HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2014.05.12CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING
COMMISSION
A G E N D A
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday, May 12, 2014
07:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I.CALL TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
III.MINUTES April 14, 2014 and April 28, 2014 Regular Planning Commission
Meetings
IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V.FROM THE FLOOR
VI.STUDY ITEMS
1.2714 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Floor Area Ratio Variance to
create new habitable area in an existing crawl space within an existing single
family dwelling (Bill Cunningham-Corso, applicant and property owner; Diebel
and Company Architects, architect) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
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.
2.1312 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for one year extension of a
previously approved application for Design Review for a new, two-story single
family dwelling and detached garage (Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc.,
applicant and designer; Mark Barraloza, property owner) (57 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
3.Consideration of Historic Preservation Ordinance - Staff Contact: Bill Meeker
Staff Report
VIII.REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
4.808 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) (61
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Staff Report
5.4 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 (continued from the April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting)
Staff Report
Staff Report
Staff Report
6.1139 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
7.2501 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 Milford
Architects, architect) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
8.1512 Ralston Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration and
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached
garage (Dion Heffran, applicant; Global Capital Management Corp., property
owner; Michael Moyer, consulting architect) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
Staff Report
Staff Report
Staff Report
9.1521 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
10.1300 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) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
Staff Report
IX.DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
11.515 Marin Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special
Permit for Declining Height Envelope for first and second story additions to a
single family dwelling (xx, applicant, designer, and property owner) (40
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Staff Report
12.50 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new,
one-story single family dwelling and detached garage (Chu Design
Associates, Inc., designer and applicant; Christopher J. Knightly, property
owner) (21 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
13.1517 Chapin Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review and
Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached
garage (Chu Design Associates, Inc., designer and applicant; Zers Beauty
LLC, property owner) (35 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
Staff Report
14.1321 Paloma Avenue, 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; Patrick Gilson,
property owner) (65 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
May 12, 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 22, 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.05/12/14/posted05/07/14
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 28, 2014 – 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California
1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sargent called the April 28, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gum, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney Kathleen Kane; and Doug Bell Civil Engineer
III. MINUTES
Approval of the Planning Commission minutes of April 14, 2014 was delayed until May 12, 2014.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
None.
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker provided a brief
overview of the application.
Has the right side neighbor been contacted by the applicant.
Is a good project; may wish to simplify the window design.
Clarify whether or not this is conditioned space.
Conditions to prohibit non-permitted uses.
This item will be set for the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Division.
This item concluded at 7:10 p.m.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
2
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin provided a brief overview of the
application.
Feels is a good application. Will bring life to the street.
The design is nicely detailed at the front.
Feels the parking study is believable. Could employees be directed to park in Parking Lot R?
Hope a lot of people will walk to the facility.
Have there been any issues with parking at the Dailey Method on Oak Grove Avenue (a similar
use)? (Hurin – will review.)
Approved a similar studio on Chapin Avenue recently; what is that experience. (Hurin – the use is
not yet open.)
On the Tuesday evening of the parking study, was Off-the-Grid open? What was the impact on
parking?
Only concern is potential impacts on parking on Friday nights. What are the hours on Friday
evenings? Could the use conflict with the restaurant uses if the hours aren’t limited on that evening?
Likes the project, just concerned about the adequacy of the parking.
Not a lot of students take fitness classes on Friday evenings.
This item will be set for the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Division.
This item concluded at 7:17 p.m.
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.
There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion.
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis spoke to residents of 1801 Ray Drive and
1715 Ray Drive. Commissioner DeMartini met with the resident at 1705 Ray Drive. Chair Sargent indicated
that he had reviewed the video from the prior discussion and had a discussion with the project architect.
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
3
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
James Chu represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
What is the existing fence height? (Chu – believes it to be six feet. Can add one foot of lattice at
the top of the fence.
Was there ever thought to planting something other than vines on the fence to provide additional
screening? (Chu – a tree would create foundation problems due to the proximity to the structure.
Believes the reduction in the window size also addresses privacy concerns.
The neighbor’s concern regarding the Laurel tree is likely related to blocking light. Will the Magnolia
tree even fit within the front area? (Chu – that tree is a street tree.)
Could the Laurel tree be moved, or another species selected? (Chu – yes, could choose another
form of tree to reduce neighbor impacts.)
Likes the design transformation.
Clarified the column design. (Chu – four separate square posts, not a fluted column.)
The original chimney cap was oversized before, nowappears undersized. (Chu – is a direct vent
fireplace. Can look at this element.)
Public comments:
Susie O’Halleron, 1713 Ray Drive:
Feels the house is too large for the lot.
The neighbor gets light cut off to his property.
The home doesn’t fit in the neighborhood.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Have significantly reduced the height.
There are other two story houses in the area that do not have massing that works as well as this
project.
Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended
conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
April 16, 2014, sheets A.1 through A.6, G.1, L.1 and L.2; and that the windows shall be aluminum
clad wood with simulated true divided lites;
2. that the applicant shall revisit the scale proposed for the Laurel tree and verify the canopy/scale of
the Magnolia tree, as well as the species of the proposed replacement tree; this information shall be
presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI and approved, in advance of issuance of a
building permit for the project;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
4
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 basement, 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 March 14, 2014 and February 18, 2014 memos, the
Parks Division’s March 17, 2014 and February 19, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s
February 24, 2014 and December 4, 2013 memos, the Fire Division’s February 18, 2014 memo and
the Stormwater Division’s February 26, 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 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;
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;
13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on
the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by
the City Engineer;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
5
14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
This is a vast improvement that fits well into the neighborhood.
There will be more second story additions in Ray Park in the future.
There are a lot of two-story homes in the area that are much more massive than what is proposed.
Is a well done project for this size lot.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m.
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Chair Sargent noted
that he had reviewed the recording of the proceedings from the last discussion of the item. Reference staff
report dated April 28, 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:
Feels the plants in the front exceed what would normally be allowed within the front setback.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
James Chu represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Noted that the front porch light is oversized and may be a drafting error.
Would be helpful to have the adjacent structures shown on the site plan or survey.
Need to clean up the property and reduce the height of the bush in front.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
6
Was hoping to see the planting strip cleaned up; encouraged looking at this feature and cleaning it
up as well.
With respect to the front columns, thought that there would be more of a revised design. (Chu –
needed something to support the porch roof, thought that enclosed walls would look out of scale
with the house.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Likes the changes that have been made. More in scale with the neighborhood.
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 date stamped
April 14, 2014, sheets A.1 through A.6, GP, and Boundary Survey, and that any changes to the
footprint or envelope of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the applicant shall revisit the landscape plan and look at options for a fence or other form of
landscaping within the front yard; this information shall be presented to the Planning Division and
approved in advance of issuance of a building permit for the project;
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 floor, or garage, which would include adding or
enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
5. that the conditions of the Engineering Division’s February 24, 2014 memo, the Building Division’s
January 31 and March 28, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s April 4, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s
February 5, 2014 memo, and the Stormwater Coordinator's February 3, 2014 memo shall be met;
6. that if the structure is demolished at a later date the special permit, as well as any other exceptions
to the code granted here, will become void;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. 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
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
7
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;
10. 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;
11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
12. that 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;
13. 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;
14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and
15. 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.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:42 p.m.
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini met with the owners and spoke about
the tree in the rear yard. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner
Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested
for consideration.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
8
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
Randy Grange represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Likes the changes that have been made.
The stone looks striking.
Have the neighbors seen the revised plans? (Grange – neighbors were notified and didn’t respond.)
Is concerned about removing the large Magnolia tree. Met with the applicant; the concern about the
tree is the impact of the roots. Suggested having an arborist review the tree and determine if the
roots can be cut back and the tree will still survive. (Grange – the tree is in the middle of the patio.
The Beautification Commission has already issued the permit for removal.)
There is a small building in the rear corner of the site; what is it? Will it be removed? (Grange – is a
storage shed and will be removed.)
Wanted the gate moved back since parking is so bad on the street. (Grange – meant to make the
change, but forgot to do it.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Nice project, but feels that the second floor element should be integrated better.
Commissioner Yie moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions:
Move the gate to permit two cars.
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
April 9, 2014, sheets A1.1 through A4.1, L1.0 and L2.0, PW.1, and Boundary and Topographic
Survey;
2. that the gate at the driveway shall be moved into the property so that two vehicles may be parked on
the driveway in front of the gate when it is closed;
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 basement, 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 March 10, 2014 and January 15, 2014 memos, the
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
9
Parks Division’s March 5, 2014 and January 21, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s February
4, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s January 21, 2014 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s March 7
and January 16, 2014 memos shall be met;
6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
7. that prior to a issuance of building permit for demolition on the site, the applicant shall obtain
approval of a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Department for the protected-size
Magnolia Tree on site; the construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet showing the
approved Tree Removal Permit;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. 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;
11. 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;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION
13. that prior to scheduling the 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;
14. 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;
15. 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
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
10
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;
16. 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
17. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0.
Commissioner Sargent moved to adopt the Negative Declaration.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to adopt the Negative Declaration. The motion passed
7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m.
Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussions
regarding Agenda Items 6 (2747 Burlingview Drive) and 7 (4 La Mesa Court) due to a business relationship
and a quasi-business relationship, respectively. He left the City Council Chambers.
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Yie noted that she had a conversation with the
son of the uphill neighbor. Commissioners Sargent and DeMartini met with the neighbors at 2753
Burlingview Drive. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community Development
Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public hearing.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
11
Jacob Furlong represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Did the applicant take the opportunity to visit the uphill neighbor, particularly the lower level
bedroom? (Furlong – recognizes that there are some impacts from that area. Have kept the home
to one story and have lowered the roofline while still maintaining the design.)
Have any sight-line studies been reviewed? Is it known where there would be no view impacts?
(Furlong – doesn’t have an exact number regarding how much lower the roofline would need to be.)
Believes the lowered roofline looks more subtle.
Public comments:
Beth Napier, 2753 Burlingview Drive:
Noted that their view is gone from the master bedroom window.
Asked for the roof to be sloped from the other direction, would preserve more light.
Provide photos that show the impact upon the view from the master bedroom.
Have discussed the impacts upon the tree. The applicant should be responsible for removal if it is
damaged and needs to be removed. The developer needs to take financial responsibility for any
damages from the tree.
Are selling their home. Will close on May 27, 2014. Requested that the Commission defer action
until the new owner is involved.
Feels that the rear extension of the home is not needed. Make it a four bedroom home.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Is the applicant amenable to the conditions expressed by the neighbor? (Furlong – doubts it.)
Likes the changes that have been made. The changes help to preserve the neighbor’s upper floor
view.
Believes that the issue of the view from the bedroom needs to be addressed. Not certain that the
code permits such a significant impact to the bedroom. Perhaps the overhang could be reduced.
Asked for clarification regarding the degree of view impacts that may be allowed in the hillside area.
(Meeker – indicated that view impacts must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Distant views,
particularly of the Bay, are to be preserved from living spaces. The code does not imply that there
can be no impacts upon views.)
Tends to look at views from common areas, not so much from bedrooms.
The applicant has done quite a bit to address the view issues.
Doesn’t feel that the view from the bedroom would be preserved by reducing the eaves. Thinks it
would require a significant redesign.
Public hearing was reopened to permit questions of the applicant.
Further Commission comments:
Have studies of different alternatives been explored? (Furlong – have conducted some studies.
The client wanted a “butterfly roof” house.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
12
Has a measurement been made to determine how much of a change would be required to preserve
the bedroom view? (Furlong – don’t have a survey of the height of the bedroom on the lower level.
May be able to reduce the overhangs somewhat.)
Would have appreciated the applicant having explored how much of a design revision would be
necessary and whether that would ruin the design of the home.
Would be good to have the analysis made of what would be needed to further reduce view impacts.
Public hearing closed.
More Commission comments:
Wonders what the new buyers have seen.
Would like to see further analysis of the view impact and what would be needed to preserve the
lower level bedroom view.
Feels like the applicant has conducted considerable analysis into view impacts.
The design is below the maximums allowed for the lot.
In most respects, the view is good or improved.
May be just deferring without any potential for significant changes that preserve the view.
Feels the study should be done, but need to be prepared to make a decision at that point.
Should the Commission place as much emphasis upon views from non-common areas versus
common areas?
Doesn’t feel it is appropriate that each room should be treated equally.
Don’t usually get held up on views from a bedroom area.
The bedroom is on a lower level that is below grade.
The garage fits in with the neighborhood and the home design.
The transom windows are not a primary viewing area.
Commissioner Sargent 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 7, 2014, sheets A0.0, A2.2, A3.1, A4.1a, A4.1b, A4.2a, A4.2b, L1.1, L1.2 and Boundary
Survey and Topographic Map and date stamped March 20, 2014, sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.3 and
A5.1through A6, L-1 and L-2;
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 first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s January 28, 2014 and February 6, 2014, and November
19, 2013 memos, the Parks Division’s November 25, 2013, and March 26, 2014 memos, the
Engineering Division’s December 4, 2013 memo, the Fire Division’s December 10, 2012 memo, and
the Stormwater Division’s November 25, 2013 memo 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
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
13
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition or 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, and the Arborist Report date
stamped March 21, 2014; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the
construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of
approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
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;
13. 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;
14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
14
16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-2-0-1 (Commissioners
DeMartini and Bandrapalli dissenting, Commissioner Terrones recused). Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 8:24 p.m.
Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 7 (4
La Mesa Court) for non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers.
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis indicated that he had had a brief email
exchange with the residents of 6 La Mesa Court. Commissioner Yie noted that she met with the neighbors
on both sides of the project site. Commissioner DeMartini stated that he met with the applicant and
architect, as well as with the neighbors at 6 La Mesa Court. Reference staff report dated April 24, 2014,
with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-
eight (38) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
Is staff comfortable with the findings of the light analysis? (Hurin – yes.)
What level of detail is provided in the light analysis? (Hurin – the applicant will respond.)
Acting Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz represented the applicant.
The visual simulation was completed with Photo Shop; it was not a scientific analysis.
Some of the trees were removed from the simulation.
Summarized the changes to the project.
Attempted to preserve views from 2 La Mesa Court.
Tried to address all concerns expressed by the neighbors.
The massing for the home is currently similar to the home at 6 La Mesa Court.
Commission comments:
Likes the redesign. Likes the materials.
Is the glare perceived as an issue? (Raduenz – could place a film or bronze the glass. But doesn’t
believe it will be an issue.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
15
Was the width of the building expanded? (Raduenz – lost five feet off the back, so widened the
home to pick up the lost space. Are well within the setbacks on the sides. Thought that was the
best way to handle the changes.)
Believes there are anti-reflective coatings that could be used.
The renderings show very large pieces of glass that would be difficult to obtain. (Raduenz – have
reduced the windows somewhat by expanding the width of the stone units.)
Have windows been added? (Raduenz – have added a window at a bedroom on the lower right.)
Likes the way the pool was handled. (Raduenz – included it in the square footage of the home. It
lowers the buildable footprint.)
Can the home shifted back towards 2 La Mesa Court? (Raduenz – may be able to shift it over one
foot more, but is concerned about impacting other trees on the lot.)
Is almost double the required setback from the side property line. How far is the home from 6 La
Mesa Court? (Raduenz – around 20 feet away.)
Is Oak tree 20 near 6 La Mesa Court being removed? (Raduenz – yes.)
What type of tree is proposed to be replanted? How quickly will they provide screening? (Raduenz –
will be Laurels that do not carry diseases that affect the Oak trees. Not certain what the maximum
height will be and how quickly they will provide screening.)
Is the applicant confident that the metal panels will not “oil can”? (Raduenz – will be installed with
mitigation to prevent this effect.) Wants to be certain that the metal finish does not appear cheap.
Was surprised that the home was pushed out two feet. Without this the project may have still been
approvable. As designed, all of the light is blocked into the kitchen.
With respect to Oak tree 20, is shown in the wrong place. Missed an opportunity to provide better
screening. (Raduenz – feels that the applicant has given a lot and now needs to take a bit. Willing
to work around the tree if it causes a delay to the project. Have completely preserved the views
from 2 La Mesa Court.)
Is the applicant willing to reduce the width of the house by two feet near 6 La Mesa? (Raduenz –
that would be the maximum that they would be able to change.)
Public comments:
Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane:
Still concerned about the night views. The applicant’s illustrations still show trees that will be
removed during the construction.
Feels the wall-to-wall expanses of glass will cause significant light impacts.
Doesn’t see where the glazing has been reduced.
Feel there have been no concessions made.
Robert Crow, 1512 La Mesa Lane:
Shares many of the same concerns as the prior speaker.
The height and mass of the proposed home will project further into Mills Canyon than any other
house and will have a negative impact upon views.
His view was one of the primary things that made the house attractive when they bought it.
Windows will create a great amount of reflection.
The changes that have been made are insufficient.
The design review criteria call for an avoidance of large glass surfaces.
House not consistent with the neighborhood design guidelines.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
16
Mark Intieri, 2 La Mesa Court:
Is satisfied with the story poles where they exist now.
The view impacts have not been completely mitigated.
The living room view is clear.
The dining room view has 50% occlusion of the views. Are willing to accept that as a compromise.
Concerned that a change in the width of the home could further impact two significant Oak trees,
and further impact the dining room view and also impact the living room view.
Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court:
Further changes in the project plans have further impacted their property.
Moving the house closer to their property has completely blocked natural sunlight in primary living
areas of their home.
The window placement has been changed, so now there are significantly more situations where
there are views into their house.
There are only four windows to avoid on their house.
Window areas have been increased in area and further exacerbate impacts upon their property.
Oaks 20 and 21 are being lost on their side of the property. Other replanted trees will not reach the
growth of the existing trees.
The project is too large for its environment. There is no room for mitigation of impacts.
Does not support the latest changes.
Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court:
The primary issue with the project is the elevated rear yard. The yard is 10-feet above their pool
elevation and only seven feet from the property line. The shift in the location of the home created
more of an impact.
Concerned with the removal of the trees.
The project does not meet the design guidelines.
Chris Awoyinka (applicant), 4 La Mesa Court:
One of the key design features of the house is to provide direct access to the terrace area.
They have made numerous concessions to the neighbors.
Have erected story poles twice.
Have provided expert opinions regarding the condition of the Oak trees, though the experts say that
the trees are dying. Nine of the ten Oak trees are being saved.
Have moved the home five feet closer to the curb.
Moved the property to the west to save more Oak trees.
Are within the setback requirements.
Nothing seems to be enough.
Additional Commission comments:
There is a very large window in the den on the upper level. (Raduenz – the window is frosted up to
six feet.)
Was helpful that the Forrest’s windows are shown on the plans. (Raduenz – the two homes are not
parallel to one another.)
Mentioned that the home may be rotated a bit? What direction? (Raduenz – clockwise a bit but
must be conscious of the trees. Willing to move one foot out of the entry.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
17
Is there a response to the neighbors across the canyon regarding glare? (Raduenz – will choose
non-glare glass and will send samples to the neighbors.)
Is the lighting impact illustration accurate? (Raduenz – there are trees in the area that are taller than
the story poles.)
Noted that with modern architecture, the can lighting in the ceilings will only illuminate the floors and
will not illuminate the walls. There will also be furnishings in the house and window dressings.
Not all of the lights will be on at all times.
Need to be more analytical about the lighting impacts.
What is the lighting scheme for the house? (Raduenz – can lights with white walls.)
Will there be window treatments? (Raduenz – there will be motion sensors and automatic shades.)
Is a difficult site; is this the correct house for the site?
Has heard no supportive arguments for the house.
Feels that for the neighbors, the best solution would be no house.
How can the homeowners meet their needs?
The lot is buildable; the project meets all of the requirements.
The guidelines are more about what is appropriate for the area. There is no predominant style
within this neighborhood.
Believes the bronze panels help it blend in better with the neighborhood.
There is almost no place for the home to go.
Is hearing that if the home is made a bit narrower it may be approvable.
Seems clear that there will be another meeting where changes will need to be considered.
There doesn’t seem to be clarity regarding the changes that the applicant is willing to make.
Would be beneficial for the architect to view the site from the properties on La Mesa Lane.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner DeMartini moved to continue the matter to the May 12, 2014 regular meeting, with direction
to the applicant as outlined in the discussion.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
Adjust the elevation of the patio – look at lowering it a few feet, find a way to narrow the house,
would like to see a two foot reduction, save the trees on both sides and notch out the terrace to
accommodate Oak tree #20.
Acting Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. Motion passed 5-0-2-0
(Commissioners Terrones and Sargent recused). The Planning Commission’s action is not appealable.
This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.
Commissioners Terrones and Sargent returned to the dais.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
18
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Loftis indicated that he had met with the
property owner at the site. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community
Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Sue Worrall and Una Kinsella represented the applicant.
Will meet with the neighbors that submitted the letter.
Will protect the Oak tree.
Believes that the other tree referenced by the neighbor lies on another neighbor’s property.
Commission comments:
Have the plans been presented to the neighbors? (Kinsella – hasn’t been a formal meeting, but
have discussed with neighbors.)
Wishes the porch could be a bit deeper. (Kinsella – can look at pulling the porch forward further as
far as it can be done.) The existing stoop has nice character to it.
Massing is handled nicely.
Didn’t see a lot of clapboard and stucco materials in the neighborhood. Be certain to look at the
area where the materials meet and resolve them correctly.
From the rear, the second story appears too much like an addition. (Kinsella – will look at this
feature.)
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
None.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
19
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's
action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:43 p.m.
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project
description.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Ray Viotti and Ryan Morris represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Concerned with some of the proportions. Have other options been looked at, particularly on the
larger windows that seem to overpower the second story.
If the overhangs were a bit longer, it may help the building appear more horizontal, rather than a
tower.
The porch needs to be reworked to enhance its prominence.
The second floor looks better from the rear than from the front.
Will the Oak tree in the rear yard remain? (Viotti – yes.)
Consider a wooden garage door.
Public comments:
Wayne Cho, 1538 Los Altos Drive:
Concerned regarding the three windows along the left side. Encouraged reducing their size to
preserve his privacy. (Viotti – have considered view blockage issues and have spoken to the
neighbors.)
Public hearing closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Should install story poles.
Concerned that story poles may not be needed as no neighbors have expressed concerns.
Could be a candidate for a design review consultant.
Is this style appropriate for the neighborhood? Majority of the homes are bungalows or split-level
ranches or a variant of Shingle-Style Craftsman.
The neighborhood appears to be evolving in terms of architectural style.
A design reviewer could assist in refining details and simplifying the design.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
20
Concerned about what is considered to be the neighborhood and how the design fits.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on
a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05
p.m.
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference
staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly
presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
Is there any feedback from the applicant regarding the change necessitated by the lack of ability to
request a variance from side-yard setback requirements? How will it change the design? (Meeker –
in light of the amount that the property exceeds the maximum FAR, the code seems to imply, and
has been interpreted by staff to disallow the expansion of a non-conformity into the setbacks where
the project exceeds standards in other aspects. The applicant is aware of the interpretation, but
staff does not know the reaction.)
Doesn’t the code permit an existing non-conforming setback to be continued under certain
circumstances? (Meeker – yes, but only in instances where the property has not exceeded the
maximum FAR allowed for the lot.)
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Terri Caprini and Hector Estipona represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
The Commission has previously considered and approved project that will exceed the FAR by
converting existing attic space to living space. The attic areas in this project already contribute to
the mass and bulk of the property despite the attic being walled shut, and the applicant now
proposes increasing the mass and bulk by adding an addition. Having a hard time with justifying the
variance.
Did the applicant look into using the space in the attic, rather than constructing the addition?
(Caprini – Thought they couldn’t use the attic space because they would need to add dormers.)
Public comments:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
21
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Have considered other projects where square footage is removed to permit additions in other areas
on properties that exceed FAR.
Agreed with staff’s interpretation that it is inappropriate to consider a variance from setback
requirements in instances where the addition proposed continues to cause the property to exceed
FAR restrictions.
Requested that the applicant consider other options, including using the existing attic space for
additional floor area, and revise the project without the variance request, then present the item to the
Commission following revisions.
Direction was provided to the applicant; no action was taken by the Commission. This item concluded at
10:29 p.m.
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Yie indicated that she had met with the owner of
the property. Reference staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Community Development
Director Meeker briefly presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Are the tall, skinny windows being retained? (Robertson – they’re being reused elsewhere on the
structure. Have taken a Japanese eclectic approach.)
Requested more information regarding the seventeen foot high window on the front. (Robertson –
have emphasized the location of the window with the tall trim pieces. A Japanese Maple tree is to
be planted in front of the area.)
Feels that the spindly trim pieces on the front elevation do not fit well with the design, they weaken
the design, though the window is a nice element. Will the elements be proud of the wall?
(Robertson – yes, with stucco behind.)
How will a six-foot high and six-foot wide window work in a bedroom, particularly relative to privacy?
(Robertson – is a copy of what is there currently. Blinds will cover the window. It is not one that will
typically be used for viewing.)
Feels the tall, spindly trim element on the front elevation is out of proportion.
Believes that there are a lot of charming elements in the design. The loggia windows work nicely
with the space.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
22
The tall trim pieces on the front gable will frame the Japanese Maple tree, but nothing else. There is
no window in that area. Believes it may be an appropriate element in that area. As an alternative,
could perhaps install a “slot” type window down the middle of the gable, it might capture some of the
charm and details of the original house.
Agrees that this element of the design should be revisited and integrated better.
On the south elevation, there is a large, broad gable; perhaps revisit the design in this area to
reduce the amount of stucco and add character to the design that is consistent with the initial home
design.
Noted that on the south elevation, the windows framing the French doors do not have the same
framing as the door, consider making these elements consistent.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's
action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m.
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference
staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project
description.
Questions of staff:
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Nick Rogers represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Beautiful house.
Plans call for a left hand driveway back to the bark play area; it appears to already be there.
(Rogers – will be paved or integrate it with the proposed semi-circular driveway.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
23
The design keeps with the historic architectural character.
Is concerned about the semi-circular drive; appears to be out of character with the neighborhood.
Would be odd to see a car parked within the semi-circular drive in front of the house.
What is the reasoning for the semi-circular driveway? (Rogers – there is a house on Pepper that
has a similar configuration. Can attempt to lessen the impact by the use of cobblestones or pavers.)
Discussion of estate wall.
Have the neighbors been consulted? (Rogers – site is posted with notice of the plans)
Was a detached garage considered? (Rogers – considered, but would take away much of the rear
yard.)
What is the purpose of the roll-up door in the rear of the garage? (Rogers – ease of access for
children’s bicycles and toys.)
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue:
People have a tendency of building front walls up to the sidewalk, rather than at the front property
line. Creates a problem if there is no room for sidewalk repairs and/or additions.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
Can the circular driveway be approved? (Hurin/Kane – if used for circulation and not parking, then it
is approvable.)
Feels the attached garage positively affects the proportions of the project.
Approval would be based on the analysis of the Page and Turnbull historical evaluation.
Commissioner Sargent 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.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission’s
action is not appealable. This item concluded at 11:15 p.m.
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Reference
staff report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project
description.
Questions of staff:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
24
None.
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
George Novitskiy represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Feels the attached garage fits with the neighborhood.
Doesn’t support the request for greater height, particularly with the 9-foot plate height on the second
floor. Would be easier to support with an eight-foot plate height on the second floor.
Does the structure step back as it rises up the hillside? (Novitskiy – yes.)
The façade will be very imposing with the height as proposed.
Is there something that could be done on the left side; it appears that the second floor sits atop the
first floor? Is a massive wall for the neighbor to view. (Novitskiy – there is an architectural feature
that projects out to separate the two floors.)
Concerned with the lack of landscaping on the site, particularly within the rear yard.
Feels the plate heights could be adjusted to help the style appear more horizontal.
Requested clarification regarding whether or not the guard rail continues on the front elevation.
Is the area near the L-shaped stairway open to below?
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Need story poles.
Bring down the plate heights.
Believes the project may benefit by consultation with a design review consultant.
The design is appropriate for the neighborhood.
Believes it could be a very nice project, particularly if it is made to appear to be more horizontal.
Look at massing and window placement.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Sargent called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed
on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission’s action is not appealable. This item concluded at
11:33 p.m.
Commissioner Loftis indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding
Agenda Item 14 (1600 Trousdale Drive) due to a long-term business relationship with the project architect.
He left the City Council Chambers.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
25
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
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated April 28, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project
description.
Questions of staff:
How can this project be built when Sunrise is not yet completed? (Meeker – each project must be
considered on its own merits.)
Why is this project different from the Sunrise project? (Meeker – is the same type of project.)
Chair Sargent opened the public comment period.
Dr. Lawrence Kopell, PHCD and the project architect represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Has the traffic analysis been completed for the project? (Meeker – will include more analysis in the
environmental analysis for the project.)
Is there a LEED goal identified for the project? (Project Architect – not yet. Anticipate meeting
some of the LEED requirements.)
Feels is a great project. Not concerned regarding approving another assisted living facility in the
area.
Is there a likelihood that affordable units will be provided as part of the facility? (Kopell – will have
eight to ten units that are below market. Will be rental units.)
If some of the units are affordable, then how does that relate to the City’s inclusionary policies?
(Meeker – at this point, staff’s determination is that the inclusionary policies do not apply to the
project. Will research this further.)
Has any consideration been given to using rooftops for open space? (Project Architect – have a
memory care garden on the Trousdale side of the project, but the potential also exists for other
portions of the project.)
Is concerned about the design; feels it looks cold and institutional. Doesn’t feel that it looks
residential.
There isn’t a lot of landscaping on the property. There is no sense of arrival at the property.
Feels the west elevation has no life to it.
Is too similar on every floor.
Would like to see balconies opening onto courtyard.
Public comments:
Dennis Zell, Treasurer of the Peninsula Health Care District:
Held public meetings in advance of the presentation this evening.
Are very sensitive to the residents of Burlingame.
The inside of the building has a lot to do with the outside design of the building.
This project needs to move forward to ensure its profitability.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
26
The hospital is across the street; the design blends with the style of that building.
Feels the architecture is appropriate for the north Burlingame area.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue:
Was present at the meetings where the zoning standards for the area were created.
Wants to know the difference between a house in a residential neighborhood that is licensed to
provide assisted living services and this project. Feels that those units are inclusionary units.
The project is primarily an apartment building with additional services.
Reconsider whether or not the project fits into the inclusionary requirements.
Would rather remain in Burlingame than to move to another community for such care.
Perhaps choose a tree that grows a bit larger with something deciduous as a means of enhancing
the landscaping for the project.
Additional Commission comments:
Likes the design and color scheme. Compliments the hospital.
Could perhaps use some work to reduce its block appearance.
Most concerned about traffic and noise impacts due to hospital and other uses in the area.
Feels that the finished project will appear better in real life than in the rendering.
Feels the massing is handled nicely.
Agrees with the public comments requesting representation of the proposed street trees at maturity
to determine their scale relative to the building. Perhaps larger trees could be used to soften the
building.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission action is not required for this item at this time. Comments received will inform the
analysis in the environmental analysis for the project as well as the overall project design. This item
concluded at 12:23 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 April 21, 2014:
Noted that the appellant of the Planning Commission’s action regarding the project at 1433
Floribunda Avenue withdrew the appeal just prior to the April 21st City Council meeting.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes April 28, 2014
27
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary
PROJECT LOCATION
4 La Mesa Court
Item No. 8
Action Item
Item No. 5
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit and Special Permit
Address: 4 La Mesa Court Meeting Date: May 12, 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 have been
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.
April 28, 2014 Action Meeting: At the April 28, 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 April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission requested that the
applicant look at reducing the width of the house (would like to see a two foot reduction), notching out the terrace
to accommodate the existing Oak tree (Tree #20) and lowering the elevation of the terrace by a few feet.
Listed below are changes made to the project since the April 28, 2014 action meeting. Please also refer to the
attached meeting minutes and applicant’s response letter, dated May 1, 2014, for detailed responses to the
Commission’s comments.
The applicant reduced the width at the center section of the house by 1’-0” on all floors and 0’-6” from the
cantilevered portions of the living room and bedrooms on the upper and middle floors (see revised floor
plans and building elevations, dated stamped May 2, 2014). As a result, this increased the left side
setback at the front corner of the house by 1’-0”, from 15’-6” to 16’-6” and at the cantilevered portion of
the house by 1’-6”, from 14’-6” to 16’-0” (see revised site plan, dated stamped May 2, 2014). Reducing
the width of the house and notching out the terrace decreased the floor area by 124 SF and the lot
coverage by 87 SF.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
2
The applicant notched out a 6’ x 6’ portion of the terrace to accommodate the existing Coast Live Oak
tree (#20) located along the left side property line (its location was previously incorrectly shown on the
plans) (see revised landscape plan, date stamped May 2, 2014).
Planning staff would note that there were no changes made to the elevation of the terrace. Please refer to the
applicant’s letter dated May 1, 2014, for an explanation of why the terrace elevation was not lowered.
Regarding antiglare treatments for the windows, the applicant notes that additional information will be provided
for review at the public hearing.
March 24, 2014 Action Meeting: At the March 24, 2014, Planning Commission action meeting, the Commission
provided 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).
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).
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
3
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 ten (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
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 5,388 SF (0.33 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 (395 SF), and therefore are counted in FAR. The proposed project is 905 SF below the
maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 14% 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
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
4
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.
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 18 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.
This space intentionally left blank.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
5
4 La Mesa Court
Lot Area: 16,227 SF Plans date stamped: May 2 , 2014
Previous
(4/16/14 plans)
Proposed
(5/2/14 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):
14'-6" (7’-0” to terrace)
no change
16'-0" (7’-0” to terrace)
no change
7'-0"
7’-0”
Rear (Upper):
(Middle/Lower):
75’-0” (63’ to balcony)
63’-0” (39' to terrace)
no change
no change
15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 4359 SF
26.8%
4272 SF
26.3%
40% is 6491 SF, however
the lot coverage cannot
exceed 6293 SF since this
is the maximum allowed
FAR (see below)
FAR: 5512 SF
0.34 FAR
5388 SF
0.33 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: 10’-2” from average top
of curb
no change 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.
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.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
6
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. The applicant notes that recessed can lighting will be used throughout the
house, which primarily focuses light downward on the floor rather than floodlighting walls. In addition, window
coverings and furniture would filter or reduce lighting from within the house. As discussed below under
‘Biological Resources’, the revised project proposed to retain 17 existing trees and plant 18, 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 contain window coverings controlled by occupants, recessed can lights which focus light downward onto
floors, 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
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
7
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 18 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 18, 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
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.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
8
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.
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.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
9
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.
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
May 2 , 2014, sheets T1.0, GN, GP, SP, C-2, Boundary and Topographic Survey, A1.0 through A5.0,
FAR, Tree, L1.0 and L2.0;
2. that all existing trees to remain, as shown on the Landscape Plan (sheet L1.0, date stamped May 2,
2014), shall not be removed or damaged, and the applicant shall have an arborist's report prepared
which documents how each tree on the site should be protected during construction; this report shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Arborist and the contractor shall call for the Arborist to inspect the
protection measures installed before a building permit shall be issued;
3. that the applicant shall submit a detailed foundation report for approval by the Building Division and City
Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation prior to the issuance of a building
permit for construction on the site; if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered
to accommodate a tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Division prior to
the time any such root is cut or damaged;
4. that a certified arborist shall be on site during any grading or digging activities that take place within the
designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam
foundation and digging for removal or installation of any utilities;
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
10
5. 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);
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. 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;
11. 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;
12. 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;
13. 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:
14. 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;
15. 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;
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
11
16. 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;
17. 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;
18. 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
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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
22. During construction, the project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation
measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements:
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry sweeping is prohibited.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
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.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
12
Biological Resources
23. The applicant shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation requirements as approved by the City
Arborist.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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
28. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground
disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the
City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative to assess the
significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as
unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code),
representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course
of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to
mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall
determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find,
project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures
(e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while
mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out.
29. 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.
30. 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
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
13
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
31. 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.
32. There shall be no pile driving as part of this project.
33. The foundation for the single family dwelling structure, swimming pool and any pool decking shall be a
drilled pier and grade beam design.
34. 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.
35. 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
36. 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.
37. 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
38. 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
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
14
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
39. 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.
40. To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the project sponsor shall require construction
contractors to implement the following measures:
a) Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best available noise control
techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
b) Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they
shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other
measures to the extent feasible.
c) Loaded trucks and other vibration-generating equipment shall avoid areas of the project site that
are located near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project
construction goals.
Transportation/Traffic
41. 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
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
15
Attachments:
Applicant’s Letter of Response to Planning Commission Comments, dated May 1, 2014
April 28, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant’s Letter of Response to Planning Commission Comments, dated April 16, 2014
Letter from Kielty Arborist Services, dated April 16, 2014
Visual Simulations, submitted by the applicant, 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 April 28, 2014, March 24, 2014 (two letters); March 21, 2014; March 12,
2014; and January 30, 2014.
Letters of Support from 7 La Mesa Court, 8 La Mesa Court, 1530 La Mesa Drive, 1536 La Mesa Drive and
1541 La Mesa Drive
Letter from Ray and Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, dated May 1, 2014
Letter from Ray and Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, dated April 28, 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 April 27, 2014
Letter from Isako Hoshino and Matt Machlis, 1510 La Mesa Lane, dated March 19, 2014
Letter from Robert Thomas and Carolyn Crow, 1512 La Mesa Lane, dated April 24, 2014
Letter from Robert Thomas and Carolyn Crow, 1512 La 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 Resolutions (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 2 , 2014
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (ND-570-P), dated March 3, 2014