist�:n� sf.x�.ictures will have to be demolished to accommodate the new building. .: . �. ,: , This project as propos� meets all zoning c�e requirements, and no special permits or variances are required. However, since the praject consists of new construction of more than four apartment units, the project is not exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, an initial study was prepared. A Negative Declazation has been prepared for review and action by the Planning Commission. As presentsd the Negative Declaration concludes that there aze no significant effects on the environment as a result of this project. The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that conclusion based on the initial study, facts in the Negative Declaration, public testimony and Planning Commission observation and experience. , , NE�ATIVE DECLARATION �ont Setback (Ansel Ave.): Interior Side Setback: First Floor Second Floor Third Floor Fxterior Side Se�back: First Floor Second Floor Proposed 15'-0" 7' -0" 9'-0" 9' -0" 7' -6" 7'-6"' Req�ired 15'-0" 7'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 7' -6" 7'-6" Third Floor 8'-6" 8'-6" NOTE: Eaves proj�cting into side setback are exempt (C.S.25.32.080 la). Rear Setback: First Floor Second Floor Third Floor 15' -0" 15'-0" F�1$1� �� 15'-0" 20'-0" 601 Ansel Avenue Lot Coverage: 59.5 % 60 % Building Height: 35' 35' NOTE: The towers proposed to provide skylights exceed the 35' -0" height limit by 6' -0" , as allowed by C.S. 25.08.340 �5% of raof azea may project not more than 10 feet above top of parapet). Declining Height F�velope: N/A N/A On-site Parking Spaces: 38 spaces 38 spaces Covered Spaces: 31 spaces This project meets all other zoning code requirements. 31 spaces Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (November 14, 1996 memo) that parking spaces No. 36 and 37 need to have bollards at the back next to wall. The Chief Building Inspector (November 12, 1996 memo) has no comments at this tirne. The Parks Director (November 20, 1996 memo) indicates that the project will require 8 new 24" box size trees in addition to those listed as "to remain", and that the project requires a Water Conservation Plan. Complete landscape and irrigation plans must be approved before building permit is issued. The Fire Marshal (November 12, 1996 memo) indicates that the building must be protected by a complete automatic sprinkler system, and a complete fire alarm 2 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 601 Ansel Avenue system, both of which must be connected to an approved central station. Planning staff would note that in order to add mitigations or modifications to the project through the negative declaration the Planning Commission would have to find, based on specific facts, that the project would have a signiiicant (negative) effect in one of the areas of evaluation identified in CEQA and then note that the proposed mitigation would reduce that effect to an acceptable level. If impacts cannot be mitigated or additional information is needed by the Planning Commission in order to make a finding of no significant impact then the applicant must prepare an Environmental Impact Relwrt (EIR). Findings of overriding concern (accepting impacts which cannot be mitigated) can only be made with an EIR. The initial study identified the following mitigation measures to be applied as conditions of approval for this project. l. The project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. 2. This proposal is required to meet the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance passed by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department. 3. All construction must abide by the construction hours established by the municipal code. 4. All new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary. Abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed. 5. Should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated. 6. The project sha11 meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Study Meeting: At the December 9, 1996 Planning Commission study meeting the commission asked the applicant to provide more information on the exterior detail of the structure. In response to this request, the applicant has revised the exterior elevations of the building (see revised plans dated 7anuary 6, 199'� by using horizontal wood siding on the balconies and by extending the roof over the balconies, to match the style of the adjacent buildings. The applicant has also stated that he will provide a rendering of the proposed building and the existing adjacent buildings as well as photographs of the neighborhood at the January 13, 1997 hearing. The Commission also asked for a description of the differences in construction between this proposed apartment and a residential condominium. Based on the current Uniform Building Code requirements, there aze no differences in construction requirements between apartments and condominiums. A condominium builder may construct a project using higher standazds than the building code, but the minimum requirements are the same. 3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 60I Ansel Avenue The Commission also wanted to know how future conversion of this proposed apartment building to condominiums is limited. The requirements for condominiums are different than apartment requirements in several areas: side setbacks, guest parking, front setback landscaping, private open space and common open space, as shown in the following chart. REGULATION5 CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS Side Setbacks 5' minimum 3' minimum - lots 42' Wide or less 6' for lots 54'-61' wide 4' minimum - lots 42'-51' wide 7' for lots over 61' wide 5' minimum - lots 51'-54' wide 7 1/z' min. - corner lots ext. side 6' minimum - lots 54'-61' wide 7' min. - lots 61' wide or greater 7 1/z' min. - corner lots, ext. side Guest parking Depends on project size, at least one None space required Parking in Side Not permitted Permitted Setback Froni Setback 60 % minimum of front setback area None Landscaping must be landscaped Private Open Space 75 SF minimum per unit None contiguous, can be paved patio, deck or balcony Common Open 100 SF minimum per unit - must be None Space within 6 feet of established grade - 50 % of this area must be soft landscaping This project meets the condominium requirement for building setbacks, front yard landscaping and parldng. However, it does not meet the requirements for private open space and common open space. In addition, some of the parking for this project extends into the side setback, which is not permitted for condominiums. A condominium permit, a tentative and final subdivision map creating the condominium space, and variances from the open space and side setback standazds would be required in order to convert the apartments to condominiums. Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the negative declaration (ND-483-P), finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. 4 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 601 Ahsel Avenue Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Action on the Negative Declaration should include findings. Affirmative action on the negative declaration should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions to be placed on the building permit should be considered: Conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 26, 1996, Sheet A.1 through A.7, PL-1 and T1. 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 14, 1996 memo, the Fire Marshall's November 12, 1996,memo and the Parks Department's November 20, 1996 memo shall be met; 3. that the use and any construction for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 4. that the project shall be subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 5. that this proposal shall be required to meet the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance passed by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; 6. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established by the municipal code; 7. that all new utility connections to serve the site and which aze affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary; abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; and 8. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated. Maureen Brooks Planner c: N. N. Gabbay, azchitect 5 � � � � _ I\ � \/ \�_ � ' � 1 �. � : \ - • ►1� -: ' .1 : � � -� The City of Burlingame by Mare�ret Monroe on November 24, 1996, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment (XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required. project Descrintion: The project is a new three story (35' tall), 25-unit apartment building with parking for 38 cars at grade, at 601 Ansel Avenue (the corner of Ansel and Floribunda), zoned R-3. The site now consists of three lots with a total of ten dwelling units. The applicant intends to merge the three lots to create a 21,416 SF lot. All the existing structures will be demolished to accommodate the new building. The proposed units are all one bedroom, and a total of 38 parking spaces are required. The project proposes 36 standard parking stalls and two handicap stalls, which meets the parking requirements. The project has landscaped front, exterior side and rear setback areas; the interior side setback is paved and some of it is used for parking access. Reasonc for Concl�sion: This project is in-fill development and is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. The project is a redevelopment of three lots which are cunently developed with multi-family residential uses. The proposed 25-unit apartment development meets all R-3 (multi- family residential) zoning regulations. Adjacent land uses will not be adversely effected by this proposal since they too are developed in multiple family uses and the proposed project meets all the building envelope standards of the applicable zone. No new utilities, transportation methods or corridors will be needed since the site is adequately served now. No new recreational or governmental facilities will need to be extended or created to support the proposed development because the project proposes to add only 15 units in an area already developed fully served with facilities appropriately sized. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings, it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Signature of Processing Ofiicial b � Title �� • Date Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date posted: � �- � Z �1 (�' Negative Declaratio�i 601 Ar�,rel Averu�e Declaration of PostinQ I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on ��— -�- 9�, 1996. Ap ealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No C, r-�—��'.� ��__.c_ �-. �--�'i1i Y�� T r �u��. �-�� JUDITi H A MALFATTI, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME i 2 1. P� 3. INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 601 ANSEL AVENUE Project Title: 25-Unit Apartment Building Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact Person and Phone Number: Margaret Monroe, City Planner (4151696-7250 4. Project Location: Parcel with an address of 601 Ansel Avenue, Burlingame, California 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: N.N. Gabbay A.I.A. Architects 19 South B Street, Suite 7 San Mateo, CA 94401 6. General Plan Designation: Medium-high Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-3 APN : 029-100-180, 190 & 200 8. Description of the Project: The project is a new three story (35' tall), 25-unit apartment building with parking for 38 cars at grade, at 601 Ansel Avenue, zoned R-3. The site now consists of three lots with a total of ten dwelling units. The applicant intends to merge the three lots to create a 21,416 SF lot. The existing structures will have to be demolished to accommodate the new building. The proposed units are all one bedroom, and a total of 38 parking spaces are required. The project proposes 36 standard stalls and two handicap stalls, which meets the parking requirements. The project has landscaped front, exterior side and rear setback areas; the interior side setback is paved and some of it is used for parking access. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by other multi-family residential buildings. The surrounding area is planned for medium-high and high density residential uses, and is zoned R-3. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: A permit will be required from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for demolition of the existing structures. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving a�t least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on thE; roiiowin a es. Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ]�. � , � l� Mar aret onroe, City Planner Date 2 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Sfgnificant Signfficant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incarporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2 X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project7 1 X c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinityl 1 X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land 1 X uses)1 e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or 3 X minority community)7 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projectionsl 3 X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or 1,3 X major infrastructurel c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housingl 3 X 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupturel 5,7 X b? Seismic ground shakingl 5,7 X c1 Seismic ground failure, including liquefactionl 6,7 X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 1 X e) Landslides or mudflows7 6 X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or filll 1,7 X g) Subsidence of the land? 1,6 X h) Expansive soils7 6,7 X I► Unique geologic or physi.cal featuresl 5,9 X Issues and Supporting Information .SOUPC@S Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact � Mitigation Incorporated 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? � 2 X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards. such as floodingl 12 X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen 1 X or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water bodyl 1 X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements7 1 X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of � X an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capabilityl g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwaterl 1 X h) Impacts to groundwater qualityl 1 X I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater � otherwise available for public water supplies7 1 X 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation7 1 X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 1 X cl Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climatel 1 X d) Create objectionable odors7 1 X 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestionl 1 X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves o� dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. 1 X farm equipment)7 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? 8 X d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-sitel 8 X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists7 8 X 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)1 1,8 X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impactsl 1 X 7. BIOIOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals 1 X or birds)1 b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)l 1 X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)7 1 X d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pooll 1 X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridorsl 1 X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plansl 1 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient mannerl 1 X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and 1 X the residents of the Statel 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, _ 1,8 X chemicals or radiation)1 b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation planl 1 1 X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard 7 1 X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazardsl 1 X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of treesl 1 X 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levelsl 1 X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levelsl 1 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentialiy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigetion Incorporated 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection7 1,11 X b) Police protectionl 1 X c) Schoolsl 1 X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roadsl 1 X e) Other governmental servicesl 1 X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gasl 1,$ X b) Communications systemsl 1,8 X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities7 1,8 X d) Sewer or septic tanks and water supplyl 7 X e) Storm water drainage? 1 X f) Solid waste disposal7 1,8 X g) Local or regional water suppliesl 1,8 X 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highwayl 1 X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effectl 8 X c) Create light or glare7 $ x d) Block views from adjacent developmentl 1,8 X 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 1,8 X b) Disturb archaeological resourcesl 1,8 X c) Affect historical resourcesl 1,8 X d) H�ve the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural valuesl 1,9 X e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area7 1,8 X s 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilitiesl 1.8 X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities7 1,8 x 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the p�oject have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a � X plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistoryl b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, 1 X to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goalsl c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerablel ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a � X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either 1 X directly or indirectlyl 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING SUMMARY: The proposed 25-unit apartment building is consistent with the medium-high density residential land use designation of the General Plan. That designation allows construction of between 21 and 50 dwelling units per acre. The 25-unit apartment building on a 0.5 acre site results in a density of 50 dwelling units per acre, which complies with this designation. The R-3 zone district permits apartment buildings. The project will have to meet the requirements of the R-3 zone district for height, setbacks, lot coverage and parking. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING SUMMARY: This site and the surrounding area are planned for medium-high and high density uses. The proposed residential development conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed 25-unit apartment building will create more housing by replacing the existing 10 units which are on the site now. 3. GEOLOGIC SUMMARY: The site is flat and located in an urban setting which has been developed with apartments for about sixty years. There will be less seismic exposure than present, since the new building will be built to current standards. 4. WATER SUMMARY: This is a residential in-fill development project which is not located near or adjacent to waterways. The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines with adequate capacity in the system. All of the surface water will be required to have the correct site drainage to the site. This project is subject to the state-mandated water � conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. 5. AIR QUALITY SUMMARY: This is a 25-unit apartment building replacing a combined total of 10 units currently on the site. The change in emissions generated from all development in Burlingame is insignificant. The site is within easy walking distance of County-wide bus and rail service. These parcels are zoned for residential apartment and condominium uses and the proposed 25 unit (net of 15 units} project will not create any deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION SUMMARY: This project will not create a substantial increase in the traffic generation in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems have the capacity to accommodate any additional traffic or trip generation produced by this apartment project. On-site parking requirements are met. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SUMMARY: This apartment project is replacing structures of similar intensity and will not alter any existing animal habitats in the area. There are no record of rare or endangered plant or animal species for this developed urban site. No native plant life exists on site. Any indigenous plan species located on this property have been introduced by previous uses. This proposal will be required to meet the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance passed by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department. New trees required by the Parks Director will not alter the diversity or number of species of plant life in the area. There is no farmland in Burlingame. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES SUMMARY: All gas and electric services are in place with capacity to handle the addition of this development to the City of Burlingame. The incremental use of energy is insignificant; the new units will comply with Title 24 requirements, while the units removed were built before these requirements. 9. HAZARDS SUMMARY: This project has been proposed within all applicable zoning regulations. This project will not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. There are no known health hazards on the site. The Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. 10. NOISE SUMMARY: These lots have been developed for many years with multiple family uses. The new proposal will not increase the existing ambient noise levels because it is replacing structures of the same use and zoning intensity with compliance to current construction standards. All construction must abide by the construction hours established by the municipal code. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES SUMMARY: All existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities which can accommodate the addition of the proposed apartment project. s 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SUMMARY: All new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; sewer laterals will be checked and replaced if necessary. Abandoned utilities and hookups will be removed. 13. AESTHETICS SUMMARY: The proposed apartment project is replacing currently developed lots with similar intensity of use. In this particular location the land is flat and the area fully developed; no distant views or vistas are present. By complying with the same requirements as applied to other structures in the area this apartment building has been designed in a manner that is consistent with the size and mass of the area. These lots have been developed for many years with multi-family residential uses in separate structures. The new project will be developed as a single building and will have a third floor where the existing structures are two-story. The existing building to the north of the site is a three-story condominium, and the building to the west of the site is a four-story apartment. More than half of the buildings across Ansel and Floribunda from the site have three-stories, and the rest are two-story buildings. There will be no significant increase in light and glare on site from residential uses, as the proposed glazing is in similar proportion as other buildings in the area. All parking lot lights, if needed, will require use of shielded lighting fixtures. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES SUMMARY: The sites involved in this project have been developed in residential uses for many years prior to this proposal. The project will not include extensive grading or digging. Any archeological or historic, cultural, or ethnic sites which may have been in or near these locations were disturbed or destroyed by previous development prior to this proposal. Should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work will be halted until they are fully investigated. 15. RECREATION SUMMARY: The proposed apartment project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The sites involved in this project are not zoned or used for recreational uses. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. 2. This proposal is required to meet the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance passed by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department. 3. All construction must abide by the construction hours established by the municipal code. 4. All new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; sewer laterals will be checked and replaced if necessary. Abandoned utilities and hookups will be removed. 5. Should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work will be halted until they are fully investigated. :� 6. The project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General P/an, Burlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 1995 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 1994. 4 1990 Census 5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Fiancisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, Revised 1981. 6 I E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, 1972. 7 Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987. 8 November 14, 1996, Preliminary Plan of the Site. 9 Engineering Memo dated November 14, 1996. 10 Chief Building Inspector Memo dated November 12, 1996. - 11 Fire Department Memo dated November 12, 1996 regarding sprinklers and fire alarm system. 12 Parks Department Memo dated November 20, 1996. 13 Map of Approximate Locations of 1 DO-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Prograrn Flood Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981 601 ANSEL.IS io �r� �T °* , SURLINQAMi CITY OF BURI�INGAME �� °- APPLICATION TO TI� PLA►NNING COMNIISSION �e, - � Type of Application: Special Permit Variance�Other N�.C�la�il�f E T��R-I�TlO� Project Address: �vo l A�.15EL RoAD f3utzLl rIG/�M� Assessor's Parcel Number(s): Oa� - IOG - ��G � �q,0 � ao0 APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER � i ► �► u : u'-. ... : �•.. � � . r' 1� � :: �,.�� ..i�r � � - . .►' : : � _ ►'. '� City/State/Zip: SAN MAT�o � �d�4o 2 Phone (w): 3 44 - � 5 0 7 City/State/Zip: SA�1 MAT�O ,, q4d42 Phone (w): ?,44�75 a7 c��: �, „ fax: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: N• N. GAt�✓8�A`( A �a A�IZ��} � TKGT Address: 19 �u7�F P� `3T ST� �# 7 City/State/Zip: �,� N M�4T�o , C�4 . 94�1'� � Phone (w) : L4 �� ) 5 79 - 4�� I Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. rn): 3�4-750� fax: �h): fax: l�-I 5) 5 7°! �� I 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2 5 v�► I T O N� F3ED�zmM ,��a�er M EK rs AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief. ��h _ i ��% � � 2 � l�'lr' Applicant's Signature I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. ��,��—�— % � � � y'� Property Owner's Signature Date ----------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------------------------------------- Date Filed: Fee: `�� d d Planning Commission: Study Date: �� 9 �1 � Action Date: �� 3 1 ROUTING FORM DATE: �4 �� a� I"�'! � CO TO: _� CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUII.DING INSPECTOR FIItE MARSHAL PARKS DIItECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR o� J`- - AT �O � � ��-�� Cc.%Cl/� � ��x�' Lc�c� � SCHEDULED PLANIVING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: / UC�U4 ��, �I ��C� THANKS, 7ane/Sheri/Leah �-. 2, /� j" v.��'',,� '`� `�� a Date of Comments i �- �i,�. �� y d ti -�-i.� E.�c.�� :�.`�. ,,,�,��.-i .-�"�.. ..�.e �c�t�, T�,.� �� , r�,.�o �� 2 �..e-�r �yK,r ,,1 l�- � -�- o � wt o v.� `�'o �"+� I,P � � -� o w�ti ( [.a -f �..,.s�.. (�l1�,` 1,1.Q �,u c�.. /�.w � �;'- 1�'" � � a ;�� .� p�. .Q� .�� .� o tn -� ..P u,o."V � � � .�. a�'-2 i � �.0 � �� '� Y�s, 'r �'''k: `'�. r � �t,e, �t,► o �� t� � � 1 I�,,� � `�' ., �n, c �,�e -$��t.�..�z. r,�l -f'lr..Q -�' � � [ ��v�o` �o u�a CL� �`.�, �� UY� � i�-�t-* s'�c� t � ,,U ,.. �..¢ �7w � l;.-f,�t (..��' ��%-e �*`'' �.{�' �.�C '� � 1/1 lc C..r' �� f, �� y�,, ;�,.��o.c,. �,n.;.'"� ,1��•,�':2��c.,h,c.0 , /�`� � ! �"`f �``� �"� � ��i D a.�-��s�� C.uvwv�� i ��,�-�-.�� l 2 - z - �i � � ROUTING FORM DATE: /V4V� �a� I "�'! �� TO: CITY ENGINEER � CHIEF BUII.DING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR �S - Ul�u.t C�; , � �LG�J AT �O � � �`�"�-�-° � SCHEDULED PLAI�iNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: ��U� �� ,��C� -•--, THANKS, 7ane/Sheri/Leah � ��67/� Date of Comments � �-- �s �,`�-e � o�-� � �� , �, m n �%�' a�� YZ��G � � C� � ROUTING FORM DATE: /VOV, �a� I '�'1 �CO TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUII,DING INSPECTOR _ �� FIRE MARSHAL PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR o�S - Uvc,�t C�� '�/k� �%G(�G� -- ' r� pLcv�i/.� . AT �O � � /��-�-° �- SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: /�/(� U4 �� I�� C� THANKS , Jane/Sheri/Leah (�'" � 2-�`� � Date of Comments I. 3�J�.�..DtNcp �Vs� �. �20-��.,r�o c3y � c_..oM,��.r� a�.sr�rr�nc� °�P,e-�nt�s�.*c. sH.s�'E�.. 2` `��,,. c�iLD�tJ�, MJs i Ni°t�VE � c.00KPt��T'E. -��2E l�t.�;-R.i+� S�I.bTE.� �, 1-��s 1�r Z��s� �a� c..o�s n��.c.r� -ro P�+•� �t�w�� c.�ca��.. t�'c-n ;Z c�.l . z_____ ROUTING FORM DATE: / VD V� � I "�'1 � � TO: CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUII,DING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL � PARKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: REQLTEST FOR o�S — ► AT �Q G � �l�l.�°-� �.,o��' G,�� , �G�/IiV.� �/ l2 / �l � SCHEDULED PLANr1ING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: REVIEWED BY STAFF MEETING ON MONDAY: � r�� n, �� THANKS , 7ane/Sheri/Leah `l " Zd " `r � Date of Comments . 1 ��s ��1 r�v i�� w� a--e. �' ,t�-e�-� Z-� `r � ox s�1 � i� J !`� _ �-�s ; .� � % �-�o,� � T�� C � S � �s K w ,� y---e/vl-G2, � � , ` , A � G�p �� I'E'. �it t U�S � a D�fr �tiS�UZ� � �. �c�-t� - J � 3 � `� �cvtj�S o� � (-r�< a¢�-ro� ��ws' � �' P, � � � �,��ss�� /''� �t,s � l�.e ��'r� � � � r,-e �2 � N.N.GABBAY ARCHITECTS Architecwre Planning & Interior Design City of Burli�;game Planning Cor�imission 13��.rlingame, CA Bear Coinmissioners, January 6, 1997 Th� following �,re responses to issues and questions brought focvvard at trie study session of the plai�riing coinmission on December 9, l 996. I Condominium versus Apartment Construction Re��.uirements. There is no difference in the building asper•t. However, in the planning aspects the most evident differences regard open space and landscape requirem�nts. Condaminium developments require 75 square feet of private open space and 100 square feet of common open space per unit. A(so, in condominium development, the front setback has to have 60% landscape design, and the rear setback 50% landscape desigri. There are no such requirements for apartment buildings. 2 Architectural Context. As is evident in viewing the streetscape photographs that are part of our presentation, the existing structures in the neighborhood are quite varied. There is no consistent architectural style to foilow. �i.u- desi�� uses certa.in elements that are common to the neighborhood. One element, the b�.y �vinda�v, is used on tlie structures, on either side �f our proposed new apartment huildi,��;, AnollYer element, the simply-shaped �natisard roof, is cammon to the area. The cor�ler solarium t�w:,r cr�eates a foial �oir.t giving the new building a�,propriate presence at thE street corner. in closing, we h�pe ��e have created an "infill" building that fits with the established chara�,ter of the community. Sincerely Your Neil ab a , AIA N.N. Ganbay Architect� , RE�El�/�D JAN - 6 1997 CITY OF BURLINGAiv1E PLANNING DEPT. 19 South B Street Suite #7 San Mateo, CA 94401-3907 Tel: (415) 579-4611 Fax: (4i5) 579-4617 �, CITY OF BURLINGAME euRUNG� PLANNING DEPARTMENT �501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (415) 696-7250 601 ANSEL AVENLTE APN: 029-100-180, 190 8t 200 Application for Negative neclaration for a new three-story, 25-unit apartment building gt 601 Anscl Avcnuc, zonod R-3. The City of Burlu�ame Plannin� Commission announces the following public hearin� or� b�y Jan�y 1�,1997 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Raad, Burlingame, Galifarnia. Mafled Jtttivary 3. 1997 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CI TY OF B URLINGAME � A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in' the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about �this : notice, _ For addition�l information, �iiease call (415) 696-7250. Thank you.� � � � Margaret Monioe ' City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other sideJ RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a negative declaration has been proposed and application has been made for a new three-storX., 25 unit apartment buildin� at 601 Ansel Avenue, zoned R-3, APN: 029-100-180, 190 & 200, Mr. and Mrs. Con Brosnan,�property owners: WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 13, 1997 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Negative Declaration ND- 483-P is hereby approved. 2. Said negative declaration is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such negative declaration 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, Charles Mink , 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 13th day of 7anuary , 1997 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval negative declaration 601 ANSEL AVENUE effective JANiJARY 22, 1997 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 26, 1996, Sheet A.1 through A.7, PL-1 and T1. 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 14, 1996 memo, the Fire Marshall's November 12, 1996 memo and the Parks Department's November 20, 1996 memo shall be met; 3. that the use and any construction for the use shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 4. that the project shall be subject to the state-mandated water conservation program; a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 5. that this proposal shall be required to meet the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance passed by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Pazks Department; 6. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established by the municipal code; 7. that all new utility connections to se�ve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet cunent code standards and diameter; sewer laterals sha11 be checked and replaced if necessary; abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; and 8. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they aze fully investigaterl.