Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1500 Cypress Avenue & 101-105 El Camino Real - Approval Lettert A CITY OF BURLINGAME �RLINGA►ME City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 July 25, 2018 Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu 23 Geary Street #510 San Francisco, CA 94108 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division Re: 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real, Burlingame Dear Mr. Chang and Mr. Hu: PH: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the June 25, 2018, Planning Commission approval of your application for Design Review and Condominium Permit became effective July 5, 2018. This application was for the construction of a new three-story, four -unit multi -family residential condominium building at 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real, zoned R-3. The June 25, 2018, minutes of the Planning Commission state your application was approved with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 15, 2018, sheets A0.1 through A4.3, L1, L2 and Boundary and Topographic Map; 2. that the project shall go before the Planning Commission for review of an FYI for the following items prior to building permit issuance: a. both the Cypress Avenue (exterior - east) and the interior (west) elevations shall be revised to add articulation; b. the size of the proposed pittosporum shall be revised with the consultation of a landscape architect (current size proposed at 5-gallon); c. the south side (rear) fence shall be revised from redwood to a solid material; d. the Cypress Avenue (east) wall along the parking area shall be revised to add articulation and/or openings; e. consider reducing the size of the roof decks. 3. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $5,537.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 4. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $5,537.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; :o Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org N s, July 25, 2018 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Page 2 5. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 6. that the applicant shall apply for a Tentative and Final Condominium Map and Tentative Map for lot combination with the Public Works, Engineering Division for processing in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act; 7. that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation for any work proposed in the state right-of-way; 8. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 134.75' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (100.21') for a maximum height of 34'-7", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage/first floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 101.67'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 110.67'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 120.67'. 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; 9. 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 Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 10. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 11. that the service/delivery vehicle parking stall shall be identified on the site and designated on the final map and plans, the service/delivery vehicle stall shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the service/delivery vehicle stall shall always be accessible for parking and not be used for resident storage; 12. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the service/delivery vehicle stall shall be reserved for service/delivery vehicles only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 13. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 14. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; t<a' Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org N' I 4 , July 25, 2018 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Page 3 15. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 16. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 17. 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; 18. 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; 19. 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; 20. 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; cove ri ng/tarpi ng stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 21. 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; 22. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 23. that this project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, the City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, and complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 24. 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; 25. 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; 1 ®s Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org ss July 25, 2018 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Page 4 26, 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; 27. 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; 28. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 29. 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; 30. 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; 31. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 32. 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; 33. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 34. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit issuance, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 35. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 36. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 37. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; 38. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; All site improvements and construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. This approval is valid for one year during which time a building permit must be issued. An extension of up to one year may be considered by the Planning Commission if application is made before the end of the first year. ®e Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org e: July 25, 2018 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Page 5 The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If you wish to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, you must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. Sincerely, Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director C. Opal Investments LLC/Peach Investment Corp., property owners 23 Geary Street #510 San Francisco, CA 94108 Chief Deputy Valuation, Assessor's Office (CENTER 50 FT LOT 1 BURLINGAME HEIGHTS RSM C/45; APN: 028-294-050) (E 50 FT OF LOT 1 BURLINGAME HEIGHTS RSM C/45; APN: 028-294-060) File leg Register online to receive City of Burlingame e-mail updates at www.burlingame.org I$m Item No. 8f Regular Action Item PROJECT LOCATION 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real City of Burlingame Item No. 8f Design Review, Condominium Permit, Tentative Condominium Map and Regular Action Item Tentative Map for Lot Combination Address: 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination for a new three-story, four -unit residential condominium. Applicant: Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu APN: 028-294-050 and 028-294-060 Property Owner: Opal Investments LLC Lot Area: 10,042 SF (combined) General Plan: Medium High Density Residential Zoning: R-3 Adjacent Development: Multi -family and single-family dwellings and offices Current Use: Single family dwelling and detached garage at 1500 Cypress Avenue Single family dwelling and shed at 105 El Camino Real Proposed Use: Four -unit residential condominium building Allowable Use: Multi -family residential Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (b), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including a duplex or similar multi -family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Heights subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Historic Resource Evaluations were prepared for both 1500 Cypress Avenue and 105 El Camino Real by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated January 28, 2014. The results of the evaluation concluded that neither property appears to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 (b), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including a duplex or similar multi -family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units is exempt from environmental review. December 11, 2017 Design Review Study Meeting: At the December 11, 2017, Planning Commission design review study meeting, the Commission had several questions and suggestions regarding this project (see attached December 11, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the meeting minutes for a detailed list of concerns expressed by the Commission. The architect submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped June 15, 2018 to address the Commission's comments. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination Since the December 11, 2017 study meeting, several changes have been made to the project, some of which address the concerns and comments expressed by the Planning Commission. The following is a summary of the significant changes made to the project: 1. The previously requested Parking Variance for providing required parking spaces in tandem configuration has been eliminated. The project has been revised so that the required parking spaces are provided side -by -side in enclosed garages and at the rear of the site along the south property line (see revised First Floor Plan, sheet A2.1. 2. The previously requested Parking Variance for not providing a required guest parking spaces has been eliminated. The project has been revised so that one guest parking spaces is provided at the rear of the site along the south property line (see revised First Floor Plan, sheet A2.1). 3. The common open space, previously provided at the front corner of the site, has been relocated to the rear corner of the site (see revised Site Plan, Schematic Landscape Plan and Landscape Plan, sheets A1.4, LOA and L1, respectively). This new common open space contains landscaping, a patio, and seating area. 4. Roof decks have been shifted closer to the north end of the building (towards El Camino Real). Previously, the roof decks were located 32 to 40 feet away from the rear property line. With the current proposal, the roof decks are located 45-83/" from the rear property line (see revised Roof Plan, sheet A2.4). The applicant also submitted a Sightline Diagram, date stamped June 19, 2018, to show the relationship between the proposed roof decks and adjacent neighbor to the south. 5. Revisions to all four building facades were made to address the Planning Commission's comments and suggestions. Additional articulation and details have been added throughout the exterior facades (see revised building elevations, sheets A3.1 through A3.4). In addition to the building elevations, the applicant provided several renderings from viewpoints along El Camino Real and Cypress Avenue (see sheets A0.1, R1, R2 and R3). 6. The previously proposed 2-bedroom unit has been changed to a 4-bedroom unit. Therefore, the project now proposes a total of 4, 4-bedroom units (see revised Floor Plans). 7. The family rooms previously proposed on the second floor at the rear of the building have been replaced with bedrooms which were previously proposed on the ground floor (see revised Second Floor Plan, sheet A2.3). 8. The previously proposed storage basements (one for each unit) have been eliminated. 9. The design of the planters along the front of the building along El Camino Real have been redesigned so that they don't create a barrier between the building and the street. Individual walkways are now provided from the entries directly to the sidewalk (see revised Site Plan, Schematic Landscape Plan and Landscape Plan, sheets A1.4, LOA and L1, respectively). Project Summary: The applicant is proposing construction of a new three-story, four -unit residential condominium building with covered and uncovered at -grade parking at 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real, zoned R-3. Two existing lots, with addresses of 1500 Cypress Avenue and 105 El Camino Real would be combined for the proposed project. Multifamily residential uses are permitted in the R-3 District. The project site is located at the corner of Cypress Avenue and El Camino Real and currently contains a one- story single family dwelling and detached garage (with living space above the garage) at 1500 Cypress Avenue and a one-story single family dwelling and shed at 105 El Camino Real. All of the existing structures on the K -(aajjn6 pue gano Aemap!s piepuels a ypM peoeldaa pue pajeulwlla aq IIIM lead oulweo 13 6uole uoade AeMGAIJp pue Ino gano bullslxe ayj) lead oulweo 13 woaj ssaooe alolyan ou aq pinom away}'anuany ssaidAo woaj aq pinom sa6eae6 ay1 of ssaooe aelnolyan -saoeds bu1>{aed ZI, jo lejol a col `101 914110 aeaa a141 }e saoeds bui�jed paaanooun inol pue sa6eae6 pasoloua u1 saoeds 6ui�jaed paaanoo Iy6la sapinoad joefoid pasodoad ayl 'paaanoo aq Isnw yoigm jo %08 'saoeds 6u1>{aed 01, jo lejol a saalnbai joefoid pasodoad ayj 'jiun aad swooapaq jo aagwnu ayj uo pase8 -spun wooapaq-anol col paalnbaa aae saoeds bu1�aed jley-auo pue om I -pn aad swooapaq jo aagwnu uo paseq bui>{aed }aaajs-}}o saalnbai apoo ayl :6uP1Jed IaaaIS-JJO -suol}elnbaa }y6lay 6ulpllnq yIIM jue11dwoo s1 joefoid ayj 'pasodoad sy *„g-,Z£ sl 6ulpllnq ay} jo }adeied fuewlad ayj 10 do} ayj of jy61a14 ayl '(„O-,5£ spaaoxa ILAN 6uipllnq jI paalnbaa }Iwaad ash leuolllpuoo) pamolle wnwlxew ayj s1 „O-,gg aJggM lanai gano jo do} a6eaane anoge „L-,t,£ le pasodoad sl 'ebpla poi js9y6ly ayi jo dol ayj of painseaw se 'buipllnq ayj jo jgbiay Iieaano ayl -Ilene ay} woaj sayoul aaayl passaoaa aq o} pasodoad aae smopuim ayl -slagaoo pue sayoae 'sallasoi aa}seld pue sally juaooe apnloul sjuawala anlJeaooaa -saluooleq le sbu11lea lejaw pa}uled pue wuj nnopulnn Poonn `salIl papinlp ana} pajelnwls qj!m snnopulnn poonn pelo lejaw scoop a6eae6 pue Aijua poonn pa}uled 'sal1j Jooa anano ,S, 16ulpls aalseld juawao apnloul 6ulpllnq ay} jo aoualxe ay} col pasodoad sleuajen :nnalnaN UBISOO lead oulweO 13 901� pue anuany ssaadAo 0096 jo sassaippe yjIM slaoied bullslxe aulgwoo of uolleulgwoo job aoj deVj anlJeIual pue 'den wnlulwopuoo anl}eJual '(OZ0,0£'gZ ,S,O) buipllnq wnlulwopuoo lellueplsaa nnau e jo uollonaisuoo aoj l!waad wnlulwopuoo '((q) OL0'L5,5Z pUe 5t0"gZ*OZ S,O) 6ulpllnq wnlulwopuoo lei}uaplsai }Iun-ano} Ajojs-aaayj nnau a jo uol}onalsuoo pasodoad 9y1 JOI nnalna�J u61saQ joefoid slyl ao; paalnbaa aae suolleo11dde bulnnollol ayl -aooll palyj ayj woaj pn yoea ulgl!M papinoad Sil s�loap Jooa a;enlad ayl of ssaooy 'swooayleq onni pue swooapaq aaayj ulejuoo lllM a001J pa1yj ayl -(AeMlley ayj o} uado s1 jI aouls wooapaq a se Aplenb jou seop) uap uado ue pue wooapaq auo 'Aipunel 'wooayleq 'uayojl>{ 'sewe bululp/6ulnll uleluoo lI1M spn inoj Ile col aoolj puooas ayl -saauleluoo bu11oAoaa/96egae6 pue 96eao;s aloAo1q col coeds sapinoad osle yolynn 'a6eae6 pue J@Aol Ailue ue u1e#uoo IIInn pun yoea col cool; punoa6 ayl -spn wooapaq-anol 'inol sapnloul joefoid ayl -aull Apadoid y}nos ayj 6uole papinoad aae saoeds bu1�aed paaanooun xis Iewi ppe uy '6ulpllnq ayj ;o aeaa ayj le pajeool j!un yoea aoj sa6eae6 6u.�jed apea6-je pasoloua y1IM 'saoolJ aaayl ul spn leljuaplsaa inoj uleluoo phone buipllnq pasodoad aql 1uaw913 6ulsnoH £ZOZ-060Z ay1 ul aj!S Apniaoddp 6ulsnoH a se pajeu6lsap jou s1 Apadoid ayl -aaoe aad spn bulllannp L 1, 10 A}lsuap e s1 g31yM spn inol col s1 uoljeolidde ayl -spn I, I, of do snnolle yolynn 'aaoe aad spn 6ulllaMp 00-I-Z ylIM lelluaplsaa A1!su9a y61H-wnlpan jo uoljeu6lsap asn puel ueld Iea9ua0 a sey pue £-8 pauoz s1 A( jadoad joafgns ayl '101 ayj 10 luoaj ay} paaaplsuoo s1 a6eluOJI lead oulweO 13 ay} 'joafoid pasodoad ayj ao3 'lead oulweo 13 pue anuany ssaadAo yjoq uo sabe}uoaj y}Inn 101 aauaoo a s1 11 Isann ayj of sbulpllnq AIlwellllnw Ajojs-aaayj pue Isea ayj of 6ulpllnq lel}uaplsaa Allwel!llnw Ajojs-aaayj a 'yjnos ayj 01 6ulllaMp AI!weJ 916uls a 'y ou ay} 01 lead oulweO 13 ss000e buipllnq aoigo Ajo}s-auo a Aq paaapaoq sl ajls aql 6ulpllnq wnlulwopuoo lel}uaplsai j!un-anoj pasodoad ayj pllnq of paysllowap aq phone Aliadoid joafgns uogeulgwoo jo-7aoj deal eAgejual pue deal wnluluropuoj anr4e4ual leaL( oulweo 13 god -God pue anuany ssaad/fo pogk 'liuuad wnlulwopuoj 'Magna& u6lsaQ Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination For projects with two to four units, the code requires that one guest parking space be provided on -site. One guest parking space is provided at the rear of the lot along the south property line. Lastly, the code requires that the condominium development provide an area for deliveries. The code does not specify that it be a dedicated parking space, only that it be "an area for on -site deliveries." The project proposes a service/delivery parking space at the rear of the lot along the south property line. Common and Private Open Space: There is a total of 526 SF (131.5 SF/unit) of common open space proposed for the condominium project where 400 SF (100 SF/unit) is required. The common open space is provided at the rear corner of the lot. Of the minimum required common open space, a minimum of 50% must be in soft landscaping (200 SF); 290 SF of the provided common open space is proposed to be landscaped and therefore is in compliance. There is 194 SF to 279 SF in private open space per unit (75 SF/unit is the minimum required) provided in balconies located on the second and third floors and on decks located on the roof top. The uncovered roof decks are located toward the front half of the building, 45'-8%" from the rear property line (see Roof Plan on sheet A2.4). Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plan (sheets L1 and L2). The applicant is proposing 63.2% (1,267 SF) landscaping within the required front setback where 50% (1,002 SF) is the minimum required. The project meets all other zoning code and condominium permit requirements. There are three existing trees on the subject property including a 36-inch diameter Cypress tree located at the front corner of the lot, a multi -trunk Palm tree along Cypress Avenue and a 14-inch diameter Red Spire tree in between the two lots to be merged. The existing protected -size Cypress tree will remain and will be required to be protected during construction; the remaining non -protected size trees will be removed. In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multifamily residential use is required to provide a minimum of one 24-inch box -size minimum non -fruit trees for every 2000 SF of lot coverage. Based on the proposed project, a total of three landscape trees are required on site. The Landscape Plan notes that in addition to retaining the existing Cypress tree, there will be four 36-inch box Japanese maple trees and six 15-gallon Maple trees planted in the front setback along El Camino Real, three 24-inch box Variegated Box - Leaf Azara trees planted along Cypress Avenue, and 5-gallon Pittosporum planted along the rear property line. Two existing street trees along Cypress Avenue, which are small and in poor condition, will be removed and replaced with three 24-inch box Ginko biloba trees as required by the City Arborist. The City Arborist is also requiring that two, 24-inch box Eucalyptus 'citriadora' trees be planted in the right-of-way along El Camino Real. Affordable (Below -Market Rate) Units: The City's previous Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has been replaced by a Density Bonus Ordinance consistent with State Law. The Density Bonus Ordinance is discretionary, and projects are not obligated to provide affordable units unless they seek to utilize development standard incentives offered by the ordinance. The applicant has not chosen to apply any of the development standard incentives offered by the Density Bonus Ordinance and therefore is not providing any affordable units as part of the project. This space intentionally left blank. 4 Design Review, Condominium Permit, Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-106 El Camino Real 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Lot Area: 1 U,U41 51- runs uaie slam eu: Jul IC I J, LU I0 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front (El Camino Real) (15t fir): 20'-0" 20'-0" (2nd fir): 20'-0" 20'-0" (3•d fir): 20'-0" 20'-0" (roof deck): .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................; 23'-8%" 20'-0" ......................................................................... Exterior Side (1S1 fir): 7 -8 7'-6" (2nd fir): 9'-8" 7'-6" (3'd fir): 9'-8" 8'-6" (roof deck): ................................................................................................................................-.............................................................................................................................................._.1..........................................................................................................................._................................._ 12'-10'/z" 9'-61, Interior Side (15t fir): 7'-2'/2" 7'-0" (2nd fir): 9'-2'/z" 8'-0" (3•d fIr): 9'-2'/2" 9'-0" (roof deck): 12'-11 %" 10'-01, ................................ ............................. ............................................................ ...... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................o..................................... Rear (1s' fir): 20'-0" 20'-0" (2nd fir): 20'-0" ! 20'-0" (3'd fir): 20'-0" 20'-0" (roof deck): ................................................. 45'-8%" .................................1 20'-0" .............................................................................................................................. Lot Coverage: 5,073 SF 6,025 SF 50.5% ' 60% Building Height: I 34'-7" to top of highest roof ridge I 55'-0" maximum/ 33'-8" to main parapet CUP required to exceed 35'-0" Front Setback Landscaping: Private Open Space: ........................................................................................................................... Common Open Space: SF Landscaped: .......................................................................................................... I ................ Off -Street Parking: 1 guest spaces 1 guest space 1 service/delivery space Area for on -site deliveries required 80% covered 80% must be covered 5 Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on September 27, 2017, which at that time included a proposal for a modern, contemporary building design (see attached notice, rendering and plans mailed to the surrounding neighborhood). Letters expressing concern with the design were submitted by several neighbors (attached). Since meeting with the neighbors, the applicant has revised the project to address the neighbors' concerns and is now proposing a design that is consistent with Spanish architecture. Public Facilities Impact Fee: The purpose of public facilities impact fee is to provide funding for necessary maintenance and improvements created by development projects. Public facilities impact fees are based on the uses, the number of dwelling units, and the amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of the development project. New development that, through demolition or conversion, will eliminate existing development is entitled to a fee credit offset if the existing development is a lawful use under this title, including a nonconforming use. Based on a 4-unit residential condominium project and providing a credit for the two existing single family dwellings, the estimated Public Impact Fee for this development project is $11,074.00. The Public Impact Fees payment will be required at time of building permit issuance. One-half of the public facilities impact fees payment will be required prior to issuance of a building permit issuance; the second half of the payment will be required before the final framing inspection. Planning staff would note the additional fees that apply to the project that will be required at the time of building permit issuance include sewer connection fees (determined by Public Works) as well as school fees (elementary and high school fees). Design Review: Design review is required for new construction of multi -family residential developments in the R-3 and R-4 Districts. The following considerations shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission (Code Section 25.57.010(b): (1) Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood; (2) Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles; (3) Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used; and (4) Incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the proposed condominium building will be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood with the use of a variety of quality materials including cement plaster siding, 'S' curve roof tiles, painted wood entry and garage doors, metal clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood window trim and painted metal railings at balconies and the use of decorative elements such as accent tiles, plaster rosettes, arches and corbels. The new three-story building respects the mass and scale of this portion of El Camino Real which has a mix of two and three-story multifamily residential buildings with a variety of architectural styles. The building includes articulated facades that provide visual interest throughout the building. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's four design review criteria. n. Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination Criteria for Permitting a Residential Condominium: The following condominium standards shall apply to all land and structures proposed as a part of a condominium project and shall be evaluated and processed pursuant to the procedural requirements set forth for Conditional Use Permits in title 25 of this code. No condominium project or portion thereof shall be approved or conditionally approved in whole or in part unless the planning commission, or city council upon appeal or review, has reviewed the following on the basis of their effect on: (a) Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare; (b) The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources; and (c) Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations. Suggested Findings for Condominium Permit: Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare in that the four -unit residential condominium project is scaled to be compatible with existing multifamily buildings along El Camino Real and features ample landscaping with usable common open space; The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources in that because the project site is located in an urban area, is surrounded by commercial and residential development which is served by utility and public services, and that the existing single family dwellings and detached garage will be replaced with a three-story building containing four residential units on the same lot, the proposed project can be adequately served by required utility and public services since the proposed project is only contributing two net new units on the site and the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations, in that the project provides two additional residential units (four total) consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision. Affirmative action on the following items should be taken separately by resolution. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Design Review and Condominium Permit. 2. Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination (recommendation for approval by City Council). At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 15, 2018, sheets A0.1 through A4.3, L1, L2 and Boundary and Topographic Map; 7 Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 10 1- 105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $5,537.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 3. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $5,537.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 4. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 5. that the applicant shall apply for a Tentative and Final Condominium Map and Tentative Map for lot combination with the Public Works, Engineering Division for processing in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act; 6. that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation for any work proposed in the state right-of-way; 7. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 134.75' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (100.21') for a maximum height of 34'-7", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage/first floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 101.67'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 110.67'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 120.67'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 8. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 9. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 10. that the service/delivery vehicle parking stall shall be identified on the site and designated on the final map and plans, the service/delivery vehicle stall shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the service/delivery vehicle stall shall always be accessible for parking and not be used for resident storage; 11. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the service/delivery vehicle stall shall be reserved for service/delivery vehicles only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 12. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 13. 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; A Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 14. 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; 15. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 16. 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; 17. 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; 18. 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; 19. 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; 20. 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; 21. 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; 22. that this project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, the City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, and complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 23. 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; 24. 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; 25. 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; .01 Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 26. 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; 27, that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 28. 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; 29. 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; 30. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 31. 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; 32. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 33. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit issuance, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 34. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 35. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 36. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 37. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu, applicants Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect 10 Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination Attachments December 11, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Response Letter Submitted by the Applicant, date stamped June 15, 2018 Sightline Diagram Submitted by the Applicant, date stamped June 19, 2018 Letter Submitted by V. Winnie Tungpagasit, Esq., representing Freddy Bush, dated December 7, 2017 Letter Submitted by Peter Comaroto, dated December 11, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Neighborhood Meeting Notice (September 27, 2017) Letters of Concern Submitted by Neighbors for Initial Project Design Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed June 15, 2018 Area Map Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluations prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated January 28, 2014 11 Monday, December 11, 2017 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers d. 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 EI Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Parking Variances and Lot Combination for a new three-story, four -unit residential condominium (Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu, applicants; Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect; Opal Investments LLC, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto noted that one of the letters sent to the Planning Commission was from her husband Peter Comaroto who talked about the project. He speaks for himself only, and Commissioner Comaroto's view will be unbiased. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff. - There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Gary Gee, Gary Gee Architects, represented the applicant, with Wayne Hu. Commission Questions/Comments: > South elevation has a portion of blank wall right in the center. It stands out because everything else is so detailed and complex. Suggests using 6-inch tiles like in the front. (Gee: Could embellish it to make it integrated.) > How are the roof decks accessed? (Gee: The skylight over the staircase slides open. There is no stair penthouse. Has used them in otherjurisdictions. Can also consider a hinged option.) > The turning radius from El Camino Real onto Cypress is a sharp right turn. Are any issues anticipated with cars parking at the corner? (Gee: There are two or three cars parked there already typically. Has not discussed restricted curb parking with staff, but it could be discussed.) > What is water table? Concern with basement water. (Hu: Has discussed this with a civil engineer and does not anticipate a problem since there is not a driveway going down into an underground garage. Has designed the front of building with a low landscape wall.) > Will there be drainage problems on the Cypress side? (Gee: Cypress is downhill. The driveway is at the highest point and it slopes down towards El Camino. There are two catch basins, one on the corner at El Camino.) Even the higher elevation properties experience issues with ground water. > Will the deep-set windows be only on El Camino Rea? (Gee: No, on all sides.) > What is the exceptional circumstance justifying the variance? (Gee: Does not have access for vehicles on El Camino Real, and does not want the driveway on Cypress close to the intersection. Tried to provide as much covered parking as possible, but could not provide the guest parking.) > How is the common open space at the corner used? (Gee: Landscaping with rocks, planting and seating. It is a passive seating area and is gated. The tree line extends over the open space.) Suggests a vegetable garden or bocce court - any way to activate it, or relocate it to to make it more active. ( Gee: Anyone walking to their units needs to walk past the open space, which will activate it. Ties it closer to the City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 811912018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017 residents. Could sit and watch children at play because it is enclosed. Can look at other possibilities.) > Average unit sizes? (Gee: 2511, 2611 and 1785 square feet.) > How would the style be described? (Gee: Spanish Hacienda or Revival like courtyard housing in Pasadena and Boyle Heights in Los Angeles.) > It is a difficult style unless willing to commit to the details that are necessary for the style. (Gee: The Juliet balcony would be expressed correctly, maybe raising it so the floor of the balcony matches the floor of the window rather than the floor of the sill. Can provide more details in the next pass.) > How tall is the planter wall that screens El Camino? (Gee: It is approximately four feet. The shrubbery is meant to create a screen or visual filter between the inner walkway and the roadway. Storm water runoff from the roof will be fed into the planter as well, so the planter needs to be a certain height to provide storm water filtration.) > How tall is the curved wall? (Gee: The outer part is just a wall; the other part is a planer. About 30 inches high. The rendering shows an earlier design and needs to be updated.) > Which will be higher, the wall along El Camino Real or the curved wall? (Gee: The wall along El Camino Real.) > Have there been studies of sight lines for the roof decks? Should be included with the next submittal. (Gee: Yes, they were requested by the neighbor at 1508 Cypress. Did not include them in the submittal.) > Is there a guard rail around to the deck? (Gee: It is a clear 42-inch laminated glass rail with a dark bronze/brown cap fastened to the side of the deck. It will prevent people from using the rest of the roof.) > If guests park along the 1508 Cypress fence side will there be enough turning radius for cars coming in and out of their driveways? (Hu: The driveway width is 24 feet. Tested to see if a vehicle could be moved in three maneuvers, and it fits. It would be temporary parking, and could work out among neighbors for guests and the service parking.) > Would spaces along the back wall be marked? (Hu: No, they would not be designated.) Public Comments. Fredy Bush, 1508 Cypress Avenue: Concerns with privacy, noise, and parking. Windows facing will look into living spaces of home. Three levels looking into the home. Driveway of project will be next to neighboring driveway, so will be facing parking garages with people coming in and out. Very little parking on Cypress Avenue, needs to be sure there is parking in front of her house for van with grandson in wheelchair. Winnie Tungpagasit, counsel for Fredy Bush. Has submitted letter with requests. Opposed parking variance, there are no extraordinary circumstances. Huge family room windows facing into client's bedroom, requests minimize the size, location height of the windows. Letter suggests a sound barrier wall with landscaping and trees of sufficient height to provide privacy on both sides. Concern about garage door openers; can be minimized with the type of opener. Requests site evaluation from the balconies and windows, suggests move decks closer to El Camino Real for more privacy. Request solid/opaque rails on south side of roofdecks. Concern with construction noise, requests construction fence with sound barrier. Would like weekends and holidays excluded from construction. William Stoyle, 1510 Cypress Avenue: Does not believe can turn a car within the amount of space. Cars will end up parking on Cypress Avenue. Busy intersection, a lot of parking demand on intersection. Two-hour parking on Cypress Avenue helps but still gets shoppers parking there. Commission should account for overall parking situation in the neighborhood when considering the project. Kirby Altman, 1537 Cypress Avenue: Appreciates early outreach, plans look much better than original submittal. Cypress Ave has only a small window on first floor, would like it treated so it does not look like a blank wall hiding a garage, make it look more like a house on the street. Will be looking at the building from Cypress Avenue, not El Camino Real. Two scrawny street trees with small planters, request the developer take out concrete between the sidewalk and the curb to allow better trees with irrigation. Would like the fir tree trimmed around the streetlight. Drainage basins along El Camino Real do not work and there is standing water when it rains; if water is pumped out from the project it will add to the problem. Lots City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 811912018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017 of Caltrans poles and boxes on the corner, narrows the sidewalk and hard to pass by - could be a nice gateway to the neighborhood. Assumes only the residents of 1500 Cypress would be able to get permit parking. Krista McCutcheon, 1512 Carol Avenue: Agrees with the neighbors regarding water accumulation. Does not like the architecture. Improved and the drawings look good, but in the rendering the building looks huge with big white concrete walls. Does not see the recesses and archways. Very tall compared to the surrounding buildings, concerned it will not look like the neighborhood residential. It is a gateway into a historic neighborhood. There could be additional improvements on the sidewalk, could widen it. James Baleix, 831 Edgehill Drive: Two homes were put onto one lot, and faced away from each other. Likes the design, wondered why not underground parking like the one across the street. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Has an issue with the parking variance. Does not see the exceptional circumstance, just because there is not access from El Camino Real. There is not a nexus with not being able to provide guest parking. > Can't accept that cars will park along the fence, would block others and lead to irritation and eventually people will park on the street. > Difficult architectural style to achieve unless can commit to the details. Risk is a watered-down Spanish -style building. 1512 Floribunda Avenue is a good example - a lot of timber on the balconies, ceramic tile, details that make it stand out and give it texture and richness. Still lacking on this proposal, such as the square windows without muntins. > Would expect wood -stained garage doors, but note specifies painted wood flush panel garage doors. 11 they are plain white or beige it would not contribute to the architecture. > Fence along the west property line looks like a common wood residential fence. Needs to go the distance for the Spanish Revival style. Has plaster details instead of wood corbels and wood timbers. > Needs to see more information on the roof decks, such as the handrail and sight lines. The glass rail does not fit with the architecture. > Feels like the variance has been backed into based on the development program, not site -specific. Feels like it is bursting at the seams. > Has the opportunity to be a really nice project on the corner if the architecture comes together. > Feels like it is turning its back on the corner, isolating itself behind the walls and hedges. The hedges will grow tall and hide the front doors, and will not give back to the street. > Two parking variances being requested. Can't see the unique characteristics of the site. Needs to address both variances, not just the guest parking. OK with the concept of tandem parking, but it still needs to be an approvable variance. > The building is in scale with the building to the right, and the building across the street. However the unit sizes are large, which drives the problem with the variance. > Applicant could revisit underground parking, like the building next door. > Likes tree being on the corner being retained, but makes it hard to use open space. Will be hard to grow things under the tree. > Design of the open space needs to embrace the tree or the corner more fully. > Windows in the family rooms are very large, could be reduced in size or modify the floor plans. Would appease the neighbor if bedrooms were on the back side. > Consider solid balconies for privacy. > Neighbor privacy issues are noted but it is a difficult balance. Roof decks seem well -positioned. > Nice design, appreciates that it does not need to have drastic changes. > Appropriate site for the project, on El Camino Real. > Commission has approved tandem parking previously. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on City of Burlingame Page 3 Punted on 611912018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 11, 2017 the Regular Action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 9 - Gum, Gum, Gaul, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 611912018 KESPO�-ASE. I-F-T F-A, SVI15M I'T'r>;p ISY APP(,1CAt-JT' .,`...Plannirf'°.Comrri`ssiori',Gorifrr►ents „`'`ns a a,;p®sl ii.Resoiution=`Res onsaKto o inents . _° PC 1 Parking Variance: Commission in general expressed it Project was redesigned to have: would not approve the parking variance for: 1. Each of the four residential units have three (3) 1. No guest parking. independently accessible parking spaces (2 in a 2. Not having sufficient independently accessible garage and 1 against the south property line). parking or tandem parking. 2. One guest parking is located at the south property line. 3. One service/delivery parking space is located at the south property line. PC 2 Location of Open Space: Commission questioned the Project was redesigned to have the open space located at usability of the open space since it was located on the north the southwest corner of the property. This 526 Sq.Ft. (400 side of the property, against the building and under the Sq.Ft. required) space has landscaping, seating area and existing cypress tree. full sunlight exposure from its southern orientation. PC 3 El Camino Real Fagade: Commission viewed the large The El Camino Real fagade was redesign to have the planter against the sidewalk as cutting off the unit entry landscaping create individual walkways to three of the exposure to the street. The residential unit entries exposed residential units. The landscape planters are arranged to to the street contribute to the urban design character of the not create a barrier between the building and the street, but street. open the residential walks to embrace the street. PC 4 Design Details Must Be Expressed: Commission The project has now provided a set of architectural details expressed the success of the building design cannot be showing how these details with be constructed. Depth, executed without sufficient details to the texture, windows, form and materials are shown in these details. garage doors and fence along the west property line. PC 5 South Building Wall Needs More Massing Variation: The south fagade now has three (3) large recessed. At the Commission expressed concern the south building wall did second floor of the recess is a small balcony off of the not sufficient massing variation and read as a large wall study. This wall continues up to the third floor master between windows. bedroom and has a double French door balcony door that swings inward from a decorative metal Juliet balcony. This vertical massing variation recess into the southern fagade breaks up the length of this fagade. The bedrooms on this fagade have larger windows while the unit study has smaller double French doors at the second floor and similar window at the master bedroom above on the third level. PC 6 Replace Large Family Room on the south fagade to The Family Room was removed and replaced with a study more passive uses: Commission repressed concern for and bedroom. These types of uses are more passive. All the privacy to the south adjacent neighbor due to the large large social gathering rooms are now located on the North family room on the south fagade. side of the residential units facing El Camino Real RECEIVED JU1J 15 12018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLgNNING DID/. 1500 Cypress Ave 101-105 El Camino Real APN 02&29 050 It AFN 0+P-394-0NI A Towvhwue Rojxt eurlin°,mx C�lifomia OWNER: OPAL INVESTMENTS. LLC CONTACT: DERRICK CHANG 23 GEARY STREET. SUITE 510 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 415-78&1133 GARY ® E E A I A GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. 9" tt S—" 26d tIS Sav Frmcixo. CA W103 Tel JI5 "3-8 91 Fex dl(863-°879 ° _ y EL 134.6T EL 13475 =m.Mr..uam,.....,a..n PARAPET EL 132.8_ ..+•i++...o..a9am...a --- � ROOF DECK •�m.�..n«a,� PEAK AT EL. 130.36' __ -- . \ROOF EL. 131.1T Pynxw IL17 D 06.08.15 ------ ---------------------- ---- BEDROOM CL BATHROOM BATHROOM CL BEDROOM r_LLBEDR00j Revisions SAVE AT EL 722.3d' ISSUED Port REVIEW 0E2a.t5 THIRD FLOOR LEVEL EL 120.6T ISSUED--1. PEAK AT EL. 119.09' 1500 EL CAMINC REAL CYPRESS AVE EE1T.15 ------------------'`'-------- --- DEN BATHROOM KITCHEN DINING LIVING Issues FaR REVIEW EAVE AT EL. 114.40' 9 OiMUEpEFOit REVIEW 4°• ISSUED Fat REVIEW EXISTING CYPRESS SE -No FLOOR LEVE EL. 110.67 09.t2+6 TREE usuw FOR REVIEW 1508 CYPRESS AVENUE ISSUED Fat REVIEW DRIVEWAY I6°um FOR PE,Nn GARAGE DRIVEWAY GARAGE FOYER x swED OR susu u EL 102.48' 1Q IssuEn FOR crtv cor4uENrs EL. 101.58' GARAGE LEVEL FIRST FLOORL L EL 101.6T I°°UE1 wRREVIEW __ _ __ L.. i•_ -_ _ _ --- _ _ _ � Issues wRREYIEW tZd• 30'd- 155uED Fat gEV&N' 11.1117 PROPERTY -LINE MS1m FOR �vRW 020)+4 ISSIIEO FOR REVIEW CYPRESS AVENUE ISSUED FOR REVIEW 92ae+e LssuED FOR REVIEW 3 °s°i 1e �161BFa+REVIEw BUILDING SECTION (1500 CYPRESS AVE) SCALE: 114• =1'-0' RECEIVED J U N 19 2018 Section CITY OF BURLINGAME Scale: 114' = 1'-0' CDD-PLANNING DIV. A0.1 FINKELSTEIN BENDER & FUJII LLP OF COUNSEL A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP BRUCE M. LUBARSKY"` ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID G. FINKELSTEIN`t THOMAS J. BARGER MARC D.BENDER 1528 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL IRENE Y. FUJII SUITE 306 PARALEGALS V.WINNIETUNGPAGASIT SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 JOHN F. FARBSTEIN ' ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK TELEPHONE (650) 353-4503 LEGAL ASSISTANTS •• ALSO ADMREDINTHE DISTRICT OF TELECOPIER (650) 312-1803 MICHELE JAUREGUI COLUMBIA 3 PRACTICING AS LAW OFFICES OF INFO@DGFLAW.COM GISSELLE GODOY DAVID G. FINKELSTEIN, A WWW.DGFLAW.COM PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION June 20, 2018 VIA E-MAIL Burlingame Planning Commission FEE C Er 'E Burlingame City Hall J U N 2 0 2018 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME PlanninaCommissioners@Burlin ame.org CDD-PLANNING DIV. Re: 101-105 El Camino Real & 1500 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame Dear Gentlepersons, This office represents Fredy Bush, owner of 1508 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame which is immediately adjacent to the 101-105 El Camino Project ("Project"), We had previously sent a letter dated December 7, 2017 stating Ms. Bush's concerns when this project was before the Burlingame Planning Commission on December 11, 2017. A copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit A. This correspondence states Ms. Bush's continued concerns and demands. On behalf of Ms. Bush, we sent several correspondences to Ruben Hurin as well as to Wayne Hu, the developer's representative expressing Ms. Bush's continued concerns during the Project's design revisions. After repeated requests, developer finally produced a sight line drawing on May 21, 2018. A copy of the sight line drawing is attached as Exhibit B. This sight line drawing showing the "existing Cypress Tree" located on Ms. Bush's property is misleading. The section shows that the existing Cypress Tree is 22 feet and allegedly provides a vision barrier from the new 3-sto1y development plus a roof deck. Attached as Exhibit C is a picture of the existing Cypress trees that barely provides any visual barrier from the existing 1-story garage. The existing trees are on Ms. Bush's property and they might not withstand the demolition and the proposed construction. Ms. Bush is not opposed to the development of the property however, the Project should minimize the invasion of her privacy and quiet enjoyment of her property. Pursuant to the City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook, Component 3 in the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines specifically addresses issues relating to the neighbors to the sides and rear of a residence. Although privacy is not guaranteed, "[h]omeowner privacy is achieved by June 20, 2018 Page 2 sensitive placement of buildings and landscaping and by the ways building components are orchestrated to support separation at property lines." Unfortunately, the current revised design provides Ms. Bush with even less privacy than the initial design submitted in December 2017. The current design of the building is 60' deep instead of 56' deep in the initial design, making it 4 feet closer to Ms. Bush's property. The current revised design also added openings and balconies on the 2nd and 3`d floors on the South elevation significantly decreases the level of privacy for Ms. Bush. In the current design, the parking spots are now located directly adjacent to my client's property with merely a 6 foot wooden fence barrier. We demand the following changes and/or additions to the design as conditions of approval: 1. Removal of the balconies on the 2nd and 3`d floors on the South elevation directly facing Ms. Bush's house. These balconies are unnecessary and promotes visual invasion of Ms. Bush's privacy. Balconies could and should be placed on the North elevation facing El Camino Real or the East elevation facing Cypress Avenue. 2. Reduction of the number and size of the openings on the South elevation which directly faces Ms. Bush's house by 50%. It is excessive and unnecessary to have an opening covering almost the entire width and height for every wall on both the 2nd and 3`d floors of the South elevation. 3. Installation of an 8 foot solid masonry wall barrier along the entire South property line for the Project instead of the proposed 6 foot wooden fence separating the 6 parking spots that is directly adjacent to Mrs. Bush's property to block headlights, sound and air pollution from cars going in and out of the parking spots, driveway and garage. 4. Installation and maintenance of direct -drive garage door openers (such as the Sommer Direct Drive 1042V001 3/4 HP Garage Door Opener) instead of belt -drive or chain - drive garage door openers to reduce the garage door opening/closing noise emitted by the four (4) garage doors facing Ms. Bush's house. 5. Planting a row of privacy trees along the 8 foot solid masonry wall on the Project's Southern property line for at least 80 feet in length from the Southwest corner of the property. The privacy trees should be of such variety and thickness that prevents visibility through the trees. The trees shall be planted preferably of a fast growing evergreen type planted at a minimum size of 15 gallon or 24 inch box size with an approximate height at planting of 8-9 feet minimum. Once established the trees shall be maintained to keep a minimum height of 35 feet and thickness to prevent visualization of the back yard and master bedroom of Ms. Bush's house from the South Facing openings at the Project. The Project cannot not rely on the existing Cypress trees on Ms. Bush's property as a visual barrier. As you can see in Exhibit C, the existing trees do not provide the necessary barrier. June 20, 2018 Page 3 6. Requirement that a construction fence with noise barrier be erected along the entire South property line for the Project prior to and during construction of the Project. 7. Requirement that construction hours exclude weekends and holidays. Thank you for your attention to Ms. Bush's concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Very Truly Yours, FINKELSTEIN BENDER & FUJII LLP By: V. Winnie Tungpa M , s . cc: Wayne Hu (via E-mail) Ruben Hurin (via E-mail) FINKELSTEIN BENDER & FUJII LLP OF COUNSEL A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP BRUCE M. LUBARSKY" ATTORNEYS AT LAW THOMAS J. BARGER DAVIDG.FINKELSTEIN't 1528 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL MARC D.BENDER PARALEGALS SUITE 306 IRENEY.FUJII JOHN F. FARBSTEIN V. WINNIE TUNGPAGASIT SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 TELEPHONE (650) 353-4503 LEGAL ASSISTANTS ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK •• MICHELE JAUREGUI ALSO ADMITED IN THE DISTRICT OF TELECOPIER (650) 312-1803 COLUMBIA GISSELLE GODOY t PRACTICING AS LAW OFFICES OF INFO@DGFLAW.COM DAVID O. FINKELSTEIN, A WWW.DGFLAW.COM PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION December 7, 2017 VIA E-MAIL Burlingame Planning Commission Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Planning:Commissioners a2Burlin ag me.org Re: 101 —105 El Camino Real & 1500 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame Dear Gentlepersons, This office represents Fredy Bush, owner of 1508 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame which is immediately adjacent to the 101-105 El Camino Project ("Project"). Ms. Bush is extremely concerned about the Project and has sent her initial concerns to the City in an email on September 11, 2017. Attached is a copy of the email. We also participated in the meeting with the developer on September 27, 2017 and sent follow-up correspondences to the developer and Ruben Hurin after the meeting with our client's continuing privacy and noise concerns. We previously requested a sight line study from the Project's windows and roof deck facing our client's property. Mr. Wayne Hu, developer's consultant has reassured us that a formal response to our client's concerns is forthcoming but we have not received any response to date. Ms. Bush understands that the developer of 101-105 El Camino has a right to build the Project and she is not against development. Her hope is that the developer considers her concerns and incorporates her requests for the Project for her continued quiet enjoyment of her home. Based on the latest drawings we received from Mr. Hu on December 5, 2017, we request the following: 1. Installation/maintenance of direct -drive garage door openers (such as the Sommer Direct Drive 1042V001 3/4 HP Garage Door Opener) instead of belt -drive or chain - drive garage door openers to reduce the garage door opening/closing noise emitted by the four (4) garage doors facing Ms. Bush's house; 2. Installation of a concrete masonry noise wall barrier erected along the entire South property line for the Project to reduce the vehicle noise emitted from the 11 vehicles December 7, 2017 Page 2 going to/from the garages and the noise emitted from the operation of the garage doors. Attached are pictures of some sample concrete fence walls. 3. Planting a row of privacy trees along the South property line of the Project for at least 80 feet in length from the Southwest corner of the property to provide privacy for both neighbors, since the fence wall can only be 6' in height. The privacy trees should be of such variety and thickness that prevents visibility through the trees. The trees shall be planted preferably of a fast growing evergreen type planted at a minimum size of 15 gallon or 24 inch box size with an approximate height at planting of 8-9 feet minimum. Once established the trees shall be maintained to keep a minimum height of 35 feet and thickness to prevent visualization of the back yard and master bedroom of Ms. Bush's house from the South Facing windows at the Project. Attached is a picture of the trees currently on Ms. Bush's property along the North property line of her property towards the West end that could be used. 4. Requirement that a solid railing be installed for the South side railing (facing 1508 Cypress Avenue) for all the roof decks. 5. Requirement that a construction fence with noise barrier be erected along the entire South property line for the Project prior to and during construction of the Project. 6. Requirement that construction hours exclude weekends and holidays. Thank you for your time and commitment. If you have any questions regarding the requests, our client Fredy Bush and I will at the review hearing on December 11, 2017. Very Truly Yours, FINKELSTEIN BENDER & FUJII LLP By: - Vs- V. Winnie Tungpaq cc: Wayne Hu (via E-mail) Ruben Hurin (via E-mail) From: Fredy Bush fmailto:fredybusha)abcxyz.cc] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 12:40 PM To:'PlanningCommissioners@Burlingame.org' Subject: Opposition to Proposed development at 1500 Cypress and 105 Camino Real Dear Planning Commissioners, My name is Ms. Fredy Bush and I live at 1508 Cypress Avenue in Burlingame. My home is literally right next door to the proposed development at 1500 Cypress Avenue and 105 Camino Real. I am happy to see Burlingame develop and I understand this is common. However, I am seriously opposed to the planned development for several reasons: 1. The proposed building looks like an office building, it does not look residential. It is a contemporary style which doesn't at all fit into the neighborhood. My home is a Spanish style home which looks like it has been here for years. 2. The proposed building is 3 stories with rooftop decks. Between the height of the building and the rooftop decks. I will have no privacy in my home nor in my front or back yards. The master bedroom of my home will be in plain view of the windows next door as is another of my bedrooms. 3. The proposed garage will be next to my boundary and I will have to hear the garage gate or doors all hours of the day and night. 4. My property value will be negatively impacted by all of the above factors. This development needs to be re -thought such that the design is commensurate with the whole of Burlingame. This is not a community of contemporary style buildings or homes. Additionally, it should be required that the building which gets approved must put in tall enough trees to provide the privacy and noise reduction for the neighboring properties. As you well know, Burlingame is an expensive area in which to purchase a home. I did not spend millions of dollars on my home to lose my privacy with a towering building next door to me. The neighborhood did not spend the millions on their homes to live next to a contemporary building which does not suit the neighborhood. I hope you will seriously consider this letter. 1 am not suggesting that the owner of those properties should not be able to build, but that the building should be well thought through and be considerate of the other owners in the area. As currently proposed, this building does none of the above. I would appreciate a response in return. If I do not hear from anyone on this, I will hire an attorney to represent my interests. Best regards, Ms. Fredy Bush 1508 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, Ca 94010 1-808-938-1787 0j, 1500 Cypress Ave 101-105 El Camino Real GREY M E E AIA — - - ------- ---- — ----- - I - -- ------------- rmv ----------- di U ILL— 9 -- — ------------------------------------- PAd- 1500 EL CAMINC REAL CYPRESS AVE ----------- - ---------- - 2LN d as 1508 CYPRESS AVENUE GARAGE DRfVEWAY ------ ----------- ----------- --- ------ ----------------------------- -------- ------ --------- CYPRESS AVENUE BUILDING SECTION (1500 CYPRESS AVE) Section AO.1 � �7�.,_ pm Google DAVID 0. FINKELSTEIN't MARC D. BENDER IRENE Y. FUJII V. WINNIE TUNGPAGASIT ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK ALSO ADMITED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA t PRACTICING AS LAW OFFICES OF DAVID O. FINKELSTEIN,A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FINKELSTEIN BENDER & FUJII LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1528 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL SUITE 306 SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 TELEPHONE (650) 353.4503 TELECOPIER (650) 312-1803 INFO@DGFLAW.COM W4MN.DGFLAW.COM OF COUNSEL BRUCE M. LUBARSKY'" THOMAS J. BARGER PARALEGALS JOHN F. FARBSTEIN LEGAL ASSISTANTS MICHELE JAUREGUI GISSELLE GODOY 12.11.17 PC Meeting December 7, 2017 Agenda item #9d 1500 Cypress & 101-105 El Camino VIA E-MAIL ® Real — page 1 of 5 Burlingame Planning Commission DEC -" 7 20117 Burlingame City Hall CU�tla4 U.�1CAiJ0A'AE(.'LlG'Ev 501 Primrose Road CITY OF BFit INGAM(= AFTER PREPARATION Burlingame, CA 94010 OF STAFF RE,POR T PlanningCommissionersn,Burlingame. org CDD-PLANNING DiV. Re: 101 —105 El Camino Real & 1500 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame Dear Gentlepersons, This office represents Fredy Bush, owner of 1508 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame which is immediately adjacent to the 101-105 El Camino Project ("Project"). Ms. Bush is extremely concerned about the Project and has sent her initial concerns to the City in an email on September 11, 2017. Attached is a copy of the email. We also participated in the meeting with the developer on September 27, 2017 and sent follow-up correspondences to the developer and Ruben Hurin after the meeting with our client's continuing privacy and noise concerns. We previously requested a sight line study from the Project's windows and roof deck facing our client's property. Mr. Wayne Hu, developer's consultant has reassured us that a formal response to our client's concerns is forthcoming but we have not received any response to date. Ms. Bush understands that the developer of 101-105 El Camino has a right to build the Project and she is not against development. Her hope is that the developer considers her concerns and incorporates her requests for the Project for her continued quiet enjoyment of her home. Based on the latest drawings we received from Mr. Hu on December 5, 2017, we request the following: 1. Installation/maintenance of direct -drive garage door openers (such as the Sommer Direct Drive 1042V001 3/4 HP Garage Door Opener) instead of belt -drive or chain - drive garage door openers to reduce the garage door opening/closing noise emitted by the four (4) garage doors facing Ms. Bush's house; 2. Installation of a concrete masonry noise wall barrier erected along the entire South property line for the Project to reduce the vehicle noise emitted from the 11 vehicles 12.11.17 PC Meeting Agenda item #9d Cu:Gi.�-tLl����'.1fi(ia g AFTLR PI EP-1 R61 Y'Jo,V December 7, 2017 1500 Cypress & 101-105 El Camino OFST.1FF RCTORT Page 2 Real — page 2 of 5 going to/from the garages and the noise emitted from the operation of the garage doors. Attached are pictures of some sample concrete fence walls. Planting a row of privacy trees along the South property line of the Project for at least 80 feet in length from the Southwest corner of the property to provide privacy for both neighbors, since the fence wall can only be 6' in height. The privacy trees should be of such variety and thickness that prevents visibility through the trees. The trees shall be planted preferably of a fast growing evergreen type planted at a minimum size of 15 gallon or 24 inch box size with an approximate height at planting of 8-9 feet minimum. Once established the trees shall be maintained to keep a minimum height of 35 feet and thickness to prevent visualization of the back yard and master bedroom of Ms. Bush's house from the South Facing windows at the Project. Attached is a picture of the trees currently on Ms. Bush's property along the North property line of her property towards the West end that could be used. 4. Requirement that a solid railing be installed for the South side railing (facing 1508 Cypress Avenue) for all the roof decks. 5. Requirement that a constriction fence with noise barrier be erected along the entire South property line for the Project prior to and during construction of the Project. 6. Requirement that construction hours exclude weekends and holidays. Thank you for your time and commitment. If you have any questions regarding the requests, our client Fredy Bush and I will at the review hearing on December 11, 2017. Very Truly Yours, FINKELSTEIN BENDER & FUJII LLP BY: V. Winnie Tungpag s t, Esq cc: Wayne Hu (via E-mail) Ruben Hurin (via E-mail) 12.11.17 PC Meeting Agenda item #9d 1500 Cypress & 101-105 El Camino Real — page 3 of 5 C0,1t1,lI CiI UzV!C,1 TION RECEI PLED AFTER PRI;F' 1 RAI'/ON O!_ sTIFFREPORT From: Fredy Bush [mailtoJredybushCCabcxyz.cc] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 12:40 PM To:'PlanningCommissioners@Burlingame.org' Subject: Opposition to Proposed development at 1500 Cypress and 105 Camino Real Dear Planning Commissioners, My name is Ms. Fredy Bush and I live at 1508 Cypress Avenue in Burlingame. My home is literally right next door to the proposed development at 1500 Cypress Avenue and 105 Camino Real. I am happy to see Burlingame develop and I understand this is common. However, I am seriously opposed to the planned development for several reasons: 1. The proposed building looks like an office building, it does not look residential. It is a contemporary style which doesn't at all fit into the neighborhood. My home is a Spanish style home which looks like it has been here for years. 2. The proposed building is 3 stories with rooftop decks. Between the height of the building and the rooftop decks. I will have no privacy in my home nor in my front or back yards. The master bedroom of my home will be in plain view of the windows next door as is another of my bedrooms. 3. The proposed garage will be next to my boundary and I will have to hear the garage gate or doors all hours of the day and night. 4. My property value will be negatively impacted by all of the above factors. This development needs to be re -thought such that the design is commensurate with the whole of Burlingame. This is not a community of contemporary style buildings or homes. Additionally, it should be required that the building which gets approved must put in tall enough trees to provide the privacy and noise reduction for the neighboring properties. As you well know, Burlingame is an expensive area in which to purchase a home. I did not spend millions of dollars on my home to lose my privacy with a towering building next door to me. The neighborhood did not spend the millions on their homes to live next to a contemporary building which does not suit the neighborhood. I hope you will seriously consider this letter. I am not suggesting that the owner of those properties should not be able to build, but that the building should be well thought through and be considerate of the other owners in the area. As currently proposed, this building does none of the above. I would appreciate a response in return. If I do not hear from anyone on this, I will hire an attorney to represent my interests. Best regards, Ms. Fredy Bush 1508 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, Ca 94010 1-808-938-1787 A.' .y, _�.m 12.11.17 PC Meeting Agenda item #9d 1500 Cypress & 101-105 El Camino Real— Wf j OF ,LL COMAfUNICAT1OJV RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RE I DEC I I Z017 DATE: December 11, 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: City of Burlingame CDD-PLANNING DIV. Planning Commission FROM: Peter Comaroto, Resident 1576 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame RE: Comments -Item No. 9d, Design Review Study 1. In my opinion, it is not appropriate to grant parking variance as parking on Cypress is already impacted. Recent (2) hour parking on Cypress Avneu has been added to help curb the already crowded parking shortage on this street. If you grant any parking variance you will be pushing more cars onto Cypress, delivery vehicles, guests, etc. Expecting (4) new homes to have a "zero" need for guest parking is not reasonable nor should it be accommodated. If this variance request is honored then you will be pushing congestion on to an already congested main thoroughfare street. One neighbor should not have to pay for the negative consequences of another neighbors benefit. 2. I am very concerned about preserving the life of the 36' Cypress that runs along the El Camino in front of the proposed project. I would request that the Planning Department indicate that if any ill shall befall this tree it is the owners direct responsibility and liability. The name of our street is Cypress Avenue and what better way to represent the streets heritage than to honor a Cypress Tree at the streets gate. 3. The Roof decks and balconies are not consistent with providing for the right of adjacent property owners to privately enjoy their own space and in my opinion, creates an unnecessary hardship and unreasonable property value loss by approving said balconies and roof decks. One neighbor should not have to pay the negative consequences of another neighbors benefit. The balconies should be moved to the front of the townhomes facing El Camino. In this case no neighbor is impacted and the applicants need is meet. Notice that in (3) of the (4) projects that have been highlighted, balconies are located on the street side. 4. Very concerned for the neighbors at the end of the block as it relates to construction activity and hours. Having just lived through a (2) year construction project immediately adjacent to my property, I found that the current system of designated working hours that is not enforced sets the stage for conflict between neighbors. Perhaps you may consider penalties for 12.11.17 PC Meeting Agenda item #9d 1500 Cypress & 101-105 El Camino Real — p(aG - c. F 'Y violating the working hours requirement and substantially reducing weekend hours in a residential area for a project of this size. 5. Why are basements allowed? These basement spaces can be used as additional bedrooms. 6. In my opinion, There has been a substantial lack of concern for the neighborhood as can be seen on any given day, the debris surrounding the home and the leaning garage that looks unsafe. This lack of community concern was furthermore continued when the majority of the family members showed up 15 minutes late to a community review scheduled by the applicant. It was apparent of the lack of time the architect and project consultant took to understand Burlingame prior to our community meeting by what they presented to the community in their first rendition. I am happy to note that the new design seems to be more consistent with our unique Burlingame Style. 7. I question the roof material choice as it indicates an S Curve roof tile. This can been seen on many buildings in Millbrae and many roofs in the South Bay along El Camino. I would request that as part of the design review and approval process that you dictate consistent Spanish style roofing and building materials be used that are consistent with this style of constructions and architecture. a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: 028-294-050 (105 El Camino Real) & ® Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: 028-294-060 (1500 Cypress Ave) ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other: R-3 PROJECT ADDRESS: 101, 103,105 & 107 El Camino Real APPLICANT Name: Derrick Chang / Wayne Hu Address: 23 Geary Street #510 City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94108 cell: Derrick Chang: 415-308-0818 Phone: 415-788-1133 Wayne Hu: 415-602-2761 E-mail: Derrick Chang: dfc0l@aol.com/ Wayne Hu: whu233@gmail.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Gary Gee, AIA / Gary Gee Architects, Inc Address: 98 Brady Street City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: 415-863-8881 E-mail: GGee@garygee.com Burlingame Business License #: 28678, Exp 6/2017 PROPERTY OWNER Name: Opal Investments LLC / Peach Investment Co Address: _ City/State/Zip: Phone: E-mail: 23 Geary Street #510 San Francisco, CA 94108 415-788-1133 (Derrick Chang) dfc01 @aol.com (Derrick Chang) JAN 2 6 20i? CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV Authorization to Reproduce Protect Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as pa anning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. CSWQ (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed project are 4 Townhouses of 3 Stories (34 feet tall) and a total living area of 9,519 sf. 3 Townhouses with 3 Bedrooms + Den and 3-1/2 Baths. 1 Townhouse with 2 Bedrooms + Study and 3-1/2 Baths. The Townhouses will replace 2 existinq dwellinqs on 2 lots. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge a b lief Applicant's signature: Derrick Chang Date: 12/19/2016 I am aware of the proposed application Ad here y authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission.Uko�Property owner's sig a ure:UA for Opal Investments LLC & Date: 12/19/2016 Peachtree Investment Corp. Date submitted: S:1HANDOUTSPC Application. doc 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real -•- Neighborhood Meeting Notice (September 27, 2017) Letters of Concern Submitted by Neighbors for Initially Proposed Contemporary Building Design Proposed Development at 1500 Cypress Avenue and 105 El Camino Real As requested by the Planning Division of Burlingame, CA., we are sending to a you, as a neighbor within 500 feet of the project, a notification of our proposed development. The development site is located at the northwest corner of Cypress Avenue and El Camino Real. There are two (2) lots, zoned R-3, which permits multi -family residential use. The proposed project will replace the two existing dwellings, merge the two (2) lots and build four (4) residential townhouses. Construction is expected to be 12-15 months. The project is currently being reviewed by the Planning Division, Community Development Department and could be presented to the Planning Commission in October 2017. If the project is approved, demolition/construction could start later this year, 2017. On Wednesday, September 27, 2017, between 6:00-7:30 PM, in Conference Room A, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Avenue, we invite you to a view our proposed project's architectural plans. We will present our project and will answer your questions. You can also send your questions or comments to us or to Ruben Hurin, Planning Division, Community Development Department, at the Burlingame City Hall. His office telephone is 650-558-7256. The proposed development is four (4) Townhouses. The building will be three (3) stories. One townhouse front entry will be from Cypress Avenue and the other three townhouse front entries will be from El Camino Real. The driveway to the garages will from on Cypress Avenue. In this packet, we are showing a rendering of the proposed project, a site plan, the front elevation on El Camino Real and a typical floor plan. Proposed Address # Bedrooms & Baths Living Area Parking Private Open Space (approximate st) lappro4mate s 1500 Cypress Avenue 2 Bedrooms, 3 Baths + Study 1,790 sf 2 cars Roof Deck, 120 sf 101 El Camino Real 3 Bedrooms, 3 Baths + Den 2,620 sf 2 cars + 1 car Roof Deck, 120 sf tandem 103 El Camino Real 3 Bedrooms, 3 Baths + Den 2,620 sf 2 cars + 1 car Roof Deck, 120 sf tandem 105 El Camino Real 3 Bedrooms, 3 Baths + Den 2,620 sf 2 cars + 1 car Roof Deck, 120 sf tandem The properties are owned by Opal Investment LLC and Peach Investment Corporation, both corporations are owned by the same family. 1500 Cypress Avenue was purchased in 1988 and 105 El Camino Real in 2010. The developer will be Peach Investment Corporation, the townhouses will be condominiums and initially will be rented. Peach Investments Corporation will retain ownership of the real property for long term. Project Architect I Project Owner / Developer I Project Manager / Consultant Gary Gee Architects 98 Brady Street #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 415-863-8879 Peach Investment Corporation Derrick Chang 23 Geary Street, #510 San Francisco, CA 94108 415-788-1133 Wayne Hu 317 West Portal Avenue #27428 San Francisco, CA 94127 415-602-2761 i nw ■ .Y ` yf A OEM... MEMNON f i n- x1Fs <i ■� ' ' ' ��� � I jet k.. t �" �\ NORTH ELEVATION (EL CAMINO REAL) 101 EL CAMINO REAL 101 EL CAMINO REAL THIRD FLOOR PLAN fillI III I I eel MEN, Lim. SECOND FLOOR PLAN F—T — — — — — — — — — -- A I I I I I I UNIT 101 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L---------- FIRST FLOOR PLAN 4 Krista McCutcheon and Ian Milne OCI -2 7017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. RE: 101 El Camino Real Townhome design plans To Burlingame Planning Department and Planning Commission, 1512 Carol Avenue Burlingame, CA October 1st, 2017 We attended a meeting on September 27th with the owner/developer and architect who wish to replace two existing single family homes at 1500 Cypress Ave and 105 El Camino Real with four townhomes. We live within 500 feet of this site and as many of our neighbors do, walk through this corner daily, as it represents the 'gateway' into Burlingame Park from the 5-way intersection of El Camino, Primrose, Bayswater, Cypress and Carol Avenue. Carol Ave where we live, is unique in Burlingame for its tall thin palms we have been told were brought to line an estate entrance whose former gatehouse stands as a single family home at the "Y" junction of East Carol and Carol. The 101 El Camino Real corner is also directly opposite the beautiful landmark gothic revival Saint Catherine of Siena Parish, constructed in 1909. A great example of design integration was the addition to the church of a modern gymnasium by Gunkel Architecture in 2014 . Overall, the development at the El Camino/Cypress corner provides our community with an excellent opportunity to improve upon the visual impact of this gateway while adding new character and homeowners to our neighborhood. While we welcome the change in property use to higher density townhomes at 101 El Camino Real, and respect the wishes of the developer to offer modern townhouse living for new residents, the proposed exterior design is not consistent with the visual character of our neighborhood. We find the modern style of building with symmetrical lines and long sections of glass would fit better in an urban area like the Mission District in San Francisco. We have included 4 photos (on the next page) as examples of modern Burlingame townhomes that we think fit in with the Cal bungalows, spanish revival, mission, tudors, and craftsman styles of housing homeowners have made great efforts to restore and maintain in our neighborhood over the last 100 years. Finding solutions to modernize while retaining consistency with local charm, history and character is of high importance and value in our community and will also benefit the investment value for developers over the long term. We ask that you please reject the exterior design proposed at the Sept 27th meeting. Thank -you for your consideration, Sincere regards, 364s&11'l eCu%" aid Ian 77U&e son Joseph & Cathryn Bayloek son ■ ■ ■ 152Y Rewlanda avenue Burlingame, California 94010 www.boylock.com September 18, 2017 Burlingame Planning Department, Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 R E C rEIVED SUBJECT: 1500 Cypress Avenue and 105 El Camino Real, Proposed Project Dear Sirs and Madams, SEP 18 r'`i % CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-P LANNING DI'V. We write to address the above noted project as 26 year residents of Newlands Avenue and long- time neighborhood advocates. We have reviewed the proposed development and would like to express our grave concerns about the architectural style of the four "townhouses". If it comes before the Commission as it stands today, we request you deny the application. Burlingame Park is an historic neighborhood originally laid out by John McLaren, of Golden Gate Park fame. Most notably, Burlingame Park is one of only four Northern California subdivisions covered in Robert A.M. Stem's (dean of Architecture, Yale University) book, Paradise Planned, The Garden Suburb and the Modern City, published in 2013. For this reason, we feel the architecture of this development, at the gateway to Burlingame Park, must respect the historic nature of the neighborhood lest it degrade the integrity of its surroundings. We urge the Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council to direct the project applicant to redesign its plans to a more traditional design more in keeping with the neighborhood's predominant Bungalow, Mediterranean and Spanish flavors. Since this project is subject to CEQA, the planning commission is well within its rights to require a redesign as mitigation for its impact on a potentially historic resource in the Burlingame Park subdivision. We appreciate your kind attention to this matter. 4m,cy, V Joe and Cath aylock Cc: Burlingame City Council ■ee Ron ®.� own ■e■ HER gm alto ---------- -- 6zz tl ED - CITY OF BURLINGAME 7L From: Fredy Bush [mailto:fredybush@abcxyz.cc] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 12:40 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: Opposition to Proposed development at 1500 Cypress and 105 Camino Real Dear Planning Commissioners, My name is Ms. Fredy Bush and I live at 1508 Cypress Avenue in Burlingame. My home is literally right next door to the proposed development at 1500 Cypress Avenue and 105 Camino Real. I am happy to see Burlingame develop and I understand this is common. However, I am seriously opposed to the planned development for several reasons: 1. The proposed building looks like an office building, it does not look residential. It is a contemporary style which doesn't at all fit into the neighborhood. My home is a Spanish style home which looks like it has been here for years. 2. The proposed building is 3 stories with rooftop decks. Between the height of the building and the rooftop decks. I will have no privacy in my home nor in my front or back yards. The master bedroom of my home will be in plain view of the windows next door as is another of my bedrooms. 3. The proposed garage will be next to my boundary and I will have to hear the garage gate or doors all hours of the day and night. 4. My property value will be negatively impacted by all of the above factors. This development needs to be re -thought such that the design is commensurate with the whole of Burlingame. This is not a community of contemporary style buildings or homes. Additionally, it should be required that the building which gets approved must put in tall enough trees to provide the privacy and noise reduction for the neighboring properties. As you well know, Burlingame is an expensive area in which to purchase a home. I did not spend millions of dollars on my home to lose my privacy with a towering building next door to me. The neighborhood did not spend the millions on their homes to live next to a contemporary building which does not suit the neighborhood. I hope you will seriously consider this letter. I am not suggesting that the owner of those properties should not be able to build, but that the building should be well thought through and be considerate of the other owners in the area. As currently proposed, this building does none of the above. I would appreciate a response in return. If I do not hear from anyone on this, I will hire an attorney to represent my interests. Best regards, Ms. Fredy Bush 1508 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, Ca 94010 1-808-938-1787 R ��U I SIP 1 :1 2017 CITY OF BUIR _ INIGAME CDD-P1UNNN!N(_4 DIV. I• 'coeds uado uowwoo algesn uliM buideospuel aldwe sain}eal pue lead ouiwe:D 13 buole s6uipllnq Aliwejillnw 6uilsixe uaiM apledwoo aq of paleos si joefoid wniuiwopuoo pluapisaa jiun-ano} ayl }eel} ui wepaM leaauab pue Ajejes `Llyeay jggnd uo pue ` punwwoo eqj jo sa!Xenb o11au4sae pue leioos `jeoi60/000 `oiwouooa aye Bu.iuueld Al!unwwoo punos :s uipui-=I Iiwaad wniuiwopuoo -81JGIUo M91Aaa u6isap inol s,Al!o ayl jo sjuawaiinbai aqj u3iM apledwoo aq o} punol aq Aew joefoid eqj suoseei asegj ao=1 -6uiplinq ayl Inogbnoayl Isaialui lenSIA aplAoid 1eyj sape6e; pajelnopie sapnloui 6uiplinq a ll •salAis lein}oaliyoie 10 AjaueA a uliM s6uiplinq lei}uapisaa Aliwelillnw Ajojs-aaayj pue oMl 10 xlw a sey uoigm lead ouiweQ 13 10 uoi�jod siuj jo aleos pue ssew auj sjoadsaa 6ulpllnq Ajols -aaay} Mau ayl -slagaoo pue sayoje 'sallasoi aalseld 'sap juaooe se eons SIUawala aAl}emoap jo asn ayj pue saiuooleq le sbuiliea lejaw pa}uied pue wial MopulM pooh 's91i1 paplAlp ani} pa}elnwis uliM sMopulM pooh pelo lelaw 'scoop a6eaeb pue AJIua pooh pajuied 'sap jooa anano ,S, 16uipls aalseld juawao buipnlow sleuejew Aplenb jo A191MA a ;o asn eqj ul1M poogiogq6iau ayj 10 aaloeaego 6ullsixe aqj uliM apledwoo aq lip 6ulpllnq wniuiwopuoo pasodoid aqj jegj :s ulpu13 MaiAa�l u isaa :sjuawallpa joefoid aqj 6ulpae6aa sbuipull buiMollol aqj uo paseq ;uawdolanap wniuiwopuoo lepapisaa Aliwej-!Ilnw }iun-ino; eqj jo lenoadde sjuea6 uoissiwwoo 6uluueld auj 'buiaeaq oilqnd ayj Je pa/U909J sjuawwoo oilqnd Ile pue 'eouepuodsaaaoo uallpm lie 'joefoid aqj 6ulpae6aa uoissiwwoo 6uluueld eqj of jjodaa gels g 60Z `5Z aunp aui ui paulewoo uol}ewaoiul lie jo uolleaapisuoo 6ulMol10=1 pue'saouelaeA 6ui>{aed ao4 s1sanbei ou ace aaagj 1eyj os joefoid ay} ubisapaa 01 pue ubisap joefoid ayJ 01 suolSIAaJ col jueoildde ayJ 01 papinoad seM uoi}oaalp awil jey1 IV 'loafoad wniuiwopuoo lei}uapisaa jiun-anoj a M91AGJ o} (Apnjs Mainaa u61sap) 6ulaeay oilqnd paoijou Alnp e pajonpuoo uoissiwwoo 6uluueld ay1 L 1.0Z ` I- I• aagwaoaQ uo 'Sy3�:13HM (OZ0-0£-9Z -S'O) 6uiplinq wniuiwopuoo jiun-anoj Mau jo uoijonaisuoo a01 Iiwaad wniuiwopuoo pue '((q) OfO,Lq'SZ pUe 5b0'8Z,9Z -S-0) 6uiplinq wniuiwopuoo }iun-anoj 'Ajojs-aaayj Mau a jo uoijonaisuoo a01 MalAa�j u61saa :s}sanbai buiMollo} ayj }o lenoadde bui}sanbei uolslAia 6uluueld — juaw�jedaa juawdolanaa Apnwwoo awe6uilane jo Ajio aqj ujiM uoijeoildde ue palm nH auAeAA pue buegO �101aaa4 'L t OZ `9Z Ajenuep uo 'Sy3�:13HM (090-t,6Z-OZO PUB 090-V6Z-BZO :ON 330NVd NOS93SSV) IVEIN ONIWVa 13 9wm aNd 3nN3AV SS3adAO OM ld 1N3Wd013A3a wn1NIWOaNOa WINMISEIN IINn-NnoA M3N d NO=1 1IWN3d wnINIWOaNOa aN`d M31A3a NOIS3a `NOIldW3X3 -1V31N0031`d3ONIAONdd`d 3WV0N1 Nn9 d0 AM 3Hl d0 NOISSIWWOa ONINN`dld 3Hl d0 NoumOSEIN The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources in that because the project site is located in an urban area, is surrounded by commercial and residential development which is served by utility and public services, and that the existing single family dwellings and detached garage will be replaced with a three-story building containing four residential units on the same lot, the proposed project can be adequately served by required utility and public services since the proposed project is only contributing two net new units on the site and the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations, in that the project provides two additional residential units (four total) consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations. WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 25, 2018, 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: Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (b), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including a duplex or similar multi -family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. Section 1. Said Design Review and Condominium Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Condominium Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman 1, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of June, 2018, by the following vote: Secretary 104 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Effective July 5, 2018 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 15, 2018, sheets A0.1 through A4.3, L1, L2 and Boundary and Topographic Map; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $5,537.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 3. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $5,537.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 4. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 5. that the applicant shall apply for a Tentative and Final Condominium Map and Tentative Map for lot combination with the Public Works, Engineering Division for processing in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act; 6. that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation for any work proposed in the state right-of-way; 7. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 134.75' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (100.21') for a maximum height of 34'-7", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage/first floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 101.67'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 110.67'; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 120.67'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 8. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 9. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of- way shall be prohibited; 10. that the service/delivery vehicle parking stall shall be identified on the site and designated on the final map and plans, the service/delivery vehicle stall shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the service/delivery vehicle stall shall always be accessible for parking and not be used for resident storage; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Effective July 5, 2018 Page 2 11. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the service/delivery vehicle stall shall be reserved for service/delivery vehicles only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 12. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 16. 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; 17. 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; 18. 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; 2 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Effective July 5, 2018 Page 3 19. 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; 20. 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; 21. 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; 22. that this project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, the City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, and complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 23. 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; 24. 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; 25. 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; 26. 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; 27. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 28. 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; 29. 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; 30. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 3 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Effective July 5, 2018 Page 4 31. 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; 32. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 33. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit issuance, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 34. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 35. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 36. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 37. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. GI CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ' 4 PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 1500 CYPRESS AVENUE and 101-105 EL CAMINO REAL The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2018 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination for a new three-story, four -unit residential condominium at 1500 CYPRESS AVENUE and 101 — 105 EL CAMINO REAL zoned R-3. APNs 028-294-050 and 028-294-060 Mailed: June 15, 2018 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) 1500 CYPRESS "E & 101-105 ECR 300' Radius 028.294.050 & 028.294.060 OD UE Od DDDDOO D po D :. '.' D DDT ° 44 D � 6 DO Df�DD O QpgC D�,A„r:7lRD°� °O 4q O 9p �3 . 00 q qqQ Dp DO � q3 EA q�JggOq Aq qq4 D q© O p 47p q9 Ap q q C?p ,j0 4 r, A� © q m q4 D� 4 O 900F/ qq - _ 4© OC qd A3 0 Gp� O ,yam o' qO q DDDG. 0 9©00 v 9 Q yyA p a9 I. c flpaJQ q4q Dd `� O q4 p i ♦ D� LQ P F( p 3 • D© OpOp a � �.� DGJ •D� � © Ap q© 6 i I � �® i a D °�D DQ15O DE?flp 9pp�i b q AF• D iI ® ®®® DpdQ V@Vp Vey, i VerD dQ DpQO _ flQpfl Fee, Op9fl. flp00 �'°. "^cti::� 'leap flpt3© flpF700 9pfl v r va, - v fto flQ O Ap & flp a Q Q�c�O, 41 D�. J dQ veep ve flp p Dpd� dp Oggq Aq 4 A q Gw ®®6 D® QO a� fl Dp<iQ Do q64� q© q© d a a +`• Af �4 / D°QOV O flbi OQ �fl p ° `' C flpFlp vpQD q6 ID '� Q e;, A q©n° �..•. `�4;4y�, �%�'�+i 0 a o I • � flQ� 0 a a o D©a3 © 9©R(•i o 0 o�0r,3 y�.�.• :` �D � �� p.; fl � © A flSipyJ D�0 D cam � a o - I.� � g® ,• �� � ► 4 •