HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2014.04.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING
COMMISSION
A G E N D A
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday, April 28, 2014
07:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I.CALL TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
III.MINUTES April 14, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meetings
IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V.FROM THE FLOOR
VI.STUDY ITEMS
1.808 Fairfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Special Permit for length and
Conditional Use Permit for storage for a new detached accessory structure
(Torin Knorr, architect and applicant; Robert Bosschart, property owner) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
Staff Report
2.1300 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area - Application for
Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a new commercial
recreation facility (Pilates and Barre studio) in an existing commercial building
(Brian Swartz, applicant; Seth Brookshire, designer; Ervin Epstein, Jr. Et Al,
property owner) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
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.
VIII.REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3.1709 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-
story single family dwelling (retain existing detached garage) (James Chu,
Chu Design Associates Inc., applicant and designer; Liquan and Ge Lin Sun,
property owners) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
4.1514 Forest View Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and a
Special Permit for an attached garage for a first floor addition to an existing
single family dwelling (James Chu, designer and applicant; Athena Wong,
property owner) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Staff Report
5.1529 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration,
Design Review and Special Permit for basement ceiling height 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
Staff Report
6.2747 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside
Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for an attached garage and
basement ceiling height for a new single-story house (Richard Terrones,
architect and applicant; Burlingview LLC, property owner) (34 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
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
IX.DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
8.1139 Eastmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and a Side
Setback Variance for first and second story additions to an existing single
family dwelling (Una Kinsella, architect and applicant; Marc and Sue Worrall,
property owners) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Staff Report
9.1534 Los Altos Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside
Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling (Ryan Morris, Viotti Architects, applicant and architect;
Cheryl Tan, property owner) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
10.2020 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and a Side
Setback Variance for first and second story additions to an existing single
family dwelling (J.D. Associates, designer and applicant; Anthony and
Theresa Caprini, property owners) (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Staff Report
11.1521 Willow Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and
second story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Mark Robertson,
designer and applicant; Robert and Jessica Lawson, property owners) (108
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Staff Report
12.325 Chapin Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Scoping, Design
Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage (Nick
Rogers, applicant and property owner; Christ Spaulding, architect) (43
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
Staff Report
13.1545 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside
Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for Height and for an attached
garage for a new single family dwelling (George Novitskiy, applicant and
designer; Chris Sadlak and Mee Kwong, property owners) (43 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
Staff Report
14.1600 Trousdale Drive, zoned TW - Application for Environmental Scoping,
Design Review, Conditional Use Permits and Amendment to the TW Zoning
Regulations for construction of a new 124-Unit group residential facility (Joel
I. Roos, Pacific Union Development Co., applicant; Gabriel Fonseca,
SmithGroupJJR, architect; Peninsula Healthcare District, property owner) (63
noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
X.COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS - There are no Commissioner ’s Reports.
XI.DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular
meeting April 21, 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
April 28, 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 May 8, 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.04/28/14/posted04/23/14
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
Monday, April 14, 2014 – 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Davis called the April 14, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, Davis, DeMartini, Terrones
Absent: Commissioners Sargent and Yie
Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; City
Attorney Kathleen Kane; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Davis moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the March 24,
2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
Page 1; third bullet from bottom of page: change “development” to “develop”.
Page 4; second bullet from top of page: change “distance” to “distant” and delete the second “delete”
in the same line.
Page 8; second “Commission comments” section; first bullet: change “application” to “applicant”.
Page 8; second “Commission comments” section; third bullet; second line: insert “the” between “of”
and “time”, and insert “they” after “time”.
Page 14; “Commissioner comments/questions”; second bullet; second sentence: replace “it” with
“is”; insert a “.” After “tight”; replace “could we” with “If we”; and insert “the” between “push” and
“whole”.
Page 16; comments from property owners; seventh bullet: insert “be” between “elevations” and “at”
in the final line.
Page 17; comments from Ray and Barbara Forrest; third bullet: replace “other trees” with “the side”.
Motion passed 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Jennifer Pfaff spoke from the floor:
Is sympathetic to the neighbors’ concerns regarding the project at 21 Park Road; particularly with
respect to setbacks. It is not fair to structures that are already there.
The neighborhood is definitely a residential area as well as a commercial area.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
2
Encouraged the Commission to respect the wishes of the neighbors with regards to the side setback
issue.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. REVIEW OF COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN – GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE FIRM AND PARKS &
RECREATION STAFF WILL PRESENT A SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT. STAFF CONTACT: MARGARET GLOMSTAD
Parks and Recreation Director Margaret Glomstad introduced the team charged with presenting the master
plan to the Commission. An overview of the Community Center Master Plan was provided.
Planning Commission comments/questions:
Commissioner Terrones:
How does the new proposed facility compare to the existing? (Response - 25,000 square feet
versus 35,000 square feet. The two story option reduces the building footprint).
Likes the building in Option A because of the frontage on the street. Preserves land within the park
by placing it closer to the street. (Response - the parking strategy includes providing a lush tree
canopy over the parking.)
Prefers parking Option C with the partial subterranean parking under the building.
Encouraged placing parking underground where possible, and where the other related uses may
benefit from being raised (e.g. tennis and basketball courts).
Having the basketball courts on the same level as the tennis courts could create conflict.
Should take the future of the baseball fields into account with respect to the location of the
promenade.
A promenade along the baseball field to create greater vitality.
Evaluating the playground locations is challenging. Could lose the visibility of the playground by
placing it further back on the property, though that location could enhance security.
Commissioner DeMartini:
Was hoping to see an option that considered a retrofit of the existing building.
Feels parking Option C with the subterranean parking doesn’t work well with the use, more like
shopping center parking. Would prefer parking underground, but is costly.
Has seen subterranean garages where parkland is placed atop the parking.
Have seen a couple of developments in the area with parking lifts; has this been considered as an
option?
With respect to the tennis courts, do we see the use of four courts in the future, considering that this
plan will not be developed immediately? Are there other uses that the tennis courts could be put to?
Landscaping is important with parking that is partially below grade.
When large parking lots are developed next to other uses, what is placed in the transition area?
Commissioner Davis:
Having a landmark building would be beneficial to the City.
The building should be primary, with the parking secondary.
Will still see cars, so deemphasize the parking and emphasize the parking as much as possible.
Is open to the C option for parking strategy (raised courts).
Feels like the tennis and basketball courts need to be separated.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
3
Either promenade option could work; would be nice to have a space that creates as an experience
as you move through it.
Likes the playground option further back into the site to provide more security for younger children.
Perhaps the play areas could be divided into spaces for older and younger children.
Is an ice-rink possible for inclusion?
Commissioner Bandrapalli:
Agrees with all of the other commissioners’ comments.
Wants the community to be a place where children and their families can access everything that
they need.
Perhaps a teen center.
Think about the future; what should the building look like?
Don’t be constrained by the budget now, think to the future.
Prefers the underground parking, with some surface parking.
Separate the tennis and basketball courts.
Having the park further into the parking would be safer for young children and would serve to
emphasize the building.
Noted that the fitness center is on the second floor; how would active classes impact uses on the
ground floor; consider reversing the arrangement.
Public comments:
Jennifer Pfaff:
Wants the building to be subtlely placed in its environment.
The building should be more on the street.
Is there a compromise to placing the play yard back into the property versus on the street; balance
this.
Has consideration been given to placing the play area where the courts are located?
Put the play area closer to where the Lion’s Club is located.
Unknown speaker:
Suggested trying to make the building an environmentally sensitive building that can showcase
sustainability strategies.
Look into the possibility of water recycling and rainwater use. How can these sources be used for
heating and cooling.
Would prefer parking to be placed underground with EV charging stations.
Donna Colson:
The cost of renovation of the existing building due to the types of renovations necessary would add
significantly to the cost.
Want to consider adequate loads and provide sufficient, accommodating spaces for staff members
working on the site. These modifications would be cost-prohibitive.
If a recreation center is to be provided, make it one that can serve the city for another 50 years.
Knows how difficult it is to raise funds for such a project. She and other committee members are
willing to do the heavy lifting to assist in raising funds.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
4
Glenn Mendelsohn:
Agrees that the basketball and tennis courts should not be near one another.
Feels that raising the tennis courts and placing parking beneath makes a lot of sense and should be
considered sooner rather than later. At San Mateo’s Central Park, there was not enough support
under the tennis courts, so when the courts are resurfaced, adds to the weight and causes the
courts to sag.
Would help to have a significant number of spaces under the courts.
If the active uses can be placed on the upper level in a manner that shields them from the uses
below, then it may be possible.
Liked the meandering promenade.
Can see arguments in either direction for the playground locations; but leans toward setting the
playground somewhat into the park.
The basketball courts still need to be away from the street.
Carol Nowlin:
Would love to see improvements to the facility.
Was in the building during the earthquake, would cost $3 million to repair.
Not just providing parking for the tennis courts, but also serves the Lion’s Club.
Have the auditorium space facing the park.
Casey:
The space within the recreation center is very important to effective teaching as well.
Storage is also a major consideration in the design. Need to have storage on site.
The playground should be set back into the site.
Eric Storey:
Need to provide a drop off zone and extra wide sidewalks.
There needs to be a place within the park for dogs. A skate park is desirable.
No action is required on this item. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m.
2. REVIEW OF PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE – STAFF CONTACT: BILL MEEKER
Community Development Director Meeker provided a brief overview of proposed Title 21 – Historic
Resource Preservation; a proposed amendment to the City’s Municipal Code that would implement a local
historic preservation program consistent with the policy direction contained within the Burlingame Downtown
Specific Plan. Any comment received will be incorporated into a public hearing draft that will be presented
at a future meeting.
Commission comments/questions:
Read the ordinance and feels it provides great incentives to property owners. How is information
provided to subsequent to property owners? (Meeker – it is the existing property owner and realtor’s
responsibility to disclose the historic status of the property and the presence of a Mills Act Contract.)
What does a property owner do if they buy a property that has been designated and doesn’t wish to
have the property designated any longer? (Meeker – a procedure is outlined in the proposed
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
5
ordinance that would allow a property owner to request de-designation. In the event that a Mills Act
Contract is present on the property, then the contract would be cancelled and would run the
remainder of the ten year term, with property taxes escalating back up to market level.)
Why i s it necessary to provide a means of de-designating a property? (Meeker – with a voluntary
program, there will always be a mechanism for de-designation.)
Is it only the owner of a property that receives the tax break? (Meeker – correct. The tax savings is
intended to be funneled back into the ongoing maintenance and restoration of the property.)
What properties are involved? (Meeker – only those properties that lie within the area covered by
the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The direction of the City Council in March 2013 was to
only create a program for the Specific Plan area at this time. The City Council could choose to
expand the program at any point in the future.)
Noted that the federal tax credit is available to properties built pre-1936, not only designated
properties.
Provide more strengthening language for maintenance. Would prefer to have more specifics
regarding maintenance of the properties. (Meeker – noted that for a Mills Act Contract, a plan needs
to be prepared for the ongoing maintenance and restoration of the property.)
Would be nice to know ahead of time if an incentive is being requested for a property that appears
before the Planning Commission. (Meeker – the impact of any incentive upon the resource is
necessarily evaluated as part of the CEQA analysis for any project that appears before the
Commission).
Felt that the parking waiver for single-family residences should be limited to only expansion of 50%
of the existing floor area as an aggregate over time.
Can any property within the Downtown Specific Plan area be considered? (Meeker – yes. Any
property owner that engages the services of an architectural historian that determines a non-
inventoried property may have historic significance may also apply for designation.)
Encouraged including language for an incentive that provides relief from seeking approval of a
variance. (Meeker – will look into adding additional language to address this matter that maintain
the character of the property.)
Expressed concern that a property owner may replicate a non-historic condition that is not part of the
historic fabric of the property. For example, if someone were to reinstall vinyl windows that are not
consistent with the character, how would this be caught? (Meeker – a maintenance and restoration
plan is required for a Mills Act Contract. That document could specify that any replacement of
elements of the property must be historically correct.)
Public comments:
Jennifer Pfaff:
Thought that the proposed ordinance would only be available to those properties as potentially
significant in the 2008 Inventory. Noted that staff indicated that the opportunity would exist for any
property within the Downtown Specific Plan area.
Noted that the City of Dana Point has 93 properties on their inventory. Only nine commercial
properties appear on the inventory. Only one property has been designated since long-term
property owners already have reduced property taxes.
Consider increasing the percentage of fee reduction to something greater than 25%.
Include the two historic tree groves along El Camino Real and the CalTrain tracks in the reference to
designated properties in the draft ordinance.
No action was required on this item. This item concluded at 8:34 p.m.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
6
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.
3a. 144 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 OW NERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
3b. 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) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
3c. 1419 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW
AND ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; KIERAN WOODS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner DeMartini requested that Item 3c (1419 Carlos Avenue) be pulled from the Consent Calendar
for discussion.
Commissioner Davis moved approval of Items 3a and 3b of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the
staff reports, Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions
in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Vice-Chair
Davis called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:36 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3c. 1419 CARLOS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND
ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KIERAN
WOODS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Community Development Director Meeker suggested dispensing with the staff report as only one
Commissioner and no members of the public requested that the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Commission comments/questions:
Asked why the brick was removed from the front?
Noted that the window on the front right appears to be placed higher than necessary in the wall.
It was noted that the brick elements on the front helped to define a sense of “entry” for the home.
Also noted that the previously approved plans did not include the blank dormer on the left elevation.
Jack McCarthy represented the applicant.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
7
Noted that the owner didn’t like the way the brick affected the massing of the building.
Will revise the window location on the right front.
Indicated that the design will revert back to the original design with the stone finishes.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Davis moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant as noted in the discussion.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. Motion carried 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners
Sargent and Yie absent). The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m.
4. 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) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER (CONTINUED
FROM MARCH 24, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference
staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Nadine Stocklin and Jonah Van Zandt represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
Clarified that raised planter with succulents will be provided on the brick area with no irrigation?
(Stocklin - provided to neighbor. Her father spoke to the neighbor and he still doesn’t like the plan
including the brick. If the brick can be retained they will not be concerned about erosion in that area.
Van Zandt: doesn’t believe that the succulents are a concern of the neighbor, but he is not present.
Will the old driveway be removed? (Stocklin: yes.)
Noted that the large Juniper on the plan was gated off, not necessary. (Stocklin: could the interior
gate be removed?) Commissioner: yes.
With respect to the landscape plan section, dimensions aren’t provided. Planter will be 18-inches
wide, and are leaving 10 to 12 inches of brick in front of the planter box? (Stocklin: only six inches
is remaining.) The brick can be used as a place to stand when tending the plants.
Clarified that they are removing the remainder of the brick up to the new driveway. Calling for
additional cactus and rock garden in the area where the brick is removed. Satisfied that vehicles will
not park in the area of the planter.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
8
Indicated that most interior fence and gates can be removed.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones 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 and date
stamped April 1, 2014, sheets 1 through 6. The innermost wooden fence and gate that lie
perpendicular to the property line may be removed;
2. that the accessory structure shall only include a garage, as shown on the plan date stamped April 1,
2014, and shall not be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes;
3. that if the detached garage is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional
Use Permit and Hillside Area Construction Permit as well as any other exceptions to the code
granted here will become void;
4. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s October 30, 2013 memo, the Chief Building Official's
October 22, 2013 memo, the Parks Supervisor’s October 30, 2013 memo, the Fire Marshal’s
October 23, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Coordinator's October 22, 2013 memo shall be met;
5. 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;
6. 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; and
7. 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 motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-0
(Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:56
p.m.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
9
5. 74 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A MAJOR
RENOVATION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (BALMORE HERNANDEZ, AZUL WORKS INC., APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY
OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 24, 2014 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING)
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference
staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Balmore Hernandez represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
Believes the project looks better at the lower height; it now appears more like a two story home.
Was expecting one roof form with the roof connected in a more traditional manner. Looks like two
separate structures connected by the strong vertical element where the entry is placed.
Was also expecting the plate height to be reduced.
Likes the changes that have been made. Was pleased to see a different design.
Feels the differing rooflines are “quirky”.
No huge issue with the plate height.
Feels that the roof line needs to be addressed.
Could extend the gable over to the front-facing gable to make it look complete.
The right hand corner over the garage was previously a hipped roof, now it is a shed roof, why?
(Hernandez – the eaves on the front and side do not line up).
Have changed the windows in the great room; there were previously four smaller windows.
(Hernandez - aesthetically the other window forms did not work. Also revised to respect the
neighbors’ privacy.)
Feels the windows aren’t aligned properly.
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
April 3, 2014, sheets A0.0 through A7.1, LS.1 and L-1;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
10
2. that a revised design extending the roofline from the main living area, across the entry and to the
garage shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI item, 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 May 10 and October 3, 2013 memos, the Parks
Division’s May 10 and October 1, 2013 memos, the Engineering Division’s May 24, 2013 memo, the
Fire Division’s May 13, 2013 memo and the Stormwater Division’s May 13, 2013 memo 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 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 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;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
11
13. 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 DeMartini.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-0
(Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:12
p.m.
6. 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 property. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he met with the property
owner and contractor. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had visited the property and met with the
contractor. Commissioner Bandrapalli noted that she had met with the property owner. Reference staff
report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Kenny Mo and Elaine Ko represented the applicants.
Commission comments/questions:
Changes that have been made are fine.
Appreciates the neighborhood outreach that has been done.
Public comments:
None.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
12
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
March 20, 2014, sheets T-1.1 and A0.1 through A2.2;
2. that prior to the final inspection, the property owner shall plan two trees along the rear of the
property as shown on sheet A0.3, date stamped March 20, 2014;
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 February 27, 2014 and January 30, 2014 memos, the
Parks Division’s February 4, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s February 3, 2014 memo
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 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
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
13
12. 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 Bandrapalli.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-0
(Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:19
p.m.
7. 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
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners DeMartini, Davis and Bandrapalli noted that
they had met with the property owner at 2538 Hayward Drive and observed the story poles. Reference staff
report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six (6) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange and Roy Parker represented the applicant:
Is impossible to completely eliminate the view impact.
Is a difficult lot to build on.
There are only three places where one can add onto the house.
The addition is intended to enhance the master bedroom.
Couldn’t process as a minor modification because a wall extension is not proposed.
When the neighbor’s home was added onto it created privacy issues. Also created the situation
where the view is impacted.
The owner indicated that he was raised in the house. An addition was placed atop of the garage in
the 70s.
Almost every house in the neighborhood has been completely rebuilt.
All the changes in the area; additions and tree growth, have eliminated the view from the property
except for a small view of South San Francisco. Has lost privacy in his yard.
The neighbor’s addition has created the views from that property. To see the Bay view from that
house, you need to stand close to the window to see a small portion of the Bay.
The master bedroom is too small for the family’s needs. Will be a master bathroom and closet in the
addition.
Houses in the neighborhood are quite large.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
14
Commission comments/questions:
Sympathizes with the issue. The view ordinance doesn’t necessarily prevent any alteration to the
views, but tries to prevent total blockage.
Recognizes the fact that other neighbors have added on, and have gained protected views.
If the photos are accurate, then there is a substantial view blockage that must be protected in some
way. (Grange: provided photos from other angles.)
Is also asking for a variance. Can see the logic of the request for the variance. However, the view
ordinance is triggered because of the location of the addition.
Is also adding an uncovered deck. One could make an argument that a master bath could be added
in the vicinity of the deck off of the living room.
Public comments:
Shannon Casey:
Willing to work with the neighbor to reach a solution. Had the view previously before the house was
renovated. From those windows, the distant view was in-tact. The story poles were helpful.
Requested revised story poles when the project is redesigned.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commissioner comments/questions:
The argument for the variance has been successfully made. However, protection of the neighbor’s
view may warrant a more significant variance.
Commissioner Davis moved to continue the matter to permit the applicant to work more closely with the
neighbor to address view impacts.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 4-0-2-0
(Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). The Commission’s action is not appealable. This item
concluded at 9:52 p.m.
Vice-Chair Davis called for a recess at 9:52 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 9:57 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 1709 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN
ASSOCIATES INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LIQUAN AND GE LIN SUN, PROPERTY OWNERS)
(42 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
15
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Reference staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented
the project description.
Questions of staff:
None.
James Chu, represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
Appreciates bringing the scale down. What style was envisioned? (Chu: farmhouse.)
Design guidelines encourage incorporating the second floor into the roof form.
Some of the neighborhood homes do have a saltbox form, or have gambrel roofs. The second story
is not incorporated well enough.
Not certain that the design fits within Ray Park.
Concerned about the metal roof design. Other homes are of a warmer design; no cold metal roofs.
Thinks the low, sloping roof works well with the neighborhood. Immediate neighbors include two-
story homes that are not necessarily ranch-style.
Agrees that the metal roof doesn’t fit with the neighborhood, but feels the general design could work.
There are a lot of houses with a combination of wood siding and stucco.
Perhaps use wood siding on the porch.
Likes the design; agrees with suggestions by other Commissioners.
Perhaps simplify the design to fit better with the neighborhood.
Public comments:
Steve Besozzi:
Mostly smaller ranch homes exist within the neighborhood.
The proposed home is the size of something you would find in Easton Addition.
The home would appear out of character and scale with the neighborhood.
Appreciates the effort that was taken with the design.
Concerned about windows that look into his living room.
Feels the roof does not fit within the neighborhood. Is there a chance for requiring story poles?
(Commissioner: story poles are typically not required in this area. There are other ways to explore
shade and shadow impacts.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
Likes the porch element, but the design isn’t cohesive enough.
Doesn’t feel the change in the roof material is enough.
The applicant is not asking for special consideration of any type.
The height is approximately 25 feet, five inches and is significantly below the height limit.
Consider a different roofing material and perhaps add siding to better integrate with the
neighborhood.
Could see the project moving forward on the action calendar.
Look at window placement to protect privacy of neighbor to the left.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
16
Look at providing better screening between the neighbors, perhaps with landscaping in the side yard
area to soften the fence.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice Chair Davis 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 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent
and Yie absent). The Planning Commission's action not appealable. This item concluded at 10:22 p.m.
9. 1514 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ATHENA WONG, PROPERTY
OWNER) (71 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference
staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly
presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice Chair Davis opened the public comment period.
James Chu represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
Believes the project is fine, but would help to move the garage back perhaps another foot to foot
and one-half.
The mix of hip and gabled roofs does not work.
The columns are too classic in appearance.
The porch roof is too high.
Strive for a more “Craftsman” expression.
Okay with the attached garage. Understands the desire to retain the back yard.
Doesn’t feel the columns fit with the neighborhood.
Noted that the planting strip in front of the house needs some attention, is overgrown.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
17
This motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice-Chair Davis 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 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie
absent). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:32 p.m.
10. 2501 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NIMA AND ELLE
PARIVAR, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GRANT LEE, MARTINKOVIC MILFOR
ARCHTIECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to share. Reference
staff report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project
description.
Questions of staff:
None.
Vice Chair Davis opened the public comment period.
Grant Lee and Nima and Elle Parivar represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
Needs a landing at the revised entry.
What will the planting plan be for the Hillside Drive side of the home? Existing planting is near the
foundation. Is there a landscape plan? (Lee – no intention of moving any large plants and trees.
Will carry the same theme.)
The house has a very high base; encouraged planting materials that will conceal this feature.
Concerned that the stairway can’t be built as shown due to the grade change. Need to look at the
stairway, perhaps keep the corner approach that transitions into the stairs the will face Castillo.
Make entry stairs more gracious.
Explore landscape solutions to soften the appearance of the house due to the elevation changes.
Need more detail on the landscape plan.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Davis made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
18
Discussion of motion:
None.
Vice-Chair Davis 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 4-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent
and Yie absent). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m.
11. 21 PARK ROAD, ZONED BMU – APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING, CONDOMINIUM
PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, 8-
UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (SAMIR SHARMA, APPLICANT; DANA DENARDI, PROPERTY
OWNER; SDG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: KEVIN GARDINER
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated April 14, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project
description.
Questions of staff:
Requested clarification of the lot coverage calculation. (Gardiner – deferred to the applicant.)
Vice Chair Davis opened the public comment period.
Jeff Potts represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
Likes the changes that have been made so far.
Did the applicant meet with the neighbors after the second redesign? (Potts - no, did not meet with
them again.)
Should have used the time since February to meet with the neighbors to determine if the changes
were acceptable to them.
One of the biggest issues was to reduce the height of the wall next to the neighboring condominium
development.
Needed to make more significant changes since the prior meeting.
The neighbors will still be staring at a significant wall area.
The building may need to be pulled back further from the property line.
Would expect that the BMR unit should be representative of the majority of the unit mix.
Feels there is a landscape solution that presently exists. The existing hedge could be incorporated
into the design to maintain the hedge. This would likely maintain the experience that the neighbors
currently have.
The hedge provides substantial screening for the neighbors.
The character of the architecture is not the issue; it is the massing of the building.
There isn’t enough greenery on the neighbors’ side of the property.
Public comments:
Mary Murphy:
Doesn’t live on the side where the project is to be built.
Is a realtor. Feels that values on the south side of her project will be negatively affected.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
19
The changes made to the project are like putting lipstick on a pig.
Eight units are too many for the lot. There is not enough parking provided. The project will destroy
the neighborhood.
Steve Krause:
President of the HOA for 33 Park Road.
The developer didn’t do much to work out the issues. Met once in December and pointed out that
there were still problems.
Told the developer that they didn’t want them building on the property line. Have submitted
objections to the project to the Planning Commission.
This one block of Park Road is the most diverse block in town. There are about 40-50 residents
living on the block along with businesses.
A run-of-the-mill development is not appropriate in Burlingame.
The project is too close to the street.
The architect and developer need to try harder to conceive a better project for the property.
Developer’s profits should not come at the detriment of the quality of life of the neighbors.
Eli Sigal:
Residents have given their time to the developer. The developer should come back to the
Commission easily with a revised design.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Community Development Director Meeker indicated that no motion is required regarding this item. The
applicant should take the Comments from the Commission and public and revise the project accordingly.
Additionally, the hearing was a scoping hearing to identify issues to be evaluated in the environmental
document for the project. The revised project, and the accompanying environmental document, will be
placed on the Commission’s regular action calendar when ready. This item concluded at 11:30 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Commission Communications:
None.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 3, 2014:
The appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project 1433 Floribunda Avenue was
continued until the April 21, 2014 City Council meeting.
The City Council upheld the appeal of FlightCar and granted a conditional use permit to FlightCar for
the use of 960 David Road as a vehicle storage location.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 14, 2014
20
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chair Davis adjourned the meeting at 11:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff DeMartini, 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: April 28, 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
Project Summary: The proposal includes construction a new two and one-half story single family dwelling and
attached garage at 4 La Mesa Court, zoned R-1. 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. 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)).
Planning staff would note that several letters expressing concerns with the proposed project were submitted by
neighboring property owners. These letters are listed under ‘Attachments’ at the end of the staff report and are
attached for review. The property owners and designer have met or have attempted to meet with the neighbors
to address their concerns with the project.
March 24, 2014 Action Meeting: At the March 24, 2014, Planning Commission action meeting, the Commission
provided additional direction to the applicant and voted to continue the item until those items had been
addressed (see attached March 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission requested that the
applicant consider stepping back the upper floor at the rear of the house, relocating or eliminating the pool,
reducing the number of trees proposed to be removed and mixing in a warmer neutral color to the color palette.
The Commission noted that the story poles would need to be adjusted to reflect changes to the project. Story
poles have since been adjusted to reflect the proposed design. A story pole plan was prepared by the designer
(see attached story pole plan, date stamped April 21, 2014). The story pole installation was certified by DMG
Engineering, Inc. (see attached certification dated April 23, 2014). The applicant noted that a portion of the story
poles were not installed due to the locations of existing trees. Direction was given to the story pole installers not
to cut any tree branches.
The Commission also noted that it would be helpful to see a rendering from a viewpoint on La Mesa Lane with
the lights on in the house and trees in place. The applicant has provided day time and night time visual
simulations for the revised project, which includes the increased setback on the upper level at the rear of the
house and change in exterior materials (see attached visual simulations, date stamped April 23, 2014).
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
2
Listed below are changes made to the project since the action meeting. Please also refer to the attached
meeting minutes and applicant’s response letter, dated April 16, 2014, for detailed responses to the
Commission’s comments.
The upper level at the rear of the house was stepped back by 5’-0” in order to provide relief to the three-
story face and preserve long distant views for the adjacent property owner at 2 La Mesa Court (see
revised Proposed 1st Floor Plan and Building Elevations, date stamped April 16, 2014). The house was
not shifted closer to the front property line, therefore the proposed project complies with the front setback
requirement and a request for a Front Setback Variance is not required.
The width of the house was increased by 2’-0”, which reduced the left side setback from 16’-6” to 14’-6”
(measured at the closest point to the house), where 7’-0” is the minimum required (see revised Site Plan,
Sheet A1.0).
Exterior materials have changed to address the recommendation to mix in a warmer neutral color to the
color palette. Previously, exterior materials consisted of smooth stucco, stone veneer cladding,
aluminum windows, stained walnut or mahogany panels, and exposed concrete on the driveway, terrace
and pool walls and base of the building. The current proposal includes dark bronze metal panel siding,
Texas Limestone siding, walnut panels, aluminum windows, aluminum overhangs and exposed concrete
on the driveway, terrace and pool walls and base of the building. Material samples will be available for
review at the meeting. Please also refer to the visual simulation provided by the applicant.
Horizontal roof overhangs were added at chosen locations throughout the house (see revised Building
Elevations, Sheets A3.0 through A3.2).
The swimming pool, which was previously located behind the house in the rear yard, has been tucked
almost entirely under the Middle Floor (see revised Floor Plan, Sheet A2.2).
By relocating the swimming pool, two Coast Live Oak trees (#17 and #18) which were previously shown
to be removed, will now be retained (see revised Site Plan and Landscape Plan, Sheets A1.0 and L1.0,
respectively).
Two large Coast Live Oak trees (#20 and #21) located along the left side property line, which were
previously shown to be removed, will now be retained. In addition, two existing Birch trees at the front,
left corner of the house which were previously shown to be removed, will now be retained (see revised
Site Plan and Landscape Plan, Sheets A1.0 and L1.0, respectively).
Previously proposed increase in plate height (pop-up) in the kitchen has been eliminated; plate height
was reduced from 13’-0” to 10’-0” (see revised Roof Plan, Sheet A2.3 and Building Elevations, Sheets
A3.0 through A3.2). Since the ceiling height was greater than 12’-0”, the square footage in this area
counted twice for Floor Area Ratio (FAR). By reducing the plate height to 10’-0”, the proposed FAR
decreased by 259 SF.
The decrease in plate height in the kitchen reduced the overall building height to the highest point on the
house from 11’-9” to 10’-2” above average top of curb, where 20’-0” is the maximum allowed.
The number of skylights was increased from six to nine (see revised Roof Plan, Sheet A2.3).
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
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
3
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, four 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 combination family room/play room,
bathroom, uncovered decking and a pool tucked in under the middle level of the house.
The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 5,512 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 630 SF of the proposed floor area is crawl space which exceeds 6’-0” in height (230 SF) and the
covered pool area (400 SF), and therefore are counted in FAR. The proposed project is 781 SF below the
maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 13% 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.
Exterior materials have changed from the initial proposal to address the recommendation to mix in a warmer
neutral color to the color palette. Previously, exterior materials consisted of smooth stucco, stone veneer
cladding, aluminum windows, stained walnut or mahogany panels, exposed concrete on the driveway, terrace
and pool walls and base of the building. The current proposal includes dark bronze metal panel siding, Texas
Limestone siding, walnut panels, aluminum windows, aluminum overhangs and exposed concrete on the
driveway, terrace and pool walls and base of the building.
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). In
addition, the property contains three additional uncovered parking spaces across the roadway. 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 25 trees ranging in size from 6 to 25.1 inches in diameter. Existing
trees on the property include Olive (1), Coast Live Oak (17), 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
8 trees on the property, 3 of which are of a protected size. They include one Coast Live Oak tree (20 inches in
diameter), one Bay tree (17-inch diameter) and one Deodar Cedar (20.5-inch diameter).
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. The arborist includes a review of 24 trees, 7 of which are located on adjacent
properties. Planning staff would note that the arborist report did not include every existing tree on the subject
property, for example those that are small in nature.
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.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
4
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 17 trees to remain, the proposed Landscape Plan indicates that 17 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.
4 La Mesa Court
Lot Area: 16,227 SF Plans date stamped: April 16, 2014
Previous
(3/13/14 plans)
Proposed
(4/16/14 plans) Allowed/Required
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(attached garage):
20'-9"
n/a
25’-0” (average)
no change
n/a
no change
20'-9" (block average)
20'-9" (block average)
25’-0”
Side (left):
(right):
16'-6" (7’-0” to terrace)
13’-9”
14'-6" (7’-0” to terrace)
no change
7'-0"
7’-0”
Rear (Upper):
(Middle/Lower):
70’-0” (61’ to balcony)
70’-0” (39' to terrace)
75’-0” (63’ to balcony)
63’-0” (39' to terrace)
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 3993 SF
24.6%
4359 SF
26.8%
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
5512 SF
0.34 FAR
6293 SF 1
0.39 FAR
# of bedrooms: 4 no change ---
Off-Street
Parking:
1 covered
(11' x 20')
4 uncovered
(9' x 20')
no change
1 covered
(10' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
Building Height: 11’-9” from average top
of curb
10’-2” from average top
of curb
20'-0" for lots that slope
downward more than 25%
DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075
HACP: requires HACP ² 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, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
5
January 13, 2014 Environmental Scoping and Design Review Meeting: The Planning Commission initially
reviewed the design and conducted scoping for environmental review at its January 13, 2014 meeting. , In that
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.
Listed below are changes that were made to the project between the design review study meeting and the March
24, 2014 action meeting. (Note: These are listed here as a record of the design development of the project;
however, some of the changes have subsequently been preempted by further changes to the design per the
plans date stamped April 16, 2014) Please also refer to the applicant’s response letters and the revised plans,
dated stamped March 13, 2014.
Previously proposed rooftop observation deck was 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, were designated to 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 were eliminated; the living room,
den/library and office all became open rooms and not considered potential bedrooms.
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.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
6
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
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.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
7
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.
Response to Letters Received Regarding Mitigated Negative Declaration: Letters from Ray and Barbara
Forrest, dated March 23, 2014, Isako Hoshino and Matt Machlis, dated March 19, 2014, and Robert Thomas and
Carolyn Crow, dated March 21, 2014 raise questions regarding the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, particularly related to aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils an noise. Planning staff
has evaluated these points, as follows:
Aesthetics:
The analysis of impacts to aesthetics from the proposed project is found on pages 12-14 of the Initial Study. A
concern was expressed regarding project’s impacts to scenic resources (please see discussion below under
‘Biological Resources’). Concerns were also expressed regarding the project creating a new source of
substantial light and glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
As noted in the Initial Study, the project site is located in the Burlingame hills, an area that is heavily vegetated
with large mature trees. Sources of light in the area primarily come from existing single family dwellings and
street lights.
The proposed house contains a glass front entry door and windows along the left side of the front facade. The
left and right sides of the house would contain 12 and 11 windows, respectively. The rear façade primarily
consists of glazing. A total of 2, 2’ x 2’ skylights and 8, 3’ x 3’ skylights are proposed on the flat roof. The
applicant revised the project to eliminate a previously proposed 6’-6” x 11’-8” skylight. Instead, the applicant is
proposing smaller, flat skylights. In addition, the project has been revised to eliminate a previously proposed
pop-up feature above the kitchen which contained three windows on two of the sides.
The applicant provided day time and night time visual simulations of the proposed project, as viewed from La
Mesa Lane. The visual simulations include the increased setback on the upper level at the rear of the house
and change in exterior materials (see attached visual simulations, date stamped April 23, 2014). Changes in the
exterior materials include using dark bronze metal panel siding, Texas Limestone siding, walnut panels and
aluminum windows. Furthermore, the upper level at the rear of the house was stepped back by 5’-0” in order to
provide relief to the three-story face and preserve long distant views for the adjacent property owner at 2 La
Mesa Court. The revisions to the massing and exterior materials support the proposed structure blending in with
the existing visual character of the area.
The night time visual simulation shows all lights turned on in the house; this condition would not typically occur
every night but is a point of reference. In addition, window coverings would filter or reduce lighting from within
the house. As discussed below under ‘Biological Resources’, the revised project proposed to retain 17 existing
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
8
trees and plant 17, new 24-inch box size trees. The existing mature trees to be retained and growth of the new
trees will provide additional screening to filter and screen night time lighting and any glare during the day time.
Since the site is vacant and does not contain any habitable structures, the project will generate an increase in
light generated on the site compared to existing conditions. However, the project would not create a new source
of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or night time views in the area since the house
would be screened by existing and proposed vegetation and trees, and would be finished in dark neutral
materials such as dark bronze metal panel siding, Texas Limestone siding, walnut panels and aluminum
windows. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Biological Resources:
The analysis of impacts to biological resources from the proposed project is found on pages 18-20 of the initial
study. A concern was expressed regarding the number of trees proposed to be removed with this project, and
that it would have a negative impact on the character of the area. Currently, the property contains a total of 25
trees ranging in size from 6 to 25.1 inches in diameter. Existing trees on the property include Olive (1), Coast
Live Oak (17), Deodar Cedar (1), Bay (3), Birch (2) and one small unidentified landscape tree.
A tree report, prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated November 4, 2013 describes each tree, its
condition and recommendation for maintenance. The report also provides protection measures for the existing
trees to remain. The arborist includes a review of 24 trees, 7 of which are located on adjacent properties.
Planning staff would note that the arborist report did not include every existing tree on the subject property,
particularly those that are small in stature.
Since the action meeting on March 24, 2014, there have been changes made to the project which will result in
retaining six additional trees than previously proposed. A total of 14 trees were previously proposed to be
removed. Based on the revised proposed project plans, the applicant is proposing to significantly reduce the
number of trees being removed from 14 to 8, only 3 of which are of a protected size. They include one Coast
Live Oak tree (20 inches in diameter), one Bay tree (17-inch diameter) and one Deodar Cedar (20.5-inch
diameter). By relocating the swimming pool, two Coast Live Oak trees which were previously shown to be
removed, will now be retained. Two large Coast Live Oak trees, located along the left side property line and two
Birch trees at the front, left corner of the house, which were all previously proposed to be removed, will now be
retained.
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 17 trees to remain, the proposed Landscape Plan indicates that 17 new 24-inch box
size landscape trees will be planted throughout the site as part of this project. The applicant is proposing that
the new trees to be located along the left side property line be 14’-0” in height at the time of planting to provide a
privacy screen. Species include Coast Live Oak, Grecian Laurel, Olive, Big-Leaf Maple, Western Dogwood,
Japanese Maple and Catalina Cherry. Given these specifications, the proposed landscape plan for the project
complies with the reforestation requirements.
The project proposal to retain 17 existing trees and plant 17, new 24-inch box size trees would retain the existing
vegetated character of the neighborhood and therefore impacts on biological resources would be less than
significant. As stated in the Initial Study, Mitigation Measures 4a through 4e will reduce potential conflict with the
tree preservation ordinance, and will ensure compliance with the City’s reforestation requirements.
Geology and Soils:
The analysis of geology and soils impacts from the proposed project is found on pages 23 through 26 of the
Initial Study. A concern was expressed regarding destabilizing the hillside due to the number of existing trees
being removed from the site. Please refer to the discussion above under ‘Biological Resources’; the project has
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
9
been revised so that six trees, which were previously proposed to be removed will now be retained. The
applicant is proposing to significantly reduce the number of trees being removed from 14 to 8, only 3 of which are
of a protected size. Retaining 17 of 25 existing trees on the subject site will reduce impacts to soil erosion to a
less than significant level.
As noted in the Initial Study, implementation of Mitigation Measures 6a through 6e would ensure that impacts on
soil stability would be less than significant.
Noise:
The analysis of noise impacts from the proposed project is found on pages 37 and 38 of the initial study. A
concern was expressed with regard to noise generated from the elevated outdoor spaces at the rear of the
house. The initial study notes that the surrounding area has been occupied by single family dwellings for many
years. Since many of the existing homes in this neighborhood and in the area surrounding Mills Canyon are
located on sloping lots, they often contain decks along the rear of the structures to provide outdoor sitting areas.
Some of the properties in the area, including the adjacent property at 6 La Mesa Court, contain both outdoor
decking as well as a pool. The use of the outdoor spaces proposed with this project would be similar to those
which already exist in the neighborhood.
The location of the swimming pool, which was previously located behind the house in the rear yard, has been
revised so that it is tucked almost entirely under the Middle Floor. The edge of the swimming pool is now
approximately 24’-0 back further than previously proposed and therefore would be further away from the
neighboring rear yard. Relocating the swimming pool also preserves two Coast Live Oak trees which were
previously shown to be removed. Although there was no change to the location or size of the terrace, it is
located 7’-0” from the side where 7’-0” is the minimum required side setback and therefore is in compliance with
setback regulations.
With the development of a new single family dwelling, there will be no significant increase to the ambient noise
level in the area. The noise in the area will be general residential noise such as vehicles coming to and from the
house, sounds from the residents when using the backyard and noises from putting out garbage cans. The new
structure will be compliant with current construction standards, including increased insulation, which also
provides for noise attenuation from within the house.
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
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, and Ray and Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, dated
March 23, 2014, during the review period.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
10
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 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
11
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
April 16, 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 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
12
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;
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.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
13
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
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
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
14
(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.
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 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
15
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.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
16
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.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Tim Raduenz, Form + One, applicant and designer
Christopher Awoyinka and Suzanne McGovern, property owners
Attachments:
Applicant’s Letter of Response to Planning Commission Comments, dated April 16, 2014
Letter from Kielty Arborist Services, dated April 16, 2014
Visual Simulations, date stamped April 23, 2014
March 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
January 13, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes and Plat Map
Story Pole Certification submitted by DMG Engineering, Inc., dated April 23, 2014
Story Pole Plan prepared by Form + One, date stamped April 21, 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
Letter of Explanation from Chris and Suzanne Awoyinka, 4 La Mesa Court, dated March 23, 2014
Applicant’s Response Letters, dated March 24, 2014 (two letters); March 21, 2014; March 12, 2014; and
January 30, 2014.
Letter of Support, name not legible, date stamped March 24, 2014
Letter from Ray and Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, dated March 24, 2014
Letter from Ray and Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, dated March 23, 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 21, 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
Letter from Robert Thomas and Carolyn Crow, 1512 Le Mesa Lane, dated March 21, 2014
Application to the Planning Commission
Letter of Explanation 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 April 18, 2014
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (ND-570-P), dated March 3, 2014