HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2023.09.11Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers/Online7:00 PMMonday, September 11, 2023
Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this Planning Commission Meeting will be
held via Zoom in addition to in person.
To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of
the public can observe the meeting from home or attend the meeting in person. Below is
information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting.
To Attend the Meeting in Person:
Location: Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010
To Observe the Meeting via Zoom:
To access the meeting by computer:
Go to www.zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 886 2271 0758
Passcode: 091418
To access the meeting by phone:
Dial 1-346-248-7799
Meeting ID: 886 2271 0758
Passcode: 091418
To Provide Public Comment in Person:
Members of the public wishing to speak will be asked to fill out a "Request to Speak" card
located on the table by the door and then hand it to staff. The provision of a name, address, or
other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, however,
the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers.
To Provide Public Comment via Zoom:
During the meeting, public comment may be made by members of the public joining the
meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the "Raise Hand" feature
(for those joining by phone, press *9 to "Raise Hand") during the public comment period for
the agenda item you wish to address. The Zoom Host will call on people to speak by name
provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dial-in attendees. Speakers are limited to three
minutes each, however, the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated
speakers.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 9/8/2023
September 11, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
To Provide Public Comment via Email:
Members of the public may provide written comments by email to
publiccomment@burlingame.org to be read aloud during the public comment period for an
agenda item. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are
commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on
the Consent Calendar. The length of the comment should be commensurate with the three
minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments which is approximately 250-300 words. To
ensure that your comment is received and read to the Planning Commission for the
appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 11,
2023. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time but cannot
guarantee such emails will be read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m.
deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Planning Commission after
the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online
2. ROLL CALL
3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Announcements/consideration and approval of requests by Planning Commissioners to participate remotely
pursuant to AB 2449 (Government Code Section 54943(f)).
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Draft August 28, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa.
Draft August 28, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
The public is permitted to speak on items that are listed under the Consent Calendar, Commissioner ’s
Reports, Director Reports, Requests for Future Agenda Items, new items, or items not on the agenda .
Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that item is heard by the Planning
Commission.
Persons are required to limit their remarks to three (3) minutes unless an extension of time is granted by
the Chair. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the Planning Commission and, if
relevant, the Commission may direct them to the appropriate staff member. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the
State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is
not on the agenda.
7. STUDY ITEMS
There are no Study Items.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
There are no Consent Calendar Items.
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 9/8/2023
September 11, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
5 Rio Court, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction
Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project
is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design
Inc., applicant and architect; Angela and Sandy Yee, property owners) (38 noticed) Staff
Contact: Fazia Ali
a.
This item has been continued at the request of the applicant.
10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
1137 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Hannah Chiu, Thomas James Homes,
applicant and designer; Brenden Kelly and Jessica Wijtman -Kelly, property owners) (59
noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
a.
1137 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report
1137 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments
1137 Cabrillo Ave - Plans
Attachments:
11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
12. DIRECTOR REPORTS
- Commission Communications
- City Council regular meeting of September 5, 2023
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an
alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be
distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday,
September 11, 2023 at rhurin@burlingame.org or 650-558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting
will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the
materials related to it, and your ability to comment.
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 9/8/2023
September 11, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda
or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information
via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256.
An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning
Commission's action on September 11, 2023. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on September 21, 2023, the action
becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be
accompanied by an appeal fee of $784.00, which includes noticing costs.
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 9/8/2023
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, August 28, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin
Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planning Catherine Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney
Scott Spansail.
2. ROLL CALL
Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and ShoresPresent6 -
TseAbsent1 -
3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION
There were no requests.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.Draft August 14, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft August 14, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the
meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores6 -
Absent:Tse1 -
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no Public Comments.
7. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
Page 1City of Burlingame
August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.Consideration of a Recommendation to Adoption of the North Rollins Specific Plan, and
Addendum to The Burlingame General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Staff
Contact: Kevin Gardiner
Staff Report
North Rollins Specific Plan
EIR Addendum with Appendices
November 14, 2022 Meeting Minutes
Resolution - EIR Addendum
Resolution - Specific Plan
Public Notice - August 18, 2023
Attachments:
Community Development Director Gardiner introduced the Specific Plan consultant team, including
representatives from KTGY, Gates + Associates, Kimley -Horn, and Rincon Consultants. The consultant
team presented an overview of the Specific Plan.
Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing.
John Moreland, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
>Heather (last name not provided): Did the design group consider the neighborhood? I heard that they
solicited input from the neighborhood to make sure that this is something that will be welcomed.
>Steve Peterson, 950 Paloma Avenue: I am a member of Prime Time and I go by Rollins Road at least
three times a week to the gym. I had some observations of the area. I am supportive of the
redevelopment, but I do have two concerns. In the open areas, I hope they address the climate in the
area. It is typically very windy and cold just about all through the year. So, it is a miserable climate in that
area of Burlingame in my opinion. Big open areas with no wind protection, I suspect you ’re not going to
have too many people using those public areas. The other concern is that I frequently smell kerosene. It
is very close to the airport, so the air quality is not very good much of the year. You are putting a
high-density residential area in a location that has questionable air quality. Was that considered? I know
this is probably late in the process, but I hope the consultant considers the less -than-ideal air quality due
to the proximity to the airport and Highway 101 and what impact that would have on small children and the
elderly. Is this the ideal place for families with such poor air quality?
Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>There were no suggested changes recommended by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to recommend to
the City Council adoption of the Addendum to the General Plan EIR. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye: 6 - Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores
Absent: 1 - Tse
Page 2City of Burlingame
August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to recommend to the
City Council adoption of the North Rollins Specific Plan. The motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores6 -
Absent:Tse1 -
10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1312 Mills Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for
second story balcony and attached garage for a new, two story single -unit dwelling and
attached garage. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., applicant and
designer; Mohith and Ruchika Julapalli, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact:
Fazia Ali
1312 Mills Ave - Staff Report
1312 Mills Ave - Attachments
1312 Mills Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Concerned about the impact on privacy of the proposed removal of the redwood tree at the back.
>Please clean up drafting errors on the landscape plan.
>It is a nice-looking project and captures the Burlingame charm with the design. Based on the
neighborhood, it is going to fit well with the massing. There are several houses on Mills Avenue with
attached garages, so I can find support for that. The second story balcony does not bother me. I certainly
understand the privacy concerns, but it will be no different if there were windows there. It looks like it will
conform with all the reforestation that is required. The Parks Division will take care of the redwood tree, I
do not know if that is in our purview. I would hate to see a redwood tree go away, but I do not know if it is
within our control. I can find support moving this project forward.
>As it relates to the redwood tree, I have a property with a next door neighbor that has five redwood
trees on a 6,000 square foot lot. The droppings are horrible and the roots have uplifted the concrete in my
backyard; it is unfortunate. I truly do not believe that these trees belong on a 6,000 square foot lot; they
belong more in a park. I would like to see a more robust landscape plan and more trees by the back
fence to create some privacy if you are going to remove the redwood tree.
>I agree, it is a good looking project. Personally, I do not like attached garages, but at least it is one
car and it does not overwhelm the fa çade. I do not like second floor balconies. Right now, it is an open
lattice railing. Consider using a more solid balcony railing to provide privacy. The front porch is great but
Page 3City of Burlingame
August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
with the bulky columns it makes the porch less than 4’ deep. Recommend looking at a deeper front porch
so you can put some furniture out there.
>I like the idea of increasing the depth of the porch.
>It is our responsibility to comment on the redwood tree. I agree that the front porch needs to be
deeper. I really like the house. There is plenty of room for an ADU because the garage is in the front. I do
not like that this very important tree is being removed. Look into accommodating the redwood tree and
see if it can be cleaned up because it will be a very vast change if it is removed.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to place the item on
the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, and Shores5 -
Nay:Pfaff1 -
Absent:Tse1 -
b.1812 Castenada Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Yury
Kogan, applicant and designer; Marat Diner, property owner) (34 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
1812 Castenada Dr - Staff Report
1812 Castenada Dr - Attachments
1812 Castenada Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff
report.
Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing.
Yury Kogan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
>Madhi Padwal, 1808 Castenada Drive: I live right next to the proposed property undergoing
construction. We have pictures taken from our master bedroom window which opens to the backyard and
faces the neighboring property. We totally support the second floor addition. We are happy that they can
do that. However, the second floor deck is what is concerning us because it will completely overlook our
backyard and into our master bedroom window. We will have absolutely no privacy in our backyard. There
are no trees and nothing in between. I have two little kids who play in the backyard and I would want them
to have privacy when they are out there because we are both working parents. When we are in our
meeting and the kids are out there, we want them to have their privacy. Right now, what I am seeing is
that there is a 3’ fence on the deck but I don ’t think that is tall enough to give us that privacy on our side
of the property. We request to have that deck wall higher, about 6’ tall, then they cannot overlook into our
backyard on that side. Privacy is a concern especially in the future when they decide to sell the property,
we never know what kind of neighbors we will have. As of now, we have very good neighbors. We are also
concerned that if we decide to sell our property down the line, no one will be interested in buying because
of the same privacy concerns. These are our concerns and we are hoping that they be addressed.
>Sachin Padwal, 1808 Castenada Drive: I want to highlight one thing which is that the natural slope of
the lot is already on an elevated height, and this will all add more. 1812 Castenada Drive is higher and
1808 Castenada Drive is slightly below. We are worried about the privacy of the bedroom; the backyard
and windows will be closed all the time if that happens.
Page 4City of Burlingame
August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>The location of street trees in the Mill Estate area is in the City's right -of-way located adjacent to the
sidewalk, since there is no planter strip between the sidewalk and street. Please work with the Parks
Division and provide a street tree within the City's right -of-way at the front of the property based on their
requirements.
>Please correct drafting errors.
>With the comments from the neighbors down the hill, think that story poles are necessary before this
goes forward. I had the same concern with the neighbor next door regarding the balcony. This is one
example of those balconies that does what we don ’t want it to do, and that is overlooking another yard that
does not have any protection whatsoever. Unless there is going to be some significant landscape addition
to try and mitigate that, I don ’t see approving that. The second story addition does not integrate with the
home because it just pops up; it is not attractive. There is a house closer to Millbrae with the same kind
of pop up and it looks terrible. I am sorry that we allowed that to happen in the past. It’s not that I am
totally against any second story in this area, it just needs to integrate better and work with the profile. It
will look sorely out of place. This needs story poles and some significant modifications.
>I agree with my fellow commissioner. I think that this should go to a design review consultant. With
the story poles and guidance from the design review consultant, this project will be much improved. It
feels like this is a box on top of an existing home and I’d like to see some symmetry.
> Suggest that the project be reviewed by the design review consultant first and then erect the story
poles.
>On one hand, I am not opposed to the form because it is a bit boxy and asymmetrical, but that is
also what the existing house is; a little bit boxy and asymmetrical. Like another project we ’ve seen recently
there are some small things that need to be changed to accent the horizontality of this addition as
opposed to verticality. In this case, using horizontal siding on the first and second floors; the windows are
also horizontally oriented.
>When it goes to the design review consultant, I ’d like to see some details on the garage door because
what they have on the plans are a little bit different than the renderings. Would like to understand what
the garage doors will look like. Also provide more details around the windows.
> It is a modest addition. The design can be improved. Consider using a hip roof instead of a gable
roof, it would help to match the existing house. The privacy from the second floor balcony should be
addressed. It really is going to come down to the views and whether the story poles can confirm that.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores6 -
Absent:Tse1 -
c.900 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single-unit dwelling and attached garage on a lot that contains an existing single -unit
dwelling (to remain). (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; 900
Paloma, LLC, property owner) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
900 Paloma Ave - Staff Report
900 Paloma Ave - Attachments
900 Paloma Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item due
to business reasons. Commissioner Pfaff noted that she had contact with a neighbor. Planning Manager
Page 5City of Burlingame
August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application.
Public Comments:
>Heather Pineda, 907 Paloma Avenue: I live right across the street from this proposed design .
Regarding the design, I ’ve seen several designs tonight and I appreciate all your comments on that. I’ve
heard "Burlingame charm", "doesn’t integrate with the neighborhood ", and "use evergreens for screening ".
I think we all know that this is not a good design. It does not fit the neighborhood. I’ve been building for
three years now I can tell you that what I saw on these designs is nothing to what I ’ve been held to
account for. My place is pretty. People come by daily. They come in to look at my landscape, the green
face, and the design in my house. It is personal. I own it and this is the first home I ’ve ever owned. I
absolutely support ADUs, low -income housing and even modest low -income housing because I ’ve been a
renter my whole life until I got to Burlingame. We want to work with the applicant, but the spirit of this so
far has been horrendous. Please protect the character of our neighborhood; it really is important. I don ’t
know where the owners are tonight. When I started my project, which is a repair, I went to every single
neighbor. I showed them pictures of what I had in mind and I asked for their input and feedback. I heard
the applicant’s offer to meet with the neighbors, I ’d take it and put him accountable for that. I’d certainly
like to meet the owners because we ’ve heard a lot of different stories about their intentions for this place .
It’s shifted every single time I ’ve spoken to them, about them or seeing designs. I’m not too happy and I
think it shows. Redwoods are a protected species. I understand that the applicant has designed around
trees, but he is not building. It matters to me that these trees are kept safe. We’ve had at least a few fall
down. This one is healthy, let ’s keep it so. The last comment I ’d like to make is about the liability. The
owner insisted to me that she fully intends to live on this property with her extended family. I have no say
in that. That’s the State’s mandate how many people we want to cram into a tiny lot. But I can tell you that
there is an LLC set up. It is owned now by 900 Paloma, LLC, which means it is a limited liability
company. Several of the neighbors, myself included, are asked to be mindful when we ask for conditions
of approval with consequences that somebody will have to pay when some of these things go wrong. If it is
a limited liability company, are they not trying to be accountable for what is going on in this lot? I don ’t
really come in with an untrustworthy approach, but like I said, every time I have been faced with this
design something has changed. So, there is a little bit of a trust issue here. I appreciate the chance to
come up and talk to you today.
>Jay Veach, 904-906 Paloma Avenue: We are the property owners just to the north of this project. We
also were caretakers for 900 Paloma Avenue for nine years and are very familiar and intimate with this
project. I hope that some of the commissioners have gone and looked at this proposed site. My biggest
concern is water. I know that this is a review board for design, but it goes hand -in-hand with the Public
Works in this particular project. The City of Burlingame has seven major creeks: El Portal /Trousdale,
Mills, Easton, Sanchez, Terrace, Burlingame, and Ralston. These creeks have been in existence long
before Burlingame ever was. According to the city ’s website, these creeks are a critical stormwater
conveyance system that protects homes, businesses, and transportation networks. It also states that
these creeks are above ground west of El Camino Real but east of El Camino Real, the creeks have been
diverted to underground man -made drainpipes and culverts. These structures were built to facilitate landfill
for construction of properties east of El Camino Real, which this project is on. According to the City ’s
website, a degraded creek can cause serious property damage and can decrease its value. Now, as you
can see from the map that I have handed you from the City ’s website, these properties around Laguna
Avenue, Paloma Avenue and Hillcrest that are between Broadway and Burlingame Avenue lie in a natural
flood zone created by the confluence of the Sanchez and Terrace creeks, along with the numerable
tributaries that branch off these two natural stormwater drainages. Sanchez Creek is a major drainage,
and its major tributaries start from Skyline and an elevation of over 500 feet. They march their way down
through the creeks and empty out into the Laguna area of question. It is a 480 foot drop; a lot of water
Page 6City of Burlingame
August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
comes down there. Our properties sit at 11 feet of elevation. In a good normal storm weather window that
we have, as you can see from the pictures I have presented, 900 Paloma Avenue floods very deeply. That
extends all the way through the easement. To answer the commissioner ’s question about that easement, it
completely floods and it goes into the properties on the opposite side which is the Laguna Avenue side of
the easement. Looking at the Public Works map, it clearly outlines the lagoon. In a historical record,
Laguna Avenue was aptly named as it borders the eastern side of a natural lagoon. Our concern is that as
you change the grade level of 900 Paloma Avenue and flatten it out, all you do is spread the watershed
area out to alternate surrounding properties which are already flooded to an even deeper amount of water
on both Edgehill Drive, Laguna Avenue and Paloma Avenue properties. So, I ’d like to have this
commission work with the Public Works Department to review these plans. Any change in the topography,
which obviously will be done if they were to add three to four feet of dirt to make the same level, will
compromise the rest of the properties around us. Causing us soil erosions and high probability of damage
to our foundations.
>Jesse Chiu, 909 Laguna Avenue: We live on the opposite side of the proposed project. I want to
emphasize the severity of the flooding that happens in the easement, in our backyard and the streets. I
have requested petitions to work with Public Works for solutions. I have flooding photos of our backyard
that looks like a swimming pool and some showing the front at Laguna Avenue. This happened during the
start of the year. I know the applicant emphasized that they would address the drainage issue with the
Public Works Department, and we expect them to address the drainage issue. We understand that it does
not happen overnight. I really want to highlight the water issues we have in the neighborhood. I saw that
the proposed plan is to elevate the floor to five feet. How is that going to affect the neighbors that have
lower properties? The water will spread out to the neighboring backyards and the easement. We are really
concerned. Besides the water issues, I just cannot picture that lot having two ADUs, one two -story unit,
and the existing unit. I also know that they have proposed three parking spaces, but if you can imagine
how many people will live on the property, parking will be a nightmare on the streets. Regarding privacy, we
live on the opposite side of their backyard. They are proposing a two -story and that will overlook our
backyard and our house.
> Rosemary Macleod, 1316 Edgehill Drive: I really want to thank the Planning staff, we ’ve been down
here and calling, everybody has been very kind and transparent. Our number one concern is flooding. We
have a new graded driveway, a commercial grade pump, and four additional sump pumps. We’ve battled
flooding since my husband ’s family moved here in 1950. We flood up to six inches every year. In the past,
we've had to call the Fire Department to pump water out from under our house, but it did not impact our
gas furnace. We have not had to call in years because our neighbors have pumps. As I ’ve mentioned, we
have five pumps and a backup generator; we just often have to be patient while the pumps catch up. I
cannot stress that it is impossible for us to deal with the water from 900 Paloma Avenue. The current plan
calls for bringing in five feet of soil and a five -foot retaining wall, so essentially a moat that will push all
their water back into the surrounding properties. 900 Paloma Avenue will be an island above the adjacent
parcels and will push water into the surrounding homes. All the homes on Edgehill Drive that back up to
900 Paloma Avenue have flooding problems. Our water is not going to them, they ’re going to turn it
around, so their water comes into our property. We all have pumps and flood insurance. With the
cooperation of every single home on Edgehill Drive, we were able to handle last year ’s atmospheric rivers,
but I cannot express it enough that we cannot take on any additional water. Looking at the property map,
ten homes are expected to absorb this additional water, yet all of us are currently at maximum capacity. In
addition, the slanted roof is very close to our property. Now the building that was originally at 14 feet, after
putting in five feet of soil will be at 19 feet. We need assurance that the water will not flow off the roof into
our backyard. I want to know what the plan is for the displaced water. We need an engineering report. I
know this is part of the Public Works Department, but I want to put this on record because it is very
serious. Also, I want to talk about our backyard garden. We use it every day, garden most days, have
parties, and community meetings. Our fence is seven feet tall. Under the proposed plan, the 14-foot tall
building will be built on five feet of additional soil so the structure will be 19 feet tall, 12 feet above the top
of our fence. So, our seven foot fence will have dirt on the first five feet. We will have what appears to be a
floating structure in our backyard and our deck will have this huge house looking down on us. This will
Page 7City of Burlingame
August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
completely block our afternoon sun, possibly killing many of our beloved plants and trees. We request
that a height and daylight plane study and an environmental report be included to determine how these
buildings will block our sunlight. The plan does not include trees that border our property line, there are
none, and the landscaping is not in proportion to the mass and bulk of the structure. Burlingame is known
as the City of Trees. The proposed plan should be required to follow the City motto. We also request that
the permeable surface ratio be included in the environmental impact report because this will also affect
our flooding problems. Regarding parking, we ’ve got one covered carport, one -car garage in the front and
one in the back, a total of three cars. We can assume that a six -bedroom house will have at least three
cars, each back unit will have two cars, and the front unit will have two cars for a total of nine cars. That
would mean six cars would be parked on the street. If you look at the plans, two of the parking spots are
right in the middle of the driveway. If somebody is parked there, nobody from the back units can get out. I
think that is a real serious safety concern in the event of an emergency like an earthquake or a flood. The
front of the property is only 20.5-feet wide and that also adds to serious safety concerns when 16-20
people can occupy the lot. They won ’t be able to get out if cars are parked in these parking spaces .
Regarding the neighborhood, most of the homes in the neighborhood are over 100 years old. As someone
mentioned, they have Burlingame charm. A six -bedroom rectangular box house does not adhere to the
architecture of the neighborhood. All the homes that have been recently built in our neighborhood have a
lot of character and conform to the neighborhood standards. Regarding construction times, already in the
front unit, the one that is currently being worked on, they were working before 9 am on Saturday. We need
to know who we contact when they continue breaking the rules. For the record, these points should be a
condition of approval with consequences. Last Tuesday, I called the Planning Department for the first time
just to see what these two structures are. None of us had any idea that there were going to be five
structures in the property. We have no knowledge, so immediately we contacted neighbors and got
together and asked how we did not even know about this. My husband ’s family have lived here for
generations, and I’ve been in Burlingame for 45 years. I hope we can make this work.
>Jonathan Freidman: Thank you to all the staff for being so welcoming and accommodating in
explaining things to us. I also want to thank the architect for his remarks. If anyone does not know it, we
are in a period of climate change. The weather is getting more extreme. We have wildfires, we have rising
seas and of course we have floods. When we learned that this property behind us is going to be lifted five
feet above our property, all of us asked if this is going to be a dam that stops all the water coming down
Edgehill Drive, which comes down our driveways and into our backyard, is going to be blocked by this
wall. We also have sump pumps, and we have a drainage tank at the back of our property which goes
right into the alley. I am very concerned that this moat or wall is going to cause harm and damage to all of
us. I am a writer, I have my studio in the back of our property, I have had privacy there, and I have a
basement which is full of my 30-40 years of writing. I am very concerned that this new project is going to
endanger all those things. We are talking about the redwood tree, which is right behind my house and on
my property and its roots extend into the other property. Also, there is a beautiful palm tree which is
inextricably connected to the roots of the redwood tree. We really do not want the grading or foundations
for this process to harm the roots of our tree. I have pictures here to share of this beautiful tree; it is
historic because the house is 100 years old and so is the tree I imagine. We have this very healthy tree
trimmed and it would be terrible if this tree is weakened or damaged. It might fall on our house or the other
adjacent houses; it might kill people. The palm tree provides screening and shade. What they are
proposing is to build a patio there and cut out the palm tree. Why not keep the palm tree and have
shading and screening for both the new ADU and us. We are also concerned about the parking which my
neighbor had gone into. In case of an earthquake, flood, and fire, how are people going to get out? One
car could stop those people from escaping in an emergency. We’ve all seen what happened in Lahaina .
The way the architectural plans look, we don ’t think it has any of the qualities that reflect our neighborhood
and the new homes built there. This is a historic neighborhood and we would like to keep it that way. We
want ADUs and we want people moving into our communities so our children and grandchildren will be able
to live there. But we don’t want this fortress -like compound to be the way the future is in Burlingame .
Finally, I just want to stipulate that the flood, tree, and other issues which were raised should be
designated as a condition of approval with consequences. Since none of us in this room really know what
the impacts of the new kinds of rain will be on this property, I too request an environmental impact report
Page 8City of Burlingame
August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
be done on this area, which we call the Laguna Basin of Burlingame. I am proposing it here and want it to
be part of the record. Thank you very much.
>Linda Noeske, 913 Laguna Avenue: I live diagonally from the property in question. Flooding has
always been a concern on Laguna Avenue and Paloma Avenue which got it worse than Laguna Avenue .
What really concerns me, looking at the proposed plan and the footprint of the buildings, is that you ’ve got
four buildings on an irregularly shaped lot. It looks like a complex. It is not at all consistent with the
character of the neighborhood at all. Most of us in that area have single family homes and the ones that
do have an addition were put there a long time ago. This looks like a new complex coming into that street .
As far as the easement that runs behind Paloma Avenue and Laguna Avenue to the pathway, a while a go
they installed a new catch basin to deal with the water. The water definitely runs down the easement. I am
not a hydrologist, but in my opinion, the easement is lower. So the water that hits the retaining wall, which
essentially is a hill, must go somewhere. There are now four structures on the property and a little patch
of grass. I don’t know where the permeable surfaces will be. Flooding is a real concern. The other
concerns that I have are parking and traffic safety. It is next to a children ’s playground and this is a little
children’s playground. As someone mentioned before, you will have cars trapped within and people need to
back out from the property. There is a lot of foot traffic and the strollers go by from the local day care
center. I would request, if you have the chance to walk through the easement, please take a look at what
we are talking about because they are going to raise that property and the water has to go somewhere. I
don’t think that has been considered with flood gates, what will that do on one piece of property? It would
be helpful to see story poles for some of the neighbors as well as a scaled model. I couldn ’t tell much of
anything from these 3D photographs except that everything is crammed in there. I don ’t see a single family
living there.
>Steve Peterson, 950 Paloma Avenue: I don’t have anything to add to the comments that have already
been provided by my fellow neighbors, but I do want to emphasize that Paloma Park is a very popular
park in the neighborhood. There is a day care center that uses it routinely. They walk by my house
regularly. I want to emphasize the concerns that you ’ve already heard about and the consequences that
this development, I call this a development because it is a four -building idea, to put on an R -2 lot. I’m not
going to talk about or question what is legal because I am going to rely on the Planning Commission to
make sure that they comply with R -2 regulations. My concerns are ingress /egress to the property and
public access to the park. Sure, they will have access, but I don ’t know about public parking, and of
course, the flooding. That is very real. I hope you take that into consideration when you review the plans
for this development.
>Isabelle Rooney, 1312 Edgehill Drive: I’ve been listening and I would like to make everyone here
aware of the misrepresentation of the applicant during his project presentation when he stated that he
believes he can address almost all of our bullet pointed concerns and then proceeded not to address a
single one of them because all of the possible solutions were qualified by words and phrases “maybe”, “I
might be able to”, “probably get away with”, and “I think I can”. These are not mechanisms to address
concerns because they are hypothetical; hypotheticals can easily evaporate. Therefore, I want to make
everyone cognizant of that and hope that everyone will consider that. When you look at the plans, please
consider these possible suggestions and solutions on the merits that they deserve. To the applicant, I
would enormously appreciate it if you do not insult us by attempting to obfuscate reality in this way again.
>Public comment sent via email by Carol Borba, 905 Paloma Avenue: There are a number of
neighbors that cannot attend the meeting tonight, but they wanted to share their concerns about the
proposed design for 900 Paloma Avenue. I will drop the original signed documents off at your office this
morning but wanted to make sure you had electronic copies of the letters. (Hurin: Those are the letters
submitted by 15 neighbors.) The letters are from neighbors in a one to two -block radius of the proposed
structure. There are a significant number of families that use Paloma Park who are also very concerned
about the development, but I have not included their responses at this time. If you would like input from
the neighbors that use the park, I would be happy to gather their input and share it with the city. I look
forward to meeting with you this evening during the design review meeting.
Page 9City of Burlingame
August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Public comment sent via email by John Pineda, 907 Paloma Avenue: Good afternoon, I am writing to
provide comments on the proposed development at 900 Paloma Avenue in Burlingame that is on the
agenda for tonight's Planning Commission meeting. I oppose the development as currently designed. I
am attaching a letter that lays out the concerns that I and some of our neighbors have about the current
design. (Hurin: Referring to the same letter submitted by 15 neighbors.)
>Public comment sent via email by Nancy Kerns, 941 Paloma Avenue and 1339 Sanchez Avenue: I
have not prepared a statement that I want read at tonight ’s meeting, however as the property owner at 941
Paloma Avenue, I just wanted to state my opinion and opposition to the proposed buildings on the 900
Paloma Avenue lot. Not only is the proposal unsightly and a ridiculous amount of units and building
footprint for the land area, parking is already overcrowded on the block. I realize there are some parking
on the plans, but it is an untenable plan that will depend on incredible logistics among the tenants .
Parking is even more compromised at this particular location because of Paloma Park being next door. I
have lived here for over 40 years and I see the usage of that park has gone way up since the nice
remodeling of it the City did not long ago. Many families come by car to share the space and let their
children play on the equipment with other children or to have celebration parties. Most families or tenants
have multiple cars and especially with the addition of ADUs (many of which are on the footprint of what
would have been a garage ), parking has become outrageous and dangerous by blocking visibility and
making these narrow streets even more treacherous. So many “near misses” either experienced or
observed every day. At least please consider adding more stop signs at corners in this neighborhood
and/or extending the one-way streets another block or two south of Broadway to help mitigate this. Having
grown up here in Burlingame, I am profoundly saddened by what is becoming of it - an overcrowded,
congested “city” that looks more like a big urban center than the lovely town I spent my wonderful
childhood in. Please reconsider approving all these oversized projects.
>Public comment sent via email by Robin Allison Cavanagh, 860 Paloma Avenue: I have serious
concerns about this development effort. I join my neighbors citing these concerns. I’ve attached a letter
from our neighbors with these concerns. This email serves as my signed consent objecting to this
development - citing these concerns. I completely support the neighborhood request to make the
adjustments outlined in the attached letter. I’ve noted an additional concern - the added burden of curb
parking that will make it more difficult for the neighbors (and their guests) to park in front of their homes .
This doesn’t seem very fair to the homeowners and neighbors who live nearby. As someone who has lived
here for 20 years, I can attest to how much the curb parking has increased. Add this proposed
development and it will cause lots of pain and suffering to the neighbors. It’s just not fair to the
homeowners here. We are single family owners here. What’s being proposed is a hybrid single family
home-apartment complex. While I support an ADU on a single family home unit, I do not support this
proposed project.
Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> I appreciate all the neighbors that have expressed their concerns. It is a tough one because there are
a lot of restrictions on what the Planning Commission is legally allowed to review. It is just the house and
not the ADUs, not even the elevations and certainly not the flooding. I appreciate all those concerns; it is
just not the purview of this commission to have a vote one way or another regarding those issues. It is an
R-2 zoned lot surrounded by other R -2 properties except for the south side. We see submissions all the
time requesting special permits. This fully complies with the law as submitted so it makes it difficult for us
to hear your concerns, but they do not violate the law. I do hope that the designer is able to work on the
elevation, it is just an oddity to have five feet of fill, it will look odd. I am not sure if the flooding will get
worse, there are ways they can mitigate that. But aesthetically, to the neighbors surrounding a five -foot
jump in the backyard is going to look strange. As my fellow commissioner has alluded to, right now from
the topographic map, this looks like a property that gets flooded by everybody else because it is lower .
Page 10City of Burlingame
August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
We’ll let the civil engineer decide that it is two feet lower than the surrounding fences. The photos of a
lake suggest that there is a water problem not only in this property but the neighboring properties as well .
That is another challenge, all the other properties are in a flood zone, so it is not this property ’s fault that
there is flooding in the neighborhood. The aesthetics of the house can be modified to fit better in the
neighborhood. I’d love to see it come back with a creative elevation solution where you don ’t have to put
five feet of fill in.
>It is unfortunate that most of the issues raised are things that we don ’t have the ability to review as a
commission. The flooding sounds bad, but it is not something that will be useful for us to discuss. Other
than that, I am thankful that they are keeping the house in the front. I always want to see that. It is a nice
and unusual design. I am also happy that it is what the vast majority of the site is going to present on the
street.
>I definitely hear all the concerns and like my other fellow commissioner said, a lot of these concerns
need to be worked out with the Building and Public Works Divisions to make this work better. As part of
it, I hope that they can come up with solutions to bring the stormwater out to an appropriate location and
not make the situation worst for the adjacent neighbors. Overall, this is a 12,000 square foot lot which is
double the size of most of the lots in the area. Therefore, having two homes on it is not really any denser
than any of the other lots. It just happens to be a triangle. Even with the ADUs, the lot coverage is below
what we would otherwise expect for a property like this. The ADUs are not oversized, they are smaller than
a lot of the ones we see. Overall, I don ’t have an issue with the density of this lot. I agree that they don ’t
have a whole lot of street frontage to deal with parking that other people have, that is why I see a lot of
paving in the interior so they can try and make the parking work on their own property. It is going to be a
challenge to get the permeability, the parking, and the stormwater to work. I can sympathize with the flood
zone because they are trying to solve the issue for this lot too since they are within the flood zone and
they must follow the regulations. I hope all that can get settled out. The thing that we do have purview on
is the design. There are still opportunities here. I recognize that it is an efficient design right now and it is
leveraging being a two -story home. There are opportunities to have some stagger between materials. I
don’t find the stucco part heavy, but consider a design feature and maybe a 6-inch setback which then
allows the wood portion to evolve out of the base and provide more style to it and allows the overhangs to
be a little deeper. Suggests doing some push and pull to it and some depth, it can turn into a
nice-looking design. Given the nature of this lot, there are a lot of people looking at it from the back. It is
important that we try to make a good -looking project and I am looking forward to the next generation of 3D
renderings.
>I’ll echo my fellow commissioners with what has been said. As a builder, I understand that there is
going to be quite an expense in civil engineering for this project. There will probably be a soils report
required. The water can’t simply touch the foundations, it is against the law. You can rest assured that the
civil engineers on this job will be held to their licenses and to the city review that they will be able to
mitigate the water. If you are concerned about your own property, consider looking into civil engineering
and maybe consider hiring your own to counter it for a second opinion. You have that built into the city .
The Public Works Department is very capable, and they will look at this with all your concerns. Know that
this will not just fly through and somehow get approved with the Building Division without a very significant
civil engineering review. It is important on the applicant ’s side to move forward with the civil engineer so
they can present that to the neighborhood so they can see exactly how the water is going to be mitigated
and they can take into their own hands how the engineers plan on getting the water away from this
property. It is illegal to shed it onto neighboring properties. Obviously, this area floods and that kind of
water is very challenging. The property itself cannot shed into your properties. To echo my fellow
commissioner, there are opportunities on the design. Unfortunately, we cannot talk more about the
property as many of you have concerns because we are only limited to the new two -story behind the
existing house. With a few added details, that can look like a very nice property. It is going to be dense
and there are going to be parking issues. We deal with that in every street of Burlingame that gets a new
home and a new ADU. That is a State mandate. I do appreciate everybody ’s thoughtfulness on this. I
certainly look forward to it coming back.
>It can be made better with some details. I do appreciate that the applicant is working on the existing
house because it has a charm to it. My concern is with the elevation changes as far as potentially rotting
the fences. It certainly is not good for adjacent trees to have so much soil put up against them. Applicant
Page 11City of Burlingame
August 28, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
will need to provide an arborist report to investigate protecting surrounding properties that have nice trees
for potential creating another problem. Also coordinate with the city engineers to help direct this forward in
a good manner.
Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to bring the item
back as a Design Review Study Item when plans have been revised as directed. The motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores5 -
Absent:Tse1 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
12. DIRECTOR REPORTS
There were no reportable actions from the last City Council meeting regarding Planning matters.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
No Future Agenda Items were suggested.
14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m.
Page 12City of Burlingame
Item No. 10a
Design Review Study City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1137 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: September 11, 2023
Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant: Hannah Chiu, Thomas James Homes APN: 026-181-030
Architect: Bassenian Lagoni Architects Lot Area: 9,000 SF
Property Owners: Brenden Kelly and Jessica Wijtman -Kelly Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing two-story single-unit
dwelling and a combined detached garage/accessory structure. The applicant is proposing to demolish all
structures on the site and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached one-car garage. The project
proposes a total floor area of 3,535 SF (0.39 FAR) where 4,224 SF (0.47 FAR) is the maximum allowed
(includes 79 SF front porch and 460 SF ADU exemptions).
The new dwelling would contain four bedrooms (proposed loft on second floor qualifies as a bedroom because
the opening is less than 50% of the wall length). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are
required for a four-bedroom house. The new detached garage measures 10’-4” x 20’-0” (clear interior
dimensions) and provides the required covered parking space; one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is
provided in the driveway . All other Zoning Code requirements have been met.
The existing site contains a total of 13 trees, five of which are protected (having a circumference of 48 inches or
more measured at 54 inches above grade). There are also two existing street trees which are to remain. As part
of this project, two existing protected trees and eight existing non-protected trees are proposed to be removed
due to poor health or structural issues (see attached Tree Assessment & Protection report, prepared by
Heartwood Consulting Arborists, dated April 22, 2023 for additional information). Three existing protected trees
would remain and would be protected throughout construction. Four new 36-inch box size landscape trees (non-
fruit and non -nut bearing) are proposed on site. Tables listing the existing trees to be removed and to remain
can be found on sheet L1.1 of the proposed plans. A full plant schedule for proposed trees and plantings can be
found on sheet L2.1.A Tree Removal Permit application has not yet been submitted to the Parks Division for the
removal of the protected trees.
Accessory Dwelling Unit
This project includes an attached ADU (460 SF) located at the front, right side of the main dwelling. Review of
the ADU application is administrative only and is not re viewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has
determined that the ADU complies with the ADU regulations.
The applicant is requesting the following application :
▪ Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(a)).
This space intentionally left blank.
Design Review 1137 Cabrillo Avenue
-2-
1137 Cabrillo Avenue
Lot Area: 9,000 SF Plans date stamped: August 15, 2023
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Front Setbacks (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
17’-1” (to porch)
28’-11”
15’-1” (block average)
20’-0”
Side Setbacks (left):
(right):
25’-2”
21’-7” 7'-0"
7’-0”
Rear Setbacks (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
20’-0”
20’-0”
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,163 SF
24%
3,600 SF
40%
FAR: 3,535 SF
0.39 FAR 4,224 SF 1
0.47 FAR
# of bedrooms: 4 ---
Off Street Parking: 1 covered
(10’-4”' x 20' clear interior)
1 uncovered
(9' x 18')
1 covered
(10' x 18')
1 uncovered
(9' x 18')
Plate Height: 9’-0” on 1st floor
8’-0” on 2nd floor
9’-0” on 1st floor
8’-0” on 2nd floor
Building Height: 29’-10” 30'-0"
Declining Height
Envelope: complies C.S. 25.10.55(A)(1)
1 (0.32 x 9,000 SF) + 1,100 SF + 244 SF = 4,224 SF (0.47 FAR)
Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:
• Windows: fiberglass with simulated true divided lights, wood trim
• Doors: fiberglass entry door, wood garage door
• Siding: stucco, cementitious siding (6”), cementitious trim/corner board (5.5”)
• Roof: composition shingle
• Other: wood post, wood rafter tail, wood bracket
Staff Comments: None.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the
City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows:
1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines;
2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Design Review 1137 Cabrillo Avenue
-3-
4. Architectural style and consistenc y and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures;
5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties;
6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and
7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing
structure as remodeled.
Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design R eview application shall be
supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination,
the following findings shall be made:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with a ll applicable provisions of Title
25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the
standards established in the Design Review C riteria above, as applicable.
2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other
circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and
3. The project is designed and arrange d to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health,
safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property.
‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Associate Planner
c. Hannah Chiu, Thomas James Homes, applicant
Bassenian Lagoni Architects, architect
Brenden Kelly and Jessica Wijtman -Kelly, property owners
Attachments:
Project Application Form
Applicant’s Letter of Explanation, dated April 25, 2023
Arborist Report, prepared by Heartwood Consulting Arborists, dated April 22, 2023
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed September 1, 2023
Area Map
City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road (650) 558-7250 planningdept@burlingame.org
Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to post
plans submitted with this application on the City’s website
as part of the Planning approval process and waive any
claims against the City arising out of or related to such
action.
_________ (Initials of Architect/Designer)
Project Application - Planning Division
Type of Application: Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional Use/Minor Use Permit
Design Review Hillside Area Construction Permit Minor Modification
Special Permit Variance Other
Project Address: Assessor’s Parcel #: Zoning:
Project Description:
Applicant Property Owner
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
Phone: Phone:
E-mail: E-mail:
Architect/Designer
Name:
Address:
Phone:
E-mail:
Burlingame Business License #: * Architect/Designer must have a valid Burlingame Business License.
Applicant: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Applicant’s signature: Date:
Property Owner: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Division.
Property owner’s signature: Date:
Date Application Received (staff only):
1137 Cabrillo Ave
Thomas James Homes c/o Hannah Chiu
(650) 392-3573
hchiu@tjhusa.com
Bassenian Lagoni Architects
949-553-9100 ext. 208
dpockett@bassenianlagoni.com
Brenden Kelly and Jessica Wijtman-Kelly
650-346-7165
brendenk11@aol.com
951375
4/13/23
DP
026-181-030 R1
275 Shoreline Dr, Suite 400
Redwood City, CA 94065
2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660-0753
✔
Demolish existing home and existing detached garage and build a new 2 story single family home.
RECEIVED
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIVISION
05.01.23
Thomas James Homes
255 Shoreline Drive
Suite 428
Redwood City, CA 94065
1137 Cabrillo Avenue
Letter of Explanation
Job No. 918-23021
April 25th, 2023
This home is designed in a Arts & Crafts Bungalow style architecture, with design features
including moderately pitched roofs, simple massing, accent horizontal siding, and stucco. The
classic color palette and horizontal siding balance well with the mild tones and materials of the
neighboring homes, giving character to the street scene without being overbearing.
Much focus was placed on the footprint of the home to align with the overall neighborhood
aesthetic. With the detached garage located on the rear of the site, we are able to reduce the
overall scale of the front of the home to better balance with the existing adjacent homes. To further
protect the privacy of the homebuyer and neighbors, much effort has been placed to locate
windows and doors inward to the site and reducing the size of those windows facing the adjacent
homes.
Tree Assessment & Protection
1137 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Prepared for:
Thomas James Homes
April 22, 2023
Prepared by:
San Francisco, CA
650.542.8733
ASCA - Registered Consulting Arborist ® #651
ISA - Certified Arborist® MA-4851A
1137 Cabrillo Ave Tree Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS
matthew@heartwoodarborists.com
650-542-8733
2 of 16
Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Assignment ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Limits of Assignment ...................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose and Use of this Report ....................................................................................................... 4
Tree Map ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Tree Inventory & Assessment Table............................................................................................. 10
Condition Rating ....................................................................................................................... 12
Suitability for Preservation ....................................................................................................... 12
Recommended Minimum TPZ .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Protected Tree Ordinance – City of Burlingame ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
QUALIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, & LIMITING CONDITIONS ...................................... 15
CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE .................................................................................... 16
1137 Cabrillo Ave Tree Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS
matthew@heartwoodarborists.com
650-542-8733
3 of 16
Summary
The existing home will be demolished and and a new home and extensive landscaping are
proposed. Fifteen (15) trees were inventoried. Seven (7) are “protected,” including two (2)
that are City Street Trees. Ten (10) trees are proposed for removal due to either their poor
condition or a conflict with the proposed improvements. Two (2) of trees to be removed are
“Protected.” Five (5) trees, all “protected,” will be preserved throughout construction. The
location and arrangement of the tree protection fencing proposed are adequate to protect all
trees onsite during the demolition and construction process.
If the Recommendations in this report are implemented and the Tree Protection Guidelines
adhered to, the impact level for all trees to be preserved will be low.
Assignment
• Visit site and collect the following attributes for all protected trees onsite: species,
trunk diameter, overall condition, protection status and suitability for preservation.
• Review available construction documents provided by client to assess impacts from
proposed development activities.
• Provide tree protection guidelines for all trees to be preserved.
• Prepare an arborist report summarizing all of the above.
Limits of Assignment
• The information in this report is limited to the tree and site conditions during my
inspection on January 29, 2023, and my review of the following plan sheets:
o Topographic Survey Sheet 1. CBG Civil Engineers. 2/2/23
o Proposed Site Plan A1.0. Bassenian Lagoni. 4/18/23
o Layout and Materials Plan L1.1. Abich Landscape Arch. 4/10/23
o Layout and Materials Plan L1.2. Abich Landscape Arch. 4/10/23
o Planting Plan L2.1. Abich Landscape Arch. 4/10/23
o Planting Details L2.2. Abich Landscape Arch. 4/10/23
o Tree Protection Plan L2.3. Abich Landscape Arch. 4/10/23
o Grading and Drainage Plan. GP-1. CBG Civil Engineers. Undated
• No tree risk assessments were performed.
• Trunk diameters and heights of off-property trees are visual estimates.
1137 Cabrillo Ave Tree Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS
matthew@heartwoodarborists.com
650-542-8733
4 of 16
Purpose and Use of this Report
The information in this report is a record of existing tree and site conditions at the subject
property. It is to be used by Thomas James Homes and their agents to aid in construction
design and tree preservation planning.
1137 Cabrillo Ave Tree Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS
matthew@heartwoodarborists.com
650-542-8733
5 of 16
Observations
Tree Map
1137 Cabrillo Ave Tree Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS
matthew@heartwoodarborists.com
650-542-8733
6 of 16
Tree Observations
Fifteen (15) trees were inventoried. Seven (7) are “protected,” including two (2) that are City
Street Trees.
See Tree Inventory and Assessment Table (Appendix A) for all tree attributes collected
during the inventory.
Site and Plan Observations
The existing home will be demolished and replaced with a new two-story home with
extensive landscaping.
Ten (10) trees are proposed for removal due to either their poor condition or a conflict with
the proposed improvements. Two (2) of the trees to be removed are “Protected.”
Five (5) trees, all “protected,” will be preserved throughout construction.
1137 Cabrillo Ave Tree Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS
matthew@heartwoodarborists.com
650-542-8733
7 of 16
Discussion
Tree Protection
The objective of tree protection is to reduce the negative impacts of construction on trees to a
less than significant level. Trees vary in their ability to adapt to altered growing conditions.
Mature trees have established stable biological systems in the preexisting physical environment.
Disruption of this environment by construction activities interrupts the tree’s physiological
processes causing depletion of energy reserves and a decline in vigor, sometimes resulting in the
tree’s death. The Tree Protection Guidelines (Appendix B) in this report are designed to guide
the project team and ensure that appropriate practices will be implemented in the field to
eliminate undesirable consequences that may result from uninformed or careless acts.
Tree Protection Zone
The tree protection zone (TPZ) is the defined area in which certain activities are prohibited to
minimize potential injury to the tree. Some municipalities strive for an idealized TPZ in which
activities are restricted within a radius of 10 times the trunk diameter (10X TPZ) in all directions.
This “10x diameter” TPZ is largely impracticable for densely populated areas on the San
Francisco Peninsula. Literature supporting a 10x TPZ is predicated on construction activities
occurring on all sides of a tree, which seldom occurs in infill development such as this project.
Development typically occurs on one or two sides of a tree, leaving the root zone of the other
two to three sides of the tree completely undisturbed. Additionally, infill trees on developed sites
have been grown in proximity to existing structures which have impacted the pattern of root
development.
Critical Root Zone
The critical root zone is the area of soil around the trunk of a tree where roots are located that
provide stability and uptake of water and nutrients required for the tree’s survival. The CRZ is
the minimum distance from the trunk that trenching, or root cutting can occur, and will be
defined by the trunk diameter as a distance of three to six times the trunk diameter in feet
(Costello, L., Watson, G., Smiley, E. 2017). For example, if a tree is two feet in diameter, the
CRZ distance would be six to twelve feet from the stem on one side of the tree.
The location and arrangement of the tree protection fencing depicted on Sheet L2.3 are adequate
to protect all trees onsite during the demolition and construction process.
1137 Cabrillo Ave Tree Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS
matthew@heartwoodarborists.com
650-542-8733
8 of 16
Impact Level
Impact level defines how a tree may be influenced by construction activity and proximity to the
tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defines the impact rating:
• Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree.
• Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps
must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems.
• High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or
other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building
envelope.
All trees schedule to be preserved have an impact level rating of “low.”
1137 Cabrillo Ave Tree Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS
matthew@heartwoodarborists.com
650-542-8733
9 of 16
Recommendations
1. Obtain all necessary permits from the City of Burlingame prior to removing or
significantly altering any tree.
2. Refer to Appendix B of this document for general protection guidelines and
specifications including instructions for working inside any tree protection zone.
3. Install tree protection fence as depicted in Sheet L2.3 and according to the specifications
provided in Appendix B.
4. Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including the
architect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of the
owner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document.
5. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to
verify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances.
1137 Cabrillo Ave Tree Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS
matthew@heartwoodarborists.com
650-542-8733
10 of 16
Appendix A: Tree Inventory & Assessment Table
Tree
#
Species Trunk
Dia.
(in.)
Cond.
Num.
(0-
100)
Cond.
Qual.
Suitability
for
Preserv.
Status Preserve
or
Remove
Comments
1 Sweetgum
Liquidambar styraciflua
15 45 Fair Poor CITY
STREET
TREE
Preserve Street tree; restricted root
zone; sidewalk
displacement; cracked curb.
2 London planetree
Platanus hybrida
18 35 Poor Poor CITY
STREET
TREE
Preserve Street tree; Roots previously
cut for sidewalk. cracked
curb; Very sparse canopy.
3 Incense cedar
Calocedrus decurrens
(20)
(17)
(15)
(11)
(10)
(10)
(10)
40 Poor Poor PROTECTED Remove Multistem
4 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
32 70 Good Good PROTECTED Preserve Oriented toward neighbor
property
5 Black acacia
Acacia melanoxylon
8 25 Poor Poor Not protected Remove Decay at base
6 Black acacia
Acacia melanoxylon
7 25 Poor Poor Not protected Remove Decay at base
7 Black acacia
Acacia melanoxylon
18 30 Poor Poor PROTECTED Remove Decay throughout
8 Black acacia
Acacia melanoxylon
7 40 Poor Poor Not protected Remove
1137 Cabrillo Ave Tree Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS
matthew@heartwoodarborists.com
650-542-8733
11 of 16
Tree
#
Species Trunk
Dia.
(in.)
Cond.
Num.
(0-
100)
Cond.
Qual.
Suitability
for
Preserv.
Status Preserve
or
Remove
Comments
9 Queensland pittosporum 12 20 Very
poor
Poor Not protected Remove Almost dead
10 Coast live oak
Quercus agrifolia
23 70 Good Good PROTECTED Preserve
11 Southern magnolia 10 40 Poor Poor Not protected Remove
12 privet
Ligustrum sp.
9 40 Poor Poor Not protected Remove
13 Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
30 55 Fair Good PROTECTED Preserve Neighbor tree
14 European white birch
Betula pendula
5 60 Good Poor Not protected Remove
15 European white birch
Betula pendula
4 55 Fair Poor Not protected Remove
1137 Cabrillo Ave Preliminary Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS matthew@heartwoodarborists.com 650-542-8733 12 of 16
Condition Rating
A tree’s condition is a determination of its overall health and structure based on five aspects:
Roots, trunk, scaffold branches, twigs, and foliage. The assessment considered both the
health and structure of the trees for a combined condition rating.
• Good = No apparent problems, good structure and health, good longevity for the site.
• Fair = Minor problems, at least one structural defect or health concern, problems can
be mitigated through cultural practices such as pruning or a plant health care
program.
• Poor = Major problems with multiple structural defects or declining health, not a
good candidate for retention.
• Dead/Unstable = Extreme problems, irreversible decline, failing structure, or dead.
Suitability for Preservation
A tree’s suitability for preservation is determined based on Functional and External
Limitations 1 as follows (ISA, 2019):
Good = Trees with good health, structural stability, and longevity.
Fair = Trees with fair health and/or structural defects that may be mitigated through
treatment. These trees require more intense management and monitoring and may have
shorter life spans than those in the good category.
Poor = Trees in poor health with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated and
will continue to decline regardless of treatment. The species or individual may possess
characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the
intended use of the site.
1 Functional Limitations are based on factors associated with the tree’s interaction to its planting site affecting plant
condition, limiting plant development, or reducing the utility in the future and include genetics, placement, and site
conditions for the individual tree (ISA, 2019). External Limitations are outside the property, out of control of the
owner and also affect plant condition, limit plant development, or reduce the utility in the future (i.e power lines,
municipal restrictions, drought adaptations, or species susceptibility to pests) (ISA, 2019).
1137 Cabrillo Ave Preliminary Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS matthew@heartwoodarborists.com 650-542-8733 13 of 16
Appendix B: Tree Protection Guidelines
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)
1. Tree protection locations should be marked before any fencing contractor arrives.
2. Prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site, six-foot high sturdy fence
shall be erected along the perimeter all Tree Protection Zones (TPZ).
3. Once established, the fence must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the
construction process until final inspection. The fence should be maintained throughout the
site during the construction period and should be inspected periodically for damage and
proper function.
4. The area beyond the fencing is the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)
5. TPZ fencing may only be only be moved, crossed or altered with permission of the Project
Arborist.
6. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Restrictions
a. NO operation, storage, or parking of vehicles or heavy equipment.
b. NO storage or disposal of building materials, refuse, soil, excavated spoils, or
chemicals of any kind.
c. NO cutting of tree roots by utility trenching, foundation digging, or any
miscellaneous excavation without prior approval of the Project Arborist.
d. NO use of TPZ as a rest/lunch/break area by project staff.
e. NO grade changes of any kind, except as expressly designed or approved by the
Project Arborist.
f. NO alteration or disturbance, for any duration, of the ground inside the TPZ.
7. All work within the TPZ is to be approved by the Project Arborist prior to
commencement of the task.
Root Pruning and Trenching
8. Roots over 1 inch in diameter should be pruned, rather than crushed or torn. Prune roots clean
and square at undamaged tissue using hand pruners or a saw.
1137 Cabrillo Ave Preliminary Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS matthew@heartwoodarborists.com 650-542-8733 14 of 16
9. Roots 2 inches and greater must remain injury free.
10. If pruning of roots 2 inches or greater is unavoidable, this pruning must be monitored and
documented by the Project Arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist.
11. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions. Once severed,
exposed roots and upper 3 feet of trench walls should be kept moist with several layers of
burlap or backfilled within one hour.
12. Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree
roots 2 inches or greater, or inside the TPZ, should be monitored and documented by the
Project Arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist.
Excavation
13. Excavation, demolition or extraction of material shall be performed by equipment sitting
outside the TPZ. Other methods permitted are hand digging, hydraulic or pneumatic air
excavation technology.
14. Avoid excavation within the TPZ during hot, dry weather.
15. If excavation or trenching for drainage, utilities, irrigation lines, etc., it is the duty of the
contractor to tunnel under any roots 2 inches or greater in diameter.
1137 Cabrillo Ave Preliminary Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS matthew@heartwoodarborists.com 650-542-8733 15 of 16
QUALIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, & LIMITING CONDITIONS
Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or
ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or
evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management.
All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or
other regulations.
Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot
be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences,
mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual
arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services.
This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and
the consultant’s fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a
stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not
necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or
surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants
on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference.
Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a
representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information.
Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the
time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items
without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed
or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the
future.
1137 Cabrillo Ave Preliminary Assessment & Protection 22 Apr 2023
HEARTWOOD CONSULTING ARBORISTS matthew@heartwoodarborists.com 650-542-8733 16 of 16
CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
I, Matthew Fried, certify:
▪ That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in
this report and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation
and appraisal is stated in the attached report and the Terms of Assignment;
▪ That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property
that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with
respect to the parties involved;
▪ That the analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own;
▪ That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices;
▪ That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant,
except as indicated within the report;
▪ That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a
predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other
party.
I further certify that I am Registered Consulting Arborist® #651 with the American Society of
Consulting Arborists, and acknowledge, accept, and adhere to the ASCA Standards of
Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist and
have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the study of trees for over twelve
years.
Matthew Fried
Matthew Fried
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® # 651
ISA Certified Arborist® MA-4851A
ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified
1137 Cabrillo Avenue
300’ noticing
APN: 026-181-030
S H E E T I N D E XPROPOSED SECTIONSPROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS: LEFT AND RIGHTCOVER SHEETA1.0PROPOSED SITE PLANA2.0PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN : FIRST FLOORA0.0BASSENIAN LAGONI ARCHITECTSPHONE: (949) 553-9100EMAIL: DPOCKETT@BASSENIANLAGONI.COMCONTACT: DAVE POCKETTNEWPORT BEACH, CA 926602031 ORCHARD DRIVEARCHITECTS:THOMAS JAMES HOMESPHONE: (650) 402-3024EMAIL: AFELVER@TJHUSA.COMCONTACT: ANNA FELVERREDWOOD CITY, CA 94065255 SHORELINE DRIVE, SUITE 428OWNER:CIVIL ENGINEER:PHONE: (925) 866-0322CBG SAN RAMON, CA 945832633 CAMINO RAMON #350D I R E C T O R YA3.1PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS: FRONT AND REARA3.41TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYV I C I N I T Y M A P A4.0A3.0CODES :LOT 6 BLOCK 31GOVERNING BODY :CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODECALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODECALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODECALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODECALIFORNIA FIRE CODECALIFORNIA ENERGY CODECALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDINGSTANDARDS CODE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODEP R O J E C T D A T ACODES :LEGAL DESCRIPTION :GOVERNING BODY :CITY OF BURLINGAME2022CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODECALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODECALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODECALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODECALIFORNIA FIRE CODECALIFORNIA ENERGY CODECALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDINGSTANDARDS CODE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODEBURLINGAMER-1ZONING :SITE AREA :9,000 SQ. FT.COVERED PARKING :1ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE :40%BUILDING CLASSIFICATION:SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED R3/UFIRE SPRINKLERS PER CRC R313.3BUILDING CLASSIFICATION:SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED R3/UFIRE SPRINKLERS PER CRC R313.3TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION :TYPE V-B TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION :TYPE V-B PROJECT ADDRESS :PROJECT ADDRESS :1137 CABRILLO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010FIRE ZONE :N/AFIRE ZONE :APN :026-131-030PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE :SETBACKS :FRONT :PROPOSED15'-5.5" (1st) / 28'-11" (2nd)REQUIRED15'-0" MIN. (1st) / 20'-0" MIN. (2nd)SIDE:25'-2"(LEFT) / 16'-10" (RIGHT)7-0" MIN.(LEFT) / 7'-0" MIN.(RIGHT)REAR :20'-0" (1st) / 20'-0" (2nd)15'-0" MIN.(1st) / 20'-0" MIN. (2nd)SQUARE FOOTAGE:FIRST FLOOR :PROPOSED1,395 SQ. FT.SECOND FLOOR :1,442 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVABLE :3,297 SQ. FT.GARAGE : 244 SQ. FT.FRONT PORCH : 79 SQ. FT.BUILDING HEIGHT:± 29'-10"PROPOSED FAR :3,547 SQ. FT.ALLOWABLE FAR :3,980 SQ. FT.22% (2,001 SQ.FT.)2022202220222022202220222022FAR1,407 SQ. FT. 1,630 SQ. FT. 244 SQ. FT.N/AREAR PORCH : 266 SQ. FT. 266 SQ. FT.UNCOVERED PARKING :1ADU : 460 SQ. FT.N/ADEMO EXISTING 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILYSCOPE OF WORK:DETACHED DWELLING AND GARAGE, R-3OCCUPANCY :CONSTRUCTING NEW 2-STORY SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING AND GARAGEINCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS ADOPTED INORDINANCE 1889COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDA3.3PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN : SECOND FLOORPROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS: DETACHED GARAGEA2.1 "Construction Hours"Weekdays: 8:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.Sundays and Holidays: No Work Allowed(See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 18.07.110 for details.)(See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.)Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City Holidays between8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.A3.2PROPOSED ROOF PLANL1.1LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLANLANDSCAPE:PHONE: (510) 905-7444ABICH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREBERKLEY, CA 947022043 SAN PABLO AVENUEL1.2CONSTRUCTION DETAILSL2.1PLANTING PLANL2.2PLANTING DETAILSL2.3TREE PROTECTION PLAN0 8 . 1 4 . 2 3J:\GROUP3\91823021\XDESCOVERSHEET.DWGCopyright 2023 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 926609 1 8 . 2 3 0 2 1B u r l i n g a m e , C a l i f o r n i a1 1 3 7 C A B R I L L O A V E N U EB 3 3 V 2 A - T RC o v e r S h e e tA0.0C O V E R S H E E TAugust 14th, 2023BURLINGAME, CA 940101137 CABRILLO AVENUERECEIVEDCITY OF BURLINGAMECDD-PLANNING DIVISIONAUG 15 2023
LOT 5 & PORTION OF LOT 6BLOCK 31(3 M 93)EXISTING TWOSTORY RESIDENCEFF 104.9±(1,152 SQ. FT. ±)CABRILLO AVENUENORTH1/8" = 1'-0"120.00'75.00'XXXXXXNEW2-STORYRESIDENCE1-CARGARAGECABRILLO AVENUEADU
0 8 . 1 4 . 2 3J:\GROUP3\91823021\XARCHSITE_1137 CABRILLO.DWGCopyright 2023 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 926600 4 8 169 1 8 . 2 3 0 2 1B u r l i n g a m e , C a l i f o r n i a1 1 3 7 C A B R I L L O A V E N U EB 3 3 V 2 A - T RA1.0P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N * FRONT SETBACK CALCULATIONSETBACK MIN./MAX. EXCL.ADDRESS15'1145 CABRILLO19'16'15'15'14'N/AAVG. CALC.ALLOWABLE SETBACK(16+15+15+16+15+15+14+15=15)/9 = 15'-1"15.11' 1141 CABRILLO1137 CABRILLO1133 CABRILLO1123 CABRILLO1121 CABRILLO1117 CABRILLO16'1149 CABRILLO12'1111 CABRILLO15'1109 CABRILLO15'1105 CABRILLO15'N/ASETBACKSPROPOSED MINIMUM28'-11"2ND FLOORADU17'-1"1ST FLOOR15'-1'FRONTSIDEREARRIGHTADU (LEFT/RIGHT)LEFT2ND FLOOR1ST FLOOR15'20'15'-5.5"7'25'-2"21'-7"7'41'-8" / 16'-10" 4' / 4'15'20'20'20'
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONLOT COVERAGE22%REAR PORCH266 SQ. FT.FRONT PORCH79 SQ. FT.1 - CAR DETACHED GARAGE244 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING3297 SQ. FT.ADU460 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR1442 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR1395 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLE1- CAR DETACHED GARAGE4 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHS + LOFTNOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONTOTAL FAR (3980 MAX)3547 SQ. FT.GARAGE244 SQ. FT.REAR PORCH266 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR1,630 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR1,407 SQ. FT.FAR TABLEREF.FRZ.DWT.C.MICRO.DROPGREATROOM184198X9'-1" CLG.DINING212114X9'-1" CLG.ADU BEDROOM 1127101X9'-1" CLG.ENTRY9'-1" CLG.ADU BA. 19'-1" CLG.KITCHEN9'-1" CLG.GARAGE206110X8'-5" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.SITTING (ADU)172136X9'-1" CLG.WALK-INPANTRY9'-1" CLG.PORCH9'-1" CLG.20'-4"15'-6"84'-6 1/2"17'-5"12'-5"
33'-0"13'-6 1/2"38'-1"15'-6"4'-9"40'-10 1/2"14'-5"7'-10"11'-7"21'-1"10"
2'-0"3'-4"REARPORCH9'-1" CLG.UP
17 R
1'-0"DWELLING UNITS IN TWO-FAMILYDWELLINGS SHALL BE SEPERATED FROMEACH OTHER BY WALL AND FLOORASSEMBLIES HAVING NOT LESS THAN A1-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE RATINGWHERE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITHASTM E119, UL 263. CRC R302.30 7 . 2 8 . 2 3J:\GROUP3\91823021\1426FLRB33V2_TR.DWGCopyright 2023 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 926600 2489 1 8 . 2 3 0 2 1B u r l i n g a m e , C a l i f o r n i a1 1 3 7 C A B R I L L O A V E N U EB 3 3 V 2 A - T RF I R S T F L O O RA2.0ADU Notes: - Refrigerator has separate doors for the refrigeratorand freezer compartments - Cooking facility is a permanent stove and/or oven - Cabinets and storage.
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONLOT COVERAGE22%REAR PORCH266 SQ. FT.FRONT PORCH79 SQ. FT.1 - CAR DETACHED GARAGE244 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING3297 SQ. FT.ADU460 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR1442 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR1395 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLE1- CAR DETACHED GARAGE4 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHS + LOFTNOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONTOTAL FAR (3980 MAX)3547 SQ. FT.GARAGE244 SQ. FT.REAR PORCH266 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR1,630 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR1,407 SQ. FT.FAR TABLEPRIMARYBATH8'-1" CLG.BA. 28'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM150163XLAU.8'-1" CLG.D.W.BEDROOM 2109120X8'-1" CLG.SLOPED CLG.WALK-INCLOSET31 L.F.LOFT1311119XSLOPED CLG.BEDROOM 31101111X8'-1" CLG.DN17 ROPENTOBELOWCURBLESS SHOWER21070 DR.21070 DR.2470 DR.70 SFT.70 SFT.70 SFT.3070 DR.2670 DR.
2670 DR.
2470 DR.2470 DR.2870 DR.
70 SFT.70 SFT.5070 BI-PASS DR.
5070 BI-PASS DR.TEMP. GLS.TEMP. GLS.15'-2"55'-11"71'-1"68'-4 1/2"13'-6 1/2"12'-11 1/2"17'-2"
13'-8 1/2"
1'-0"
4'-9"
25'-11"
28'-6"6'-7"15'-6"1'-0"11'-8 1/2"13'-5"11'-2 1/2"1'-3"0 7 . 2 8 . 2 3J:\GROUP3\91823021\1426FLRB33V2_TR.DWGCopyright 2023 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 926600 2489 1 8 . 2 3 0 2 1B u r l i n g a m e , C a l i f o r n i a1 1 3 7 C A B R I L L O A V E N U EB 3 3 V 2 A - T RS E C O N D F L O O RA2.1
REAR1'-3"
18'-3"
9'-0"8'-0"
7'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
8'-0"
Hdr. Ht.DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE12'-0"FFE = 101.4'30'-0" Max Ht.AVG. TOP OF CURB = 100.93'130.93'4'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"*11.25' SF *11.25' SF *11.25' SF *11.25' SF* - INDICATES EGRESS WINDOW
7'-6"
ABV. SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"104.29'103.7'AVG. NG = 104.25'7'-6"ABV. SECOND FLOOR FRONTARTS & CRAFTS BUNGALOW+/- 29'-10"
1'-3"
18'-3"
9'-0"8'-0"
7'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
8'-0"
Hdr. Ht.FFE = 104.8'12'-0"DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE130.77'AVG. TOP OF CURB = 100.93'AVG. NG = 104.25'TOP OF ROOF30'-0" Max Ht.AVG. TOP OF CURB = 100.93'130.93'7'-6"
ABV. SECOND FLOOR104.29'103.7'7'-6"ABV. SECOND FLOOR
PER PLANWINDOWPER PLANWINDOWWINDOW2.5"3" MIN.PAINTED WOOD TRIM,WHERE OCCURSSTUCCOSTUCCOPAINTED WOOD TRIM,WHERE OCCURSPAINTED WOOD TRIM,WHERE OCCURSSTUCCOSILLJAMBHEADERSECTION VIEWFRONT VIEW1.5"3.5"1.5"3.5"1.5"2.5"1.5"3.5"1.5"WINDOWPAINTED WOODTRIM - HEADERPAINTED WOODTRIM - JAMBPAINTED WOODTRIM - SILLWINDOW DETAIL, TYP.ANOT TO SCALESTUCCO0 7 . 2 8 . 2 3J:\GROUP3\91823021\1426ELVB33V2.DWGCopyright 2023 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 926600 2 4 89 1 8 . 2 3 0 2 1B u r l i n g a m e , C a l i f o r n i a1 1 3 7 C A B R I L L O A V E N U EB 3 3 V 2 A - T RF r o n t & R e a r E l e v a t i o n s E L E V A T I O N SA3.0MATERIALS LEGEND:1. COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF2. STUCCO3. CEMENTITIOUS SIDING (6")4. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM/CORNER BOARD (5.5")5. COACH LIGHT6. FIBERGLASS ENTRY DOOR7. FIBERGLASS WINDOW8. WOOD WINDOW TRIM9. DECORATIVE WOOD BRACKET10.WOOD POST11.WOOD RAFTERTAIL12.WOOD GARAGE DOORNOTE:ALL WINDOWS SHALL BE SIMULATED TRUEDIVIDED LIGHTS WITH INTERIOR ANDEXTERIOR GRIDS AND A SPACER BARBETWEEN THE GLASS PANES.
LEFT1'-3"
18'-3"
9'-0"
9'-0"8'-0"
7'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
8'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
30'-0" Max Ht.FFE = 104.8'AVG. NG = 104.25'AVG. TOP OF CURB = 100.93'AVG. TOP OF CURB = 100.93'+/- 29'-10"TOP OF ROOF130.77'130.93'TEMP. GLS. TEMP. GLS.RIGHT9'-0"8'-0"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.1'-3"18'-3"
9'-0"FFE = 104.8'30'-0" Max Ht.AVG. TOP OF CURB = 100.93'130.93'+/- 29'-10"130.77'AVG. TOP OF CURB = 100.93'TOP OF ROOF5'-0"2'-6"2'-6"4'-6"2'-6"2'-6"4'-6"2'-6"2'-6"*12.5' SF *12.5' SF*11.25' SF *11.25' SF*11.25' SF *11.25' SF* - INDICATES EGRESS WINDOWPER PLANWINDOWPER PLANWINDOWWINDOW2.5"3" MIN.PAINTED WOOD TRIM,WHERE OCCURSSTUCCOSTUCCOPAINTED WOOD TRIM,WHERE OCCURSPAINTED WOOD TRIM,WHERE OCCURSSTUCCOSILLJAMBHEADERSECTION VIEWFRONT VIEW1.5"3.5"1.5"3.5"1.5"2.5"1.5"3.5"1.5"WINDOWPAINTED WOODTRIM - HEADERPAINTED WOODTRIM - JAMBPAINTED WOODTRIM - SILLWINDOW DETAIL, TYP.ANOT TO SCALESTUCCO0 7 . 2 8 . 2 3J:\GROUP3\91823021\1426ELVB33V2.DWGCopyright 2023 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 926600 2 4 89 1 8 . 2 3 0 2 1B u r l i n g a m e , C a l i f o r n i a1 1 3 7 C A B R I L L O A V E N U EB 3 3 V 2 A - T RL e f t & R i g h t E l e v a t i o n sE L E V A T I O N SA3.1MATERIALS LEGEND:1. COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF2. STUCCO3. CEMENTITIOUS SIDING (6")4. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM/CORNER BOARD (5.5")5. COACH LIGHT6. FIBERGLASS ENTRY DOOR7. FIBERGLASS WINDOW8. WOOD WINDOW TRIM9. DECORATIVE WOOD BRACKET10.WOOD POST11.WOOD RAFTERTAIL12.WOOD GARAGE DOORNOTE:ALL WINDOWS SHALL BE SIMULATED TRUEDIVIDED LIGHTS WITH INTERIOR ANDEXTERIOR GRIDS AND A SPACER BARBETWEEN THE GLASS PANES.MATERIALS LEGEND:1. COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF2. STUCCO3. CEMENTITIOUS SIDING (6")4. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM/CORNER BOARD (5.5")5. COACH LIGHT6. FIBERGLASS ENTRY DOOR7. FIBERGLASS WINDOW8. WOOD WINDOW TRIM9. DECORATIVE WOOD BRACKET10.WOOD POST11.WOOD RAFTERTAIL12.WOOD GARAGE DOORNOTE:ALL WINDOWS SHALL BE SIMULATED TRUEDIVIDED LIGHTS WITH INTERIOR ANDEXTERIOR GRIDS AND A SPACER BARBETWEEN THE GLASS PANES.
7:123:12 7:126:127:127:127:127:127:127:12
7:12
7:12
7:12
7:127:12NOTE: ROOF PENETRATIONS ROUTED AWAY FROM SOLAR PANELS AREA.ROOF PLAN1/4"=1'-0"PITCH: 7:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 12"EAVE: 12"ROOF MATERIAL: COMPOSITION0 7 . 2 8 . 2 3J:\GROUP3\91823021\1426ELVB33V2.DWGCopyright 2023 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 926600 2489 1 8 . 2 3 0 2 1B u r l i n g a m e , C a l i f o r n i a1 1 3 7 C A B R I L L O A V E N U EB 3 3 V 2 A - T RR o o f P l a nE L E V A T I O N SA3.2
7:127:12
9'-0"FRONT13'-2"REARRIGHTLEFT9'-0"
13'-2"ROOF PLAN1/4"=1'-0"PITCH: 7:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 12"EAVE: 12"ROOF MATERIAL: COMPOSITIONPER PLANWINDOWPER PLANWINDOWWINDOW2.5"3" MIN.PAINTED WOOD TRIM,WHERE OCCURSSTUCCOSTUCCOPAINTED WOOD TRIM,WHERE OCCURSPAINTED WOOD TRIM,WHERE OCCURSSTUCCOSILLJAMBHEADERSECTION VIEWFRONT VIEW1.5"3.5"1.5"3.5"1.5"2.5"1.5"3.5"1.5"WINDOWPAINTED WOODTRIM - HEADERPAINTED WOODTRIM - JAMBPAINTED WOODTRIM - SILLWINDOW DETAIL, TYP.ANOT TO SCALESTUCCO0 7 . 2 8 . 2 3J:\GROUP3\91823021\1426ELVB33V2.DWGCopyright 2023 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 926600 2489 1 8 . 2 3 0 2 1B u r l i n g a m e , C a l i f o r n i a1 1 3 7 C A B R I L L O A V E N U EB 3 3 V 2 A - T RG a r a g e E l e v a t i o n sE L E V A T I O N SA3.3MATERIALS LEGEND:1.COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF2.STUCCO3.CEMENTITIOUS SIDING (6")4.CEMENTITIOUS TRIM/CORNER BOARD (5.5")5.COACH LIGHT6.FIBERGLASS ENTRY DOOR7.FIBERGLASS WINDOW8.WOOD WINDOW TRIM9.DECORATIVE WOOD BRACKET10.WOOD POST11.WOOD RAFTERTAIL12.WOOD GARAGE DOORNOTE:ALL WINDOWS SHALL BE SIMULATED TRUEDIVIDED LIGHTS WITH INTERIOR ANDEXTERIOR GRIDS AND A SPACER BARBETWEEN THE GLASS PANES.
1'-3"
18'-3"
9'-0"8'-0"
7'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
8'-0"
Hdr. Ht.AVG. NG = 104.25'(106.94'+101.55')/2 = 104.25'FFE = 101.4'AVG. NG = 104.25'12'-0"DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEAVG. TOP OF CURB = 100.93'7'-6"
ABV. SECOND FLOOR
103.7'104.29'1'-3"
18'-3"
9'-0"8'-0"
7'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
8'-0"
Hdr. Ht.
± 29'-10"FFE = 101.4'130.77'DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEAVG. TOP OF CURB = 100.93'AVG. NG = 104.25'103.7'104.29'0 7 . 2 8 . 2 3J:\GROUP3\91823021\1426SECTB33V2.DWGCopyright 2023 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 926600 2489 1 8 . 2 3 0 2 1B u r l i n g a m e , C a l i f o r n i a1 1 3 7 C A B R I L L O A V E N U EB 3 3 V 2 A - T RP R O P O S E D S E C T I O N SA3.4
9'-0"8'-0"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.7'-0"Hdr. Ht.1'-3"18'-3"AVG. TOP OF CURB = 100.93'AVG. NG = 104.25'13'-2"0 7 . 2 8 . 2 3J:\GROUP3\91823021\1426SECTB33V2.DWGCopyright 2023 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 926600 2489 1 8 . 2 3 0 2 1B u r l i n g a m e , C a l i f o r n i a1 1 3 7 C A B R I L L O A V E N U EB 3 3 V 2 A - T RP R O P O S E D S E C T I O N SA3.5
0 7 . 2 8 . 2 3J:\GROUP3\91823021\XDESCOVERSHEET.DWGCopyright 2023 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects2031 Orchard Drive, Suite 100tel. +1 949 553 9100fax +1 949 553 0548Newport Beach, CA USA 926609 1 8 . 2 3 0 2 1B u r l i n g a m e , C a l i f o r n i a1 1 3 7 C A B R I L L O A V E N U EB 3 3 V 2 A - T RC o v e r S h e e tC O L O R A N D M A T E R I A LA4.0
Sheet No.
Project IDIssue Note
Drawn By Reviewed By
Date CAD File Name
L1.1
2303-02
D1 P1
4/10/2023 1137 Cabrillo Avenue.vwx
Sheet Title
Project Title:
LAYOUT AND
MATERIALS PLANLANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS2043 San Pablo Avenue
1137 CABRILLO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010Berkeley, CA 94702
(510) 905-7444
No.Date Revision Notes
Stamp:
DESIGN REVIEW
abichlandarch@gmail.com
6"EX SS LATEX 6" SSEX WSEX WPROPOSED
RESIDENCE
C A B R I L L O A V E N U E
(E) WATER METER
PROPERTY LINE
(E) SIDEWALK
(E) CURB AND
GUTTER
(E) DRIVEWAY APRON
PROPERTY LINE
TURF LAWN AREA
PROPOSED
GARAGE
COVERED PORCH
(BY ARCH)
S1
S2
S2
S2
S3
S3S3
S3
S3
S3
S4
S5
S5
S5
S5
S3
S3
S5
S3
S6
S6
S3
S3
1
CONTROL JOINT
EXPANSION JOINT
(NO DOWEL)
EXPANSION JOINT
(DOWELED)
P.A.
2'-0"3'-0"4'-0"8'-6" (2 EQ.)26'-2" (6 EQ.)
2'-8"4'-0"10'-2"1'-5"
3'-0"18'-4" (3 EQ./4 JT.)4'-1"V.I.F.7'-3"
9'-6"
1'-9"11'-10" (2 EQ.)12'-6" (2 EQ.)18'-7"(3 SP./ 3 JT.)4" TYP.4"13'-9" (2 EQ.)4'-9"4'-9"18'-10" (3 EQ./4 JT.)3'-2"
S5
11'-7"
(3 EQ.)13'-1" (2 EQ./3 JT.)4'-0"3'-0"COVERED
PORCH
(BY ARCH)
2'-0"2'-0"
5'-10"
(2 EQ./3 JT.)15'-0"6'-0"9'-0"3'-1"
26'-0"13'-0"2'-0"4'-0"5'-6"
(2 EQ./2 JT.)
16'-3"
S5
6'-7"7'-0"6"
9'-9"
6'-0"
(2 EQ.)
6"6"9'-5"(2 EQ.)6"11'-0"
(2 EQ.)
6"
4" TYP.6"9'-0" (2 EQ.)6"6'-0"8'-1"14'-5"6"4'-0"6"7'-1"TYP.3'-0"TYP.4" TYP.S10
S10
S10
S10
12'-0"14'-0"4'-0"10'-6" (3 EQ.)3'-9"
3'-6"4'-5"2'-10"5'-0"6'-0"2'-0"7'-9"A
B
A
B
A
B
PROPERTY LINE
3'-6"P.A.
P.A.
P.A.
P.A.
P.A.
P.A.
P.A.
P.A.
4" TYP.4"4" TYP.4" TYP.2'-0"
S8
S8
3'-6"
4"3'-0"
4"
EXPANSION JOINT
(NO DOWEL)6"(2 EQ.)6"2'-4"
2
4
10
13
EXPANSION JOINT
(NO DOWEL)
S1 S3 S8
4" JT.
S8
2'-8"
S9
S9
S7
S7
S7
S7
6'-6"(2 JT.)S1
A/C PAD
(CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE)
A/C PAD
(CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE)
3'-0"2'-8"MATERIALS LEGEND
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
VEHICULAR CONCRETE PAVEMENT
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE WITH ACID ETCH FINISH
TOP CAST #01 SURFACE RETARDANT MANUFACTURED BY GRACE PRODUCTS. TOOLED SCORE JOINTS
AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
VEHICULAR CONCRETE PAVERS
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE WITH ACID ETCH FINISH
TOP CAST #01 SURFACE RETARDANT MANUFACTURED BY GRACE PRODUCTS. FILL GAPS WITH MULCH
AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTINGS PER PLANTING PLAN
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE WITH ACID ETCH FINISH
TOP CAST #01 SURFACE RETARDANT MANUFACTURED BY GRACE PRODUCTS. TOOLED SCORE JOINTS
AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
CONCRETE STAIR/STEP
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE WITH ACID ETCH FINISH
TOP CAST #01 SURFACE RETARDANT MANUFACTURED BY GRACE PRODUCTS.
CONCRETE PAVERS (MULCHED GAPS)
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE WITH ACID ETCH FINISH
TOP CAST #01 SURFACE RETARDANT MANUFACTURED BY GRACE PRODUCTS. FILL GAPS WITH WOOD
MULCH. SEE PLANTING PLAN FOR PLANTING IN JOINTS.
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
'SUNSET GOLD' PATH FINES PRE-MIXED WITH STABILIZER BY LYNGSO
3" GRANITE FINES OVER 3" COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE
6'-0" HIGH WOOD FENCE
GATE
STEEL HEADER
BOULDERS, TYP.
NAPA BASALT, 3' X 2' X 2' TYP. DIMENSION
LAYOUT LEGEND
ALIGN
CENTERLINE
DIMENSION
CONTROL JOINT
VIEW
SHT
VIEW NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER DETAIL CALLOUT
EXPANSION JOINT (DOWELED)
(E) TREE TO REMAIN, TYP.X
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED, TYP.
X
X
(E) NEIGHBORING TREE, TYP.X
'NOT PROTECTED' DESIGNATION
PER ARBORIST REPORTNP
0 4 8 12 16 20 FT
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SEE SHEET L1.2 FOR
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER
CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND
HAVE APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF
WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN.
JORGE DANIEL ABICH, PLA (CA #5899)
Keynote Tag #Protected Street
Tree Offsite Common Name Botanical Name DBH (inches)Status
1 1 N Y Y Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 15 Retain and Protect
2 2 N Y Y London Planetree Platanus hybrida 18 Retain and Protect
3 3 Y N N Incense Cedar Calocedrus decurrens Multi, 20 Remove
4 4 Y N N Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 32 Retain and Protect
5 5 N N N Black Acacia Acacia melanoxylon 8 Remove
6 6 N N N Black Acacia Acacia melanoxylon 7 Remove
7 7 Y N N Black Acacia Acacia melanoxylon 18 Remove
8 8 N N N Black Acacia Acacia melanoxylon 7 Remove
9 9 N N N Queensland Auranticarpa rhombifolia 12 Remove
10 10 Y N N Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 23 Retain and Protect
11 11 N N N Southern Magnolia Syagrus romanzoffiana 10 Remove
12 12 N N N Privet Ligustrum sp.9 Remove
13 13 Y N Y Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 Retain and Protect
14 14 N N N European White Birch Betula pendula 5 Remove
15 15 N N N European White Birch Betula pendula 4 Remove
GENERAL NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
DRAWINGS
The drawings are for information only. The Contractor shall check and verify all dimensions, and existing
conditions including structures, surface and subsurface utilities, pavements, and landscaping at site prior to
commencement of the work. Any discrepancies in drawings shall be brought to the attention of the
Owner's Representative and Landscape Architect. No work shall proceed until a resolution has been agreed
upon to the satisfaction of the Owner's Representative.
SITE ACCEPTANCE
The Contractor shall review the project site to verify that conditions are suitable to receive work and that
no defects or errors are present which would cause defective installation of products or cause latent
defects in workmanship and function. Any discrepancies shall be brought to the attention of the Owner’s
Representative in writing. Commencement of work constitutes the Contractor’s acceptance of the site
conditions.
CODES AND ORDINANCES
All work and materials shall be in full accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws or codes
and the applicable requirements of all regulatory agencies.
UTILITIES
Contact Common Ground Alliance (C.G.A.) at 811, at least two working days in advance of work (per CA
GOV. CODE 4216). Protect existing features and utilities to remain during construction until final
completion. If live utilities are encountered which were not indicated previously, protect the same from
damage and immediately notify the owner's representative and affected utility provider. Do not proceed
until further instructions are received from the owner's representative. The contractor is solely responsible
and shall pay for repairs to damaged utilities due to the contractor’s operations.
EXISTING CONSTRUCTION
The project involves construction within existing infrastructure systems and adjacent to existing facilities
which are to remain operational and accessible at all times. All existing construction to remain shall be
protected. New work shall meet existing construction level, plumb, and consistent. Any existing
construction damaged by Contractor shall be replaced at Contractor’s expense. Any disturbed areas
outside project limit of work are to be restored to original conditions at Contractor's expense.
CONSTRUCTION MEANS AND COORDINATION
The Contractor:
- Shall be solely responsible for and have control over construction means, methods, techniques,
sequences, and procedures and for coordinating all portions of work under the contract.
- Shall supervise and direct the work, using the Contractor's best skill and attention.
- Shall coordinate the location and installation of all site work.
- Shall coordinate all trades. Any work that must be removed or relocated due to lack of coordination of
the trades is solely the Contractor's responsibility. Lack of specific details shall not be an excuse for
improper installation of any material, device, or system.
- Shall maintain a secure site throughout the construction process.
LAYOUT NOTES
Written dimensions take precedence over scaled dimensions. Dimensions indicated on plans for horizontal
control are accurate if measured on a level line. Measure horizontal control dimensions on a level line, not
parallel with ground slope. Dimensions are to face of finish unless otherwise noted. Where dimensions are
noted to be verified in field (VIF) the dimension shown is the design basis but may differ from actual
conditions. Contractor shall verify these dimensions while laying out the work and report any discrepancies
between the design basis and actual dimensions to the owner’s representative prior to proceeding with the
work. Where dimensions are noted "+/-" field dimensions may vary from the noted dimensions by minor
amounts.
VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION
All vertical construction shall be installed true and plumb. All unit coursing, tops of walls, fences, and other
vertical elements, shall be level unless otherwise noted. All curves shall be continuous and consistent
tangential arcs, with no breaks or angles at points of tangency or formwork jointing.
FENCING
Fence locations and heights shown are diagrammatic. Final locations and heights are to be coordinated in
the field by the landscape contractor.
ABBREVIATIONS
ABV.
ADJ.
AVG.
C.L.
C.P.
CLR.
CONC.
(E)
E.W.
EQ.
EQPT.
F.G.
F.S.
F.T.
HORIZ.
HT.
JT.
MAX.
MECH.
ABOVE
ADJACENT
AVERAGE
CENTER LINE
CENTER POINT
CLEAR
CONCRETE
EXISTING
EACH WAY
EQUAL SPACES
EQUIPMENT
FINISH GRADE
FINISH SURFACE
FLUSH TREAD
HORIZONTAL
HEIGHT
JOINT(S)
MAXIMUM
MECHANICAL
MFG.
MIN.
(N)
O.C.
(P)
P.A.
P.O.B.
PVMT.
R.
REQ'D.
RS.
SIM.
SP.
T.B.D.
TR.
TYP.
U.
VERT.
V.I.F.
MANUFACTURER
MINIMUM
NEW
ON CENTER
PROPOSED
PLANTING AREA
POINT OF BEGINNING
PAVEMENT
RADIUS
REQUIRED
RISER
SIMILAR
SPACES
TO BE DETERMINED
TREAD
TYPICAL
UNIT(S)
VERTICAL
VERIFY IN FIELD
SITE CALCULATIONS (WATER BUDGET COMPLIANCE)
1137 CABRILLO AVENUE SF % OF LOT AREA
EXISTING
TOTAL LOT SF 9000 100%
TOTAL PERMEABLE AREA 4787 53%
PROPOSED LOT LANDSCAPE AREA (% OF TOTAL AREA)4787 53%
SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREA (% OF TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA)4379 91%
PROPOSED TURF AREA (% OF TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA)408 9%
TOTAL IMPERMEABLE AREA 4397 48%
BUIDLING FOOTPRINT (% OF TOTAL AREA)2456 55%
EXTERIOR SURFACES (CONC. DRIVEWAY, CONC. PATHWAYS, DG)1941
1
L1.2
1
L1.2
2
L1.2
9
L1.2
3
L1.2
4
L1.2
7
L1.2
6
L1.2
8
L1.2
Sheet No.
Project IDIssue Note
Drawn By Reviewed By
Date CAD File Name
L1.2
2303-02
D1 P1
4/10/2023 1137 Cabrillo Avenue.vwx
Sheet Title
Project Title:
CONSTRUCTION
DETAILSLANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS2043 San Pablo Avenue
1137 CABRILLO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010Berkeley, CA 94702
(510) 905-7444
No.Date Revision Notes
Stamp:
DESIGN REVIEW
abichlandarch@gmail.com
REPRESENTATIVE STAIN COLORS
CONCRETE PAVEMENT (PEDESTRIAN)
SCALE: NTS2
4" CONCRETE SLAB
#3 BAR @ 18"O.C. E.W.
CENTERED IN SLAB
TOOLED CONTROL JOINT
W/ 1/4" RADIUS EDGES
1/3 DEPTH OF SLAB, SEE
LAYOUT PLAN FOR
SPACING, 6' O.C. MAX.1"FINISH SURFACE OF LAWN
OR MULCH AT PLANTING
AREAS
1/4" RADIUS, TYP.
6" CLASS 2 AB, TYP.
COMPACT TO 95% RELATIVE
DENSITY
12" X 1/2" DIA. SMOOTH STL.
DOWEL @ 12"O.C.
GREASE ONE SIDE
3/8" BITUMINOUS EXPANSION
JOINT WITH BACKER ROD AND
SEALANT
SEE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS
PLAN FOR TYPE
SEALANT TO MATCH
CONCRETE COLOR
4"6"NOTE:
1.GEOTECHINCAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL SUPERCEDE
PAVEMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN THIS DETAIL, IF AND WHEN
AVAILABLE.
2"MIN.
8"4"COMPACTED SUBGRADE
6" MIN. @ 95% RELATIVE
DENSITY
TURNED DOWN BAR AT
THICKENED EDGE, #3 TOP
AND BOTTOM
CONCRETE PAVEMENT (VEHICULAR)
SCALE: NTS1
6" CONCRETE SLAB
#4 BAR @ 18"O.C. E.W.
CENTERED IN SLAB
TOOLED CONTROL JOINT
W/ 1/4" RADIUS EDGES
1/3 DEPTH OF SLAB, SEE
LAYOUT PLAN FOR
SPACING, 6' O.C. MAX.1"FINISH SURFACE OF LAWN
OR MULCH AT PLANTING
AREAS
1/4" RADIUS, TYP.
8" CLASS 2 AB, TYP.
COMPACT TO 95% RELATIVE
DENSITY
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
6" MIN. @ 95% RELATIVE
DENSITY
12" X 1/2" DIA. SMOOTH STL.
DOWEL @ 12"O.C.
GREASE ONE SIDE
3/8" BITUMINOUS EXPANSION
JOINT WITH BACKER ROD AND
SEALANT
SEE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS
PLAN FOR TYPE
SEALANT TO MATCH CONCRETE
COLOR
6"8"NOTE:
1.GEOTECHINCAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL SUPERCEDE
PAVEMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN THIS DETAIL, IF AND WHEN
AVAILABLE.
2" MIN.
8"4"TURNED DOWN BAR AT
THICKENED EDGE, #4 TOP
AND BOTTOM
STEEL HEADER
Scale: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"6
FINISH SURFACE OF LAWN OR
SURFACINGFINISH SURFACE OF MULCH AT PLANTING
AREAS
STEEL HEADER
3/16" THK. X 4"MIN., 16" LONG STAKES
SLOPE TO DRAIN (PER PLAN)3 1/2" MIN.4"
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
6" MIN. @ 95% RELATIVE DENSITY
16" MIN. STEEL STAKE, PER MFG.
ELEVATION (METAL HEADER ONLY)
SECTION
NOTE
1.BLACK ENAMEL PAINTED FINISH, TYP. U.O.N.
GATE
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"7
PUBLIC SIDE
PRIVATE SIDE
ADJACENT FENCE
ADJACENT POST OR LEDGER AT
WALL (SECURE LEDGER TO BUILDING
FRAMING WITH 1/4" X 4" LAG
SCREWS AND WASHER,
COUNTERSUNK. APPLY SILICONE
CAULKING PRIOR TO INSERTING LAG
SCREW)
LATCH, 60" MAX. ABOVE FINISH
GRADE (OPP. SIDE)
HEAVY-DUTY HINGE, TYP.
(3) PER GATE
2X4 DIAGONAL BRACE INSIDE
FRAME (OPP. SIDE)
2X4 GATE FRAME (OPP. SIDE)
2X12 KICKER, NAIL TO BOT. RAIL
AND POSTS
10" X 10" GUSSET PANELS,
EXTERIOR RATED PLYWOOD (OPP.
SIDE)
2X8 CAP, TO MATCH FENCE
2" CLR.6X6 POST
ELEVATION
PLAN
LATCH
4'-0" GATE LEAF
ALIGN AND RIP BOARDS TO
PROVIDE FULL BLOCKING AT EACH
SIDE OF GATE, BOTH SIDES
ADJACENT POST OR LEDGER AT
WALL 1X6 BOARD, TYP. OVERLAP 1"
1X6 TRIM
10" X 10" GUSSET PANELS,
EXTERIOR RATED PLYWOOD, EACH
CORNER
HEAVY-DUTY HINGE, TYP.
(3) PER GATE
2X4 GATE FRAME
NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
ALL FASTENERS SHALL BE
GALVANIZED
ALL WOOD SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTION COMMON
REDWOOD OR BETTER U.O.N.
STAIN RESIDENCE SIDE WITH
SEMI-TRANSPARENT EXT.
STAIN COLOR PER BUILDER
(SEE COLOR SAMPLES)
ELE
CONCRETE PAVERS (PEDESTRIAN)
Scale: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"3
4" CONCRETE SLAB
#3 BAR @ 18"O.C. E.W. CENTERED
IN SLAB
2 BARS MIN. E.W. PER PAVER
1"FINISH SURFACE OF LAWN
OR MULCH AT PLANTING
AREAS
1/4" RADIUS, TYP.
6" CLASS 2 AB, TYP.
COMPACT TO 95% RELATIVE
DENSITY
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
6" MIN. @ 95% RELATIVE
DENSITY4"6"3"MIN.
2"MIN.
DECORATIVE GRAVEL, D.G., OR MULCH
SEE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN
FOR TYPE
SEE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS
PLAN FOR SPACING
NOTE:
1.GEOTECHINCAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL SUPERCEDE
PAVEMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN THIS DETAIL, IF AND
WHEN AVAILABLE.1/4" TYP.DECOMPOSED GRANITE
Scale: 2" = 1'-0"4
DECOMPOSED GRANITE FINES
PRE-MIXED WITH POLYMER
ADDITIVES (SEE NOTES)FINISH SURFACE OF LAWN OR MULCH AT
PLANTING AREAS
HEADER, HARDSCAPE, OR OTHER HARD EDGE
SEE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN FOR
CONDITION
NOTE
1.
2.
3.
DO NOT COMPACT SOIL IN TREE DRIPLINES OR AREAS OF UNDISTURBED SUBGRADING
GEOTECHINCAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL SUPERCEDE PAVEMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN
THIS DETAIL, IF AND WHEN AVAILABLE.
SUBMIT GRAVEL FINES AND STABILIZER SAMPLE FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
SLOPE TO DRAIN (PER PLAN)3"3" CLASS 2 AB, TYP.
COMPACT TO 95% RELATIVE DENSITY 3"4"
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
6" MIN. @ 95% RELATIVE DENSITY
DECOMPOSED GRANITE (NON-STABILIZED)
Scale: 2" = 1'-0"5
DECOMPOSED GRANITE FINES
NON-STABILIZED (65% MAX COMPACTION)
FINISH SURFACE OF LAWN OR MULCH AT
PLANTING AREAS
HEADER, HARDSCAPE, OR OTHER HARD EDGE
SEE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN FOR
CONDITION
NOTE
1.
2.
DO NOT COMPACT SOIL IN TREE DRIPLINES OR AREAS OF UNDISTURBED SUBGRADING
SUBMIT GRAVEL FINES SAMPLE FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
SLOPE TO DRAIN (PER PLAN)
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
6" MIN. @ 65% RELATIVE DENSITY
GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC
4"
CONCRETE STAIR/STEP
Scale: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"9
NOTE:
1.
2.
GEOTECHINCAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL SUPERCEDE PAVEMENT
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN THIS DETAIL, IF AND WHEN AVAILABLE.
FOR SINGLE STEP:
OMIT 2ND STEP AND ASSOCIATED #4 REBAR @ 12"O.C. E.W.
PLACE/SHIFT EXPANSION JOINT ACCORDINGLY AT FACE OF PORCH
FINISH SURFACE OF ADJACENT PAVEMENT
SEE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN
3/8" BITUMINOUS EXPANSION JOINT WITH
BACKER ROD AND SEALANT
SEE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN FOR TYPE
SEALANT TO MATCH CONCRETE COLOR
TREAD (SEE PLAN)
RISER (SEE PLAN)
1 1/2"
1 1/2"
#3 NOSING BAR, TYP.1'-0"#4 REBAR @ 12" O.C. MAX.
#4 REBAR, @ 12" O.C.
3" CLR.
ADJACENT PORCH OR
CONCRETE
(SEE MATERIALS PLAN)SEE DETECTABLE NOSING DETAIL
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
6" MIN. @ 90% RELATIVE DENSITY
AT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONDITION
ADD 3/8" BITUMINOUS EXPANSION JOINT WITH
BACKER ROD AND SEALANT
SEALANT TO MATCH CONCRETE COLOR
CONCRETE STAIR/STEP
12" X 1/2" DIA. SMOOTH STL. DOWEL @ 12"O.C.
GREASE ONE SIDE (AT CONC. PVMT.)
1"1/4"5/16"1/4"R 1/4"
DETECTABLE NOSING DETAIL
TOOLED GROOVE WARNING
FENCE
Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"8
NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
ALL FASTENERS SHALL BE
GALVANIZED
ALL WOOD SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTION COMMON
REDWOOD OR BETTER U.O.N.
STEP FENCE AT POSTS, FOR
GRADES 1:6 (17%) OR
GREATER, SLOPE PANELS
WITH GRADE
STAIN HOMEOWNER SIDE(S)
WITH SEMI-TRANSPARENT
EXT. STAIN COLOR PER
BUILDER (SEE COLOR
SAMPLES)
EQUAL SPACING 8'-0" O.C. MAX.
6X6 POST
1X6 BOARD, TYP. OVERLAP 1"
2X8 CEDAR CAP, CENTER ALL
JOINTS ON POSTS
6X6 POST
2X6 RAIL, TOP & BOT.
1X6 TRIM, OPP. RAILS
1X6 BOARD, TYP. OVERLAP 1"
2X6 RAIL, TOP & BOT. (PRIVATE)
1X6 TRIM, TOP & BOT. (PUBLIC)
2X12 KICKER, NAIL TO BOT. RAIL
AND POSTS
12" DIA. CONCRETE FOOTING,
SLOPE TOP TO DRAIN AWAY FROM
POST 1 1/2"MIN.7'-0"+/- (CONTRACTOR TO SPECIFY)2" CLR.PUBLIC SIDE
PRIVATE SIDE
ELEVATION
2X6 RAIL, TOP & BOT. (PRIVATE)
1X6 TRIM, TOP & BOT. (PUBLIC)
ELEPLAN
3'-0" MIN.PRIVATE SIDE PUBLIC SIDE
12" DIA. CONCRETE
FOOTING, SLOPE TOP TO
DRAIN AWAY FROM POST
FINISH GRADE
2X8 CEDAR CAP,
CENTER ALL JOINTS ON
POSTS
1X6 TRIM, OPP. RAILS
2X6 RAIL, TOP & BOT.
6X6 POST
1X6 BOARD, TYP.
OVERLAP 1"
SECTION
2X12 KICKER, NAIL TO
BOT. RAIL AND POSTS
1'-0" HIGH WOOD LATTICE
2X8 CEDAR CAP, CENTER ALL
JOINTS ON POSTS 1'-0" HIGH WOOD
LATTICE
Sheet No.
Project IDIssue Note
Drawn By Reviewed By
Date CAD File Name
L2.1
2303-02
D1 P1
4/10/2023 1137 Cabrillo Avenue.vwx
Sheet Title
Project Title:
PLANTING PLANLANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS2043 San Pablo Avenue
1137 CABRILLO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010Berkeley, CA 94702
(510) 905-7444
No.Date Revision Notes
Stamp:
DESIGN REVIEW
abichlandarch@gmail.com
0 4 8 12 16 20 FT
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
TURF LAWN-417 sq ftEX SS LATEX 6" SSEX WSEX WPROPOSED
RESIDENCE
C A B R I L L O A V E N U E
(E) WATER METER
PROPERTY LINE
(E) SIDEWALK
(E) CURB AND
GUTTER
(E) DRIVEWAY APRON
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED
GARAGE
1
COVERED
PORCH
(BY ARCH)
2
4
10
13
COVERED
PORCH
(BY ARCH)
CAR DIV33
LAV STO 3
LAV STO 2
LAV STO 5
LAV STO 2
FES GLA10
CAR DIV 8
CAR DIV 10
ACE RUB 1
VER WHI21
VER WHI11
LEU COR2
AGA DES 3
FES GLA 25
LOM LON4
ACH MOO 8
ART SCH 4
SAL SYL 13
AGA DES2
SAL SYL 10
VER WHI 39
LOM LON6
FES GLA10
LOM LON4
LOM LON5
LOM LON 19
DYM MAR30
FES GLA 11
DYM MAR24
SAL SYL5
VER WHI 17
FES GLA11
SAL SYL6
VER WHI9
SAL SYL4
VER WHI9
VER WHI15
VER WHI 21
POD ELO10
PIT TEN14
LOM LON 6
DYM MAR 6
LOM LON 2
LOM LON18
POD ELO 15
LOM LON 5
OLE EUR 1
OLE EUR 1
PIT TEN19
POD ELO 7
SAL SYL9
POD ELO 4
SAL SYL9
LOM LON6
CIT MEY 3
AGA DES 1
SAL SYL6
LAV STO 3
CAR DIV 36
CAR DIV12
LOM LON9
CAR DIV22
ART SCH 7
SAL SYL9
ART SCH3
PHO YEL 2
PHO YEL1
PHO YEL1
PHO YEL 2
PHO YEL1
PHO YEL 1
DYM MAR2
PHO YEL2
FES OVI15
FES OVI 12
FES OVI 9
FES OVI7
FES OVI 8
FES OVI 8
ART SCH 12
FES OVI6
LEU COR1
LEU COR1
LEU COR1
LEU COR1
LEU COR 1
SAL SYL4
FES GLA43
VER WHI 13
FES GLA 22
SAL SYL5
CAR DIV 50
SAL SYL12
ACH MOO 5
ACH MOO5
ACH MOO5
ACH MOO 6
ACH MOO 4
FES GLA 48
FES GLA 33
VER WHI77
ACH MOO6
ACH MOO6
ART SCH 31
ACH MOO4
ACH MOO 5
ACH MOO9
ACH MOO 9
LEU COR1
LOM LON5
LOM LON 1
SAL SYL12
ACH MOO 8
ACH MOO 9
SAL SYL 8
SAL SYL11
LEU COR 3
VER WHI19
OLE EUR 1
ACH MOO 5
WATER USE CALCULATIONS
(ETo):42.7
Zone Plant Type Plant Factor (PF)Irrigation Method Irr. Efficiency (IE)ETAF (PF/IE)Landscape Area (sq ft)ETAF x Area (ETWU)
Regular Landscape Areas
A1 Turf Grass 0.9 Overhead Spray 0.75 1.2 408 489 12,958
A2 Shrubs 0.2 Drip 0.81 0.247 2,245 554 14,676
A2 Shrubs 0.2 Drip 0.81 0.247 220 54 1,436
A2 Shrubs 0.2 Drip 0.81 0.247 864 213 5,649
A2 Shrubs 0.2 Drip 0.81 0.247 747 184 4,884
A2 Shrubs 0.2 Drip 0.81 0.247 240 59 1,568
A3 Trees 0.5 Drip 0.81 0.617 9 6 147
A3 Trees 0.5 Drip 0.81 0.617 9 6 147
A3 Trees 0.5 Drip 0.81 0.617 9 6 147
A3 Trees 0.5 Drip 0.81 0.617 9 6 147
A3 Trees 0.5 Drip 0.81 0.617 9 6 147
A3 Trees 0.5 Drip 0.81 0.617 9 6 147
A3 Trees 0.5 Drip 0.81 0.617 9 6 147
Totals:4,787 1,594 42,200
Special Landscape Areas
Totals:0 0 0
ETWU Total:42,200 gal/yr
MAWA:88,711 gal/yr
ETAF Calculations
Regular Landscape Areas
Total ETAF x Area:1,594
Total Area:4,787
Average ETAF*:0.33
All Landscape Areas
Total ETAF x Area:1,594
Total Area:4,787
Sitewide ETAF:0.33
* = Average ETAF for Regular Landscape Areas must be 0.55 or below for residential areas, and 0.45 or below for non-residential areas.
SEE SHEET L2.2 FOR
PLANTING DETAILS
I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER
CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND
HAVE APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF
WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN.
JORGE DANIEL ABICH, PLA (CA #5899)
PLANTING NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
DRAWING CONFORMANCE
All work shall conform to drawings and planting details. No deviations shall be accepted unless
approved by the Owner’s Representative.
SITE PREPARATION
Remove all vegetation and deleterious materials prior to rough grading operations. Test on-site soils
for horticultural suitability and amendments. Preserve all horticulturally suitable topsoil by
stockpiling on site. Topsoil shall be replaced in planting areas to achieve final finish grades. Rip and
till areas to receive topsoil on the same day topsoil is relocated. Areas of contaminated soil shall be
scraped to a depth of 24" and replaced with amended planting soil per soils analysis report.
DRAINAGE
All softscapes and hardscapes shall slope to drain away from buildings towards drainage
appurtenances at a rate of .5% minimum to 1% maximum, unless otherwise noted.
WORK IN RIGHT OF WAY
Any work conducted within the right of way or to be maintained by local jurisdictional agencies shall
be installed per the latest edition of the agency construction standards, and all other agency
requirements.
UTILITY CLEARANCE
For all trees, a 5’ minimum clearance shall be maintained from all water, electric and sanitary sewer
utility lines. A 10’ minimum clearance shall be maintained from all overhead utilities. All planting
except low-growing groundcover shall be 3' clear of all fire appurtenances per NFPA 18.5.7
SOIL TESTING
Contractor shall submit soil samples to a certified soil testing laboratory for the determination of soil
suitability and amendments. Contractor shall amend soils per the recommendations provided in the
soil analysis report at the rates prescribed by the soil testing laboratory. All tree planting pits shall
be backfilled with amended planting soil per the soil analysis report. Contractor shall submit a copy
of the soil analysis report to the Landscape Architect for review of compliance with Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance.
PLANT STANDARDS
All plant material shall comply with ANSI Z60.1 “Standard For Nursery Stock,” notes, and details on
the drawings.
SUBSTITUTIONS
Planting substitutions, if necessary, shall be submitted to the Landscape Architect for approval. Any
substitutions made without the approval of the Landscape Architect shall be rejected. Substitutions
shall be made at no additional cost to the owner.
TREE PLANTING
All planting pits shall be bermed to allow for appropriate drainage. In soils with slow percolation
rates, planting pits shall be augured 12” dia. X 8’ depth and filled with drain rock to prevent ponding.
All planting pits shall drain completely within a time frame of 2 hours.
ROOT BARRIERS
Root control barriers shall be utilized at any sidewalks, curbs, or hardscapes that are within 5 feet of
trees. Root barrier panels shall be 18” deep and span 10’ feet to each side of the centerline of the
tree.
TURF INSTALLATION
- Rototill or spade the area to a depth of 4 to 6 inches. Rake and smooth the soil, removing rocks,
roots, and large clods
- Ensure proper soil compaction of no more than 85% relative density.
- Roll the area lightly with a lawn roller 1/3 full of water, maintaining the finish grade of soil 1 inch
below adjacent paving.
- Water the prepared area to settle the soil and provide a moist base for turf. Moisten the soil to a
depth of 6 inches minimum.
- Install turf immediately upon delivery. In hot weather, protect unlaid turf by placing stacks in
shade, covering with moist burlap sacking, and/or sprinkling.
- Begin installing turf along the longest straight line, such as a driveway or sidewalk. Butt and push
edges and ends against each other tightly, without stretching. Avoid gaps or overlaps. Stagger the
joints in each row in a brick-like fashion at a minimum overlap of 2’. Avoid leaving small strips at
outer edges as they will not retain moisture. On slopes, place the turf pieces across the slope.
- Begin watering turf within 30 minutes of installation. To avoid causing indentations or air pockets,
avoid repeated walking or kneeling on the turf while it is being installed or just after watering.
- After installation, roll the entire area to improve turf/soil contact and remove air pockets.
MULCHING
A minimum 3-inch layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except
turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding applications where mulch is
contraindicated. Contractor shall submit a sample of proposed mulch material to Landscape Architect
for review. All areas to receive mulch shall be treated with an organic pre-emergent herbicide to
control weed growth.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
A Certificate of Completion shall be certified by the Landscape Contractor upon completion and final
review of landscape installation and provided to the Owner’s Representative for submittal to the local
governing jurisdiction.
ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD
The establishment period shall be a minimum of 60 calendar days commencing upon written
verification of substantial completion by the Owner’s Representative. Contractor shall observe and
maintain planting material to ensure planting material is acclimatized and displays healthy and
vigorous growth. Any planting in need of replacement shall trigger an additional establishment period
of 60 calendar days commencing on the date of replacement.
PLANT LEGEND
KEY ID BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING QTY CONT.TYPE WUCOLS
ACH MOO Achillea x 'Moonshine'Moonshine Yarrow 18" O.C.94 5G Perennials LOW
AGA DES Agave desmettiana 'Variegata'Variegated Dwarf Agave PER PLAN 6 15G Cactus/Succulent LOW
ART SCH Artemisia schmidtiana 'Silver Mound'Silvermound Artemisia 18" O.C.57 5G Perennials LOW
CAR DIV Carex divulsa European (Berkeley) Sedge 24" O.C.171 5G Ornamental Grass LOW
DYM MAR Dymondia margaritae Silver Carpet 18" O.C.62 4"POT Perennials LOW
FES GLA Festuca glauca 'Elijah Blue'Elijah Blue Fescue 12" O.C.213 5G Ornamental Grass LOW
FES OVI Festuca ovina Sheep's Grass 12" O.C.65 5G Ornamental Grass LOW
LAV STO Lavandula stoechas 'Otto Quast'Otto Quast Spanish Lavender 30" O.C.15 5G Shrubs LOW
LEU COR Leucospermum cordifolium 'Yellow Bird'Yellow Bird Pincushion 48" O.C.11 5G Shrubs MOD
LOM LON Lomandra longifolia 'LM300' P.P.# 15420 Breeze™ Dwarf Mat Rush 36" O.C.90 5G Ornamental Grass LOW
PHO YEL Phormium 'Yellow Wave'Yellow Wave New Zealand Flax PER PLAN 10 5G Perennials LOW
PIT TEN Pittosporum tenuifolium Kohuhu 36" O.C.33 5G Shrubs LOW
POD ELO Podocarpus elongatus 'Monmal'Icee Blue® Yellow-Wood 36" O.C.36 5G Hedge LOW
SAL SYL Salvia x sylvestris 'May Night'May Night Meadow Sage 18" O.C.123 1G Perennials LOW
VER WHI Verbena Endurascape 'White Blush'White Blush Verbena 12" O.C.251 5G Perennials LOW
TREE LEGEND
KEY ID BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY CONT.WUCOLS NOTES
ACE RUB Acer rubrum Red Maple 1 36"B Moist Standard
CIT MEY Citrus limon 'Meyer Improved'Improved Meyer Lemon 3 36"B MOD Standard
OLE EUR Olea europaea 'Swan Hill'Swan Hill® Fruitless Olive 3 36"B VERY LOW Standard
TURF LAWN 417 Square Feet 90% Tall Fescue / 10% Kentucky Bluegrass
Sheet No.
Project IDIssue Note
Drawn By Reviewed By
Date CAD File Name
L2.2
2303-02
D1 P1
4/10/2023 1137 Cabrillo Avenue.vwx
Sheet Title
Project Title:
PLANTING DETAILSLANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS2043 San Pablo Avenue
1137 CABRILLO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010Berkeley, CA 94702
(510) 905-7444
No.Date Revision Notes
Stamp:
DESIGN REVIEW
abichlandarch@gmail.com
PLANT SPACING
SCALE: NTS5
RECTANGULAR LAYOUT LINE
'X' TYP.1/2 'X'1/2 'X''X' TYP.RECTANGULAR SPACING
TRIANGULAR SPACING
EDGE OF STRUCTURE, PAVEMENT,
OR EDGING
'X' TYP.'X' TYP.'X' TYP.
.866 'X'1/2 'X'PLANT CENTER, TYP.
TRIANGULAR LAYOUT LINE
PLANT CENTER, TYP.
1/2 'X'
NOTE:
1.'X' EQUALS PLANT
SPACING, SEE PLANTING
PLANS AND PLANT
SCHEDULE.5'6" MIN.6"12" MIN.3"TREE TIES SECURED TO STAKES IN
A "FIGURE 8" PATTERN AT TREE
CROTCH - 2 PER TREE
2" DIA. X 10' LONG WOOD POLE
TREE STAKE; 2 PER TREE, INSTALL
MIN. 12", MAX. 30" INTO
SUBGRADE
IMPORTED WOOD MULCH, DO NOT
INSTALL WITHIN 4" OF TREE TRUNK
WEED BARRIER
24" BOX OR 36" BOX ROOTBALL
COMPACTED PLANTING SOIL UNDER
ROOTBALL
SCARIFIED SUBGRADE
AMENDED PLANTING SOIL,
CONTINUOUS BED
2X ROOTBALL WIDTH
TREE PLANTING
SCALE: NTS4
NOTE:
1.SET ROOTBALL CROWN 2"
ABOVE TOP OF PLANTING
SOIL
SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLETS
16 PER 24", 20 PER 36", DISTRIBUTE
EVENLY, 6" DEPTH
GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
SCALE: NTS26" MIN.4" POTS, OR 1 GAL. CONTAINERS,
INSTALL TOP OF ROOTBALLS 3/4"
ABOVE PLANTING SOIL, TYP.
IMPORTED WOOD MULCH, DO NOT
INSTALL WITHIN 2" OF CROWN
AMENDED PLANTING SOIL,
CONTINUOUS BED
SCARIFIED SUBGRADE3"SHRUB PLANTING
SCALE: NTS3
PLANTING FROM 5GAL POTS OR
LARGER
INSTALL ROOTBALL CROWN 1-1/2"
ABOVE PLANTING SOIL
WEED BARRIER
IMPORTED WOOD MULCH, DO NOT
INSTALL WITHIN 4" OF CROWN
AMENDED PLANTING SOIL,
CONTINUOUS BED
COMPACTED PLANTING SOIL UNDER
ROOTBALL
SCARIFIED SUBGRADE6" MIN.3"2X ROOTBALL WIDTH
ROOTBALL
SOIL PREPARATION
SCALE: NTS1
FINISH GRADE ADJACENT TO
PAVING SHALL BE 1" BELOW
PAVEMENT SURFACE
APPLY AMENDMENTS PER SOIL
ANALYSIS REPORT PRIOR TO
TILLING
TILL TOP 8" (MIN.) IN ALL PLANTING
AREAS
ENSURE LESS THAN 85% RELATIVE
DENSITY IN PLANTING AREAS,
REPORT EXCESSIVE COMPACTION
TO OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE
BEFORE PROCEEDING 18"-24"NATIVE SUBGRADE
FINISH GRADE LEVEL AFTER
SETTLEMENT
TREE BRANCHING STRUCTURE
SCALE: NTS6
A
B
A B
Notes:
1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter
of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the
branch union.
2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.
Example
A B Aspect Ratio
1.50"0.50"0.33
2.50"0.90"0.36
2.0"1.00"0.50
2.50"1.60"0.64
One central leader
(No codominant
leaders)
Aspect ratio is less
than 0.66.
Aspect ratio is
greater than 0.66.
Multiple leaders
(Several codominant
leaders)
ACCEPTABLE
REJECTABLE
A
A
B
A
B
B B
Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66
as measured 1" above the top of
the branch union.
Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured
1" above the top of the branch union.
Example
A B Aspect Ratio
2.50"1.80"0.72
2.0"2.0"1.0
2.50"2.0"0.80
4.0"3.0"0.75
ROOT CONTAINER STRUCTURE
SCALE: NTS7
ACCEPTABLE REJECTABLE
Structural roots primarily grow to one side. Structural roots missing from one side,
and/or grow tangent to trunk.
Root collar.
Structural roots circle interior of
root ball. No structural roots are
horizontal and reach the root ball
periphery near the top of the root
ball.
Structural roots descend into root ball interior. No
structural roots are horizontal and reach the root ball
periphery near the top of the root ball.
Roots radiate from trunk and reach side of root ball without
deflecting down or around.
Root ball periphery
Notes:
1- Observations of roots shall occur prior to acceptance. Roots and substrate may be removed during the observation process; substrate/soil shall be replaced after observation has been completed.
2- Small roots (1#4" or less) that grow around, up, or down the root ball periphery are considered a normal condition in container production and are acceptable however they should be eliminated at
the time of planting. Roots on the periperhy can be removed at the time of planting.
3- See specifications for observation process and requirements.
Absorbing roots.
Structural
roots.
Roots
growing
tangent to
trunk. Structural root 0"Top of
rootball.
Only absorbing roots reach the periphery near the
top of the root ball. Structural
roots mostly wrap or are deflected on the
root ball interior.
The point where top-most root(s) emerges from the trunk (root collar)
should be within the top 2" of substrate. The root collar and the root ball
interior should be free of defects including circling, kinked, ascending, and
stem girdling roots. Structural roots shall reach the periphery near the top
of the root ball.
Structural roots circle and do not radiate
from the trunk.
Point where
top-most root
emerges from
trunk.
Sheet No.
Project IDIssue Note
Drawn By Reviewed By
Date CAD File Name
L2.3
2303-02
D1 P1
4/10/2023 1137 Cabrillo Avenue.vwx
Sheet Title
Project Title:
TREE PROTECTION
PLANLANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS2043 San Pablo Avenue
1137 CABRILLO AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010Berkeley, CA 94702
(510) 905-7444
No.Date Revision Notes
Stamp:
DESIGN REVIEW
abichlandarch@gmail.com
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS28/11/2023
0 4 8 12 16 20 FT
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
TURF LAWN-417 sq ftEX SS LATEX 6" SSEX WSEX WPROPOSED
RESIDENCE
C A B R I L L O A V E N U E
(E) WATER METER
PROPERTY LINE
(E) SIDEWALK
(E) CURB AND
GUTTER
(E) DRIVEWAY APRON
PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED
GARAGE
1
COVERED
PORCH
(BY ARCH)
2
4
10
13
COVERED
PORCH
(BY ARCH)
3
X
15
X
14
X
12
X
6
X
X
5
8
X
7
X
9
X
11
X
I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER
CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND
HAVE APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF
WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN.
JORGE DANIEL ABICH, PLA (CA #5899)
TREE PROTECTION LEGEND
(E) TREE TO REMAIN, TYP.X
(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED, TYP.
X
X
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
TREE PROTECTION NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Refer to the arborist report "TREE ASSESSMENT AND PROTECTION, DATED APRIL 22,
2023 (ADDENDUM DATED JULY 29, 2023)" prepared by "Heartwood Consulting
Arborists"
Trees and shrubs not identified within the arborist report, but as included in survey
drawings, are included for reference only.
Protect all existing items that are not noted for removal.
Existing trees to remain unless noted otherwise. Do not stockpile, drive over, or otherwise
disturb soil under driplines of existing trees, except as required for planting operations.
Use hand tools only for work under driplines of existing trees to remain.
Trees noted to be removed shall be completely removed, including stump and root mass.
Refer to arborist report for instructions on removing tree stumps within protected tree root
zones.
No roots over 2" in diameter shall be cut except under the direction of an arborist. All cut
roots shall be covered with burlap or straw and shall remain moist until re-buried in soil.
Contractor to refer to final arborist report for tree protection fencing locations.
Keynote Tag #Protected Street
Tree Offsite Common Name Botanical Name DBH (inches)Status
1 1 N Y Y Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 15 Retain and Protect
2 2 N Y Y London Planetree Platanus hybrida 18 Retain and Protect
3 3 Y N N Incense Cedar Calocedrus decurrens Multi, 20 Remove
4 4 Y N N Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 32 Retain and Protect
5 5 N N N Black Acacia Acacia melanoxylon 8 Remove
6 6 N N N Black Acacia Acacia melanoxylon 7 Remove
7 7 Y N N Black Acacia Acacia melanoxylon 18 Remove
8 8 N N N Black Acacia Acacia melanoxylon 7 Remove
9 9 N N N Queensland Auranticarpa rhombifolia 12 Remove
10 10 Y N N Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 23 Retain and Protect
11 11 N N N Southern Magnolia Syagrus romanzoffiana 10 Remove
12 12 N N N Privet Ligustrum sp.9 Remove
13 13 Y N Y Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 30 Retain and Protect
14 14 N N N European White Birch Betula pendula 5 Remove
15 15 N N N European White Birch Betula pendula 4 Remove
2
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
SCALE: NTS1
MAINTAIN EXISTING
GRADE WITH THE TREE
PROTECTION FENCE
UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED ON THE
PLANS.
2" X 8' STEEL POSTS OR APPROVED EQUAL.
TREE PROTECTION FENCE:
CHAIN LINK FENCING
STEEL POSTS
INSTALLED AT 8' O.C. MAX.
5" THICK LAYER OF MULCH
NOTES
1. See arborist report for additional protection requirements. Comply with all tree protection requirements per jurisdiction.
2. Irrigate as needed to maintain health of tree.
3. Keep exposed roots moist.
4. No pruning shall be performed except under the direction of approved arborist.
5. No equipment shall operate inside the protective fencing including during fence installation and removal.
6. No materials shall be stored inside fence.
SECTION VIEW
KEEP OUT
TREE
PROTECTION
AREA
8.5" X 11" SIGN LAMINATED IN
PLASTIC SPACED EVERY 50' ALONG
THE FENCE. PER ORDINANCE5'-0" MIN.2
2