Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2014.03.24CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION A G E N D A 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday, March 24, 2014 07:00 P.M. Council Chambers STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A 1.Discussion of Issues to be Addressed by the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Committee to Review and Propose Amendments to the City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook. I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL III.MINUTES February 24, 2014 and March 10, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA V.FROM THE FLOOR VI.STUDY ITEMS 1.2532 Hayward Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Side Setback Variance and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a single-story addition (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, architect and applicant; Roy and Cecilia Parker, property owners) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Staff Report VII.ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 2a.2000 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Tim Raduenz, Form + One, designer and applicant; Bradley and Julie Wilson, property owners) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report 2b.1425 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits to convert an existing accessory structure use from storage to a workout room with a full bathroom (Megan Warren, applicant and designer; Amy Lou and Andrew Woods, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report VIII.REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3.1576 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Special Permits for accessory structure length and reduction in the number of parking spaces on site to replace an existing two-car detached garage with a detached one-car garage (Peter Comaroto, applicant and property owner; Enertia Designs, designer) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin (continued from the March 10, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting) Staff Report 4.1477 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Robert C. Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Evan and Caren Weinshel, property owners) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report 5.1528 Hoover Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for Declining Height Envelope for a major renovation and second story addition (Jesse Geurse, designer and applicant; James Haggarty, property owner) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Staff Report 6.1809 Ashton Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new detached garage in front of the main dwelling (Nadine Stocklin & Jonah Van Zandt, applicant and property owners; Johann Stocklin, designer) (40 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Staff Report 7.4 La Mesa Court, zoned R-1 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (Tim Raduenz, Form + One, applicant and designer; Christopher Awoyinka and Suzanne McGovern, property owners) (35 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report Staff Report Staff Report Staff Report Staff Report IX.DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 8.475 Chatham Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc., designer and applicant; Joel Selcher, property owner) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report 9.1529 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review, Special Permit for Basement Ceiling Height, and Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage (TRG architects, architect and applicant; John and Cherie McGee, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Staff Report Staff Report X.COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS - Appointment of two (2) Planning Commissioners to serve on a joint City Council/Planning Commission committee to review and propose amendments to the City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook. XI.DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting March 17, 2014 XII.ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on March 24, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on April 3, 2014, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $485, which includes noticing costs. AGENDA.03/24/14/posted03/19/14 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California March 10, 2014 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sargent called the March 10, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Davis, DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Bandrapalli Staff Present: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to continue review of the minutes of the February 24, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission until the March 24, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Sargent suggested that a study item be added to a future agenda to discuss procedures for referring applications to design review consultants. V. FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Brownrigg spoke from the floor:  On rare occasions when the City Council is asked to provide a second opinion on a Planning Commission action, and reverses or refers back an application, it is a courtesy for the Council to offer an explanation to the Planning Commission.  1809 Ashton Avenue decision endorsed the Planning Commission decision. It was an opportunity for the adjacent neighbor to be heard since he did not receive notice of the project. The site design approved by the Commission was endorsed by the majority of the Council, with some direction for design mitigations.  2308 Hillside Drive application sent back for design review with a design review consultant. Endorses the value of having created the subcommittee that the City Council and Planning Commission decided at its March 1, 2014 joint session. Puts additional weight on the subcommittee: difference between diversity of style vs. compatibility. Council wrestled with decision and had strong opinions on both sides of the issue. Council’s ambivalence reflected Commission’s ambivalence. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 2  Suggest that if the Commission has a doubt about something, it should speak up and push the issue to a resolution. If there is thinking that it should go to design review, refer it to design review consultant. If Commission does not feel a design will fit in, it should say so.  Appreciates the work the Planning Commission does. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1a. 1448 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (PEYLING YAP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JEFF CHOW, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Davis pulled Agenda Item 1a (1448 Laguna Avenue) for discussion. The item was moved to the Regular Action portion of the agenda. 1b. 1349 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DARYL BUCKINGHAM, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; SONIA WADHAWAN AND DEEPAK CHUG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT Commissioner Sargent pulled Agenda Item 1b (1349 Bernal Avenue) for discussion. The item was moved to the Regular Action portion of the agenda. 1c. 401 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (MARCI PALATELLA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J DEAL ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER Commissioner Terrones moved approval of Item 1c on the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). Appeal procedures were explained. The item concluded at 7:12 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussions regarding Agenda Item 1a (1448 Laguna Avenue) as he has a financial interest in a property within 500- feet. He left the City Council Chambers. 1a. 1448 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A MAJOR RENOVATION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (PEYLING YAP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JEFF CHOW, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 3 All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014 with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Jeff Chow represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments:  Concern with the window being too close to the roof ridge of the entry porch roof. Would need to either flatten the pitch of the gable or make the window smaller. With it so close there would be waterproofing issues. (Chow: Will either lower the peak on the lower roof, or alter the window size to ensure there is adequate room for weatherproofing.)  If the gable on the entry is lowered it might look odd; better to reduce the window size (Chow: Wanting to keep as much of the window size as possible.)  Direction is to make the window smaller, rather than flatten out the gable. Public comments:  None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Davis moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 13, 2014, sheets A1.0 through A4.0, G1.0 and SHT.1; 2. that a revised front elevation, and a detail of the window trim, flashing and waterproofing for the area between the entry porch gable and the window above be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval as an FYI prior to issuance of a Building Permit; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 6, 2013, January 14 and January 23, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s January 6, January 15 and January 21, 2014 memos, Engineering Division’s December 17, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s December 16, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Division’s December 9, 2013 and January 16, 2014 memos shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 4 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-1. (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent, Commissioner DeMartini recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m. Commissioner DeMartini returned to the dais. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 5 1b. 1349 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DARYL BUCKINGHAM, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; SONIA WADHAWAN AND DEEPAK CHUG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014 with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Daryl Buckingham represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments:  Commission typically specifies simulated true-divided lite windows, or true divided-lite windows. Wants to make sure the windows will be one of these. (Buckingham: Yes.) Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 11, 2014, sheets A.0 through A1.2, A3.2 and A-7, and date stamped February 26, 2014, sheets A-3 and A-3.1; 2. that the windows shall be aluminum-clad wood windows with either simulated true divided lites, or true divided lites; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division’s October 25, 2013, January 3 and January 31, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s November 5, 2013 memo, the Engineering Division’s October 30, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s October 24, 2013 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s October 31, 2013 and January 6, 2014 memos shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 6 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 7 Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0. (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. 2. 712 NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (DREW FLINDERS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; NATALIE HYLAND, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini reported that he had met with the property owner prior to the design review study. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014 with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Drew Flanders and Natalie Hyland represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments:  Appreciate adding the second pair of front columns. The post between the top of the column and the bottom of the beam leave it a bit insubstantial. (Flanders: We can carry it up to the bottom of the beam.)  If you have them pulled back they should be one layer rather than two. (Flanders: Agree. Better to have the main beam going across sitting on the post and have the side ones hanging off.)  Might need to shift the outer columns over so they are not hanging. (Hyland: Yes. If removed, will push column up. It will look like it is under the gutter line.)  Looks good adding the fireplace. Gable ends help. Wrap the stonework more? (Flanders: Looked at some houses where they do that, and there isn’t a lot of room to do that. There will be planting in front.)  The columns on the right side look good too – very balanced. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  It’s pulled together well. Can go to approval. Add a condition about the columns. Commissioner Davis moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 24, 2014, sheets A1 through A5 and L1, with the provision that revised elevations showing modifications to the columns be submitted for review by the Planning Commission as an FYI prior to issuance of a Building Permit; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 8 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 23, 2013 and November 25, 2013 memos, the Parks Division’s December 23, 2013 and November 27, 2013 memos, the Engineering Division’s December 17, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s November 25, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Division’s January 8, 2014 and November 25, 2013 memos shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 9 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-0. (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. 3. 1576 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LENGTH AND REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON SITE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING TWO-CAR DETACHED GARAGE WITH A DETACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE (PETER COMAROTO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ENERTIA DESIGNS, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Due to Commissioner recusals and absences, there was not a quorum to hear this item. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application to the March 24, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item to the March 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed 3-0-1-3. (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent, Commissioners Davis and Terrones abstaining). IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 1514 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW SECOND STORY DECK AT THE REAR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (KENNY MOY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OW NER; DALE ANDERSON, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones indicated that when he visited the site he had the opportunity to access the rear yard, had a brief conversation with the builder, and the builder explained that they had been in conversation with the two side neighbors. Commissioner DeMartini noted he met with the owner and builder and received a tour of the back yard. Commissioner Yie met the builder, and the builder mentioned that they also reached out to the rear neighbor. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 10 Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Kenny Moy represented the applicant.  We are in talks with the neighbor. We’re going to grow plants to address the proximity concerns that we could peer into their living room, and will shrink the deck length from 12 feet to 8 feet and put some proximity screening.  Other neighbors have supplied a letter of support, they have no issues.  Story poles erected this afternoon. Neighbors gave some thoughts. Ideas for growing plants. 1512 Alturas has privacy concerns. Will shrink the deck length from 12’ to 8’ on that side, and add some privacy screening.  1516 Alturas has written a letter of support – no issues with the deck. Commission comments:  Can you go over some of the options with screening? It seems like a good opportunity to plant a tree and keep the pattern going of that larger tree. (Moy: Brought up idea of planting tree. Neighbor not in agreement, feels like they would be living under a bridge. Instead reducing length on the side to approach this.  Good to reach out to the neighbors. Concerned about 1511 La Mesa, that if you extend the deck out, you can look into their backyard. They haven’t been available for you to talk to. (Went to house and rang doorbell, nobody was there. Because of elevation can already see into their yard from the living room.) Will be made worse if the deck is extended.  Would like to see story poles – If people see poles they will know what is being proposed.  Seems square footage will be larger than neighbors. Would be interested in seeing relative size of deck compared to neighbors’ decks. Seeing less justification for this big deck outside of the bedroom. (Kane: Comparison can be made as a request, but cannot be required if the information cannot be obtained.) Public comments:  None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  The letter of support was from 1516 Alturas, but 1512 has the issue with the privacy.  Wants relative comparison of the size of the proposed deck compared with the others neighboring, if feasible. Perhaps reference Google Earth.  Story poles should be erected before the application comes back for action. Should show deck plus railing height. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion of motion:  None. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 11 Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:47 p.m. 5. 1477 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT C. WEHMEYER, WEHMEYER DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EVAN AND CAREN WEINSHEL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Robert Wehmeyer and Caren Weinshel represented the applicant:  Chose to do a remodel to retain the charm of the house.  Wanted to keep the scale and massing down. There are several houses in the neighborhood which are very large.  Kept the existing first floor footprint alone. It is a lot smaller than the houses around it.  The front porch was a big selling point, but it has a negative impact on the total square footage. Though this didn’t matter to the homeowner – we kept the old look intact.  Is about 7½ feet above average curb height in the front. However height is under 30 feet on rear, interior, and Adeline sides. The house behind is over 30 feet where it looks down onto this property.  Had a meeting on March 4th and invited the neighbors to come over and review the plans. They loved it and appreciated that we’re keeping the old house.  Will be retaining the original paint colors.  Have letters from two of the neighbors, plus a document with 10 or 12 signatures. Commission comments:  Glad you’re keeping the front porch. It would be a loss otherwise.  On the siding, is it being replaced? (Wehmeyer: We’ll keep it on the front, but on the side, it will be easier for us to get new in and recycle the old. It won’t look as clean and finished, otherwise. We’ll match it up.)  Is the existing siding 6 inches? (Wehmeyer: Yes, just a bit under 6 inches.)  Going to remove the existing carport? (Wehmeyer: Yes, it was rotting. We’ll keep the existing garage and the existing space where the carport was. It is the second parking spot. The trees will kind of soften that spot, and screen the fact that there is a car there.)  Is there any way to incorporate the addition into the existing roof line? It just feels like it is a 2-story layer cake on the front. (Wehmeyer: We looked at a lot of publications of older homes of this period and style. The top roof dictated what would happen with the lower roof. We wanted to pull it down, and the hip dictated how we would play with it. We wanted to keep the symmetry and the original windows. It did pose some issues – the roof lines were a big challenge on how to tie it all together. We didn’t want to design the biggest thing that could fit on the lot. We tried to pull it down by pulling the hips in.)  I like the front elevation and the Adeline Drive elevation. The other one doesn’t bother me so much since only your neighbor will see it and they are close to each other. On the rear elevation why not add a gable to help integrate the two layers? (Wehmeyer: The hard part is how it lays out with the CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 12 two windows in the master bedroom. It’s all about the light. That’s why we decided to put the family room, etc., on the back.)  Okay with the special permit for the height, since the 2nd floor ceiling heights are 8 feet. Not asking for taller plate heights.  In regards to the special permit, it would appear that even if you take the tallest elevation on the front, you’re still no more than 27 feet. There is some support for the special permit in this regard.  Agree with the rear elevation, but the French doors look like they need some cover. There is a lot of exposure to this elevation. Maybe a trellis would be an option.  Confused on the Adeline Drive side: there are some existing windows into the dining room, and the plans say to use these, but the elevations show what looks like new windows. (Wehmeyer: There is an existing pair of windows into the dining room, and we are going to reuse that pair of windows. We’re taking windows that used to be the outside wall, and we’re going to reuse those in the new structure.)  Appreciate the efforts to keep the look of the old house as opposed to a cookie-cutter approach.  Great job with outreach to neighbors. The letters weren’t form letters, which is much appreciated. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  Only concern is the rear elevation – either a trellis or gable end.  Could add a porch in the back since they are below the FAR.  Consensus that there is not a problem with the Special Permit. Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m. 6. 144 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NED WHITE, MCCOPPIN STUDIOS, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JAY AND LISA KERSHNER, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014 with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Ned White represented the applicant. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 13  Tried to retain character of existing house by keeping the addition primarily to the back of the property and keeping the defining details of the house. Keeping the porch and brick columns.  Unifying the window design, currently it is a mishmash. Hopefully it is being improved as well as expanded. Commission comments:  Nice solution to tuck the second story into roofline.  Are the knee braces on the South Elevation just on the lower gable? It might be a nice detail to add them on the upper gable. (White: I think we could support that.)  On the deck railing, is that a wood lattice? Site built? (White: Yes)  You’ve got siding on the second story, is it on the back as well? (White: The reason we did it on the front and not on the back, is that it just seemed that it might add some subtle character on the front façade.) I think it’s nice, but it’s nice to repeat it.  Clarify note in material legend to say simulated true divided lite.  The plans are hard to read. Would like to see hatch to differentiate roof from walls on plans.  Looks like it was built like this to begin with. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:  In terms of the environmental scoping, there are no issues. Otherwise, this is a candidate for the consent calendar. (Kane: May go on Consent Calendar with the additional resolution for the environmental review.) Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-1 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:17 p.m. Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from participating in the discussions regarding Agenda Item 7 (2000 Carmelita Avenue) as she resides within 500-feet. She left the City Council Chambers. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 14 7. 2000 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; BRADLEY AND JULIE WILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. Reference staff report dated March 10, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Sargent opened the public comment period. Tim Raduenz and Bradley Wilson represented the applicant.  Didn’t want to tear down the existing house.  Corner lot, and two very large redwood trees, so there is not a lot of room to work with.  Centered massing on center of house, made dormers smaller.  Square footage has been maximized, but to note the existing garage is a little bigger than the average garage.  Tried to retain character of existing house.  Changed to horizontal siding on the second story to give it texture. Commission comments:  Sheet A3.1 labeling issue – two right sides.  Have you reached out to the neighbor at 1105 Bernal Avenue? (Wilson: Have only seen her three times in 10 years. She is a private person. Reached out, but did not hear any comments. Did hear from other neighbors.)  On proposed right side, the note at the top points to cedar horizontal siding. It may be a labeling issue – it’s labeled as board and batten on the gables. It’s a nice detail – will it be that way all around? (Raduenz: Yes.)  Fence should not extend to corner. Does Planning check the fence heights in final inspection? (Hurin: Will verify in inspection if it is a new fence.)  First reaction is tall house, but fits Easton Addition. (Raduenz: There are a number of houses in the area which are 2-story. Will be in scale with the two large trees.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion of motion:  None Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Bandrapalli absent, Commissioner Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 15 concluded at 8:26 p.m. Commissioner Yie returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS Discussion of appointment of two Planning Commissioners to serve on a joint City Council/Planning Commission committee to review and propose amendments to the City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook:  Need to hash this out more because it’s unclear on what direction to go.  Could look at images which can be translated into a design guideline book – can develop a consensus.  It’s possible to represent this exercise without being an architect.  The ultimate arbiters are the City Councilmembers.  The audience will be architects so they need to understand.  Not sure that what will come out of this will be a design guideline book.  (Kane: It’s under the discretion of the chair to appoint who he sees fit. It’s also true of the mayor. It’s subject to discussion, and this is why we are vetting it, but it doesn’t have to be decided tonight.)  Consensus to schedule a study session to discuss the issues, as an agendized item.  (Gardiner: Should not presuppose an outcome. At the top level it is a policy discussion; there are different schools of thought in terms of style and neighborhood context. From that will be implementation suggestions. At this point it’s too early to anticipate the scope of any changes, if any. The object of the joint committee is to get clarity on what to do.)  Advantage to having a commissioner with institutional knowledge of the issues.  Is this an ad hoc committee? (Kane: It’s more defined by the task then the duration.)  Maybe we could appoint by task.  (Kane: For purposes of continuity of the work, it’s optimal not to switch members of the subcommittee mid-stream. But it’s up to the commissioners.)  Skeptical of whether modern design can fit in with neighborhoods in the city. Wonder if that point of view has been represented and expressed to the City Council.  Subcommittee needs someone who understands modernism and its place.  Members of the committee should bring an open mind, and that we can have a more clear direction to people who are designing for this town.  The discussion should be about context.  The question is how to handle projects in the flats. There has been one approved modern project – is that a template for the future or an aberration?  Perhaps the guidelines will be dependent upon neighborhood. What is appropriate in a ranch neighborhood? In an Eichler neighborhood?  Suggestion is rather than appoint now, agendize the general discussion so we can hear from all commission members. One of the commissioners is not here. Let’s agendize so we can have a substantial discussion across all commissioners, and at the conclusion, have some sort of nomination to that committee.  How will the Council be appointing members? (Kane: The mayor has not made his appointment yet. It’s the Council’s mandate to move this forward, and while the chair can do anything he wants, it is within his discretion to appoint. Can put a study item on the agenda, but suggestion is to do it as a study session prior to the meeting.) Staff will conduct a follow-up poll to see when Commissioners will be available for a study session prior to a regular Planning Commission meeting. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes March 10, 2014 16 XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 3, 2014:  2308 Hillside Drive to return to the Planning Commission for referral to a design review consultant.  1608 Ashton Avenue approval upheld, with direction to return to the Planning Commission to consider additional mitigations between the subject property and the neighboring property at 1613 Ashton Avenue. FYI: 904 Bayswater Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. FYI: 1225 Floribunda Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. FYI: 3072 Atwater Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Scheduled for a public hearing. Questions regarding why not able to use the siding, and whether stucco is consistent with Eichler design. Concerns are regarding the siding, not the garage door. FYI: 1417 Vancouver Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project.  Accepted. Director Comments:  Housing Element Update Workshop #1 to be held Tuesday, March 18th from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. at the Burlingame Recreation Center. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeanne Davis, Secretary Item No. 7 Action Item City of Burlingame Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit Address: 4 La Mesa Court Meeting Date: March 24, 2014 Request: Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage. Applicant and Designer: Tim Raduenz, Form + One APN: 027-022-550 Property Owners: Christopher Awoyinka and Suzanne McGovern Lot Area: 16,227 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 January 13, 2014 Environmental Scoping and Design Review Meeting: At the January 13, 2014, Planning Commission environmental scoping and design review meeting, the Commission had several questions and comments regarding this project (see attached January 13, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached meeting minutes and applicant’s response letters, dated March 12, 2014 and January 30, 2014, for detailed responses to the Commission’s comments. Planning staff would note that several letters expressing concerns with the proposed project were submitted by Isako Hoshino and Matt Machlis, 1510 La Mesa Lane, dated March 19, 2014; Mark G. Intrieri, 2 La Mesa Court, dated March 3, 2014; and Ray and Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, dated January 13, 2014. These letters are attached to the staff report for review. The property owners and designer have met or have attempted to meet with the neighbors to address their concerns with the project. Listed below are changes made to the project since the design review study meeting. Please also refer to the applicant’s response letters and the revised plans, dated stamped March 13, 2014.  Previously proposed rooftop observation deck has been eliminated (see revised Roof Plan, sheet A2.3).  The number of skylights was reduced from eight to six (see revised Roof Plan, sheet A2.3).  The plate height in the kitchen was increased from 10’-0” to 13’-0” (see revised building elevations, sheets A3.0 through A3.2). Since the ceiling height is greater than 12’-0”, the square footage in this area is counted twice for FAR. As a result, the proposed floor area ratio increased by 259 SF from 5,295 SF to 5,554 SF where 6,293 SF is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 739 SF below the maximum allowed FAR.  The increase in plate height in the kitchen caused the overall building height to increase from 9’-8” to 11’-9”, where 20’-0” is the maximum allowed as measured from average top of curb level.  The house was shifted 2’-0” towards the left side of the property to preserve two Coast Live Oak trees along the right side property line (see revised Site Plan, sheet A1.0).  Three existing Oak trees in the rear yard and one existing Olive tree in the front yard, which were previously shown to be removed, will now remain (see revised Site Plan and Landscape Plan, sheets A1.0 and L1.0).  The family room on the basement level was enlarged into the foundation/storage area (see revised Basement Floor Plan, sheet A2.2). This is not considered to be an increase in floor area because the foundation/storage area was previously included in the FAR calculation (has a ceiling height greater than 6’-0”). New sliding glass doors were added at the rear of the house for this new space.  Optional sliding doors between the den/library and living room have been eliminated; the living room, den/library and office are now all open rooms and not considered potential bedrooms. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit- 4 La Mesa Court 2 The Planning Commission requested that the applicant and/or staff provide responses to the questions/comments listed below. Please refer to the applicant’s response letters, dated March 12, 2014 and January 30, 2014, for detailed responses. Additional information is provided by Planning staff. 1. Provide more information/images of the materials to be used in finishing of the project. Could see providing some wood materials on the side elevation (right side). Looks a bit blocky on the sides. Provide a 3-D rendering of the project. ▪ The exterior siding at the basement level on the rear facade of the house was changed from stone veneer to wood (see revised Rear Elevation, sheet A3.0). There were no changes to the materials along the sides of the house. A 3-D rendering will be available for review at the meeting. 2. Requested installation of story poles on the property. Feels that the building should follow the slope of the hill. Also need story poles for the pool area. With respect to story poles, find a means of differentiating between deck, railing height, pool areas and other aspects of the design. ▪ Story poles have been installed on the property to show the different aspects of the design. A story pole plan was prepared by the designer (see attached story pole plan, date stamped February 3, 2014). The story pole installation was certified by DMG Engineering, Inc. (see attached certification dated February 18, 2014). 3. Would like to see a condensed version of the soils report. ▪ A Geotechnical Investigation (report) for the subject property was prepared by Michelucci & Associates, Inc., dated July 23, 2013 (see attached). The purpose of the study was to evaluate the soil and bedrock conditions that occur at the site, and to provide geotechnical recommendations and design criteria pertaining to building foundations, site grading, retaining walls, drainage, and other items that relate to the site soil and geologic conditions. Based on the geotechnical investigation, the conclusion is that the project can be developed as proposed, provided that the recommendations contained in the report are followed. The report recommends that the proposed structure be constructed upon drilled, cast-in-place, reinforced concrete pier and grade beam foundations. The report recommends that the proposed swimming pool and any pool decking should also be supported upon drilled piers that extend into bedrock. The retaining walls for the structure will contain a sub-drain system consisting of a four inch diameter perforated pipe bedded in drain rock. There will be no pile driving for the piers. The piers will be drilled and then poured in place. The applicant notes that there would be approximately 200 cubic yards of cut and 200 cubic yards of fill, so no soil is proposed to be off-hauled. 4. A bit dismayed about the tree removal. Perhaps Coastal Oaks could be provided on the side. Oak trees and lawns do not work well together. Look more closely at opportunities to revise the plans to accommodate more of the existing trees. The site plan appears more appropriate to a more formal subdivision. Make the landscaping feel a bit more organic. ▪ Please refer to the revised Landscape Plan, sheet L1.0. Two 24-inch box size Coast Live Oak trees are proposed along the left side property line at the rear of the lot. Three existing Oak trees in the rear yard and one existing Olive tree in the front yard, which were previously shown to be removed, will now remain (see revised Site Plan and Landscape Plan, sheets A1.0 and L1.0). 5. Is there a fire concern regarding the presence of the trees. ▪ The Fire Division memorandum dated December 19, 2013 notes that the landscaping shall be fire resistive in nature and be in concert with the publication; “Living with Fire in San Mateo County”. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit- 4 La Mesa Court 3 proposed landscape plan includes fire resistive plants and vegetative management guidelines to ensure fire safety throughout the site (see revised Landscape Plan, sheet L1.0). 6. Superimpose the proposed project with the existing homes adjacent to the property to show window arrangements. ▪ Existing windows of the adjacent house at 6 La Mesa Court were superimposed on the Left Side Elevation (see sheet labeled ‘Tree’). This elevation also shows proposed trees to be installed and a 6’-0” tall between the properties. Please also refer to the Site Plan, sheet A1.0, for window locations on both houses. 7. Provide a transverse cut of the lot to show the height of the pool to the adjacent property line. ▪ Please refer to the Building Section on sheet A4.0, which shows a cross section through the proposed house, terrace, pool and fencing and how these elements relate to the side property line. 8. Show an outline of how the parking can work on the driveway. ▪ A 10’ x 20’ uncovered parking space is designated in the driveway on the Site Plan (see revised sheet A1.0). 9. Who is responsible for maintenance of the private road? ▪ The Public Works Division notes that there is a maintenance agreement in place between the property owners along La Mesa Court and the City of Burlingame for maintenance of the private road. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a new two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage at 4 La Mesa Court, zoned R-1. La Mesa Court is a private roadway which is maintained through a private agreement amongst the property owners on La Mesa Court and the City of Burlingame. The subject property is currently a vacant lot with a downward slope of approximately 42%; a portion of the roadway is on the subject property. On February 28, 2011, the Planning Commission approved an application for Lot Line Adjustment between the properties at 4 La Mesa Court and 1530 La Mesa Drive (see attached February 28, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes and plat map). The Lot Line Adjustment transferred 3,464 SF from the property at 1530 La Mesa Drive to 4 La Mesa Court, increasing the size of the lot at 4 La Mesa Court from 12,763 SF to 16,227 SF. Due to the downward slope on the subject property, the house will appear to be single-story as viewed from La Mesa Court. However, at the rear of the lot the house will be three stories in height. The main level, which is approximately at the same elevation as the street, will contain an entry, kitchen, dining room, living room, an open den/library and office area, bathroom, an uncovered deck at the rear of the house and an attached single- car garage. The middle level finished floor, located approximately 13’-9” below the street, will contain four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a laundry room and an uncovered deck at the rear of the house. The lower level finished floor, located approximately 27’-6” below the street, will contain a family room, bathroom, uncovered decking and a pool. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 5,554 SF (0.34 FAR) where 6,293 SF (0.39 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). Planning staff would note that 684 SF of the proposed floor area is crawl space which exceeds 6’-0” in height (425 SF) and ceiling heights greater than 12’-0” (259 SF) and therefore are counted in FAR. The proposed project is 739 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 12% of the maximum allowed FAR. Because this property is located within the hillside area an application for Hillside Area Construction Permit is required for the proposed project. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit- 4 La Mesa Court 4 The following applications are required for this project:  Mitigated Negative Declaration, a determination that with mitigation measures there are no significant environmental effects as a result of this project;  Design Review for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (1) (4) (6));  Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.61.020); and  Special Permit for a new attached single-car garage (CS 25.26.035 (a)). The front of the house consists of smooth stucco, stone veneer cladding, aluminum windows and a steel pivot entry door flanked by stained walnut or mahogany panels. The garage door, which faces the street, will be made of walnut or mahogany. The sides of the house will contain smooth stucco, exposed concrete on the driveway, terrace and pool walls and base of the building and aluminum windows. The rear of the house will primary contain aluminum windows surrounded by smooth stucco walls, stained walnut or mahogany panels on the lower floor and exposed concrete on the pool and terrace walls. A glass railing system will be used for the decks at the rear of the house. The project includes an attached single-car garage (11’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) which provides one code-compliant covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway (two off-street parking spaces required, one of which must be covered). The Fire Division notes that a 20-foot wide access fire lane must be provided along La Mesa Court. Therefore, in order to provide adequate access for fire apparatus, no parking shall be allowed in the roadway post-construction. During construction, construction vehicles and storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall also be prohibited. Currently, the property contains a total of 24 trees ranging in size from 6 to 25.1 inches in diameter. Existing trees on the property include Olive (1), Coast Live Oak (16), Deodar Cedar (1), Bay (3), Birch (2) and one small unidentified landscape tree. Based on the proposed project plans, the applicant is proposing to remove a total of 14 trees on the property, 5 of which are of a protected size. They include three Coast Live Oak trees (20, 20.7 and 25.1 inches in diameter), one Bay tree (17-inch diameter) and one Deodar Cedar (20.5-inch diameter). The 5 protected-size trees are proposed to be removed because they are located within or near the footprint of the house, driveway, pool and terrace. A tree report, prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated November 4, 2013 (attached) describes each tree, its condition and recommendation for maintenance. The report also provides protection measures for the existing trees to remain. In his memo dated December 5, 2013, the City Arborist notes that a tree removal permit will be required for removal of any protected sized trees on the site. The applicant has submitted an arborist report that was reviewed and found acceptable by the City Arborist. In accordance with the City's Reforestation Ordinance, each lot developed with a single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of 1, 24-inch box-size minimum, non-fruit tree, for every 1,000 SF of living space. Based on the floor area proposed for this single family dwelling, a minimum of five landscape trees are required on site. In addition to the 10 trees to remain, the proposed Landscape Plan indicates that 20 new 24-inch box size landscape trees will be planted throughout the site as part of this project. Species include Coast Live Oak, Grecian Laurel, Olive, Big-Leaf Maple, Western Dogwood, Japanese Maple and Catalina Cherry. Therefore, the proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements. Mills Creek is located along the rear property line of the subject property. There is no work proposed to Mills Creek and the nearest construction is a retaining wall to be located 29’-0” from the top of Mills Creek. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit- 4 La Mesa Court 5 4 La Mesa Court Lot Area: 16,227 SF Plans date stamped: March 13, 2014 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): (attached garage): 20'-9" n/a 25’-0” (average) 20'-9" (block average) 20'-9" (block average) 25’-0” Side (left): (right): 16'-6" (7’-0” to terrace) 13’-9” 7'-0" 7’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 65’-0” (30'-4" to terrace) 65’-0” (45'-8" to balcony) 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 3993 SF 24.6% 40% is 6491 SF, however the lot coverage cannot exceed 6293 SF since this is the maximum allowed FAR (see below) FAR: 5554 SF 0.34 FAR 6293 SF 1 0.39 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (11' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 11’-9” from average top of curb 20'-0" for lots that slope downward more than 25% DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 HACP: requires HACP ² CS 25.61.020 ¹ (0.32 x 16,227 SF) + 1,100 SF = 6293 SF (0.39 FAR) 2 Hillside Area Construction Permit required for proposed new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Mitigated Negative Declaration: Section 15304, Class 4, of the California Environmental Quality Act exempts minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes, grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent, and gardening or landscaping that do not affect sensitive resources. Since the project involves grading on land with a slope greater than 10% (42% existing slope) and removal of protected- size trees, the project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission held an environmental scoping session for this project on January 13, 2014 in conjunction with design review study (refer to attached January 13, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes). An Initial Study was prepared by Planning Division staff. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission. As presented the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified issues that were "less than significant with mitigation incorporation" in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise and transportation/traffic. Based upon the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project can be addressed by a Mitigated Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit- 4 La Mesa Court 6 Negative Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review on March 3, 2014. The 20-day review period will end on March 23, 2013. Comments were received by Isako Hoshino and Matt Machlis, 1510 La Mesa Lane, dated March 19, 2014, during the review period. The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that this conclusion, based on the Initial Study, facts in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing, and Planning Commission observation and experience, are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental impact. The mitigation measures in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (see conditions in italics). Required Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit- 4 La Mesa Court 7 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action on the following items should be taken separately by resolution including the conditions representing mitigation for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (in italics below) and any conditions from the staff report and/or that the commissioners may add. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit. Please note that the conditions below include mitigation measures taken from the mitigated negative declaration (shown in italics). The mitigations will be placed on the building permit as well as recorded with the property and constitute the mitigation monitoring plan for this project. At the public hearing the following mitigation measures and conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 13, 2014, sheets T1.0, GN, GP, SP, C-2, Boundary and Topographic Survey, A1.0 through A5.0, FAR, E2, L1.0 and L2.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the lower, middle and upper floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s December 9, November 15 and August 28, 2013 memos, the Fire Division’s December 19, November 25 and September 9, 2013 memos, the Engineering Division’s September 25, 2013 memo, the Parks Division’s December 5, November 18 and September 6, 2013 memos and the Stormwater Division’s November 18 and September 4, 2013 memos shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit- 4 La Mesa Court 8 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Aesthetics 16. The project sponsor shall be subject to the design review process to evaluate the aesthetics of the construction of a single family dwelling in the R-1 Zoning District. 17. The project sponsor shall be subject to a hillside area construction permit to evaluate the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties, with emphasis given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit. 18. The landscaping shall be provided on the site as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission. All landscaping shall be installed prior to scheduling the final building inspection. Air Quality 19. During construction, the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited. d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit- 4 La Mesa Court 9 e) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Biological Resources 20. The applicant shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist. 21. The property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated November 4, 2013. All tree protection measures shall be taken prior to beginning any tree removal activities, grading or construction on the site. 22. All clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing installed under the supervision of a licensed arborist and inspected by the City Arborist; and that adjacent properties and undisturbed areas shall be protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching as designed by and installed with the supervision of a licensed arborist to standards approved by the City Arborist. 23. A licensed arborist, hired by the applicant, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently if necessary and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Division that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met. 24. A licensed arborist shall provide a post-construction maintenance program to the property owners with instructions on how to maintain them and identify warning signs of poor tree health; the property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finalled by the City. Cultural Resources 25. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit- 4 La Mesa Court 10 26. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Burlingame. 27. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Geology and Soils 28. The project sponsor shall submit a detailed design level geotechnical investigation to the City of Burlingame Building Division for review and approval. The investigation shall include recommendations to develop foundation and design criteria in accordance with the most recent California Building Code requirements. All foundations and other improvements shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer based on site-specific soil investigations performed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. All recommendations from the engineering report shall be incorporated into the residential development design. The design shall ensure the suitability of the subsurface materials for adequately supporting the proposed structures and include appropriate mitigations to minimize the potential damage due to liquefaction. 29. There shall be no pile driving as part of this project. 30. The foundation for the single family dwelling structure, swimming pool and any pool decking shall be a drilled pier and grade beam design. 31. Grading activities shall be limited to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. 32. The project shall be required to meet all the requirements, including seismic standards, of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, for structural stability; and the construction plans and design shall be approved by the Building Division and all necessary permits issued before any grading, tree removal or construction occurs on the site. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 33. That the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station as required by the Fire Marshal prior to the final inspection for building permit. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit- 4 La Mesa Court 11 34. That the project shall comply with the following requirements set by the Central County Fire Department: a) All attic spaces created shall be equipped and protected by fire sprinklers. b) The entire house construction shall comply with California Building Code Chapter 7A requirements for buildings in a Wildland Urban Interface. c) The landscaping shall be fire resistive in nature and be in concert with the publication; “Living with Fire in San Mateo County”. Hydrology and Water Quality 35. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: a) A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; b) Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets; c) Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; d) Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and e) The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. Noise 36. The hours for drilling shall be limited to Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., with no drilling on Sundays or Holidays. The remainder of the construction must abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code, which limits construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. 37. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures: a) Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). b) Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. c) Loaded trucks and other vibration-generating equipment shall avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals. Transportation/Traffic 38. No parking shall be allowed along La Mesa Court in order to maintain a 20-foot wide fire access lane for fire apparatus. During construction, construction vehicles and storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit- 4 La Mesa Court 12 Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Tim Raduenz, Form + One, applicant and designer Christopher Awoyinka and Suzanne McGovern, property owners Attachments: January 13, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Letter of Response to Planning Commission Comments, dated March 12, 2014 Applicant’s Letter of Response to Letter from Ray and Barbara Forrest (letter dated January 13, 2014) and Planning Commission Comments, dated January 30, 2014 Letter from Ray and Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, dated January 13, 2014 Letter from Mark G. Intrieri, 2 La Mesa Court, dated March 3, 2014 Letter from Mark G. Intrieri, 2 La Mesa Court, dated January 5, 2014 Letter from Isako Hoshino and Matt Machlis, 1510 La Mesa Lane, dated March 19, 2014 Story Pole Certification submitted by DMG Engineering, Inc., dated February 18, 2014 Story Pole Plan prepared by Form + One, date stamped February 3, 2014 February 28, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes and Plat Map Application to the Planning Commission Letter from Project Designer, dated August 26, 2013 Special Permit Application Arborist Report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated November 4, 2013 Photographs of Neighborhood Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 14, 2014 Aerial Photo Separate Attachments: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (ND-570-P), dated March 3, 2014 Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed New Residence at 4 La Mesa Court, prepared by Michelluci & Associates, Inc., dated July 23, 2013  A-­‐1   Concerns  with  design  of  proposed  structure     1. Story  poles  do  not  seem  to  represent  the  elevation  plan     The  story  poles  requested  by  the  Planning  Commission  went  up  around  2/7.    Figure  1   shows  the  story  poles  from  our  dwelling  (photo  taken  on  3/17).    The  story  poles  and   the  flag  lines  have  not  changed  in  appearance  since  when  they  first  went  up.    Thus  we   believe  what  was  placed  is  exactly  as  intended.    We  have  asked  the  Planning   Department  to  verify  the  accuracy  of  the  story  poles  and  have  not  seen  any  changes.      Figure  1  -­‐  Story  poles  close-­‐up  view  from  1510  La  Mesa  Ln     The  current  story  poles  outline  represents  a  slender,  terraced  main  structure  with  what   appears  to  be  a  small  winged  substructure  on  the  left  side  (from  our  view).    This  seems   significantly  smaller  than  the  3-­‐story  high  and  equally  wide  cubic  structure  that  we  see   on  the  elevation  plans  (Figure  2).    Thus  from  our  view,  we  are  concerned  that  the  story   poles  do  not  appear  to  fully  and  accurately  represent  the  rear  and  the  right  structural   outlines.    Without  an  accurate  outline  of  the  main  structure  fully  visible,  it  is  impossible   to  assess  what  the  visual  impact  of  the  actual  structure  will  be.    Also  note  that  the  actual   visual  impact  of  the  final  structure  is  going  to  be  more  severe  than  might  appear  based   on  the  story  poles  since  most  of  the  trees  currently  shielding  the  site  are  planned  to  be   cut  down.     Thus  we  repeat  our  request  that  the  current  outline  shown  by  the  story  poles  be  re-­‐ verified,  with  better  care  of  clearly  showing  the  structural  outlines  of  the  right  and  rear   elevations.    A-­‐2      Figure  2    3D  view  supplied  by  the  planning  office.    Does  not  resemble  the  outline  defined  by  the  story  poles     2. Proposed  structure  is  imposing,  and  does  not  blend  in  with  the  environment,   neighboring  structures,  the  natural  setting,  or  the  character  of  the  area     We  have  no  objections  to  modern  design,  as  there  are  several  along  Hillside  and  Adeline   that  look  rather  nice,  with  expressive,  creative  designs.    The  modern  house  on  Adeline   was  mentioned  at  the  previous  commission  meeting  is  elegantly  designed  and  is   appropriate  for  that  area.    One  common  feature  of  existing  modern  houses  we  have   seen  in  the  area  is  that  there  is  a  conscious  effort  to  blend  in  with  the  environment.    The   proposed  new  structure  is  a  relatively  featureless  cubic  structure  that  juts  out  of  the   hillside.    It  does  not  conform  to  the  contour  of  the  terrain,  nor  make  any  effort  in   blending  in  with  the  environment.    It  is  very  industrial-­‐looking  and  imposing.    Instead  of   a  residence,  it  reminds  me  of  an  Apple  Store,  which  typically  has  all  windows  on  one   side  framed  by  aluminum,  and  is  similarly  sterile  (relatively  featureless  side  elevations).     Figure  3  is  a  picture  of  a  3-­‐level  Apple  Store  in  Hong  Kong  that  seems  remarkably   similar  to  the  proposed  structure.    We  believe  that  this  type  of  industrial-­‐style  building   is  not  appropriate  for  this  heavily-­‐forested,  low-­‐density  hillside  residential   neighborhood.    If  the  project  wants  to  break  from  the  traditional  look  and  aim  for   modern,  we  believe  more  effort  should  be  made  to  better  conform  to  and  blend  in  with   the  surroundings,  take  advantage  of  the  natural  forest  environment  and  the  terrain,  and   not  stick  out  like  a  gleaming  icon.    The  ultimate  example  of  this  would  be  something  like   Frank  Lloyd  Wright’s  Falling  Water  house  (we  would  love  to  have  that  house  in  the   neighborhood).      A-­‐3    Figure  3  -­‐  Apple  Store  in  Hong  Kong  which  suspiciously  resembles  the  current  project  in  both  mass  and  look.     3. The  vertical  massing  of  the  proposed  structure  appears  somewhat  excessive     The  proposed  structure  from  the  rear  elevation  stands  approximately  50  feet  tall  from   the  base  of  the  pool  structure  to  the  top  of  the  roof.    There  is  no  effort  to  reduce  the   vertical  massing  and  match  the  contour  of  the  steep  terrain.    Instead  it  stands  very  tall   and  vertical,  which  actively  uses  elements  that  accentuates  the  sense  of  protruding   from  the  hillside.    We  do  not  know  of  any  hillside  structure  within  the  City  of   Burlingame  that  has  this  vertical  height.    In  this  area,  typical  roof-­‐to-­‐bottom-­‐most-­‐ foundation  of  a  steep  hillside  house  is  around  40  ft,  including  the  gable  roof  attic  height   and  occasional  basement/crawlspace  that  can  be  around  12  ft.    In  addition,  most  of  the   structures  along  the  hillside  that  are  built  on  a  very  steep  downward  slope  make  an   attempt  to  reduce  the  vertical  massing  by  recessing  the  upper  level  below  the  street   level.    There  are  many  houses  along  Hillside  Dr  that  do  this.    We  would  strongly   recommend  altering  the  design  to  reduce  the  impression  of  vertical  massing  and  follow   the  terrain,  to  make  the  dwelling  blend  into  the  environment  better.     4. Each  level  is  significantly  taller  in  comparison  to  all  the  houses  in  the   neighborhood     The  structure  uses  higher-­‐than-­‐standard  ceiling  heights  for  every  level,  between  10  to   13  ft.    This  stands  out  from  the  typical  houses  in  the  area  with  8  to  9  ft  ceiling  heights.   Because  of  the  taller-­‐than-­‐typical  ceiling  heights,  when  seen  amongst  the  neighboring   structures,  the  proposed  structure  will  appear  vertically  elongated  and  will  seem  to  a   viewer  to  be  even  larger  and  closer  than  it  is  (an  optical  illusion).    This  vertical  massing   is  further  accentuated  by  the  use  of  floor-­‐to-­‐ceiling  windows  across  all  3  levels.    We   believe  these  factors  push  the  design  further  away  from  the  character  of  the  area.    A-­‐4   5. Nighttime  light  pollution  is  significant.         The  CEQA  report  states  that  the  light  pollution  impact  is  minimal  since  it  is  just  an   addition  of  a  single  residence.    We  do  not  agree  that  the  impact  will  be  minimal.  There   are  very  few  street  lights  in  the  hillside  area,  which  enhances  the  “living  in  the  forest   and  darkness”  character  of  the  hillside  property.    This  darkness  is  further  enhanced  by   the  existing  Mills  Canyon,  which  is  devoid  of  any  lighting.    We  agree  that  a   conventionally-­‐designed  new  single  house  would  not  impact  the  ambient  lighting   conditions.    But  the  CEQA  report  does  not  seem  to  take  into  consideration  that  the  rear   elevation  of  the  proposed  design  has  approximately  5  times  more  window  area  than  a   more  conventional  house  of  similar  dimensions.     In  the  proposed  structure,  the  entire  41  x  48  ft  rear  elevation  is  practically  100%   windows.  This  amount  of  light  source  on  a  3-­‐story  tall,  straight  vertical  1900  sq  ft  area   is  a  lot  of  light,  even  in  a  densely  populated  area,  and  will  be  almost  blinding  in  the   canyon  area  where  there  is  almost  no  ambient  light,  destroying  the  character  of  the   canyon  at  night.  On  houses  along  Alturas,  La  Mesa  Dr,  La  Mesa  Ln,  and  Hillside  Dr,   which  have  the  typical  15-­‐35%  window  coverage  per  elevation,  the  windows  are  seen   as  small  squares  with  each  surrounded  by  blackness.    The  current  rear  elevation,  in   contrast,  will  effectively  be  one  large  sheet  of  light.    Also,  the  liberal  use  of  aluminum   trim  will  reflect  and  further  increase  the  glare  into  the  darkness.    The  proposed   structure  also  has  a  11.5  ft  x  6  ft  skylight  panel,  in  addition  to  5  other  standard  sized   skylights.    Considering  all  of  this,  to  call  this  amount  of  light  generated  by  a  single   residential  house  in  a  very  dark  area  “in  character  with  the  neighboring  structures”  is   far  from  accurate.     We  understand  the  desire  to  maximize  the  view  and  the  light,  but  that  desire  must  be   balanced  with  the  consideration  of  not  creating  excessive  light  pollution  in  the  area.    We   feel  that  it  would  be  reasonable  if  one  level  were  all  windows  while  other  two  were  of   more  normal  window-­‐to-­‐wall  area  ratio,  as  the  illumination  impact  would  be  more   tolerable  and  consistent  with  neighboring  properties.    Terracing  the  levels  so  that  that   each  level  of  light  would  be  broken  up  would  also  aid  in  reducing  the  light  mass.     To  illustrate  the  expected  night  view  impact,  we  present  two  photos.    Figure  4  is  a   typical  night  view  from  our  dwelling,  looking  towards  2,  4,  6  La  Mesa  Ct  properties.     This  picture  was  taken  from  our  balcony  but  is  very  similar  to  the  view  from  our  main   entrance,  seen  through  a  sliding  glass  door  on  the  front  of  the  house.    (The  main   entrance  of  our  house  is  on  the  rear  of  the  property.)    As  you  can  see,  the  scene  is   virtually  pitch  black,  with  a  row  of  standard  windows  plus  one  skylight  of  2  La  Mesa  Ct   dwelling  visible.       Figure  5  is  the  same  image  with  simulated  light  source  emanating  from  the  proposed   structure  added  in,  based  on  the  plans  and  the  available  location  of  the  story  poles.    The   color  and  intensity  of  the  light  was  chosen  from  the  right-­‐most  window  of  6  La  Mesa  Ct   as  a  reasonable  approximation  of  the  intensity  and  color  of  light  coming  from  the   windows  of  the  proposed  structure.    This  simulation  does  not  include  the  contribution    A-­‐5    Figure  4  –  Portion  of  nighttime  view  from  1510  La  Mesa  Ln  dwelling.    The  row  of  lights  on  the  left  side  of  the   photo  is  from  2  La  Mesa  Ct.    The  small  light  dots  to  the  right  of  2  La  Mesa  Ct  are  6  La  Mesa  Ct  and  other  structures   along  Arguello,  currently  fully  shielded  by  the  oaks  on  4  La  Mesa  Ct  property      Figure  5  –  Same  nighttime  view  with  approximate  rear  elevation  of  all-­‐window  41  x  48  ft  façade,  appearing   narrow  due  to  the  perspective  view  from  our  property.    The  color  and  light  intensity  was  matched  with  one  of  the   windows  on  the  2  La  Mesa  Ct  to  show  reasonable  color  and  brightness  expected  from  an  unobstructed  view  of  the   windows  at  night.   2  La  Mesa  ct  6  La  Mesa  Ct    A-­‐6   of  the  4  right-­‐elevation  windows  of  the  proposed  structure,  nor  of  the  large  skylights  on   the  roof,  nor  the  effect  of  exposing  all  the  windows  of  6  La  Mesa  Ct  after  the  trees  are   cut  down.    So  the  actual  added  illumination  impact  due  to  the  current  proposed  project   would  be  greater  than  shown.     To  show  more  of  the  nighttime  character  of  this  neighborhood,  Figure  6  illustrates  the   lights  from  other  houses  to  the  left  of  2  La  Mesa  Ct  that  we  also  see  from  our  dwelling.     Panning  around  the  entire  canyon  properties  (to  the  right  of  the  Figure  4  view),  the   view  is  very  similar.    You  only  see  small  clusters  of  light  above  a  pitch  black  void  of  the   canyon  below.    Thus  Figure  6  is  representative  of  the  panoramic  view  of  the  hillside   from  our  dwelling.     The  light  clusters  seen  to  the  left  of  2  La  Mesa  Ct  are  from  La  Mesa  Dr  and  Alturas  Dr,   plus  one  street  lamp.    As  you  can  see,  each  window  square  is  surrounded  by  complete   darkness,  resulting  in  the  dotted  light  pattern.    The  light  pattern  of  the  proposed   structure  will  not  look  anything  like  this  and  most  definitely  does  not  fit  in  with  the   character  of  the  area,  particularly  at  night.    Unlike  what  CEQA  report  stated,  the  light   pollution  contribution  from  this  single  proposed  structure  is  far  more  significant  than   any  single,  standard-­‐window-­‐ratio  structure  in  the  area  contributes  to  the  ambient.    We   do  not  find  this  to  be  a  reasonable  alteration  in  the  character  of  the  neighborhood.      Figure  6  -­‐  This  is  a  typical  night  view  from  our  dwelling.    The  row  of  lights  on  the  right  is  from  2  La  Mesa  Ct.    The   cluster  of  lights  on  upper  right  of  6  La  Mesa  Ct  are  lights  from  houses  along  La  Mesa  Dr  farther  uphill,  and  Alturas   Dr,  plus  one  street  lamp   The  CEQA  report  states  that  the  added  light  contribution  will  be  mitigated  by  vegetation   growth.    The  very  tall,  vertical  design  of  the  dwelling,  with  uniform  lighting  from  top  to   bottom,  would  require  a  very  large  tree  to  even  partially  shield  that  light  from   neighboring  houses.    Unfortunately  there  is  no  space  for  such  a  tree  to  be  planted,  based   on  the  layout  and  position  of  the  main  and  accessory  structures.    And  even  if  such  a  tree   could  be  planted,  the  benefit  is  unlikely  to  be  attained  during  our  lifetime.      A-­‐7   Concerns  about  cutting  down  too  many  trees     We  believe  that  a  disproportionate  number  of  mature  trees  are  being  cut  down  without   much  effort  made  in  the  plans  to  try  to  incorporate  the  existing  protected-­‐size  trees  into   the  landscaping  and  accessory  structures.     One  of  the  major  beauties  and  benefits  of  living  along  Mills  Canyon  and  Mills  Creek  is  the   abundance  of  large  native  trees,  especially  the  coast  live  oaks,  and  how  the  area  looks  like  a   natural  forest  in  a  middle  of  a  city.    We  choose  to  live  in  the  hillside  area  to  escape  the   manicured  lawns  and  pristinely  landscaped  gardens  of  other  nearby  areas,  to  enjoy  the   wildlife  and  the  wild-­‐grown  trees  here.    Recently  there  has  been  demise  of  many  coast  live   oaks  due  to  Sudden  Oak  Death  (including  4  of  our  own  in  the  canyon  back  in  2007;  and  yes,   we  have  since  learned  much  about  SOD  so  we  spray  them  annually  to  protect  them  as  best   we  can).    Thus  we  believe  it  is  critical  to  protect  the  large,  older  trees  because  we  are  losing   them  to  SOD  at  an  alarming  rate.     The  list  below  describes  in  detail  our  concerns  regarding  the  project  proposal  of  cutting  13   mature  trees,  most  of  them  the  prized  coast  live  oaks.     1. Trees  listed  by  Mayne  Tree  Experts  give  incorrect  impression  of  tree   preservation  efforts  by  the  project  design     The  list  supplied  by  Mayne  Tree  Experts  and  copied  in  the  CEQA  report  states  that  24   trees  are  on  the  property;  13  are  to  be  cut,  5  of  which  are  of  protected  size.    However  in   reality,  of  the  24  trees,  only  17  are  in  the  4  La  Mesa  Ct  property,  as  trees  #20,  22,  23,  10,   11,  12,  14  are  in  neighboring  properties  based  on  the  site  and  landscape  plans   submitted.    Hence  the  number  of  trees  planned  for  removal  is  13  out  of  17  (76%),  with   5  of  the  13  being  of  protected  size.     The  City  of  Burlingame  prides  itself  in  preserving  heritage  trees  and  other  large  native   trees  such  as  coast  live  oaks.    As  homeowners  with  large  trees  growing  on  the  property,   we  know  from  personal  experience  that  the  city  arborist  takes  great  care  and  common   sense  to  allow  or  disallow  protected  tree  removals.    Especially  in  light  of  that  fact,  we   find  it  inconsistent  that  the  Planning  Commission  is  considering  allowing  removal  of  so   many  large  trees  all  at  once,  especially  coast  live  oaks,  and  not  asking  the  designer  to   look  for  more  creative  ways  to  save  them.    As  things  stand,  the  plan  favors  cutting  down   30+  year  old  trees  with  trunk  sizes  of  20  inches  and  allowing  them  to  be  replaced  by   saplings  that  will  take  decades  to  even  come  close  to  the  size,  beauty,  and  soil   stabilization  currently  provided  by  the  existing  trees.       Unfortunately  there  is  no  alternative  to  removal  of  trees  that  are  directly  within  the   footprint  of  the  main  dwelling  structure,  and  we  understand  that  (although  regretfully).     However,  should  it  become  routine  for  a  city  which  prides  itself  in  protecting  large  trees   to  allow  cutting  down  multiple  20  in  diameter  coast  live  oaks  so  that  a  property  owner   can  build  a  pool  and  a  spa  in  their  yard,  without  asking  for  alternate  designs?    For   accessory  structures  such  as  the  spa,  terrace,  pool,  and  general  landscaping,  we  believe    A-­‐8   there  are  ways  to  work  around  and  save  more  of  the  existing  trees,  either  by  creative   contouring  or  reduction  in  the  scope  of  such  accessory  structures.    We  also  would  like   to  ask  whether  the  designers  considered  relocating  the  pool  so  that  an  accessory   structure  that  can  work  around  the  existing  tree  be  built  on  its  current  location?    For   instance,  an  elevated  deck  (as  opposed  to  a  terrace  with  backfilled  foundation)  with  a   cut-­‐out  in  the  middle  to  allow  for  the  tree  to  remain  in  its  place  and  keep  the  roots  free,   would  be  one  example  of  an  alternate  design.   http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/home/deck-­‐ideas37.htm     The  existing  trees  may  appear  unkempt,  and  may  need   pruning  and  some  careful  management  to  promote  and   regain  vigor  and  health.    But  we  believe  that  as  citizens   of  Burlingame  it  is  our  duty  and  best  interest  to  care  for   and  preserve  these  trees.    Permission  to  cut  down   protected  trees  should  be  the  last  option,  only   considered  after  exhausting  other  possibilities.     2. Structural  shielding     Our  property  currently  has  a  full  view  of  the  2  La  Mesa  Ct  structure,  and  after  the   construction  is  approved,  we  will  have  full  view  of  the  right  and  rear  elevations  of  the   new  structure  at  4  La  Mesa  Ct.    Currently  the  6  La  Mesa  Ct  structure  is  fully  concealed   from  our  property  by  the  protected-­‐size  oak  trees  on  the  4  La  Mesa  Ct  property.    As  one   enters  our  house  through  the  entry  door,  based  on  the  story  poles,  the  first  thing  that   will  be  seen  through  our  sliding  glass  balcony  door  directly  across  from  the  entry  will   be  the  4  La  Mesa  Ct  structure.    Thus  once  the  structure  is  built,  it  will  become  a   permanent  and  prominent  structure  viewed  from  our  dwelling.    Figure  7  is  the  view   using  a  wide-­‐angle  lens  as  one  enters  our  house,  looking  through  the  balcony  door   directly  opposite  our  front  door.     Our  concern  is  the  removal  of  oak  trees  that  currently  completely  conceal  the  structure   of  6  La  Mesa  Ct.    When  the  new  house  is  built,  our  view  of  the  canyon  will  be   significantly  impacted  with  the  addition  of  a  large  house.      However,  when  the  protected   oak  trees  that  currently  fully  shield  6  La  Mesa  Ct  structure  from  our  view  are  removed,   the  impact  to  our  view  will  essentially  be  introducing  two  large  structures  that  are   currently  not  visible.    The  overall  effect  is  instead  of  seeing  one  house  currently  at   similar  elevation  to  our  dwelling,  we  will  have  three  houses  horizontally  lined  up  in  our   view.    If  an  introduction  and  view  impact  of  a  new  single  house  is  significant  enough  to   warrant  public  review,  you  can  imagine  what  it  would  be  like  to  suddenly  have  two   additional  houses  replacing  what  is  currently  a  dense  canopy  of  coast  live  oaks.    It   amounts  to  losing  almost  all  of  the  tree  view  on  the  northwest  hillside  bank  of  the  Mills   Creek,  replaced  with  a  single,  contiguous  row  of  structures,  plus  saplings  of  significantly   smaller  stature.    It’s  a  significant  visual  impact  change.    A-­‐9    Figure  7  -­‐  2,  4,  6  La  Mesa  Ct  view  from  1510  La  Mesa  Ln     We  understand  that  the  new  property  will  be  planting  new  trees  to  mitigate  the   removal  of  the  large  oaks.    However,  one  problem  is  that  the  landscaping  plan  has  most   of  the  new  trees  on  the  property  line  adjoining  6  La  Mesa  Ct,  which  will  provide  no   visual  shielding  from  our  residence.    Also,  it  will  take  decades  before  the  trees  planted   would  reach  enough  height  and  mass  to  shield  properties  –  this  will  most  likely  not   happen  within  our  lifetime.     We  would  rather  have  more  effort  placed  in  rearranging  the  accessory  structures  (pool,   terrace,  spa)  to  accommodate  preserving  the  mature  and  city  ordinance-­‐protected  trees   currently  shielding  our  view  of  6  La  Mesa  Ct,  instead  of  the  planned  “cut  and  replace   with  sapling”  operation  that  will  sterilize  the  landscape.    Only  after  all  reasonable   options  of  preserving  the  trees  have  been  exhausted,  the  removal  of  large  oaks  -­‐   especially  if  they  are  of  protected  size  and  providing  significant  structural  shielding  -­‐   should  be  considered.         Saving  the  large  trees  that  are  interspersed  among  hillside  properties  is  what  prevents   Burlingame  Hills  from  looking  more  like  the  “rows  of  houses”  seen  in  Daly  City  and  San   Bruno  mountains.    Thus  we  would  like  to  see  more  effort  in  saving  the  trees.     3. Fewer  deep-­‐root  trees  means  a  higher  landslide  risk     It  is  a  well-­‐known  and  documented  fact  –  as  well  as  our  own  personal  experience  -­‐  that   oaks  and  bay  trees  aid  greatly  in  soil  stabilization  on  steep  hillsides.    During  heavy  rain   winters,  the  threat  of  a  landslide  on  a  bare  hillside  is  a  serious  and  real  concern  to    A-­‐10   hillside  property  owners.    Thus  many  take  extra  care  to  manage  surface  water  runoffs,   and  maintain  dense  vegetation  on  the  steep  hillsides.       We  had  a  landslide  occur  3  years  ago  along  La  Mesa  Lane,  which  was  saved  from   complete  destruction  (in  which  case  rebuilding  the  lane  would  have  been  cost-­‐ prohibitive)  by  the  dense  copse  of  oaks  growing  along  it.    Thanks  to  the  trees,  we  were   able  to  repair  and  stabilize  the  hillside,  but  at  great  expense.    This  is  another  reason   why  every  effort  should  be  made  to  preserve  the  large  trees  that  have  a  deep  taproot   and  feeder  root  network  that  is  the  most  effective  mitigation  against  landslides  and   erosion.       4. Better  replacement  tree  choices  encouraged     Sudden  oak  death  is  a  very  serious  epidemic  in  our  area.    Despite  coast  live  oaks  being   more  of  the  resistant  variety  to  SOD,  we  have  lost  three  14-­‐28+  in  size  oaks  in  the  past.     We  also  see  a  few  oaks  along  the  canyon  that  succumb  to  the  disease  every  year.     Laurels  are  wonderful  soil  stabilizers  that  smell  and  look  nice,  but  unfortunately  are   known  primary  carriers  of  the  SOD  pathogens.    Experts  are  conflicted  regarding  the   necessity  of  eradicating  laurels  naturally  growing  around  oak  trees,  but  they  do  agree   that  it  is  best  not  to  intentionally  plant  laurels  and  other  SOD-­‐harboring  species  near   the  oaks,  especially  at  a  higher  elevation  than  the  nearby  oaks,  and  if  possible  remove   laurels  growing  directly  above  the  oaks.    (The  pathogen  spores  apparently  “rain  down”   from  the  laurels.    Thus  oaks  growing  at  a  higher  elevation  than  laurels  have  significantly   better  chance  of  staying  healthy.)    There  are  enough  laurels  that  sprout  wildly  that  are   already  causing  problems  in  the  Mills  Canyon  area.    In  an  area  with  known  SOD   infestation,  it  is  a  very  bad  idea  to  intentionally  plant  more  laurels,  especially  at  higher   elevations,  and  to  intentionally  surround  existing  oaks  with  them,  which  potentially  will   increase  the  SOD  infection  carriers  among  the  native  oaks.    We  would  like  to  encourage   the  landscaping  design  to  consider  this  issue  and  avoid  introducing  species  that  would   further  worsen  the  SOD  epidemic.       (source:    http://www.suddenoakdeath.org)     5. Irrigation  considerations     We  have  not  had  the  time  to  study  the  landscape  plan  in  great  detail.    But  as  concerned   oak  lovers,  we  would  like  to  bring  up  that  oaks  do  not  like  irrigation,  especially  in  the   summer.    We  assume  the  landscape  designer  has  taken  this  into  consideration  when   creating  the  plan.    But  wanted  to  reiterate  not  to  plant  vegetation  that  requires   irrigation  in  the  summer  near  the  preserved  oaks.    It  would  be  a  shame  to  save  the  large   oaks  just  to  kill  them  due  to  root  rot  later  due  to  excessive  irrigation.