HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2014.05.27CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING
COMMISSION
A G E N D A
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
07:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I.CALL TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
III.MINUTES May 12, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V.FROM THE FLOOR
VI.STUDY ITEMS
1.Community Needs Assessment Presentation - Staff Contact: Syed Murtuza
Presentation
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.
2.1321 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
VIII.REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3.2714 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) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
(item has been continued at the request of the applicant)
No Staff Report - Item Continued
4.515 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 (Robert Domenici, applicant, designer, and property
owner) (40 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Staff Report
5.1521 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 (continued from the May 12, 2014
Planning Commission Meeting)
Staff Report
6.4 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 May 12, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting)
Staff Report
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
7.1534 Los Altos Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside
Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling (Ryan Morris, Viotti Architects, applicant and architect;
Cheryl Tan, property owner) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
8.1419 Carlos Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design
Review and One Year Extension for a previously approved new, two-story
single family dwelling and detached garage (Jack McCarthy, applicant and
designer; Kieran Woods, property owner) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
Staff Report
9.2020 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and
second story additions to an existing single family dwelling (J.D. Associates,
designer and applicant; Anthony and Theresa Caprini, property owners) (53
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Staff Report
10.50 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
IX.DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
11.1412 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special
Permit and Front Setback Variance to add a new attached one-car garage to
an existing single family dwelling (Chu Design Associates, Inc., designer and
applicant; Matt Nejasmich, property owner) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
Staff Report
12.1529 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special
Permit for basement for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached
garage (TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Steven Crooks and Helen
Miranda, property owners) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Staff Report
13.1011 Morrell Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and
second story additions to an existing single family dwelling (Bill Egan,
architect and applicant; James Cormack property owners) (59 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erika Lewit
Staff Report
14.1240 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a
new, two story house and detached garage (Mark Bucciarelli, designer and
applicant; Lonestar Holdings LLC property owner) (91 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erika Lewit
Staff Report
X.COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS - There are no Commissioner ’s Reports.
XI.DIRECTOR REPORTS
- Commission Communications
- City Council regular meeting May 19, 2014
- FYI: 1521 Cabrillo Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously
approved Design Review Project.
- FYI: 1378 De Soto Avenue - review of proposed changes to a previously
approved Design Review Project.
- FYI: 1709 Ray Drive - review of clarifications to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
- FYI: 1818 Trousdale Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously
approved Design Review Project.
- FYI: 1640 McDonald Way - review of as-built changes to a previously
approved Design Review Project.
-
1521 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff Report
1709 Ray Drive - Staff Report
1818 Trousdale Drive - Staff Report
1640 McDonald Way - Staff Report
1378 De Soto Avenue - Item Continued
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 27, 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 June 6, 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.05/27/14/posted05/22/14
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding
any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
May 12, 2014 - 7:00 p.m.
1
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bandrapalli called the May 12, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00
p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gum, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Bill Meeker; Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior
Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Kathleen Kane
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini to approve the minutes of the April
14, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
Page 1, Roll Call, Commissioner Yie’s name is misspelled;
Page 2, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), second bullet under Commissioner Terrones
comments should indicate the building in Option A;
Page 2, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), third bullet under Commissioner Terrones
comments should indicate the parking in Option C;
Page 2, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), second bullet under Commissioner DeMartini
comments should indicate the parking in Option C;
Page 3, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), first bullet under “unknown speaker” should
indicate “environmentally sensitive”;
Page 5, Item 2 (Historic Preservation Ordinance), fifth bullet should read “would prefer”;
Page 9, Item 5 (74 Loma Vista Drive), ninth bullet should replace “don’t need the additional attic
space” with “the eaves on the front and side do not line up”;
Page 14, Item 7 (2532 Hayward Drive), additional Commissioner comments/questions should
read “warrant a more significant variance;”
Page 15, Item 8 (1709 Ray Drive), last bullet under Mr. Besozzi comments should delete “to
determine if story poles are required”;
Page 17, Item 9 (1514 Forest View Avenue) should indicate the motion was to place the item on
the Action Calendar;
Motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie abstaining).
Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2014
regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes:
Page 3, Item 3 (1709 Ray Drive), last bullet under Commission comments should replace “but not
appears undersized” with “now appears undersized”;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
2
Page 12, Item 6 (2747 Burlingview Drive), commission comments should add a bullet “the transom
windows are not a primary viewing area”;
Page 16, Item 7 (4 La Mesa Court) should move reference to closing public hearing to the end of
discussion on page 17.
Page 18, Item 8 (1139 Eastmoor Road), second bullet under Commission comments should read
“the existing stoop has a nice character”;
Page 18, Item 8 (1139 Eastmoor Road), last bullet under Commission comments should read “too
much like an addition”;
Page 20, Item 10 (2020 Hillside Drive), first bullet under Commission comments should add “despite
the attic being walled shut”;
Page 23, Item 12 (325 Chapin Lane), additional Commission comments should add a bullet reading
“approval would be based on the analysis of the Page and Turnbull historical evaluation”;
Page 24, Item 13 (1545 Los Montes Drive), second bullet under Commission comments should
indicate a 9-foot plate height;
Page 24, Item 13 (1545 Los Montes Drive), seventh bullet under Commission comments should
indicate horizontal rather than vertical;
Page 25, Item 14 (1600 Trousdale Drive), Commission comments should add a bullet indicating
commissioners would like to see balconies opening onto the courtyard.
Motion passed 7-0-0-0.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments 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
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had met with the
brother of the property owner and had received a tour of the property. There were no other ex-parte
communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Commission comments:
Is it 6 feet for a crawl space to be included in the FAR? (Hurin: Yes)
The 4 foot overhangs are not contributing to the FAR. But are they included in lot coverage (Hurin:
Yes , however the overhang at the front of the house is not added to the lot coverage since the
existing landing underneath the overhang is already counted towards lot coverage.)
Revise Variance application to remove references to new 4 foot overhangs since they are not being
included in the FAR calculation.
Revise Variance application to include discussion that mass and bulk is existing and already
contributing to the FAR; could strengthen the argument for Variance.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
3
Since entire lower floor has a ceiling height of 7’-7”, is it considered habitable? (Hurin: In calculating
FAR, any area with a ceiling height greater than 6 feet is included, whether or not it is conditioned.)
Is there a minimum ceiling height for a bedroom? (Hurin: Needs to check, thinks it is 7 feet.)
Laundry room is large, looks like it could be used for something else. (Hurin: In cases where it is a
laundry room, it is not counted as a bedroom for parking purposes. However, there are enough
parking spaces on the property for it to be a bedroom.)
Can we comment on front elevation? (Hurin: This application is not subject to Design Review).
Design could be refined, has a roof overhang and attached trellis; seems awkward.
What was the pre-existing condition? Was the ceiling height between 5’-0” and 5’-6”? (Hurin: Plan
shows 5’-0”; applicant provided history of use of space in letter.) Applicant focused on whether it
was conditioned space or not, but real issue is ceiling height.
Applicant used real estate document to show this area was existing, however it shows a difference
in the FAR square footages; please explain difference.
Skeptical whether this can be approved. Understands the bulk is there, but if the application had
come before and requested to dig out 2 feet not sure it could be approved.
Letter says space is legally grandfathered in.
Applicant has written that the FAR should not apply to pre-existing space. Not saying that all pre-
existing space should not have a right to a Variance, but should be clear for the record that it is not
the case, we review each application on its own merits, this is not a precedence for future reference.
It would be different if the ceiling height was already greater than 6 feet.
This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:29 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.
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) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Sargent moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,
Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff
reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Bandrapalli called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
7:29 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3. CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE – STAFF CONTACT: BILL MEEKER
Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Community Development Director Bill Meeker
presented the report.
Commission questions:
What does it mean “consider adoption by title only”? (Meeker: To adopt, the Commission does not
need to read the entire resolution. Just the title needs to be included in the public record.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
4
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Pfaff spoke on this item:
Ordinance has been a long time coming. Three significant properties had disappeared previously –
the Donnelly Home, torn down in 1964 for parking; the Peninsula Theater (later Fox Theater)
demolished in 1978; and the Old City Hall on Park Road 1970 for parking. This ordinance provides a
process for preservation that was not in place before.
The use of the Mills Act varies significantly by community. Don’t expect it to be very popular in the
commercial district. In San Francisco believes there are only 4 or 5 Mills Act properties in the entire
city. However, in San Diego’s residential areas believes there are 800. Depends how it is advertised.
Not confident the 25% reduction in permit fee will be a draw, but it’s a place to start.
Question: Ordinance defines applicable properties to those in the Downtown Specific Plan area, but
what if a significant resource is moved outside of the boundaries? Is there a policy or process for the
mover doing the restoration so they would also be eligible even if it is moved outside the area?
The Historic Society is a resource with lots of photos and materials, particularly for seeing what
some buildings may have looked like prior to remodeling.
Cathy Baylock spoke on this item:
Originally ran for City Council to get historic preservation ordinance passed.
Started in 1996 when four historical houses were going to be demolished. As the neighborhood
gathered to try to save the buildings, found that Burlingame had nothing in place to protect its
historic buildings.
Found that 14 of 20 cities in San Mateo County had historic property lists, many protected buildings
from demolition, and several had Mills Act contracts.
Burlingame Downtown inventory adopted in 2010. Final step is to allow incentives for people who
want to restore and preserve their buildings.
Amount of participation depends on how good the program is. The proposed Burlingame program is
very straightforward and simplified. Hoping the simplicity should attract people.
Buildings that could benefit include the Gate structure that was subjected to fire and could be
eligible for all sorts of tax incentives, as well as the post office building which has been indicated to
be potentially eligible for the National Register.
At joint Planning Commission/City Council for many years an historic ordinance was an agenda
item. 2004 was last year where there was a packet.
Already treating Burlingame Park as a historic district due to documentation provided to the City in
2009. Homes would not necessarily be incentivized because of property taxes and credits, but
renovation projects would benefit from being able to use the alternative building code for historic
buildings.
Hope it will be so successful and easy to use so it can be extended to Burlingame Park and other
neighborhoods that would like to take advantage of the benefits available. Good to have a financial
incentive in restoring a historic home.
Robert Bachrach spoke on this item:
Important not to be too prolific with this historic program.
Given the growth the community will be seeing and the need for changes, has to have a planning
process that builds a better community. Can’t just call anything that is old historic.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
5
Staff comment:
Meeker: Believes if there is a property in the area that is identified as a potential historic resource
and is eligible for either national, state or local registry, as a mitigation for an impact to a historic
resource it could be moved outside of the district but it could still retain its historic significance
because it originated within the district in which it was designated.
Commission questions/comments:
Is intent to expand these programs to other areas? (Meeker: Up to the City Council as the
policymakers. This is a first step. If there is success, perhaps the Council will consider expanding it
further. Expect that once the program is implemented, will review in the annual joint City
Council/Planning Commission meeting the success of the program to date. That could be an
opportunity for the Council and Commission to engage in a discussion whether to expand further.
Right now intent is to start with small step where an inventory is already in place and see how
effective it is.)
Approval of applications sections – appears there are two sections that are at odds with each other:
21.040.060 Item 6, and 21.040.080 Item 1d (Meeker: 21.040.060 relates to requests for certificates
of appropriateness for modifications to designated resources; 21.040.080 speaks to actual
designation process itself.)
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to forward to the City Council a recommendation to adopt the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council to adopt the
Historic Preservation Ordinance. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
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 OW NER) STAFF CONTACT:
ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum had spoken with the next door neighbor.
There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with
attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commission questions:
Though this is not subject to design review, there were comments about the windows. Would a
comment about tinted glass be subject to review or comment? (Gardiner: No, the Commission is
only reviewing a Conditional Use Permit and a Special Permit, and would be making those findings.
The findings tend to be broader and more related to neighborhood compatibility, and not so much
the design details.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
6
Did not see a public notice sign posted on the property. (Gardiner: Signs are posted for Design
Review applications only, not for use permits or special permits alone.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Torin Knorr represented the applicant:
Intent is to use the building to store a modest car collection.
Had a conversation with neighbors and had a survey done, and it turns out fences were not aligned
to property lines. It was a benefit to both property owners to have it surveyed. The neighbors are fine
with the location of the structure.
Commission questions:
None
Public comments:
None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
Spoke with the neighbor to the right and he said he was fine with the project. He would be the most
impacted.
Proposed use is consistent with the existing use, and is similar to other uses in the neighborhood, it
is consistent with the General Plan.
The addition to the length to the structure is consistent with the existing mass, scale and dominant
characteristics of the existing house and existing structure.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
May 1, 2014, Sheets A1 through A3, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the accessory
structure shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the existing attached garage that is
part of the main dwelling shall remain accessible for parking vehicles;
2. that the detached accessory structure shall only be used for storage uses and shall not be used for
accessory living or sleeping purposes;
3. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional
Use Permit and Special Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will
become void;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division's March 11 and April 14, 2014 memos, the Parks
Division's March 13, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division's April 1, 2014 memo, the Fire Division's
March 6, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division's March 6, 2014 memo shall be met;
5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
7
6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit; and
7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli 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 7:58 p.m.
Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 5 (4
La Mesa Court) for non-statutory reasons, and Commissioner Terrones noted that he would recuse himself
because he has a quasi-business relationship with one of the neighbors. They both left the City Council
Chambers.
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) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 28, 2014 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING)
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Yie noted that she had met with applicant and
visited 1510 La Mesa Lane. Commissioner Gum noted he visited the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa Lane.
Commissioner DeMartini noted he met with the applicant, the designer, and the neighbors at 6 La Mesa
Court and 1510 La Mesa Lane. Commissioner Loftis noted he met with the applicant and the neighbor at
1510 La Mesa Lane. Chair Bandrapalli noted she met with the applicant and with the neighbor at 1510 La
Mesa Lane. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. He further noted that in response to a commissioner
inquiry regarding the Grecian laurel trees proposed near the oak trees, staff checked with the City Arborist
and project landscape designer, and the proposal is to use Catalina cherry trees instead. The City Arborist
noted that the change would be acceptable in place of the Grecian laurels in his opinion. Forty-one (41)
conditions were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
Did not have a chance to review new drawings. Is there an issue with taking action on drawings that
have just been received, and that the public has not had a chance to review? (Kane: It is in the
Planning Commission’s discretion whether it is able to take action on the item. While the plans were
submitted late, if the determination is that the changes would not worsen any of the conditions that
the neighbors were concerned about, it would not be unlike the Commission approving plans with
amended Conditions of Approval with FYI review. If the Commission is concerned about the
proposed changes it could continue the item.)
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
8
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz represented the applicant:
Last-minute changes were made in response to the letter from the Forrests.
Tree retained for the neighbors across the canyon to protect their natural view.
Reducing the width of the house by 6 inches, to get to the 2 feet objective.
Library study window smaller, about half the size. Neighbor had said 30 inches would be acceptable.
Last-minute changes are in favor of the neighbors.
Addressed comments plus other concerns of the Forrests.
Commission questions:
Concern at 1510 La Mesa Lane about light and amount of glass. Do you meet Title 24 by
prescription or performance? (Raduenz: Performance). Do you know the proportion of glass to wall?
(Raduenz: Does not know exact number, but can have it calculated if it is a Condition of Approval.)
By performance, that means it has been analyzed by computer to ensure it will meet Title 24?
(Raduenz: Correct. The Burlingame standard requires exceeding the Title 24 minimum by 15
percent).
Have you viewed the site from 1510 La Mesa Lane? (Raduenz: Viewed from road, not from the
house. Keeping every tree except one that is in the house.)
The panoramic view photo submitted by the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa Lane shows story poles, but
part of it is obscured by a tree. Is that the tree that will be retained? It looks like you can only see
about half of the house since it is blocked by the tree. (Raduenz: Are keeping two out of the three
oak trees.)
Are there plans to have black-out shades on the rear windows? (Raduenz: Yes.)
The applicant said he could plant new trees to provide cover, and talk about retaining the bay tree.
(Raduenz: Depends on what kind of tree is being requested. Would be up for considering it. If the
bay tree needs to be removed, could plant some fast-growing cover trees, though it will take some
time.)
Is tree #9 remaining? (Raduenz: Yes. #9 is the bay tree.)
Result of the letters back and forth regarding the level of the patio? (Raduenz: Sunk it by 2 feet on
the last submittal.)
Could come down to issue of glazing and light. If that is a go or no-go, would there be agreement to
change amount of square footage of glass? (Raduenz: Would rather not. Submitted an anti-glare
specification sheet, to be used as part of an approval.)
Would the window shades be black-out shades or a high-density micro shade? (Raduenz: A micro
shade. Header height has been lowered so there will be room for an architectural soffit for the
shades.)
Occupancy sensors in the main areas? (Raduenz: Yes.)
For reducing glazing, in the Living Room window could be raised. (Raduenz: Could be up to 2 feet,
but would lose some of the architectural design. It is low to be able to see the living roof.)
Can there be a condition that specifies that neighbors cannot appeal? (Kane: City cannot do
anything to change the appeal procedures – they are in the Municipal Code. Individuals may enter
into private agreements that make sense to them, but the City cannot impose that as a condition.)
Public comments:
Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item:
Plans submitted one hour before the meeting. Not a thoughtful way to do things. Not respectful to
the neighbors who have spent dozens of hours trying to make it better.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
9
Had reached out to applicant right after last meeting so something like this would not happen.
This home must adhere to the Municipal Code and to the design guidelines – both, not just one.
The design guidelines clearly state that the Neighborhood Design Guidebook is equal in importance
to building code research and zoning ordinance research.
Inadequate representation of how the house was moved. It was moved 4 feet closer from the
original story poles. In revised plans the front of the house most critical to the impact to privacy and
light was moved only 1 foot – only the back of the house was moved 1½ feet. Asking for 4 feet.
There is still such a blockage of sunlight, will be looking at a wall from the kitchen. The design
guidelines say to include sensitive placement and height of buildings to avoid substantial blockage
of existing sunlight patterns.
Has had an enlargement and addition of windows. Window across from kitchen keeps increasing in
size; would like it eliminated. If it is returned to its original size (which could be an option) would like
it fully frosted at a level 10.
Window placement should avoid direct views. When built their home they respected their neighbors.
Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item:
Back yard retaining wall is 10 feet above the pool elevation. With the railing it is 13½ feet above, and
8 feet away from property line. Elevated back yard is about 1300 square feet.
Not maintaining the natural grade at property line as outlined in the design guidelines.
The design guidelines say to avoid using retaining walls to increase height above neighbors.
The design guidelines say outdoor spaces should not loom over neighboring properties.
Will be looking 13 feet into the air, will lose privacy.
Would like it lowered by 4 feet so it is below fence line. Currently railing is 3 feet above the fence.
Tim Raduenz, project designer, spoke on this item:
The oak trees will be retained.
The railing is the barbeque area at the other side of the property. The pool is 2 feet lower, in
response to comments.
The side window is the size expressed in the letter (3’ x 9’). It is completely glazed 100% in frosted
glass.
8 to 9 feet away from setbacks to the chimney overhang.
Pushed everything forward. It is a sloping site and the house is as far forward as can be, consistent
with neighboring houses.
Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item:
Glazing on the rear elevation is extreme and does not fit with a residential neighborhood.
According to Title 24, typical new single family residential construction has a conditioned floor
area/glazing percentage within a 13-23% range, 17% average.
Did a study of a modern house on Margarita Avenue, and based on plans calculated ratio of 23%.
Calculated 51% for the proposed structure, about 2½ times the glazing of the house on Margarita
Avenue.
If calculated 23% glazing (same as Margarita Avenue example) and applied it to the proposed
structure, would calculate at 984 square feet of glazing for the entire structure; proposed structure
has 1,285 square feet of glass on the rear. The proposed structure has more glass on the rear than
one house has on all sides.
Margarita Avenue house has 29% glass on the rear wall; the current project has average of 70%. It
is more than twice the glazing as found on what appears to be a typical contemporary house.
Even on top level of the Margarita house (with most windows) the wall-to-window ratio is 38%; the
upper level of the proposed structure is 73%.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
10
Glazing is extreme for any residential structure and is inconsistent with the character of the
neighborhood.
Appreciate the occupancy lighting sensors on the lower levels.
Christopher Awoyinka, 4 La Mesa Court, spoke as the applicant:
Fourth visit to Planning Commission.
At last meeting concluded there were three main concerns to be addressed. Updated plans reflect
the recommendations that were made at the last meeting.
Proposing to retain a bay tree to help provide the screen for 1510 La Mesa Lane.
Have reduced the overall width of the house by 2 feet, have dropped the lower terrace by 2 feet, and
will keep the oak tree on the left corner and the bay tree.
Not thrilled with concessions but feels have spent enough time going back and forth on the project.
Have given all that could possibly be given.
The Forrests at 6 La Mesa Court sold the vacant lot approximately a year ago. The marketing
literature advertised property as an ideal opportunity to build a home with panoramic views. The
property had been on market for one year already, so expect during that time neighbors would have
had time to digest the changes that were to come.
Has done everything to meet neighbors half way. Has asked for the Commission to be fair and
equitable.
Robert Crow, 1512 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item:
Have written two letters to the Commission.
Not opposed to having a house on the lot. 4 La Mesa Court currently looks like a missing tooth.
Welcomes contemporary design – that is not an issue.
Bronze siding is a step forward rather than the white stucco first proposed.
The problems are mass and glass. This is the wrong house for this site.
Applicants have never proposed more than marginal changes to the original proposal, as far as the
mass and glass are concerned.
Glass on rear face is 70%, but the top two floors will have the most impact, and those measure
about 90%.
The house is intrusive and the amount of glass is problem for reflection and light source.
Alex Kilgo, 1530 La Mesa Drive, spoke on this item:
In the last meeting one of the commissioners said “something is wrong since there is nothing but
negatives.” This is not the case.
Have talked with the applicants and there have been concessions.
Other neighbors may not be able to come to the Planning Commission because they have small
kids and it is not an opportune time to come to a meeting.
Supports project and believes there are a lot of other people in the neighborhood who are not in
attendance to protest, because they are not against it.
Jesse Zimmer, 1541 La Mesa Drive, spoke on this item:
Would be nice to have other kids in the neighborhood.
When there is an empty lot next door or nearby there is always a chance it will be built on.
Would be great to have home that would increase property values, that is modern and different from
what else is already there in the neighborhood.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
11
Commission comments:
Disturbing to hear that both parties have tried to have a conversation, but it seems to never have
happened. We would hope that issues could get sorted out by neighbors, because the proposed
project appears to be legal in terms of the regulations including performing 15 percent better than
Title 24.
There is plenty of evidence of concessions on the part of the applicant.
The pool had been further out, but was brought back in. Trees have been retained that were
originally proposed to be removed; they still need to have room to build the house.
Initially the design was very bulky, but it was revised to step down the slope more.
Materials have been changed to blend into the environment more.
The remaining issue seems to be the amount of glazing. Not as much of an issue on the second
level with the bedrooms since the shades will be drawn at night.
Some neighbors have sliding doors and balconies as well.
Feels close – it is a good project. Perhaps reduce some of the glazing on the back.
To expect there to be no change in the type of architecture over time seems unrealistic.
Topic of guidelines. Direction has been, if there is a place for contemporary architecture it will be in
the hills. If not here, where?
Guidelines and code are not a science. Relies on interpretation. Everyone will not get what they
want.
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
Commission questions to the designer:
Confusion with front of the house: has said it has been pulled it back 2 feet, but neighbor mentioned
it was only one foot at the front and 1’-6” at the back. Has it been pulled back 2 feet, or is it 2 feet in
the back and 1’-6” in the front? (Raduenz: The overhang of the Living Room and bedroom below in
the rear portion went 6 inches in, and the house was reduced in width by 1 foot. Then took another
6 inches out of the garage and kitchen. So the front corner of the house is set back an additional 1’-
6” and the portion of the library is set back 2’-0”. Were concerned about the Living Room and the
light source so was pushed back.)
What should the neighbors expect on the three stories of windows in terms of glazing and shades?
(Raduenz: Anti-glare film used on apartment buildings in the region. It does not give a green or
bronze tint, it is clear. Can share the specifications with the neighbors. Have provided sample of the
frosted glass for the neighbors at 6 La Mesa Court.)
Comments about the amount of glazing in the back? (Raduenz: It is a modern house with a view.
Neighbors have glass as well. Only concession would be to bring the Living Room windows up 18
inches – unfortunate because of the green roof. With the trees retained the only part of the house
that will be seen across the canyon will be the kitchen bump-out.) (Awoyinka: Neighbors across the
canyon are not facing the property head-on. Retaining the trees will provide screening.)
Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item:
Have not had a chance to review the plans.
Tim Raduenz spoke as the project designer:
Neighbors should have time to review the plans. Assumed they would have until the next meeting to
review the plans.
Have responded to the requests in the letter with the revised set of plans.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
12
Commission questions:
Is there an architectural motif that could break up the expanse of glazing, combining with other
materials to reduce the amount of glazing? (Awoyinka: Everyone appreciates a good view. The
neighbors have glass top levels for the view too.)
Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item:
Window areas are not comparable. Patio window area at 1510 La Mesa is 3 windows totaling 180
square feet. Proposed house has 1,285 square feet on the rear, and 414 square feet on the top
elevation.
Not accurate to say 1510 La Mesa is all glass.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
It is a beautiful house, but the standard is whether it fits into the neighborhood. This effects glazing,
finish surfaces, envelope, etc. Though envelope needs to be stretched over time, is it by evolution or
revolution?
Criteria are the design guidelines, which suggest a house that seems to fit into the existing
neighborhood.
Applicant appears to be suggesting more time.
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz spoke as the project designer:
Was thinking there could be approval, and neighbors could review drawings.
Have done everything requested.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
There is a need for applicant and neighbors to meet face-to-face to discuss remaining issues.
Can review and discuss the changes that have been proposed.
Not sufficient to look at view from 1510 La Mesa from the driveway; needs to be from inside the
house. (Kane: Commission cannot require people to meet or provide access to their private homes.
It is the hope of the Commission that the parties will have a productive conversation but it cannot be
required of anyone.)
It is in the interest of both sides to meet.
Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application to a date certain (May 27, 2014), by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
13
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-2-0.
(Commissioners Sargent and Terrones recused). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This
item concluded at 9:12 p.m.
Commissioners Terrones and Sargent returned to the dais.
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)
STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEW IT
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference
staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were
no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Una Kinsella represented the applicant:
Appreciated the comments from the design study session. Provided opportunity to coordinate with
neighbors, and review details of the exterior. Resulted in positive changes.
Pulling porch details forward, making the columns more of a statement, and creating a covered entry
had not been considered before.
Change to materials came about by wanting to have a more defined transition to help the materials
to blend. Clients decided they liked the shingles better than the siding, and adding shingles and
brackets to the rear elevation made the addition feel less elongated.
Wanted to make sure the profile of the rear elevation stayed as low as possible so that the
neighbors on the other side of the creek would not be as impacted. Keeping the trees helps to
define the privacy more.
Commission comments:
Intention for the shingles to be natural, or stained? Homogeneous? (Kinsella: Homogeneous, similar
color, though will look different on a shingle versus stucco. It will be a hardy cement board that will
be painted.)
Changes are good. Changes to the front entry give it more presence.
Appreciate meeting with the neighbors.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
Great looking project.
Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the design review application, by resolution, with the following
conditions:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
14
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
May 1, 2014, Sheets A0 through A3, CS and L1, and including a note on the site plan and
landscape plan to show that the protected-size Oak Tree in the backyard shall remain;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height
or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's February 24, 2014 memo, the Building Division's
February 14 and March 25, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's February 14, 2014 memo, the Fire
Division's February 18, 2014, and the Stormwater Division's February 26, 2014 memo shall be met;
5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Side Setback
Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void;
6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction
plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved
plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required;
the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS
PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the
property;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
15
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the Variance application, by resolution, with the following
findings:
The addition is an extension of existing condition;
The garage will be substantially further back from the minimum setback.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli 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 9:31 p.m.
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) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Commissioner
Sargent noted that he was not at the design review meeting for this item but watched the video, and also
noted that he had previously owned property within 500 feet of the subject property but had sold it.
Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. There
were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Grant Lee represented the applicant:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
16
Reduced the footprint of the entry stair, making it an L with a switch-back that terminates in an entry
porch.
Engaged a landscape architect. Has a mix of low and higher shrubbery and plants, as well as trees.
Commission comments:
Likes the house and the corner entry. It is very welcoming the way it is now. Understands the
reasoning of why wanting to fill in to gain some more floor area and move the entrance, but from a
design perspective it feels like the siding area with the big window is too busy. It’s repeated in the
back and looks like an addition.
Hillside Drive is a grand boulevard for Burlingame, so even though the entrance is being changed to
Castillo it’s still important what it looks like on the Hillside side. That elevation is prominent and
needs more consideration.
Lots of railing on the new stairs. Railing looks very contemporary, seems out of step with the
neighborhood. (Lee: Flat metal railing with a rectangular profile. Wanted to create something that
was as minimal as possible. Not cable railing – it is a metal flat bar, about 3 inches x half-inch in
profile.) Horizontal rail looks out of place for the character of the house. The code may also consider
this rail a ladder, and the code does not allow building a rail that could become a ladder for people to
climb on.
Board and batten is unusual for the area, seems “cabin-like.” Could be very nice, depends how it’s
executed, does not want it to look like T1-11 siding. (Lee: Board and batten is part of the history of
Burlingame. W anted to break up the monotony of just having stucco; having the other forms and
modules provides human scale, as referenced in the design guidelines.)
Landing seems too small at the top of stair, does not look functional. (Lee: Stair is per code. Landing
has to to be at minimum the width of the stair.)
Does not have issue with board and batten. Would it be homogenous color – just a change of
material, but a similar color palette? (Lee: Boards and batten will be the same color, but not the
same color as the stucco. Will be using earth tones, with light khaki on the body of house, and a
greenish color for the board and batten.) Should look like it is intentional with just a change of
material to break down the massing, as opposed to being like a cabin where there was a stucco
building and then a shed was added to the side. Colors will be critical to keeping it harmonious.
Existing stair is part of the main character of the corner lot. Does not need to be retained
necessarily, but in replacing it something that adds a lot of character and charm to the corner is
being replaced with something utilitarian with minimum width. The proposed stair has metal guard
rails, whereas the existing stair has seat walls. A configuration with seat walls would allow a simple
hand rail, more grand and open to the corner. Wouldn’t replicate existing stair but would retain the
character and charm.
Why the gap between the stair and the bump out of the Dining Room? (Lee: Extending the top
landing would create something too massive. Also adding seat walls to the stair would create
something that is more massive. Intent is to make something that is not about a massive stair. Have
also added landscaping including new trees.)
Having gap between landing and Dining Room creates a tall wall with guard rail, but if the landing
just ran to wall of Dining Room, would not need to have the guard rail. Proposed configuration is
very tight. (Lee: Could share design studies that had been done.)
The metal rail and the board and batten will give it a more contemporary feel. Not sure how it will
blend in with the existing house and neighborhood.
Railing feels industrial.
Stair takes away from the neighborhood. Landscaping is good, but existing stair is a great element
and is being replaced with something that is not equal.
Public comments:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
17
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yie moved to refer the application to a design review consultant, by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent.
Discussion of motion:
None
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the application to a design review consultant.
The motion passed 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at
9:49 p.m.
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) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum noted that he had spoken to the
neighbor across the street at 1515 Ralston Avenue and he said he had no issues. There were no ex-parte
communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for
consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Dion Heffran represented the applicant:
Wrote letter, hoped people read it.
Commission questions:
Is there a reason why did not want to meet with the design review consultant? (Heffran: Did not think
anything would be gained by it. Felt confident the house would be harmonious.)
Issues with massing – it is a “straight-up” building. Helps to have brought down the height.
Details that were submitted – 506 Warren Road in San Mateo example is a good-looking building.
Can some of the details of that house be employed here? (Heffran: That is a more “ethnic” styled
house; the proposal here is a more European-inspired design. The house on Warren Road has too
much detail.)
Why does this house need to have the added foam trim under the gutter? (Heffran: Because the
gutter is square. The gutter has a shadow line, and the step molding underneath the gutter makes it
look nicer.)
The Warren Road house had a nice rake detail with the turned/rolled tiles versus the detail for this
house. (Heffran: Can turn the tile in the front.)
Trying to figure out what’s lacking in front elevation. Possibly small windows on the second floor
gable, round-tile vents on the lower gable, timbers over the windows. These are the types of details
could have been vetted with a design review consultant.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
18
Does not see the love and care in the drawings for this project that are on the other houses that
were shown as examples. (Heffran: It is an evolution, leans towards minimalism. Too many houses
in Burlingame are excessively adorned.)
Looks like a multi-family building rather than a single-family home. Could be from lack of detail.
Would be good to see some additional drawings with the types of details comparable to the other
houses presented. (Heffran: Dislike overly adorned houses. Willing to make some adjustments but
not going to have a dandy. The house on Warren Road is heavily adorned, the house on Jackling
Drive is modestly adorned.)
Side elevation has no relief in the massing, looks like a layer cake. (Heffran: That is the elevation
next to the parking lot. Can’t see it from the parking lot.)
Other side that is visible from the neighboring property is also all one plane. Even with trellis, the
massing is a uniform plane, not broken up. (Heffran: There is a two-foot cantilever, casting shadow
during the day. Creeping fig will cut the color of the house in half.)
Trellises should be placed in reference to the windows. Looks like they are placed haphazardly; they
should be placed the same distance from the windows so it has balance. (Heffran: Can adjust.)
Needs more windows on the second floor. (Heffran: Doesn’t like the windows either, but needs to
get ventilation outside the noise corridor of El Camino Real.)
Side façade with the brackets works best; front looks too bare. Even if it does not get more
adornment, looks very utilitarian. Windows on second floor pushed to corners don’t help the façade,
looks too much like a multifamily apartment. (Heffran: Had considered putting a balcony on the
second floor corner with balustrades.)
Does the Living Room have a vaulted ceiling? (Heffran: No, the gable is a false front.)
Portion of the lower roof pitch that flattens out seems odd.
This conversation would be great to have with a design review consultant. Not fair to the other
applicants waiting to have their projects heard, and cannot spend this amount of time on every
project. Encourage meeting with the design review consultant – would be a great sounding board for
discussing a minimalist design that still meets the guidelines and could be approved.
Think about the long side façade with no windows. If exposed in the future it would not look good.
Understands the security concerns, but not sure how eliminating windows on one side will be
effective when there are windows just around the corner on the front. (Heffran: Daughter has been
broken into twice – security is an issue. Perception of security is as important as reality. House is
next to an unattended parking lot. There is a 6-foot fence and the foliage will remain.)
Revisions are baby steps, but it is so far away from where it needs to be to be approved. Point of the
design review consultant is to assist in designing a project that can get approved, not to punish.
Otherwise there will be a vote where the project gets denied.
Public comments:
Dave Lombardi, 1521 Ralston Avenue:
Lives across the street.
No security problem. Has lived there for 47 years. It’s a wonderful neighborhood.
Need charm and character for the neighborhood.
The resident who expressed support is a short-term tenant; should talk to the owner.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Not clear whether the applicant will meet with the design review consultant. (Kane: Staff seeks to
have a cooperative relationship between the applicant and design review consultant. However under
Code Section 25.57.030(c), whether to refer to a design review consultant is solely within the
discretion of the Planning Commission and does not require the participation of the applicant. This
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
19
becomes a moot point if the applicant does not support the analysis, and ultimately the applicant is
in control of his application.)
The discussion here is the type that would be had with a design review consultant. This is not the
forum for that level of discussion.
The changes from last time were small and incremental. If he does not meet with design review
consultant, there would probably be multiple meetings.
Issue is whether applicant would agree with what design review consultant recommends, or what
Planning Commission would want to see in order to approve the project.
If continued, would have an opportunity to go to design review consultant.
Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application, with direction to the applicant to seek the advice of a
design review consultant and for staff to identify a compatible consultant to serve as a resource.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli.
Discussion of motion:
Is just a repeat from the last meeting.
Applicant has seen that what has been submitted is not approvable.
Would like to avoid having multiple meetings to review design.
Unclear whether applicant is willing to make changes sufficient for approval and still stay true to his
goals.
If alternative is denial without prejudice, would not be too different from continuing. Would still allow
applicant to bring back a project with changes.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-2-0-0
(Commissioners DeMartini and Sargent dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:36 p.m.
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) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant:
Has addressed the comments regarding the rear of the house. Have added a bay window and
enlarged a window to break up the massing.
French doors and windows have been matched.
Trim on front of house is inspired by a Maybeck house (photo submitted as an exhibit). Original
design was by a Maybeck apprentice, so trying to work with the Maybeck vocabulary. Finds design
as submitted to be beautiful and in harmony with the overall house; not wanting to change it much.
Commission questions/comments:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
20
Commission made 10 comments on the project before. Five were in regards to the trim, with
concerns that the trim looked “spindly” but there have been no changes. Still has problem with the
trim. Not an issue of the size, since 8” x 8” is big, but where this occurs elsewhere on the house is in
areas less than 8 feet tall. Concern is it is a prominent piece of the front elevation, and it is more
than twice the height. It is not an issue of the bulk or trim itself, it is how it is applied to the elevation
that makes it look “spindly.” (Robertson: It is unusual and not a common motif, but love how it looks.
It is complementary, harmonious and dramatic – aesthetically pleasing.)
Likes the big window, but not convinced by the trim.
Are timbers embedded in the stucco? (Robertson: Will be surface-mounted, bolted from the back,
embedded with stucco. It is not bolted to the surface; it is put on first and the stucco is applied
around it. Will be applied as shown on Page 2.)
The trim looks like stilts.
Likes the picture submitted with the deep overhang and the horizontal treatment, but that’s not what
is being proposed. (Robertson: Can’t do it like that. Have tried many renditions, and this stood out as
being an unusual aesthetic, balanced and harmonious.)
Changes to the doors are good.
The proportions are not harmonious. Maybe add another horizontal member below to give it a sense
of support and bring it into scale.
If the “stilts” timbering were removed the skinny windows would be more special.
Other changes are fine. It’s just this one element.
Public comments:
None.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
Jessica Lawson spoke as the property owner:
Tried a lot of things and didn’t like any of them. Likes this one.
Commission comments:
In the photos submitted, the posts are less than 8 feet tall. They are nicely proportioned. The trellis
and carport are great features, but all of the posts are in the 7-8 foot range. The element here is
twice as tall, but would not want to have to go to 16-inch pieces of wood just to get the same
proportions.
Intrigued with suggestion to add some horizontal members, though could end up looking like a
Tudor house (Lawson: Tried that, tried it with a balcony and with doors on the side, windows on the
side. We have tried everything.)
If referencing Maybeck could try corner windows, and replicating the vertical slot windows to help
with the proportions.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Rare to have a design feature that evokes such strong and unanimous feeling across the
Commission.
It is the proportion, and also that it looks stuck on.
It is a discreet item so does not warrant engaging a design review consultant.
Continue the item with direction to reconsider the specific design element.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
21
Commissioner Sargent moved to continue the application by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
Another option would be to approve it with direction that the element be revised to frame the window
rather than extend to the ground.
Would not serve the applicant if it got pulled later, requiring another meeting. Continuing the item
would be cleaner.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:57 p.m.
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) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commission questions:
Does the Broadway BID represent the businesses in that area? (Kane: Is defined by geographical
area, consisting of current businesses as of a date and time when an assessment is done. It is the
tenant businesses rather than the landlords who contribute. The group represents all tenants within
the geographical boundaries.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Annabelle Jones represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
Closing at 5:00 p.m. rather than 6:00 p.m. on Fridays would be helpful in terms of parking impacts. A
lot of parking at 5:00, but by 6:00 it is all taken. Concern about impact on restaurants on Friday
nights. All other conditions are fine. (Jones: Friday classes will end at 6:00, and those who are not
staying for dinner or shopping will be vacating their spaces. Also anticipate a lot of people will walk
there. Classes end at 10 minutes before the top of the hour.)
Hope people walk to the studio, as well as the restaurants.
Public comments:
Brian Swartz represented the applicant:
When we met with the BID, they said if anything they want the business to be open more. It will be a
complementary clientele who will then go to dinner, and bring more economic activity to the area.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
22
Robert Cutler represented the property owner:
When the previous tenant moved out, put the space on the market and 90 percent of the applicants
were restaurants. Not something the owner wanted – he has a restaurant in the building already.
Prospective retailers found the premises too large.
Property owner thinks this will be a good fit.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
OK with 6:00 p.m. ending time on Fridays.
Supporting Variance: Support of neighboring businesses that would be impacted by the parking,
findings of parking study, and direction to employees to park in certain parking lots.
Supporting Conditional Use Permit: Will add benefit to the local area and neighboring businesses.
Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the commercial recreation use with classes (group fitness instruction studio) shall be limited to
3,907 SF of the existing commercial building at 1300 Broadway, as shown on the plans submitted to
the Planning Division and date stamped April 7, 2014, sheets A1.1 and A2.1;
2. that the business owner shall direct employees of the group fitness instruction studio to park in
Public Parking Lot R and T;
3. that the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance shall apply only to a group fitness instruction
studio and shall become void if the group fitness instruction studio ceases, is replaced by a
permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for
replacement;
4. that all activities associated with the group fitness instruction studio shall occur indoor only; no
portion of the exterior of the site shall be used for activities associated with the group fitness
instruction studio;
5. that the group fitness instruction studio may only be open for business Monday through Thursday
from 5:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., on Friday from 5:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Saturday from 6:30 a.m. to
3:30 p.m.; there shall be a maximum one full-time and three part-time employees on site at any
time;
6. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 27 persons, including the
employees and customers;
7. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds
the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use
Permit;
8. that the conditions of the Building Division's April 10, 2014 and March 14, 2014 memos, the Fire
Division’s March 24, 2014 memo and the Engineering Division’s March 27, 2014 memo;
9. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures on the site shall not occur until a building
permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
23
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; and
11. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
None
Chair Bandrapalli 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 11:10 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
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 (ROBERT DOMENICI, APPLICANT, DESIGNER, AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF
CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project
description.
Questions of staff:
How does the Special Permit relate to the FAR nonconformity? (Gardiner: In this instance the FAR
is a net zero change. It is above the maximum, but it is not an increase. The request on this
application is for a Special Permit, which has different findings than a Variance.)(Kane: In other
applications requesting Variances, Variances have heightened findings. The question with
nonconformity is whether changes are being made that are consistent with the district regulations.
Since the nonconformity section was enacted, provisions for Special Permits were added that have
somewhat permissive and design-based criteria. They don’t rise to the level of a
Variance.)(Gardiner: With a Variance a hardship needs to be demonstrated, whereas a Special
Permit is more focused on architectural design, particularly for purposes of being more consistent
with either the design of the house or the pattern of the neighborhood. There is not a hardship, but
there does need to be a demonstrated rationale.)(Kane: Whether the Special Permit requested fits
with the district regulations is something the Planning Commission determines.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period.
Rob Domenici represented the applicant.
Wanting to improve the house. Not planning to change the front, except for improving windows and
a new roof.
Commission questions/comments:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
24
Application says existing house encroaches 21 square feet into the declining height envelope, and
addition would encroach 16 feet. Is the 16 square feet being added to the 21 square feet?
(Domenici: The 21 feet is existing. Just trying to follow the same line on the house, and the same
roofline.)(Gardiner: The 16 square feet is in addition to the existing 21 square feet, and would be
from continuing the line of the existing wall plane.)
It’s a good project – the rear elevation is improved, and the addition is tucked in in a way that it feels
like it was there to begin with.
The Special Permit is supportable because there is no net effect from the street. There is already an
encroachment and it’s just the wall plane that is being continued and not adding mass into the
envelope.
Roof plans are inconsistent from one drawing to another. In one place the rear roof is shown as a
hip roof, in another it is a gable. There is some confusion to how the new roof hits the existing roof.
(Domenici: Has included some photos taken from the neighbor’s house showing how the roof works.
Has held off on getting structural drawing until decided if the idea will work. Will tie together once the
structural drawing is prepared.) The idea of extending the line seems like the right idea.)
Do the second floor windows look into the neighbor’s currently, and will that change with the
addition? (Domenici: Currently there is just one window facing the neighbor’s driveway. Will be
working with the next door neighbor – he submitted a letter in support of the project.)
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.
Discussion:
Needs to come back on Regular Action to review the roof plan. It is a strange existing condition, and
may work fine but needs to look at it again.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli 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 advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:27 p.m.
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) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN
HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
25
James Chu represented the applicant:
Single-story house. Rear trellis is counted towards floor area.
Commissioner questions:
Would the location of the garage in back right corner make it less likely it will be used? Will the
parking pad in the front be retained? (Chu: No, the parking pad would not be retained. The garage is
placed in the corner to buffer from noise from Interstate 280. There is a long driveway providing a lot
of parking, and there is a door from the breakfast nook/kitchen so it will be used.)
With the French doors to the porch, would that be an extension or entertaining space? (Chu:
Wanted some cover with the porch.) It is very solid with the thick walls and not as inviting as it could
be. If it was opened up it might get used more.
Single-story house with great scale.
Massing is nice, and is broken up with the wood siding and stucco.
Arches are the only things out of place, feel out of character and massive. Ranch houses
surrounding have a pattern of clean, simple posts for the porches. Could do that and still achieve the
sense of enclosure – maybe double-up some columns.
Likes the trellis in the back. Perhaps that could influence the porch.
Christopher Knightly spoke as the property owner:
Most homes in the neighborhood are single-story.
Wants the arches to break it up; everything else is square.
Covered porch is not for entertaining; entertaining will happen in the back.
Don’t wear shoes in the house, so covered porch area provides place for shoes. Not too bulky, gives
a bit more privacy.
Something other than square lines and horizontal siding.
Commission questions/comments:
It is drawn as a really thick wall. Is that the intention? (Chu: Yes, that is intentional.)
There is an odd passageway between the front porch and side porch beside the dining room. It
looks narrow.
Public comments:
None.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Charming project, well done. OK with the arches.
Arches could be done well if the applicant feels strongly about them. Not opposed to the arches,
except for their lack of adornment. They are big stucco pieces, while the rest of the house is refined
with finer wood siding, shutters, finer trims, small eaves, small gutters. The arches are bulky.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
26
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:40 p.m.
Commissioner Terrones noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 13
(1517 Chapin Avenue) because he has a business relationship with the property owner, and Agenda Item
14 (1321 Paloma Avenue) for non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers.
13. 1517 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR A NEW, TW O-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU
DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ZERS BEAUTY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER)
STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff
report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period.
James Chu represented the applicant:
Has spoken to neighbors at 1515 Chapin Avenue. They have some concerns with views from one of
the bedrooms of the proposed house into their master bathroom. Can plant some privacy screening.
The driveway is wide (over 11 feet) so can plant directly in front of the window. Also proposing
frosted glass in the bedroom of the proposed house.
Commission questions/comments:
Cedar headers over the windows – are they painted? (Chu: They could be painted. Typos: they are
not 8xs – should be 1xs.). Should be painted to match the trim.
House is very well massed. However with French chateau architectural style it is odd to have arts
and crafts brackets.
Is shrubbery along the driveway on the subject property or neighbors’ property? (Chu: The
shrubbery is not on plan – just on the rendering. Would be a 6-foot stucco wall along the property
line, as shown on the Landscape Plan.)
Rendering is great for showing the massing of the house.
The side door to the foyer is on the right side, but the driveway is on the left. W ould the side door be
used? (Chu: The door leads to a patio area.)
Public comments:
Bob Gilligan, 1518 Burlingame Avenue, spoke on this item:
Has the house directly behind.
Detached garage of proposed house will back up to theirs; back yards will back up to each other too.
Proposed house has a deck on the second story looking out over the back yard.
Would make sense to flip the design on axis so that the detached garage of the new house is on the
right side of the lot, so the garages would be offset and provide a buffer. Would provide more
privacy in the yards.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
27
Very large house for the neighborhood, so this might be an improvement to the design.
Chad Altbaier, 1515 Chapin Avenue, spoke on this item:
Agrees with previous comment about changing the garage location, although the driveway as shown
has value for providing space between the houses.
Privacy is main concern: has a large bay window on the second floor with the bathtub and shower in
the window area. Has a very open view right now. Appreciates offer to add landscape screening and
frosted windows; not sure what other options are available.
Will be a spec home so the new buyer may decide to do something else.
Wants to protect mutual privacy. Bedroom #4 would look directly in line with the bay windows of the
master bath next door, separated by about 20 feet.
Concern over construction noise during the day.
Large house, takes up a lot of the lot. Might look overwhelming for the lot.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
One neighbor would like to flip house to the other side, but this would move house closer to the
other neighbor. Sometimes there is a pattern where most of the houses have the driveway on one
side.
If flipped house and put the driveway on the right side, of the four protected trees would need to take
out all four. According to the arborist report two of the trees appear to need to be removed, but
would be painful to remove all four. Would like to save the two big trees.
If the driveway and garage are kept where they are, there could be more landscaping and screening
at the back fence. There is a fair amount already.
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 Bandrapalli 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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones
recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:57
p.m.
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)
STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent reported that he had discussed the
project drawings with the project designer but did not discuss the merits of the project. There were no other
ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner
Hurin briefly presented the project description, and reported that a letter in support of the project was
received after preparation of the staff report from the property owner at 1320 Paloma Avenue. There were
no questions of staff.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
28
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period.
James Chu and Patrick Gilson represented the applicant.
Replacing an existing craftsman house with a new craftsman house.
Commission comments:
The existing house looks nice from the outside – is it in disrepair? In terms of the architectural
detailing, it is the one house on the block wouldn’t want to lose. Though it is small. (Gilson: Yes –
termite damage, and the back portion of the house is in disrepair. The beams under the house are
rotten. When purchased the home was not planning to tear it down, but when consulted with the
structural engineers it would not allow what wanted to achieve.)
Take pictures before tearing it down; maybe somebody will be inspired to build something like it.
(Gilson: Has neighborhood support.)
What are stone pillars sitting on the front porch sitting on? (Chu: They are sitting on a concrete
slab.) They look better on the rendering, where there is a low wall in front. (Chu: Blue stone wall in
front.) Stone wall in front helps give the stone pillars meaning in the design.
Lighthouse-style chimneys in stucco don’t fit with the rest of the house. In rendering they are shingle,
which seems better.
On the front façade above the gable on the right-hand side there is a gable over the stairway. It
looks blank – maybe a clerestory window over the stairway. (Gilson: Had considered a window there
initially but it would be difficult to clean.)
Likes the flanges at the bottom. Maybe taper stone bases under columns similarly, so they don’t look
so chunky and blocky.
It looks like part of the building encroaches into the declining height envelope. (Hurin: Dormers are
an exception.)
House seems big compared to the other homes on street. However there are some other larger
homes on the street that were approved that will be built, and it blends in well. (Chu: Has support
from both adjacent neighbors.)
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 Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones
recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:08
a.m.
Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes May 12, 2014
29
X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
There were no Commissioner’s Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Noted that there will be a community meeting for the Housing Element Update on Tuesday, May 20th
at 7:00 pm at the Burlingame Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue. The meeting will look at
potential opportunity sites and new housing policies.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 5, 2014:
The Sunrise Senior project at 1818 Trousdale Drive has entered into a settlement agreement with
the City, under which the building permits are extended in exchange for certain guarantees of
completion dates and construction milestones, with penalties that accrue for missed deadlines. The
contractor has been meeting with the Building Official and construction is planned to commence in
the next few weeks.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bandrapalli adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Will Loftis, Secretary
Burlingame Infrastructure Needs
May 2014
Overview
•Background
•Unfunded Infrastructure Needs
•Community Needs Assessment Survey
•Prioritization Process
•Questions and Feedback
Background
•Burlingame is 105 years old, and the city’s infrastructure is aging and
needs to be upgraded.
•The City Council has implemented a robust CIP program to address
aging infrastructure needs:
–Replacement of aging & deteriorated water and sewer pipelines
–Upgrading of reservoirs and pump stations
–Major storm drainage improvements
–50/50 sidewalk repair program
–Handicap ramps
–Parks improvements
–Streetlights and traffic signals upgrades
–Street resurfacing program
–Broadway Interchange reconstruction
•Despite the Council’s best efforts to invest in needed infrastructure
improvements, several major projects remain unfunded.
Summary of Unfunded Needs
PROJECTS ESTIMATED COST (in $MM)
Burlingame Community Center 35 - 40
Downtown Streetscape (side streets and surrounding areas) 25.00
Downtown Parking Garage 10 -20
City Hall Safety Improvements 11.50
Downtown Parking Lots Resurfacing 5.00
New Bayview Park on State Lands Parcel 4.00
New Parks Yard 3.40
Fire Station Improvements (FS 34 and 36) 2.40
Police Station Improvements 1.60
Aquatics Center Improvements 0.25
Carriage House Improvements 0.15
Total Unfunded Needs 98 - 113
Burlingame Community Center - $35M - $40M
•The facility is 65 years old and
consists of a hodgepodge of systems
built over time.
•The building is structurally deficient
and does not meet the current
seismic standards.
•The facility is deficient in several
areas such as inadequate fire
protection, plumbing, ADA
compliance issues, cramped office
space, and inadequate parking.
•The building needs to be replaced.
Downtown Streetscape – Side Streets and
Surrounding Areas - $25M
•The existing streetscape
on the side streets
surrounding Burlingame
Ave. is deteriorating.
•The streets need to be
improved to bring them to
current standards and
enhanced to match the
character of the new
Burlingame Avenue.
Downtown Parking Garage - $10M - $20M
•The Downtown area continues to
experience high parking demand.
•Parking studies have shown that
parking demand in the core
commercial area reaches
maximum capacity both on
weekdays and weekends.
•Studies suggest that additional
parking supply is needed to meet
the needs of the downtown area.
City Hall Safety Improvements - $11.5M
•City Hall is 45 years old and deficient in current building codes.
•The building is designed for a lower seismic load than what is prescribed
by current standards.
•A major earthquake could cause substantial damage to the structure and
presents risks to life safety.
•The fireproofing system above the ceiling consists of asbestos, making it
difficult and expensive to maintain HVAC and plumbing systems.
•Maintenance work will require complete abatement & shutting down the
facility.
•The mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems have reached their life
expectancy.
Downtown Parking Lots Resurfacing - $5M
•The City operates and maintains
24 public parking lot facilities in
the commercial districts.
•Parking lot surfaces have
deteriorated beyond repairs and
require complete rehabilitation.
New Bayview Park on State-owned
Bayfront Parcel - $4M
•The City Council and Parks & Recreation Commission have
expressed a desire to expand the City’s parks system to better
serve the community.
•The project would include a new park facility, a shore -like trail along
the Bayfront, landscaping, picnic areas and restroom facilities.
New Parks Yard - $3.4M
•The Parks Yard contains
inadequate space for staff
operations and meetings.
•The building’s heating and
ventilation are sub par.
•There is inadequate space for
the shop, equipment repairs
and maintenance.
Fire Station Improvements - $2.4M
•The fire stations have
insufficient office
space for the merged
CCFD fire
administration.
•There is limited
parking and
inadequate ADA
bathroom facilities.
Police Station Improvements - $1.6M
•The building has inadequate
space for an Emergency
Operations Center.
•There is no emergency
generator and an outdated
heating and ventilation system.
•There is inadequate parking for
public & employees.
•The building has limited
disabled access.
Aquatics Center Improvements - $250k
•The locker room has inadequate shower and
locker facilities.
•The plumbing system needs to be upgraded.
Carriage House Improvements - $150k
•The carriage house
structure does not
meet the current
building and fire safety
codes.
•The building needs to
be upgraded to meet
the current codes and
preserve Burlingame’s
historic documents.
Community Needs Assessment Survey
Burlingame Community Center
Downtown Streetscape
Downtown Parking Garage
City Hall Safety Improvements
Downtown Parking Lot Resurfacing
New Bayside Park
New Parks Yard
Fire Station Improvements
Police Station Improvements
Aquatic Center Improvements
Carriage House Improvements
NOT
CRITICAL
Fire stations 34 & 36 lack sufficient administrative space, have inadequate facilities for
operations, and have limited parking. This project would expand the current facilities to
make them more functional.
VERY
CRITICAL
SOMEWHAT
CRITICAL
The Recreation Center is 65 years old, lacks adequate program facilities, is structurally
deficient, and is in need of replacement.
COSTPROJECT
$4M
$10-20M
$11.5M
$35-40M
The Aquatic Center, a community facility located at Burlingame High School, lacks
sufficient shower and locker facilities.
The Carriage House in Washington Park needs to be upgraded to meet current building
and fire safety codes.
$25MThe existing streetscape on side streets around Burlingame Avenue needs to be improved
and enhanced to match the character of Burlingame Avenue.
There is a high demand for parking in and near downtown Burlingame. A new parking
garage in the downtown core would help address the parking demand.
City Hall is over 40 years old, does not meet current seismic standards, and lacks
adequate fire protection. Many of the building's systems and components are original,
near their expected design life, and need upgrading.
Burlingame's 25 public parking lots in the commercial areas have deterriorated and can
no longer be adequately repaired. They now require complete resurfacing.
The City would like to build a new park along the Bay on Airport Blvd. The park would
provide much-needed picnic areas, restrooms, and sports fields, and it would fill in a
missing gap in the Bay Trail.
The existing Parks Yard is inadequate and difficult to access. A new Parks Yard would be
relocated away from residential areas, allowing the current location at Washington Park
to be restored to park land.
$1.6M
$0.25M
$0.15M
$3.4M
2.4M
$5M
The Police station was built in the 1980s. Many components of the building are original
and need to be upgraded, such as the emergency generator, the HVAC system, and the
command and operation spaces.
Unfunded Infrastructure Needs
Prioritization Process
Step 1
•City Council reviews
& approves the
following:
•Unfunded
infrastructure needs
list
•Prioritization criteria
•Overall process for
prioritization &
funding plan
Step 2
•Community
outreach process –
City seeks public
input on
prioritization of
projects
Step 3
•Council reviews
public input
•Council individually
scores projects and
submits score sheets
to staff
•Staff compiles
results and presents
them to Council for
approval
Step 4
•Staff studies
financing options for
projects
•Staff develops
funding strategies
•Staff holds study
session with City
Council to finalize
the funding plan(s)
Questions and Comments
Email: Infrastructure@burlingame.org
Complete Online Survey at:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BurlingameAssessment
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.
Agenda Item 3
2714 Easton Drive
This item has been continued
at the request of the applicant.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
7:30 P.M.
Council Chambers
Item No. 6
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 27, 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: Please note that this staff report reflects the revisions made to the project, based on the
revised plans date stamped May 21, 2014, and also includes correspondence received after preparation of the
May 12, 2014 staff report. Please refer to the attached May 12, 2014 staff report for all previously submitted
materials concerning this project.
The proposal includes construction of 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 and support of the proposed project have
been submitted by neighboring property owners. These letters are listed under ‘Attachments’ at the end of the
May 12, 2014 staff report and are attached for review.
May 12, 2014 Action Meeting: At the May 12, 2014, Planning Commission action meeting, the Commission
voted to continue the item due to unresolved issues and strongly encouraged the property owner, designer and
concerned neighbors to meet and discuss the final remaining issues with the project (see attached May 12, 2014
Planning Commission Minutes). The property owner, designer and several neighbors (Ray and Barbara Forrest,
6 La Mesa Court and Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane) met on Monday, May 19, 2014 to discuss the project
issues.
Listed on the following page are changes made to the project since the May 12, 2014 action meeting. These
changes are compared to the previous plans date stamped May 2, 2014. Planning staff would note that the
applicant submitted revised plans on the day of the public hearing, date stamped May 12, 2014, but these plans
are not used for comparison since there was not enough time to adequately review them. Please also refer to
the attached meeting minutes and applicant’s response letter, dated May 21, 2014, for a detailed description of
the revisions made to the project.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
2
The width of the house was reduced by an additional 0’-6” on all floors and the house was shifted 1’-0”
towards the right side property line (see revised site plan, floor plans and building elevations, dated
stamped May 21, 2014). As a result, this increased the left side setback at the front corner of the house
by 1’-6”, from 16’-6” to 18’-0” and at the cantilevered portion of the house by 1’-6”, from 16’-0” to 17’-6”.
The terrace around the pool, along the rear and left side of the house, was lowered by 2’-0”, from
elevation 71.79’ to 69.79’ (see revised site plan, basement floor plan and building elevations).
Frosted glass has been added to several windows along the left side of the house, including windows in
the office, den/library, bathroom #3 and bedroom #2 (see revised Left Side Elevation). In addition, the
window height in bedroom #2 has been reduced by 2’-6” by increasing the height of the metal panel
under the window (affects the left side and rear of the house).
Aluminum baffle screening (a see-through shade device) has been added to a portion of the sliding glass
doors in the kitchen and dining room (see revised floor plan and Rear Building Elevation).
Note has been added to the site plan indicating that an existing oak tree located at 6 La Mesa Court will
be protected during construction as required by recommendations in an arborist report (to be provided
prior to issuance of a building permit).
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
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.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
3
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
7 trees on the property, 3 of which are of a protected size. They include two Coast Live Oak trees (16.3 and 20
inches in 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
4
4 La Mesa Court
Lot Area: 16,227 SF Plans date stamped: May 21, 2014
Previous
(5/2/14 plans)
Proposed
(5/21/14 plans) Allowed/Required
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
(attached garage):
20’-9”
n/a
25’-0” (average)
no change
n/a
no change
20'-9" (block average)
20'-9" (block average)
25’-0”
Side (left):
(right):
16'-6" (8’-0” to terrace)
12’-10”
18'-0" (9’-0” to terrace)
12’-10”
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: 4272 SF
26.3%
4246 SF
26.1%
40% is 6491 SF, however
the lot coverage cannot
exceed 6293 SF since this
is the maximum allowed
FAR (see below)
FAR: 5388 SF
0.33 FAR
5325 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.
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
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
5
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. 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. Please refer to the analysis and
response to these points in the previous May 12, 2014 staff report.
The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that this conclusion, based on the
Initial Study, facts in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing,
and Planning Commission observation and experience, are consistent with the finding of no significant
environmental impact. The mitigation measures in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the
recommended conditions of approval (see conditions in italics).
Required Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission
must review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant (negative) effect on the environment.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by
the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby
properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling
unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060).
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
6
(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 1, 2014, sheets T1.0, GN, GP, SP, C-2, Boundary and Topographic Survey, A1.0 through A5.0,
L1.0, L2.0, FAR and Tree; and that prior to issuance of a building permit the Landscape Plans shall be
revised to show six, 24-inch box Catalina Cherry trees (Prunus ilicifolia) in place of the Grecian Laurel
trees (Laurus nobilis) located along the left side property line; and that the glazing along the rear of the
house shall be anti-reflective;
2. that all existing trees to remain, as shown on the Landscape Plan (sheet L1.0, date stamped May 21,
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;
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;
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
7
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;
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;
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
8
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.
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
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
9
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
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
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
10
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
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.
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit 4 La Mesa Court
and Special Permit
11
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
Attachments:
May 12, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant’s Letter of Response to Planning Commission Comments, dated May 21, 2014
E-Mail from Tim Raduenz, project designer, dated May 12, 2014
E-Mail from Chris Awoyinka, 4 La Mesa Court, dated May 11, 2014
Letter from Chris and Suzanne Awoyinka, 4 La Mesa Court, dated May 8, 2014
Letter from Mark Intrieri, 2 La Mesa Court, dated May 21, 2014
E-Mail from Katie Intrieri, 2 La Mesa Court, dated May 14, 2014
Letter from Ray and Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, dated May 11, 2014
Letter from Isako Hoshino and Matt Machlis, 1510 La Mesa Lane, date stamped May 9, 2014
E-Mail from Isako Hoshino and Matt Machlis, 1510 La Mesa Lane, dated May 8, 2014
Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 16, 2014
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
May 12, 2014 - 7:00 p.m.
1
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) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 28, 2014 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING)
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Yie noted that she had met with applicant and
visited 1510 La Mesa Lane. Commissioner Gum noted he visited the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa Lane.
Commissioner DeMartini noted he met with applicant, the designer, and the neighbors at 6 La Mesa Court
and 1510 La Mesa Lane. Commissioner Loftis noted he met with the applicant and the neighbor at 1510 La
Mesa Lane. Chair Bandrapalli noted she met with the applicant and with the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa
Lane. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the
report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. He further noted that in response to a commissioner inquiry
regarding the Grecian laurel trees proposed near the oak trees, staff checked with the City Arborist and
project landscape designer, and the proposal is to use Catalina cherry trees instead. The City Arborist noted
that the change would be acceptable in place of the Grecian laurels in his opinion. Forty-one (41) conditions
were suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
Did not have a chance to review new drawings. Is there an issue with taking action on drawings that
have just been received, and that the public has not had a chance to review? (Kane: It is in the
Planning Commission’s discretion whether it is able to take action on the item. While the plans were
submitted late, if the determination is that the changes would not worsen any of the conditions that
the neighbors were concerned about, it would not be unlike Commission approving plans with
amended Conditions of Approval with FYI review. If the Commission is concerned about the
proposed changes it could continue the item.)
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz represented the applicant:
Last-minute changes were made in response to the letter from the Forrests.
Tree retained for the neighbors across the canyon to protect their natural view.
Reducing the width of the house by 6 inches , to get to the 2 feet objective.
Library study window smaller, about half the size. Neighbor had said 30 inches would be acceptable.
Last-minute changes are in favor of the neighbors.
Addressed comments plus other concerns of the Forrests.
Commission questions:
Concern at 1510 La Mesa Lane about light and amount of glass. Do you meet Title 24 by
prescription or performance? (Raduenz: Performance). Do you know the proportion of glass to wall?
(Raduenz: Does not know exact number, but can have it calculated if it is a Condition of Approval.)
By performance, that means it has been analyzed by computer to ensure it will meet Title 24?
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2014
2
(Raduenz: Correct. The Burlingame standard requires exceeding the Title 24 minimum by 15
percent).
Have you viewed the site from 1510 La Mesa Lane? (Raduenz: Viewed from road, not from the
house. Keeping every tree except one that is in the house.)
The panoramic view photo submitted by the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa Lane shows story poles, but
part of it is obscured by a tree. Is that the tree that will be retained? It looks like you can only see
about half of the house since it is blocked by the tree. (Raduenz: Are keeping two out of the three
oak trees.)
Are there plans to have black-out shades on the rear windows? (Raduenz: Yes.)
The applicant said he could plant new trees to provide cover, and talk about retaining the bay tree.
(Raduenz: Depends on what kind of tree is being requested. Would be up for considering it. If the
bay tree needs to be removed, could plant some fast-growing cover trees, though it will take some
time.)
Is tree #9 remaining? (Raduenz: Yes. #9 is the bay tree.)
Result of the letters back and forth regarding the level of the patio? (Raduenz: Sunk it by 2 feet on
the last submittal.)
Could come down to issue of glazing and light. If that is a go or no-go, would there be agreement to
change amount of square footage of glass? (Raduenz: Would rather not. Submitted an anti-glazing
specification sheet, to be used as part of an approval.)
Would the window shades be black-out shades or a high-density micro shade? (Raduenz: A micro
shade. Header height has been lowered so there will be room for an architectural soffit for the
shades.)
Occupancy sensors in the main areas? (Raduenz: Yes.)
For reducing glazing, in the Living Room could lift up from the bottom (Raduenz: Could be up to 2
feet, but would lose some of the architectural design. It is low to be able to see the living roof.)
Can there be a condition that specifies that neighbors cannot appeal? (Kane: City cannot do
anything to change the appeal procedures – they are in the Municipal Code. Individuals may enter
into private agreements that make sense to them, but the City cannot impose that as a condition.)
Public comments:
Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item:
Plans submitted one hour before the meeting. Not a thoughtful way for the City of Burlingame to do
things. Not respectful to the neighbors who have spent dozens of hours trying to make it better.
Had reached out to applicant right after last meeting so something like this would not happen.
This home must adhere to the Municipal Code and to the design guidelines – both, not just one.
The design guidelines clearly state that the Neighborhood Design Guidebook is equal in importance
to building code research and zoning ordinance research.
Inadequate representation of how the house was moved. It was moved 4 feet closer from the
original story poles. In revised plans the front of the house most critical to the impact to privacy and
light was moved only 1 foot – only the back of the house was moved 1½ feet. Asking for 4 feet.
There is still such a blockage of sunlight, will be looking at a wall from the kitchen. The design
guidelines say to include sensitive placement and height of buildings to avoid substantial blockage
of existing sunlight patterns.
Has had an enlargement and addition of windows. Window across from kitchen keeps increasing in
size; would like it eliminated. If it is returned to its original size (which could be an option) would like
it fully frosted at a level 10.
Window placement should avoid direct views. When built their home they respected their neighbors.
Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2014
3
Back yard retaining wall is 10 feet above the pool elevation. With the railing it is 13½ feet above, and
8 feet away from property line. Elevated back yard is about 1300 square feet.
Not maintaining the natural grade at property line as outlined in the design guidelines.
The design guidelines say to avoid using retaining walls to increase height above neighbors.
The design guidelines say outdoor spaces should not loom over neighboring properties.
Will be looking 13 feet into the air, will lose privacy.
Would like it lowered by 4 feet so it is below fence line. Currently railing is 3 feet above the fence.
Tim Raduenz, project designer, spoke on this item:
The oak trees will be retained.
The railing is the barbeque area at the other side of the property. The pool is 2 feet lower, in
response to comments.
The side window is the size expressed in the letter (3’ x 9’). It is completely glazed 100% in frosted
glass.
8 to 9 feet away from setbacks to the chimney overhang.
Pushed everything forward. It is a sloping site and the house is as far forward as can be, consistent
with neighboring houses.
Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item:
Glazing on the rear elevation is extreme and does not fit with a residential neighborhood.
According to Title 24, typical new single family residential construction has a conditioned floor
area/glazing percentage within a 13-23% range, 17% average.
Did a study of a modern house on Margarita Avenue, and based on plans calculated ratio of 23%.
Calculated 51% for the proposed structure, about 2½ times the glazing of the house on Margarita
Avenue.
If calculated 23% glazing (same as Margarita Avenue example) and applied it to the proposed
structure, would calculate at 984 square feet of glazing for the entire structure; proposed structure
has 1,285 square feet of glass on the rear. The proposed structure has more glass on the rear than
one house has on all sides.
Margarita Avenue house has 29% glass on the rear wall; the current project has average of 70%. It
is more than twice the glazing as found on what appears to be a typical contemporary house.
Even on top level of the Margarita house (with most windows) the wall-to-window ratio is 38%; the
upper level of the proposed structure is 73%.
Glazing is extreme for any residential structure and is inconsistent with the character of the
neighborhood.
Appreciate the occupancy lighting sensors on the lower levels.
Christopher Awoyinka, 4 La Mesa Court, spoke as the applicant:
Fourth visit to Planning Commission.
At last meeting concluded there were three main concerns to be addressed. Updated plans reflect
the recommendations that were made at the last meeting.
Proposing to retain a bay tree to help provide the screen for 1510 La Mesa Lane.
Have reduced the overall width of the house by 2 feet, have dropped the lower terrace by 2 feet, and
will keep the oak tree on the left corner and the bay tree.
Not thrilled with concessions but feels have spent enough time going back and forth on the project.
We have given all that could possibly give.
The Forrests at 6 La Mesa Court sold the vacant lot approximately a year ago. The marketing
literature advertised property as an ideal opportunity to build a home with panoramic views. The
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2014
4
property had been on market for one year already, so expect during that time neighbors would have
had time to digest the changes that were to come.
Has done everything to meet neighbors half way. Has asked for the Commission to be fair and
equitable.
Robert Crow, 1512 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item:
Have written two letters to the Commission.
Not opposed to having a house on the lot. 4 La Mesa Court currently looks like a missing tooth.
Welcomes contemporary design – that is not an issue.
Bronze siding is a step forward rather than the white stucco first proposed.
The problems are mass and glass. This is the wrong house for this site.
Applicants have never proposed more than marginal changes to the original proposal, as far as the
mass and glass are concerned.
Glass on rear face is 70%, but the top two floors will have the most impact, and those measure
about 90%.
The house is intrusive and the amount of glass is problem for reflection and light source.
Alex Kilgo, 1530 La Mesa Drive, spoke on this item:
In the last meeting one of the commissioners said “something is wrong since there is nothing but
negatives.” This is not the case.
Have talked with the applicants and there have been concessions.
Other neighbors may not be able to come to the Planning Commission because they have small
kids and it is not an opportune time to come to a meeting.
Supports project and believes there are a lot of other people in the neighborhood who are not in
attendance to protest, because they are not against it.
Jesse Zimmer, 1541 La Mesa Drive, spoke on this item:
Would be nice to have other kids in the neighborhood.
When there is an empty lot next door or nearby there is always a chance it will be built on.
Would be great to have home that would increase property values, that is modern and different from
what else is already there in the neighborhood.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments:
Disturbing to hear that both parties have tried to have a conversation, but it seems to never have
happened. We would hope that issues could get sorted out by neighbors, because the proposed
project appears to be legal in terms of the regulations including performing 15 percent better than
Title 24.
There is plenty of evidence of concessions on the part of the applicant.
The pool had been further out, but was brought back in. Trees have been retained that were
originally proposed to be removed; they still need to have room to build the house.
Initially the design was very bulky, but it was revised to step down the slope more.
Materials have been changed to blend into the environment more.
The remaining issue seems to be the amount of glazing. Not as much of an issue on the second
level with the bedrooms since the shades will be drawn at night.
Some neighbors have sliding doors and balconies as well.
Feels close – it is a good project. Perhaps reduce some of the glazing on the back.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2014
5
To expect there to be no change in the type of architecture over time seems unrealistic.
Topic of guidelines. Direction has been, if there is a place for contemporary architecture it will be in
the hills. If not here, where?
Guidelines and code are not a science. Relies on interpretation. Everyone will not get what they
want.
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
Commission questions to the designer:
Confusion with front of the house: has said it has been pulled it back 2 feet, but neighbor mentioned
it was only one foot at the front and 1’-6” at the back. Has it been pulled back 2 feet, or is it 2 feet in
the back and 1’-6” in the front? (Raduenz: The overhang of the Living Room and bedroom below in
the rear portion went 6 inches in, and the house was reduced in width by 1 foot. Then took another
6 inches out of the garage and kitchen. So the front corner of the house is set back an additional 1’-
6” and the portion of the library is set back 2’-0”. Were concerned about the Living Room and the
light source so was pushed back.)
What should the neighbors expect on the three stories of windows in terms of glazing and shades?
(Raduenz: Anti-glare film used on apartment buildings in the region. It does not give a green or
bronze tint, it is clear. Can share the specifications with the neighbors. Have provided sample of the
frosted glass for the neighbors at 6 La Mesa Court.)
Comments about the amount of glazing in the back? (Raduenz: It is a modern house with a view.
Neighbors have glass as well. Only concession would be to bring the Living Room windows up 18
inches – unfortunate because of the green roof. With the trees retained the only part of the house
that will be seen across the canyon will be the kitchen bump-out.) (Awoyinka: Neighbors across the
canyon are not facing the property head-on. Retaining the trees will provide screening.)
Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item:
Have not had a chance to review the plans.
Tim Raduenz spoke as the project designer:
Neighbors should have time to review the plans. Assumed they would have until the next meeting to
review the plans.
Have responded to the requests in the letter with the revised set of plans.
Commission questions:
Is there an architectural motif that could break the bars of glazing into discrete pieces? (Awoyinka:
Everyone appreciates a good view. The neighbors have glass top levels for the view too.)
Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item:
Window areas are not comparable. Patio window area at 1510 La Mesa is 3 windows totaling 180
square feet. Proposed house has 1,285 square feet on the rear, and 414 square feet on the top
elevation.
Not accurate to say 1510 La Mesa is all glass.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2014
6
It is a beautiful house, but the standard is whether it fits into the neighborhood. This effects glazing,
finish surfaces, envelope, etc. Though envelope needs to be stretched over time, is it by evolution or
revolution?
Criteria are the design guidelines, which suggest a house that seems to fit into the existing
neighborhood.
Applicant appears to be suggesting more time.
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing.
Tim Raduenz spoke as the project designer:
Was thinking there could be approval, and neighbors could review drawings.
Have done everything requested.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion:
There is a need for applicant and neighbors to meet face-to-face to discuss remaining issues.
Can review and discuss the changes that have been proposed.
Not sufficient to look at view from 1510 La Mesa from the driveway; needs to be from inside the
house. (Kane: Commission cannot require people to meet or provide access to their private homes.
It is the hope of the Commission that the parties will have a productive conversation but it cannot be
required of anyone.)
It is in the interest of both sides to meet.
Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application to a date certain (May 27, 2014), by resolution.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis.
Discussion of motion:
None.
Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-2-0.
(Commissioners Sargent and Terrones recused). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This
item concluded at 9:12 p.m.
Obscure Glass
The characteristics of obscure glass vary. Texturing processes may produce defects in the glass. Please
examine a large sample before placing your order.
White Laminated Bamboo Square Cross-Reed
Delta Frost Euro Rain Everglade
Farao Reeded 157 Quatrix Frost
Reeded Santa Fe Sycamore
Home Dealer Search Products Designers Builder/Installer Homeowners Dealers
Fleetwood - Custom Luxury Windows & Doors http://www.fleetwoodusa.net/menu_bar/Designers/obscure-glass.php
1 of 2 5/12/2014 3:25 PM
Taffeta Delta Clear Double Glue Chip
Fleetwood - Custom Luxury Windows & Doors http://www.fleetwoodusa.net/menu_bar/Designers/obscure-glass.php
2 of 2 5/12/2014 3:25 PM
Anti-reflective Glass
Pilkington OptiView™
Pilkington OptiView™ Clear float glass
Float glass
Pilkington OptiView™
Float glass
PVB Interlayer
Pilkington OptiView™
Pilkington OptiView™
Shanghai Museum, China
Pilkington OptiView™
Color neutral, anti-reflective glass
Pilkington OptiView™ is a laminated glass with
anti-reflective coatings on surfaces #1 and #4
(both outer surfaces of the laminated glass), which
reduces interior and exterior visible light reflectance
to under 2%. As a consequence, views from both
inside and out are clear, un-obscured and virtually
reflection-free.
Pilkington OptiView™ offers all the traditional
benefits of laminated glass, such as improved
safety, enhanced security, durability, acoustic
properties, and solar energy control. It also offers
durability, design flexibility, easy installation and low
visual distortion. Furthermore, it provides protection
from UV radiation (UVA and UVB) by blocking over
99% of UV transmittance, helping to reduce fading
of the contents and interiors of a building.
A single lite of Pilkington OptiView™ can be used
in a monolithic application, with the anti-reflective
coating on one surface, which reduces visible light
reflectance and allows more visible light to pass
through, when compared to clear float glass with
8% light reflectance as standard.
Available Laminated Glass Thicknesses
l 1/4” (6mm) Based on 3mm (1/8")
+ clear pvb + 3mm (1/8")
l 5/16” (8mm) Based on 4mm (5/32")
+ clear pvb + 4mm (5/32")
l 1/2” (12mm) Based on 6mm (1/4")
+ clear pvb + 6mm (1/4")
Available Stock Sizes
l 96” x 130”
l 102” x 130”
l 130” x 180”
l 130” x 204”
Pilkington OptiView™
Pilkington OptiView™
Falcon Warf, UK
Pilkington OptiView™
J Foster Jewelers, Ohio.
Benefits
Safety
Pilkington OptiView™ is a laminated safety glass
that performs under impact. Ordinary glass
shatters into large pieces when impacted, while
the laminated lites of Pilkington OptiView™
resist penetration and are shatter-resistant. Even
though the glass may break, the glass fragments
will remain firmly bonded to the interlayer,
minimizing the risk of injury.
Security
Pilkington OptiView™ can help protect against
break-ins and theft. Standard glass can be easily
broken, allowing burglars easy access. The
interlayers provide a safeguard against intrusion
by remaining intact even when glass is broken.
Pilkington OptiView™ can be bulletproof and
even protect against bomb blasts by using certain
glazing combinations.
Pilkington OptiView™ can be used in place of
metal bars in applications such as banks, prisons
and convenient stores requiring high security.
Audio Performance
Pilkington OptiView™ provides an excellent
barrier to noise. The laminated lites provide
insulation against audio disturbances by
dampening the sound.
Applications
With its large size capability and ability to be
processed like ordinary glass, Pilkington OptiView™
is ideal for a wide range of traditional and new anti-
reflective applications in which clarity of view is of
paramount importance.
l Display cases
l Retail shop fronts
l Showrooms
l Panoramic restaurants
l High rise condominiums or apartments
l Glass atriums
l Sports stadiums
Pilkington OptiView™ can be used to enhance any
view, either looking inwards or outwards. At night,
occupants in high rise condominiums or apartments
can enjoy spectacular views from their residence,
reducing reflected images in the glass as seen with
standard glass.
Adding to its unique properties, it is available in
larger sizes and achieves a more neutral color
than any other anti-reflective glasses, providing
architects with greater freedom to innovate than
before. Pilkington OptiView™ is easily fabricated
due to the durable coating and when incorporated
into insulating glass units, it can be combined with
other products from the Pilkington range to provide
additional benefits such as solar control or thermal
insulation.
Pilkington OptiView™
Flagstar Bank, Michigan
Solar Energy Control
Pilkington OptiView™ reduces solar heat gain and
heat transfer when compared to ordinary clear
glass.
UV Control
Its anti-reflective properties allow it to absorb
UV wavelengths and reduce damage and fading
caused by UV radiation.
Thermal Performance
The Pilkington OptiView™ coating contains
emissivity properties that provide a U-factor
comparable to that of a laminated insulated glass
unit with our thermal performance low-e,
Pilkington Energy Advantage™.
Pilkington OptiView™
Beijing Museum, China
Durability
Pilkington OptiView™ is durable and maintains its
strength and is easy to clean like ordinary glass.
Design Flexibility
Pilkington OptiView™ can be bent, tempered,
heat-strengthened, painted for spandrel and a
ceramic frit can be applied.
Custom designs, images, logos, text, patterns,
or tinted interlayers can be laminated into the
lites to create a truly personalized application.
The design can be easily cleaned and free of
fingerprints and other abrasions.
Easy Installation
Pilkington OptiView™ is easily installed. Most
laminated combinations can be easily cut to size
and fabricated.
No Visual Distortion
Distortion can occur with heat-strengthened and
tempered glass, known as roller wave distortion.
Pilkington OptiView™ provides crisp, clean views,
free of distortion.
Pilkington OptiView™
Beijing Museum, China
Severe Weather
and Natural Disaster Protection
Extra protection should be taken in areas where
severe weather is expected, such as severe
storms, high winds, hurricanes or cyclones.
Air born debris can easily shatter windows,
causing interior damage and personal injury.
Combinations of laminated Pilkington OptiView™
can be designed to withstand impact to prevent
devastating damage. It can even prevent damage
caused from glass breakage during earthquakes.
Laminated glass can keep the glass intact and in
its frame.
Features
l Exterior and interior light reflection reduced
to less than 2%;
l Light transmittance greater than 90%;
l High clarity;
l UV transmittance reduced by over 99%;
l Superior safety, security and acoustic
performance;
l Highly durable, on-line pyrolytic coating;
l Large size capability.
Pilkington OptiView™
President's House,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Clear float glass performance based on non-laminated glass.
Thickness of Laminated Single Glass = thickness of glass layer + thickness of pvb + thickness of glass layer
l 6.8mm Pilkington OptiView™ Laminated Single Glass = 3mm Pilkington OptiView™ (#1) + 0.8 clear pvb layer + 3mm Pilkington OptiView™ (#4)
l 8.8mm Pilkington OptiView™ Laminated Single Glass = 4mm Pilkington OptiView™ (#1) + 0.8 clear pvb layer + 4mm Pilkington OptiView™ (#4)
l 12.8mm Pilkington OptiView™ Laminated Single Glass = 6mm Pilkington OptiView™ (#1) + 0.8 clear pvb layer + 6mm Pilkington OptiView™ (#4)
(Note - all thicknesses are nominal)
Nominal Glass
Thickness Visible Light2 Solar Energy2 U-Factor5
Solar Heat Gain Coefficient7Shading Coefficient8in.mm
Transmittance3 %Reflectance4
%Transmittance3 %Reflectance4 %UVTransmittance2 %U.S. Summer*U.S. Winter*European**OutsideInsidePilkington OptiView™1/4 6 92 1.7 1.7 70 4 <1 0.68 0.80 4.6 0.77 0.88
Clear Glass (non-laminated)1/4 6 88 8 8 77 7 63 0.93 1.03 5.7 0.82 0.94
Pilkington OptiView™5/16 8 90 1.7 1.7 67 4 <1 0.67 0.79 4.5 0.75 0.86
Clear Glass (non-laminated)5/16 8 87 8 8 73 7 57 0.92 1.01 5.6 0.79 0.91
Pilkington OptiView™1/2 12 88 1.7 1.7 62 3 <1 0.66 0.77 4.4 0.71 0.82
Clear Glass (non-laminated)1/2 12 84 8 8 64 6 49 0.89 0.98 5.5 0.73 0.84
Nominal Glass
Thickness Visible Light2 Solar Energy2 U-Factor5
Solar Heat Gain Coefficient7Shading Coefficient8in.mm
Transmittance3%Reflectance4
%Transmittance3 %Reflectance4 %UV Transmittance2 %U.S. Summer* U.S. Winter*European**OutsideInsideAirArgonAirArgonAirArgonPilkington OptiView™ Outer Lite (Coating on #1 and #2 Surface) and Pilkington OptiView™ Inner Lite (Coating on #3 and #4 Surface)
1/4 6 84 3 3 54 5 <1 0.33 0.30 0.33 0.30 1.9 1.7 0.66 0.76
5/16 8 81 3 3 50 5 <1 0.32 0.30 0.32 0.29 1.9 1.7 0.64 0.73
1/2 12 77 3 3 43 4 <1 0.32 0.29 0.32 0.29 1.9 1.7 0.59 0.68
Laminated Single Glass Performance Data1, 10
Double Laminated Insulating Glass Performance Data1, 10
An insulating unit consists of two lites of equal glass thickness.
Thickness of Double Laminated Insulating Glass = thickness of Laminated Single Glass layer + air space thickness + thickness of Laminated Single Glass layer
l 26.3mm Pilkington OptiView™ Double Laminated Insulating Glass =
6.8mm Pilkington OptiView™ Laminated Single Glass + 12.7 airspace + 6.8mm Pilkington OptiView™ Laminated Single Glass
l 30.3mm Pilkington OptiView™ Double Laminated Insulating Glass =
8.8mm Pilkington OptiView™ Laminated Single Glass + 12.7 airspace + 8.8mm Pilkington OptiView™ Laminated Single Glass
l 38.3mm Pilkington OptiView™ Double Laminated Insulating Glass =
12.8mm Pilkington OptiView™ Laminated Single Glass + 12.7 airspace + 12.8mm Pilkington OptiView™ Laminated Single Glass
Notes: Contact Pilkington for other Pilkington OptiView™ thickness and laminated glass combinations.
*U.S. U-factor (Btu/hr.sq ft. oF) is based on NFRC/ASTM standards
**European U-factor (W/sq m K) is based on EN 410/673 (CEN) standard
All performance values are center-of-glass values calculated by the LBNL Window 6.3 program.
See Pilkington Architectural Product Guide for explanation of superscript references-1, 10.
June 2013
Pilkington North America
811 Madison Ave Toledo, Ohio 43604-5684
buildingproducts.pna@nsg.com
Tel 800 221 0444 l Fax 419 247 4573
www.pilkington.com/na
This publication provides only a general description of the product. Further, more detailed, information may be obtained from your local
supplier of Pilkington products. It is the responsibility of the user to ensure that the use of this product is appropriate for any
particular application and that such use complies with all relevant legislation, standards, codes of practice and other requirements. To the
fullest extent permitted by applicable laws, Nippon Sheet Glass Co. Ltd. and its subsidiary companies disclaim all liability for any error
in or omission from this publication and for all consequences of relying on it. Pilkington, “OptiView," and "Energy Advantage" are trademarks owned
by Nippon Sheet Glass Co. Ltd, or a subsidiary thereof.
Page 2
(#EP+1//"C%,"$$#E"%#$"%#66$*6$1#,"%,*%#E-1"F"%,-"%2*#/%*+%/*02%,"$'%)>$F1F#/%*+%,-"%,$"")4%#0C%
8-",-"$%,-"%C1),#0E"%*+%,-")"%),$>E,>$")%1)%,$>/7%)>++1E1"0,%,*%)#+"2>#$C%,-"%-"#/,-%*+%,-"%,$"")=%
%
!"#$%&'&#(")*(+$)
&(%,$-$#)./-0)
1(2-%+3$)/#4,)5%2$)4/)-#$$)
-#6+7)-4)/46+&%-(4+)./-0)
8)4/)#44-2)
2$9$#$&)
:;)/-)
.-#$$2)<=>)<?>)<@A>)<A=0)@)B@8)
:;):):C8)
:;)B):D8)
:;)D):@8)
:;);)@C8)
:;)=)@D8)
:;)?)@@8)
))))))
@A)/-)
.-#$$2)<@>)<D>)<@E>)<A?0)@):=8)
@A):):A8)
@A)B)@;8)
@A)D)@E8)
@A);)AD8)
@A)=)AA8)
@A)?);8)
Table 1 Estimated dependency of the extent of root damage on the distance
of foundation from trunk of a tree. *
%
4-,56#$*7(',*
*
OEE*$C102%,*%,-"%!""#$%&'()$!*$+,&(-&./$0.1)(23)$4)5,&6)7).'8%C*E>'"0,4%,-"%#F"$#2"%2/#K102%
6"$E"0,#2"%*+%E*0C1,1*0"C%+/**$%#$"#%R3VOS%*+%#%0"8/7%E*0),$>E,"C%$")1C"0,1#/%-*>)"%10%3#/1+*$01#%
1)%9I=NX%RV12>$"%9S=%&*),%*+%,-"%-*>)")%+#//%81,-10%,-"%9NGANX%6"$E"0,#2"%$#02"=%%%Figure 1%#/)*%
)-*8)%,-#,%9X%*$%+"8"$%*+%0"8%E*0),$>E,1*0%)102/"%+#'1/7%-*'")%-#F"%E*0C1,1*0"C%+/**$%#$"#%
R3VOS%2/#K102%6"$E"0,#2"%#(*F"%A^X=%%O%$*>2-%E#/E>/#,1*0%*+%3VO%2/#K102%6"$E"0,#2"%*+%?%<#%&")#%
3,%21F")%#%F#/>"%*+%:9X=%M-"%:9X%2/#K102%6"$E"0,#2"%*+%?%<#%&")#%3,%1)%10%,-"%),#,1),1E#/%"H,$"'"4%
#0C%E/"#$/7%0*,%81,-10%,-"%E-#$#E,"$%*+%,-"%0"12-(*$-**C%#$*>0C%?%<#%&")#%3,%8-"$"%,-"%2/#K102%
6"$E"0,#2")%"#)1/7%+#//%81,-10%,-"%9NGANX%$#02"=%
%
V*$%#%/#$2"4%#66$*H1'#,"/7%?AB;%)J%+,%E*0C1,1*0"C%+/**$%#$"#%-*>)"%/1P"%,-"%6$*6*)"C%?%<#%&")#%3,%
),$>E,>$"4%,*,#/%2/#K102%#$"#%*+%#0%#F"$#2"%-*>)"%10%3#/1+*$01#%8*>/C%("%#66$*H1'#,"/7%I?;%)J%+,4%
81,-%,-"%'#D*$1,7%*+%-*>)")%+#//102%10%,-"%$#02"%*+%::UG^B?%)J%+,=%%M-"%E>$$"0,%6$*6*)"C%6$*D"E,%
-#)%*F"$%AA;;%)J%+,%*+%2/#K102%#$"#4%*+%8-1E-%#66$*H1'#,"/7%9AI:%)J%+,%R:IX%*+%,-"%,*,#/S%1)%*0%,-"%
$"#$%"/"F#,1*0=%%M-1)%#'*>0,)%,*%?%,*%I%,1'")%,-"%#'*>0,%*+%/12-,%"'1,,102%+$*'%,-"%$"#$4%E*'6#$"C%
,*%#0%#F"$#2"%0"8/7%E*0),$>E,"C%-*>)"%10%,-"%),#,"%*+%3#/1+*$01#=%%V*$%#%-1//)1C"%6$*6"$,7%81,-%
F1"8)%10%#%'*C"$#,"%E/1'#,"%K*0"4%*0"%8*>/C%"H6"E,%,-"%3VO%2/#K102%$#,1*%,*%("%*0%,-"%-12-"$%"0C%
*+%,-"%C1),$1(>,1*04%#$*>0C%ANX=%%O,%ANX%,-"%,*,#/%2/#K102%8*>/C%("%^B?%)J%+,4%8-1E-%1)%/"))%,-#0%
-#/+%*+%,-"%6$*D"E,_)%AA;;%)J%+,=%%YF"0%1+%,-"%ANX%2/#K102%6"$E"0,#2"%-*>)"%6>,%9((%*+%1,)%810C*8)%
*0%*0"%)1C"%*+%,-"%-*>)"%#0C%0*0"%*0%,-"%*,-"$%,-$""%)1C")4%,-"%6$*D"E,_)%9AI:%)J%+,%2/#K102%#$"#%10%
Page 3
,-"%$"#$%"/"F#,1*0%-#)%N;X%'*$"%2/#K102%)>$+#E"%,-#0%,-1)%"H,$"'"%-*>)"%81,-%#//%,-"%810C*8)%*0%
*0"%)1C"%*0/7=%
%
%
Figure 1 - Excerpt from 2008 Title 24 Building Envelope Requirements - Fenestration p 3-19
%
O+,"$%$"F1"8102%#//%*+%,-"%-*>)")%*0%)>$$*>0C102%),$"",)4%,-"%*0/7%$"E"0,/7GE*0),$>E,"C%
E*0,"'6*$#$7%-*>)"%8"%+*>0C%8#)%N9;:%&#$2#$1,#%OF"0>"=%%M-1)%-*>)"%E#0%("%F1"8"C%#)%#%
,761E#/%E*0,"'6*$#$7%C")120%81,-%'*$"%2/#K102%,-#0%#%,$#C1,1*0#/%),7/"%-*>)"%RV12>$")%A%#0C%N4%
$",$1"F"C%+$*'%`1//*8=E*'S=%
%
Figure 2 - Front elevation 3105 Margarita Ave*
%
Page 4
Figure 3 - Rear of 3105 Margarita Ave. The lower level is under the deck in the foreground and the
living roof on the far side.*
O%J>1EP%E#/E>/#,1*0%(#)"C%*0%,-"%N9;:%&#$2#$1,#%OF"%6/#0)%RF1"8"C%#,%,-"%a>$/102#'"%6/#00102%
*++1E"S%$"F"#/"C%,-#,%,-1)%E*0,"'6*$#$7%-*>)"%-#)%#%3*0C1,1*0"C%V/**$%O$"#%*+%#66$*H1'#,"/7%
N9;;%)J%+,4%#0C%,*,#/%2/#K102%*+%#(*>,%IA:%)J%+,4%$")>/,102%10%3VO%2/#K102%6"$E"0,#2"%*+%#(*>,%ANX=%%
M-"%2/#K102%1)%E*0E"0,$#,"C%10%,-"%>66"$%/"F"/4%(>,%#)%"F1C"0,%(7%,-"%6-*,*)4%1,%1)%0*,%8#//G,*G8#//4%
+/**$G,*GE"1/102%2/#))=%%%\0%#CC1,1*04%,-"%6/#,"%-"12-,%*+%,-"%>66"$%+/**$%1)%#(*>,%^=:%+,%8-1/"%,-"%
/*8"$%+/**$%1)%B%+,%R,761E#/%*+%,-"%#$"#S4%8-1E-%#/)*%#1C)%10%P""6102%,-"%2/#K102%6"$E"0,#2")%C*80%
8-"0%>)102%#$"#)%*+%+/**$G,*GE"1/102%2/#))=%%YF"0%1+%8"%$"'*F"%,-"%/*8"$%/"F"/%+/**$%#$"#%#0C%1,)%
2/#K102%+$*'%,-"%E#/E>/#,1*04%"++"E,1F"/7%,>$0102%1,%10,*%#%)102/"G),*$7%-*>)"%,-#,%#66"#$)%,*%>,1/1K"%
#%,761E#/%#'*>0,%*+%2/#K102%*+%E*0,"'6*$#$7%),7/"4%,-"%2/#K102%6"$E"0,#2"%E*'")%*>,%,*%NAX=%%\0%
E*'6#$1)*04%?%<#%&")#%3,%-#)%#%2/#K102%6"$E"0,#2"%*+%#(*>,%:9X=%
%
M-"%E*0,"'6*$#$7%C")120%*+%N9;:%&#$2#$1,#%OF"0>"%>,1/1K")%),$#,"21E%(>,%"++"E,1F"%2/#K102%
6/#E"'"0,%,*%'#H1'1K"%/12-,102%#0C%F1"84%(>,%),1//%1)%#(/"%,*%),#7%81,-10%,-"%,761E#/%2/#K102%
6"$E"0,#2"%*+%$")1C"0,1#/%-*>)")%(>1/,%10%3#/1+*$01#=%%YF"0%1+%8"%120*$"%,-"%/*8"$%/"F"/%#0C%
E*0)1C"$%1,%#%)102/"G),*$7%E*0),$>E,1*04%1,%1)%),1//%0*,%,**%+#$%*++%,-"%,761E#/%2/#K102%6"$E"0,#2")%*+%
,-"%-*>)")%E*0),$>E,"C%10%3#/1+*$01#=%%
%
3/"#$/74%,-"%#'*>0,%*+%2/#K102%10%,-"%$"#$%"/"F#,1*0%*+%,-"%6$*6*)"C%?%<#%&")#%3,%C")120%1)%
"H,$"'"%"F"0%,#P102%10,*%#EE*>0,%1,)%E*0,"'6*$#$7%#$E-1,"E,>$"4%#0C%1,)%012-,,1'"%/12-,102%1'6#E,%
10%#%61,E-GC#$P%E#07*0%81//%("%)1201+1E#0,=%%\0),"#C%*+%10C1F1C>#/%)J>#$"%#0C%$"E,#02>/#$%(/*EP)%*+%
/12-,)4%,761E#//7%?G^%+,%81C"%810C*8)%#0C%6#,1*%C**$)%+$#'"C%(7%2**C%#'*>0,%*+%*6#J>"%8#//)4%
,-1)%),$>E,>$"%81//%"'1,%#%/12-,%6#,,"$0%*+%"))"0,1#//7%#%)*/1C%8#//%*+%/12-,%^4%^=:4%#0C%9A%+,%,#//%*0%
"#E-%/"F"/%#0C%?^%+,%81C"%*0%,-"%>66"$%+/**$)=%L*,-102%$"'*,"/7%/1P"%,-"%6$*6*)"C%C")120%81,-%,-"%
/"F"/%*+%"HE"))1F"%>)"%*+%2/#K102%*0%#//%,-$""%/"F"/)%10%,-"%$"#$%1)%)""0%10%,-"%1''"C1#,"%
0"12-(*$-**C4%0*$%"F"0%10%#07%$")1C"0,1#/%-*>)")%81,-10%a>$/102#'"%,-#,%8"%#$"%#8#$"%*+=%%b0/7%
8-"0%8"%/**P%,*%,-"%E*''"$E1#/%(>1/C102)%C*%8"%),#$,%)""102%8#//G,*G2/#K102%$#,1*)%)1'1/#$%,*%,-"%
6$*6*)"C%C")120=%%O//%*0"%0""C)%,*%C*%1)%C$1F"%#$*>0C%b7),"$%.*10,%a/FC%10%[[V%,*%)""%F"$7%)1'1/#$%
>)"%*+%"C2"G,*G"C2"%)"#'/"))%2/#))=%
%
\0%#CC1,1*04%>0/1P"%)>22"),"C%#,%,-"%6$"F1*>)%E*''1))1*0%'"",1024%>)"%*+%$"E"))"C%E#0%/12-,)%*$%
6/#E102%+>$01,>$"%81,-10%,-"%-*>)"%81//%0*,%$"C>E"%,-"%#'*>0,%*+%/12-,%)""0%*>,)1C"%,-$*>2-%1,)%
!"#$%&'()*+(*&)(&#',-(.#/0(1234(5657(8*(9/$*(8*&/(:)*+;#',-(<,3-3(-*=/&(1234(0#-,#&(-,/(,3>$/?(@A*B,4/&-(5(
From: Isako [mailto:isakoy2k05@comcast.net]
Sent: Thu 5/8/2014 8:43 PM
To: PLG Comm-Peter Gum
Cc: mm-alum
Subject: Re: 4 La Mesa Ct
Hello Commissioner Gum,
Thank you very much for visiting our home. We are very grateful for your
interest in this issue and allowing me to share our concerns. And it was a
great pleasure to meet you in person.
As I mentioned during our converstaion, if everything were a clean slate, in
comparison to the proposed design we unquestionably would rather see a
standard/traditional style house with a pitched roof, standard window size
and patio doors, standard ceiling height, etc. We really did expect to see a
house similar to either #2 or #6 La Mesa Ct style to be built nestled within
the existing mature treescape - something we are familiar and comfortable
seeing in the area. If someone came up with a design that has similar window
density to 2 La Mesa Ct, with appropriate and expected consideration for tree
health, sensitivity to the environment and the neighbors, I doubt the project
would be met with so much resistance by the neighbors who are immediately
impacted by the structure. I believe that the three neighbors who are
expressing concerns would be delighted to see a complete redesign of the
house, contemporary or traditional, that would better fit into the
neighborhood and its environment as a whole. The current project is just so
alien from the surrounding houses to start out with, it is like trying to put
a square peg in a triangle hole. The basic design is just not appropriate
for the site and thus any effort to make it “fit in” just results in a kluge
and stop-gap measures. Incredibly stressful and frustrating situation for
all parties involved. However there seems to be a momentum to force
acceptance of that particular design on that site in the area devoid of such
designs and at this point, unless as you mentioned something monumentous
happens, that design is going to stay.
Although we have our doubts whether this aluminum/limestone façade, flat roof
house would fit (and not become one of those “mistakes” mentioned in the
design guidebook), we are resigned to accept the current design with the
modifications that has taken place, EXCEPT for the amount of the glazing used
in the rear elevation, and the applicant’s casual disregard for the
trees. In the past meetings they have been casually tossing around the
phrase such as, “if they die, they die”, or when they refused to put up a
correct story pole lines due to the branches being in the way, their response
has been, “fine. We’ll just cut the tree down to put the story poles
up”. We have expressed concerns with both saving the trees and use of
glazing from the beginning and although the tree effort is on -going, the
glazing issue has not been addressed at all, and discussing l andscaping plan
05.12.14 PC Meeting
Item #5
4 La Mesa Court
Page 1 of 5
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
RECEIVED
MAY 12 2014
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD – PLANNING DIV.
which Commissioner Davis and other was expressing concerns has been all but
abandoned due to the efforts of just trying to make this design “fit”. When
this amount of effort is require to “make it fit”, something fundamentally is
not right.
Our neighborhood is characterized by houses nestled amongst trees, and
absolute darkness at night which is quite precious in an urban setting. That
is what draws people from the Easton Addition and other parts of Burlingame
as well as other communities to this hillside area. That is also one of
reason there are very few street lights in this hillside area, to promote the
dark, wooded, remote, seculded feel at night. At night, even after driving
down La Mesa Dr and La Mesa Lane for decades, I feel the urge to turn on the
high-beam light when driving down the Lane since it’s so dark.
This is why we repeatedly bring up the lighting issue. The excessive use of
windows in this project is very much against this darkness especially in this
neighborhood. Even if the design of the house was traditional, and it
included a wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling, 3 story high all-glass rear
elevation on every level, it will also be met with strong resistance by the
neighbors. To allow one of the most extreme use of glazing in the rear
elevation in any architectural style is just too much of a strtch to call it
compatible here.
And the applicant is not making it easier--with every revision, the glazing
area increases, even after the concerns for overuse of glazing has been
repeatedly brought up. They appear to be obsessed with finding every inch
possible where they can add glass.
During our conversation, you mentioned that you had a difficult time
picturing the nightscape, since the only panoramic night view photograph I
have submitted has the bright light of the proposed building in the middle.
I made a panoramic photo panel showing what it looks like now day and at
night to aid you in the visualization.
As you probably can tell, using a wide-angled camera distorts the sense of
proximity, and the lights on the windows do bleed together than it actually
does due to long exposure and camera shake. So in reality, 2 La Mesa Ct
windows do appear discrete.
If you are interested, you are welcome to visit after dark (will have to be
past 9pm or so, after the kids’ bedtime) to see for youself what it looks
like at night, and how dark it is driving in the area to understand the
environment we are trying to preserve.
Isako
05.12.14 PC Meeting
Item #5
4 La Mesa Court
Page 2 of 5
From: Isako <isakoy2k05@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 10:14:20 -0700
To: PLG Comm-Peter Gum <pgum@burlingame.org>
Cc: mm-alum <machlis@alum.mit.edu>
Conversation: 4 La Mesa Ct
Subject: Re: 4 La Mesa Ct
Hello.
Ok. I will see you at 1:30 on Wednesday.
Thank you again,
Isako
From: PLG Comm-Peter Gum <pgum@burlingame.org>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 09:38:11 -0700
To: Isako <isakoy2k05@comcast.net>, Isako <isakoy2k05@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: 4 La Mesa Ct
Let's shoot for Wednesday at 1:30.
-----Original Message-----
From: Isako [mailto:isakoy2k05@comcast.net]
Sent: Sun 5/4/2014 9:44 PM
To: PLG Comm-Peter Gum
Subject: Re: 4 La Mesa Ct
Hello,
Thank you very much for repying and your interest.
We are open Tuesday evening (after 2:30pm), and Wednesday afternoon between
1:30-2:45, and after 3:30pm (have to pick up the kids at school at 3pm), and
Wednesday evening.
Depending on the time, I (Isako) will be around but Matt probably will not
be present (he usually gets home from work around 6:30pm to maybe 7:00pm).
Let us know the most convenient time for you to visit.
Thank you again,
Isako & Matt
From: PLG Comm-Peter Gum <pgum@burlingame.org>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 09:02:27 -0700
To: Isako <isakoy2k05@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: 4 La Mesa Ct
Isako,
I am available to visit briefly Monday evening, Tuesday evening, or
Wednesday day or evening, so let me know a couple of times that work for you
and I will visit.
05.12.14 PC Meeting
Item #5
4 La Mesa Court
Page 3 of 5
Peter
From: Isako [mailto:isakoy2k05@comcast.net]
Sent: Sat 5/3/2014 9:14 PM
To: PLG Comm-Peter Gum
Cc: mm-alum
Subject: 4 La Mesa Ct
Dear Commissioner Gum,
>>
At the last Planning Commission meeting, comments were made regarding the
impact of the project at 4 La Mesa Ct that assumed that the 4 La Mesa Ct is
in the periphery of 1510 La Mesa Lane’s view and thus the view impact would
be insignificant, and that our main view is the bay and the airport.
We would like to invite you to visit our home at 1510 La Mesa Lane to
accurately understand the environment and the orientation of our views. Our
primary view is to the west, facing away from the bay and the airport, which
is due north. 4 La Mesa Ct is in the dead center of our view and it will be
a significant and prominent structure seen from our house. We believe that
the night lighting will significantly negatively impact our enjoyment of our
home.
So far, no discussion has occurred to mitigate the lighting impact to our
night view, either through reduction of the glazing area on the upper
floors, nor any discussion on landscaping plan that would help mitigate the
lighting impact as CEQA states. The night lighting is the only issue we
would still like to see addressed in the design - we understand that the
other issues we raised previously have been considered and addressed where
possible and we do not intend to bring them up again.
We understand you are very busy, and your time is valuable. But the
decisions made at the planning commission meeting will affect us forever.
We would very much appreciate it if you could visit our house and see what
the visual impacts of 4 La Mesa Ct will be first-hand. If you would, please
email us or call us at 650-343-0601 to arrange a time to come visit.
Thank you so much for your time. We understand this project has been very
challenging and time consuming experience for all parties involved. We
sincerely thank you for your services to the community.
Sincerely,
Isako & Matt
1510 La Mesa Ln
343-0601
05.12.14 PC Meeting
Item #5
4 La Mesa Court
Page 4 of 5
Exis%ng
day
and
night
view
from
1510
La
Mesa
Lane
(daylight
photo
taken
from
within
the
house)
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING
THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPROVAL OF A REQUEST
FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 4 LA
MESA COURT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF
THE CEQA GUIDELINES
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as
follows:
Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and
reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that
there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on
the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-
570-P, is hereby approved.
Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in
the official records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of
the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and
adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May, 2014 by
the following vote:
Secretary
Secretary
RESOLUTION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
AND SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, an application has been made for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit and Special Permit for attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling and
attached garage at 4 La Mesa Court, Zoned R-1, Christopher Awoyinka and Suzanne
McGovern, property owners, APN: 027-022-550;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
May 27, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit are approved
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit are set forth in the
staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting.
2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May, 2014 by the following vote:
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit
4 La Mesa Court
Effective June 6, 2014
Page 1
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped May 21, 2014, sheets T1.0, GN, GP, SP, C-2, Boundary and Topographic
Survey, A1.0 through A5.0, L1.0, L2.0, FAR and Tree; and that prior to issuance of a
building permit the Landscape Plans shall be revised to show six, 24-inch box Catalina
Cherry trees (Prunus ilicifolia) in place of the Grecian Laurel trees (Laurus nobilis)
located along the left side property line; and that the glazing along the rear of the house
shall be anti-ref lective;
2. that all existing trees to remain, as shown on the Landscape Plan (sheet L1.0, date
stamped May 21, 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;
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;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit
4 La Mesa Court
Effective June 6, 2014
Page 2
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 Manag ement
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;
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;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit
4 La Mesa Court
Effective June 6, 2014
Page 3
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.
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit
4 La Mesa Court
Effective June 6, 2014
Page 4
g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Biological Resources
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;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit
4 La Mesa Court
Effective June 6, 2014
Page 5
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 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;
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit
4 La Mesa Court
Effective June 6, 2014
Page 6
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”.
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit
4 La Mesa Court
Effective June 6, 2014
Page 7
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 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.
EXHIBIT “A”
Conditions of Approval for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit
4 La Mesa Court
Effective June 6, 2014
Page 8
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.
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
CITY OF BURLINGAME
City Hall – 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
PH: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: Interested Individuals From: City of Burlingame
County Clerk of San Mateo Community Development Department
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-570-P)
4 La Mesa Court – Construction of a New Single Family Dwelling on a Vacant Parcel
Project Location: 4 La Mesa Court, Burlingame, CA 94010
Project Description: The proposal is to construct a new two and one-half story single family dwelling with an attached garage at 4 La
Mesa Court, zoned R-1. The subject property has a slope of 42% from the front of the site to the rear. Due to the downward slope
on the lot, 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 proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 5,295 SF (0.33 FAR) where 6,293 SF
(0.39 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including crawl spaces with a ceiling height of more than 6’-0”). There would be one covered
and one uncovered parking space provided for the four bedroom house. The applicant is requesting approval of design review and
hillside area construction permit for a new single family dwelling and a special permit for an attached garage. The subject property
is currently vacant and contains a total of 24 trees ranging in size from 6 to 25.1 inches in diameter. Based on the proposed project
plans, the applicant is proposing to remove a total of 13 trees on the property, 5 of which are of a protected size. The 5 protected-
size trees are proposed to be removed because they are located within or near the footprint of the house, driveway, pool and
terrace. The proposed Landscape Plan indicates that 20 new 24-inch box size landscape trees will be planted throughout the site as
part of this project.
In accordance with Section 15072(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, notice is hereby given of the
City’s intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project listed above. A mitigated negative declaration is a negative
declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effect on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and
initial study are released for public review would avoid effect or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on
the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in the light of the whole record before the public agency that
the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. The City of Burlingame has completed a review of the
proposed project, and on the basis of an Initial Study and mitigations, finds that the project will not have a significant effect upon
the environment. The City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study that are available for public review at
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010.
As mandated by State Law, the minimum comment period for this document is 20 (twenty) days and begins on March 3, 2014.
Comments may be submitted during the review period and up to the end of the 20-day review on March 23, 2014. Persons having
comments concerning this project, including objections to the basis of determination set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, are invited to furnish their comments summarizing the specific and factual basis for their comments, in writing to:
William Meeker, Community Development Director
City of Burlingame Community Development Department
Planning Division
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Fax: (650) 696-3790
Email: wmeeker@burlingame.org
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21177, any legal challenge to the adoption of the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be limited to those issues presented to the City during the public comment period described above.
Public Hearing: The City of Burlingame Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and this project on Monday, March 24, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame CA 94010. Posted: March 3, 2014
1
4 LA MESA COURT
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
1. Project Title: 4 La Mesa Court – Construction of a New Single Family
Dwelling on a Vacant Parcel
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner
Telephone: (650) 558-7250
E-Mail: rhurin@burlingame.org
4. Project Location: 4 La Mesa Court
Burlingame, CA
5. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 027-022-550
6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Tim Raduenz
3841 24th Street #A
San Francisco, CA 94114
7. General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential
8. Zoning: R-1
9. Description of Project: The proposal is to construct a new two and one-half story single family dwelling
with an attached garage at 4 La Mesa Court, zoned R-1. Due to the downward slope on the lot, 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 house is considered to be two and one-half stories because the lower level
is less than two-thirds of the level immediately above it. The proposed house would cover 24.6% (3,993
SF) of the 16,227 SF lot, where 40% (6,491 SF) is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The proposed house
and attached garage will have a total floor area of 5,295 SF (0.33 FAR) where 6,293 SF (0.39 FAR) is the
maximum allowed (including crawl spaces with a ceiling height of more than 6’-0”). There would be one
covered and one uncovered parking space provided for the four bedroom house. The applicant is
requesting approval of design review and hillside area construction permit for a new single family dwelling
and a special permit for an attached garage.
The subject property is currently vacant and contains a total of 24 trees ranging in size from 6 to 25.1
inches in diameter. Based on the proposed project plans, the applicant is proposing to remove a total of
13 trees on the property, 5 of which are of a protected size. The 5 protected-size trees are proposed to be
removed because they are located within or near the footprint of the house, driveway, pool and terrace.
The proposed Landscape Plan indicates that 20 new 24-inch box size landscape trees will be planted
throughout the site as part of this project.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
2
The subject property has a slope of 42% from the front of the site to the rear. 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 environmental review.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject property is located in the Burlingame hills and is currently
a vacant lot with a downward slope of approximately 42%. 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. 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. 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. The subject property is surrounded by single family residential
properties, and Mills Canyon Park to the north. The subject property and surrounding properties are
heavily vegetated with trees and shrubs.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement): The proposed project would require Planning Commission approval for design review and
hillside area construction permit for construction of a new single family dwelling and a special permit for
an attached garage. A building permit will be required from the City of Burlingame Community
Development Department, Building Division, for construction of the single family dwelling. An
encroachment permit from the Burlingame Public Works Department will be required for any work within
the public right-of-way.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
3
Figure 1
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
4
Figure 2
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
6
Summary of Mitigation Measures
4 La Mesa Court
Environmental Factor Mitigation Measure
Aesthetics Mitigation Measure 1a: 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.
Mitigation Measure 1b: 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.
Mitigation Measure 1c: 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 Mitigation Measure 3a: 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.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
7
Summary of Mitigation Measures
4 La Mesa Court
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4a: The applicant shall comply with the City's on-site
reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist.
Mitigation Measure 4b: 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.
Mitigation Measure 4c: 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.
Mitigation Meausure 4d: 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.
Mitigation Measure 4e: 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
Mitigation Measure 5a: 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.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
8
Summary of Mitigation Measures
4 La Mesa Court
Mitigation Measure 5b: 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.
Mitigation Measure 5c: If human remains are discovered at any project
construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing
activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame
and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section
5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s
Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner
to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be
adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project
applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American
burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and
consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As
necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most
Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human
remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of
recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the
provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and
Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement
approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the
resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the
remains were discovered.
Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 6a: 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.
Mitigation Measure 6b: There shall be no pile driving as part of this project.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
9
Summary of Mitigation Measures
4 La Mesa Court
Mitigation Measure 6c: The foundation for the single family dwelling
structure, swimming pool and any pool decking shall be a drilled pier and
grade beam design.
Mitigation Measure 6d: 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.
Mitigation Measure 6e: 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
Mitigation Measure 8a: 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.
Mitigation Measure 8b: 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
Mitigation Measure 9a: The project applicant shall prepare and implement a
storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities
at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following:
a) A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for
excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is
forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce
erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The
construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving
activities and stabilization of disturbed soils;
b) Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles,
hydroseeding, or short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets;
c) Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control
measures at downstream storm drain inlets;
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
10
Summary of Mitigation Measures
4 La Mesa Court
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.
Mitigation Measure 9b: The project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, City of
Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure 9c: The project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, City of
Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure 9d: That all surface storm water runoff created during
construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards as
adopted by the City of Burlingame.
Noise Mitigation Measure 12a: 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.
Mitigation Measure 12b: 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 Mitigation Measure 16a: 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.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
11
Project Approvals
The project site is located within the City of Burlingame. The City of Burlingame is the Lead Agency responsible
for approval of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project would require the
following approvals and permits:
Design Review for construction of a new two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached
garage on a vacant parcel;
Hillside Area Construction Permit for construction of a new two and one-half story single family
dwelling and attached garage;
Special Permit for an attached single-car garage; and
Building Permit for construction of a new two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached
garage.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
12
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion
The subject property is located in the Burlingame hills. The lot is currently vacant with a downward slope of
approximately 42% from the front of the lot to the rear; a portion of La Mesa Court is on the subject property.
The property is surrounded by single family residential properties on large lots, and Mills Canyon Park to the
north. The subject property and surrounding properties are heavily vegetated with trees and shrubs, see
Figure 1.
The proposed project is located along La Mesa Court, between La Mesa Drive and La Mesa Lane. The property
is located approximately 0.4 miles east of Interstate Highway 280, 0.26 miles east of Skyline Boulevard and
0.07 miles north of Hillside Drive. The Scenic Roads and Highways Element of the City of Burlingame General
Plan does not identify La Mesa Court as a scenic route. However, it does identify Interstate Highway 280 as a
State Scenic Highway, and Skyline Boulevard and Hillside Drive as Local Scenic Routes. Burlingame has scenic
vistas associated with San Francisco Bay and the Western Hills. The following policies/guidelines are included in
the General Plan to protect attractive views from scenic highways and scenic routes in and adjacent to the City
of Burlingame:
SR(5): Explore fully all practical regulatory approaches intended to protect views along scenic highways
and Burlingame’s scenic routes.
SR(8): Plant materials should be used to screen or hide objectionable views.
The proposed project will be subject to design review and hillside area construction permit, which will
evaluate the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. The project
site is surrounded by existing multi-story buildings, heavy vegetation and trees. The property currently
contains a total of 24 trees ranging in size from 6 to 25.1 inches in diameter. The applicant is proposing to
remove a total of 13 trees on the property, 5 of which are of a protected size. However, the proposed
Landscape Plan indicates that 20 new 24-inch box size landscape trees will be planted throughout the site as
part of this project. In addition to the 11 existing trees to remain, the new trees should fill in to provide an
effective screen of the new structure. Therefore, the impact on a scenic vista or scenic resources would be
less than significant.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
13
The proposed house would cover 24.6% (3,993 SF) of the 16,227 SF lot, where 40% (6,491 SF) is the maximum
lot coverage allowed. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 5,295 SF (0.33
FAR) where 6,293 SF (0.39 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including crawl spaces with a ceiling height of more
than 6’-0”). The height as measured from the average top of curb level along La Mesa Court will be 11’-5”,
where 20’-0” is the maximum building height allowed on lots that slope downward more than 25%. The house
will be setback 20’-9” from the street, which is the average front setback of the block (the minimum required is
15’-0” or the average of the block, whichever is greater).
The front of the house consists of smooth stucco, stone veneer cladding, aluminum windows and a steel pivot
entry door flanked by stained walnut or mahogany panels. The garage door, which faces the street, will be
made of walnut or mahogany. The sides of the house will contain smooth stucco, exposed concrete on the
driveway, terrace and pool walls and base of the building and aluminum windows. The rear of the house will
primary contain aluminum windows surrounded by smooth stucco walls, stained walnut or mahogany panels
on the lower floor and exposed concrete on the pool and terrace walls. A glass railing system will be used for
the decks at the rear of the house. The project is subject to residential design review approval by the Planning
Commission.
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 house is
considered to be two and one-half stories because the floor area of the lower level is less than two-thirds of
the floor area of the level immediately above it. 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. Access to an
uncovered 200 square foot roof deck will be from the main level of the house. The roof deck is located at the
rear, center of the house. The middle level finished floor, located approximately 13’-9” below the street, will
contain four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a laundry room and an uncovered deck at the rear of the house. The
lower level finished floor, located approximately 27’-6” below the street, will contain a family room, bathroom,
uncovered decking and a pool.
There are five existing houses on La Mesa Court. Due to the sloping lots in the area, the existing houses are
two to three stories in height. The proposed two and one-half story building would be consistent with the
massing, scale and setbacks in comparison to the existing houses in the general vicinity. Landscaping on the
project site would be enhanced with the addition of trees and various plantings throughout the site as noted
above. While the proposed structure would alter the visual character of the site, it represents the addition of
one new single family home on a vacant lot within a subdivision of single family homes, so the project would
not be out of character with its surroundings. The project has been designed to be compatible in character,
mass and orientation with the other structures on the adjacent sites and in the surrounding area.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1a through 1c would reduce any impact to the visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings to less than significant.
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. The project would be required
to comply with exterior lighting regulations of Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 18.16.030, which requires
that the cone of light be kept entirely on the property and use of shielded light fixtures. The proposed house
contains a glass front entry door and windows to the right of the front door. The left and right sides of the
house would contain 11 and 4 windows, respectively. The rear façade primarily consists of glazing. A total of
five skylights are proposed on the flat roof. While the project has the potential to generate an incremental
increase in light generated on the site compared to existing conditions, the project would not create a new
source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area since the
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
14
house would be screened by existing and proposed vegetation and trees. Therefore, the impact would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1a through 1c would reduce any impact to the visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 1a: 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.
Mitigation Measure 1b: 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.
Mitigation Measure 1c: 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.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.16 – Electrical Code, Burlingame, California, 2010
edition.
Project plans date stamped February 6, 2014.
Site Visit, January and February, 2014.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
15
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion
The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Burlingame. The project site does not include
active agricultural uses, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not
convert farmland to non-agricultural use and would have no effect on farmland or any property subject to a
Williamson Act contract.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Project plans date stamped February 6, 2014.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
16
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Frequently create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Discussion
The proposed application is for construction of one single-family dwelling on an existing vacant site. While this
project will accommodate people for habitation where the site was previous vacant, the change in emissions is
insignificant. The subject property is zoned for low-density residential development and with proper
adherence to regional air quality requirements during construction, the proposed project will not create any
deterioration in the air quality or climate, locally or regionally. There is no demolition of existing structures on
this site because it is vacant, so no permits are required from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would be subject to the measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) (listed below in Mitigation Measure 3a), which would reduce construction-
related PM10 and PM2.5 emissions to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3a
would also reduce the project construction dust emissions to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3a: 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.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
17
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.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Updated May, 2012.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
18
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) or state-protected
wetlands, through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Fundamentally conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
Currently, the property contains a total of 24 trees ranging in size from 6 to 25.1 inches in diameter. Existing
trees on the property include Olive (1), Coast Live Oak (16), Deodar Cedar (1), Bay (3), Birch (2) and one small
unidentified landscape tree. Based on the proposed project plans, the applicant is proposing to remove a total
of 13 trees on the property, 5 of which are of a protected size. They include three Coast Live Oak trees (20,
20.7 and 25.1 inches in diameter), one Bay tree (17-inch diameter) and one Deodar Cedar (20.5-inch diameter).
The 5 protected-size trees are proposed to be removed because they are located within or near the footprint
of the house, driveway, pool and terrace.
A tree report, prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated November 4, 2013 (attached) describes
each tree, its condition and recommendation for maintenance. The report also provides protection measures
for the existing trees to remain. In his memo dated December 5, 2013, the City Arborist notes that a tree
removal permit will be required for removal of any protected sized trees on the site. The applicant has
submitted an arborist report that was reviewed and found acceptable by the City Arborist.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
19
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 11 trees to remain, the proposed Landscape Plan indicates that 20 new 24-
inch box size landscape trees will be planted throughout the site as part of this project. Species include Coast
Live Oak, Grecian Laurel, Olive, Big-Leaf Maple, Western Dogwood, Japanese Maple and Catalina Cherry.
Therefore, the proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the reforestation requirements.
Mills Creek is located along the rear property line of the subject property. There is no work proposed to Mills
Creek and the nearest construction is a retaining wall to be located 29’-0” from the top of Mills Creek.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures 4a through 4e will reduce potential conflict with the tree preservation ordinance, and
will ensure compliance with the City’s reforestation requirements.
Mitigation Measure 4a: The applicant shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation
requirements as approved by the City Arborist.
Mitigation Measure 4b: 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.
Mitigation Measure 4c: 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.
Mitigation Measure 4d: 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.
Mitigation Measure 4e: 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.
Sources
Arborist Report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated November 4, 2013
City of Burlingame, Parks Division Memoranda, dated December 5, 2013; November 18, 2013; September 6,
2013.
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 – Zoning, Burlingame, California
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
20
Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State
Department of Fish and Game.
Project plans date stamped February 6, 2014.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
21
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
The surrounding properties have been developed as residential uses for many years prior to this proposal.
There are no known cultural resources associated with the site and the proposed project will not create any
cultural impacts to the affected area. Project related construction activities involving ground-disturbance
during construction could result in significant impacts, if any unknown culturally significant sites are
discovered. If remains were unearthed during project construction, damage to or destruction of significant
archaeological remains would be a potentially significant impact. Should any cultural resources be discovered
during construction, work will be halted until they are fully investigated.
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains and/or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive
of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains, such as bones, teeth, shells, and wood, are found in geologic
deposits (rock formations). The project vicinity has been developed and no known paleontological resources
have been recorded. Because the proposed project would result in minimal excavation in bedrock conditions,
significant paleontologic discovery would be unlikely. However, significant fossil discoveries can be made even
in areas of supposed low sensitivity.
The site has no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, it is
impossible to be entirely sure about the presence or absence of human remains on a site until site excavation
and grading occurs. Should any human remains be discovered during construction, work within 100 feet will be
halted until they are fully investigated.
Mitigation Measures
Potential impacts to archeological resources would be reduced to less than significant with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure 5a. In the event a paleontological resource is encountered during
project activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure 5b would reduce potential impacts to less than
significant. In the event human remains are encountered during project activities, implementation of
Mitigation Measure 5c would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 5a: 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
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
22
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.
Mitigation Measure 5b: 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.
Mitigation Measure 5c: If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during
any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted
and the City of Burlingame and the County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to
Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and
Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the
NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant
shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a
field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified
by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely
Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame
shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking
account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public
Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be
verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100
feet of where the remains were discovered.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
23
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as
it may be revised), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
Discussion
The site is located in the Burlingame Hills in a semi-urban setting, with most of the lots in vicinity over 10,000
SF in area. The subject property has a slope of 42% from the front of the site to the rear and measures 16,227
SF in area. The difference in elevation from the top of the lot to the rear of the lot is approximately 62 feet.
The City of Burlingame is located in a seismically active region. Recent studies by the USGS indicate that
there is a 63 percent mean probability of a Richter magnitude 6.7 or higher earthquake occurring in the
Bay Area within the next 30 years, and a 21 percent mean probability that one or more earthquakes of
Richter magnitude 6.7 or greater will occur on the San Andreas fault within the next 30 years. The project
site could experience a range of ground shaking effects during an earthquake on one of the aforementioned
Bay Area faults. An earthquake on the San Andreas fault could result in very strong ground shaking
intensities. Ground shaking of this intensity could result in moderate damage, such as collapsing chimneys
and falling plaster. Seismic shaking of this intensity can also trigger ground failures caused by liquefaction,
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
24
potentially resulting in foundation damage, disruption of utility service and roadway damage. The project site
is underlain by materials that can cause moderately high shaking amplification, and is immediately adjacent to
an area considered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to have a low to moderate potential
for liquefaction (ABAG, 2008).
A Geotechnical Investigation (report) for the subject property was prepared by Michelucci & Associates, Inc.,
dated July 23, 2013. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the soil and bedrock conditions that occur at
the site, and to provide geotechnical recommendations and design criteria pertaining to building foundations,
site grading, retaining walls, drainage, and other items that relate to the site soil and geologic conditions. The
report notes that four borings were drilled at the site to evaluate the geotechnical engineering characteristics
of the soil layers which underlie the site.
The State of California special study zones map for the site area (Montara Mountain revised official
Quadrangle, 1982) indicates that the site is not located within any special study zone boundary for potential
active earthquake faults. There are no indications of active faulting at the subject site. The closest mapped
active fault is the San Andreas Fault located approximately 0.7 miles to the southwest. The site is located
approximately 17 miles northwest of the Hayward Fault, but is not within the Alquist-Priolo zone. The seismic
exposure will be reduced with the incorporation of seismic construction requirements of the California
Building Code, 2013 Edition.
The report notes that the existing slope on the lot features numerous level benches. The slope extends down
to Mills Creek, located along the rear property line. The soils and bedrock conditions vary on the site. The
upper roadway was developed by placing fill. The natural materials composing the site consist of topsoil,
residual soil (soil that results from the in-place weathering of the underlying bedrock), and dense bedrock.
With regard to site geology, the report notes that the property is located within close proximity to a geologic
contact between Franciscan greenstone bedrock (fg) and slope wash, ravine fill and colluvium (Qsr). The
greenstone bedrock extends generally to the west and the slope wash ravine fill and colluvium extends to the
east within close proximity to the creek channel. It appears that the slope wash, ravine fill and colluvium are
likely underlain by Franciscan sheared bedrock (fsr). Because of the strong subsurface materials and the
absence of subsurface flows, it is unlikely that liquefaction of the foundation soils would occur.
Based on the geotechnical investigation, the conclusion is that the project can be developed as proposed,
provided that the recommendations contained in the report are followed. The primary geotechnical
considerations involve the presence of a wedge fill along the upper portion of the site and moderately
expansive surface soils. The report recommends that the proposed structure be constructed upon drilled,
cast-in-place, reinforced concrete pier and grade beam foundations. Drilled piers should be designed on the
basis of a skin friction value of 500-psf beginning at the top of supporting material. The depth may be
modified by the engineering representative during construction, especially if very dense bedrock areas are
encountered. The retaining walls for the structure will contain a sub-drain system consisting of a four inch
diameter perforated pipe bedded in drain rock. There will be no pile driving for the piers. The piers will be
drilled and then poured in place. The applicant notes that there would be approximately 200 cubic yards of
cut and 200 cubic yards of fill, so no soil is proposed to be off-hauled.
In addition to vertical loading, the piers should be designed to resist a horizontal “creep” load equal to a fluid
weighing 45 points per cubic foot, projected over 2½ pier diameters. Since the site soil is moderately
expansive, the report notes that grade beams should therefore be designed to resist a uniform uplift force of
1000 psf between the piers.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
25
The report recommends that the proposed swimming pool and any pool decking should also be supported
upon drilled piers that extend into bedrock. The pool and decking should be designed to resist hydrostatic and
lateral soil loading and should follow the same criteria outlined for the house foundation.
The project will 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.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6a -6e would ensure that the potential effects of groundshaking and
liquefaction would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 6a: 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.
Mitigation Measure 6b: There shall be no pile driving as part of this project.
Mitigation Measure 6c: The foundation for the single family dwelling structure, swimming pool and
any pool decking shall be a drilled pier and grade beam design.
Mitigation Measure 6d: 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.
Mitigation Measure 6e: 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.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Liquefaction Susceptibility Maps,
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/liquefactionsusceptibility/, accessed December, 2013.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed New Residence at 4 La Mesa Court, prepared by Michelluci &
Associates, Inc., dated July 23, 2013.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1981.
E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
26
Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map
MF, San Mateo County: California, 1987.
City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated December 9, 2013; November 15, 2013; August 28,
2013.
Project Plans date stamped February 6, 2014, the Planning Division.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
27
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a
nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality
standards. SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present and
future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its
very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result
in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to
existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative
impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of Significance
for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be
expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG
emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above
the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be
considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG
reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e;
or 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include
residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and
equipment that emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If
annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project
would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively
significant impact to global climate change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a project
meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening criteria,
then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. For single family dwellings, the
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
28
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and
Precursor Screening Level Sizes) set a screening threshold of 56 dwelling units for any individual single family
residential project. The proposed project would be comprised of one unit.
On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed
to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines
(BAAQMD Homepage, accessed May 2012). As such, lead agencies need to determine appropriate air quality
thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Lead agencies may rely on the
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining
information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures.
However, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that
these thresholds be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies may
continue to rely on the Air District’s 1999 Thresholds of Significance and to make determinations regarding the
significance of an individual project’s air quality impacts based on substantial evidence in the record for that
project. For this analysis, the City of Burlingame has determined that the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in
the updated May 2011 CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are
the most appropriate thresholds for use to determine air quality impacts of the proposed Project.
First, Burlingame has used the May 2011 BAAQMD thresholds in previous environmental analyses under CEQA
and found them to be reasonable thresholds for assessing air quality impacts. In addition, these thresholds are
lower than the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds, and thus use of the thresholds in the May 2011 CEQA Guidelines is
more conservative. Therefore, the city concludes these thresholds are considered reasonable for use in this
analysis.
In this case, the proposed project includes one unit. Given that the proposed project would fall well below the
56 dwelling units threshold specified in BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for single family residential
development, it is not anticipated that the project will create significant operational GHG emissions.
Climate Action Plan. Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan is designed to focus on near- and medium-term
solutions to reduce its emissions. These program and policy recommendations were developed after careful
consideration of the unique characteristics and demographics of the Burlingame community and the major
sources of emissions from Burlingame’s Community Greenhouse Inventory. The five major focus areas include:
energy use/green building, transportation/land use, solid waste, education/outreach and municipal programs.
Energy efficiency and green building programs provide the fastest and most economical means to reduce
emissions. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Burlingame’s Green Building
Ordinance. Verification of compliance with Section A5.203.1.1 Tier 1 (15% above Title 24) of the Green Building
Ordinance or LEED Silver shall be accepted as the methods of meeting compliance with this ordinance. By
complying with the Green Building Ordinance, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment nor would it conflict with
an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
29
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 2011 (Table 3-1, Operational-Related
Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes).
City of Burlingame, Climate Action Plan, Burlingame, California, June, 2009.
City of Burlingame, Building Division Memoranda, dated December 9, 2013; November 15, 2013; August 28,
2013.
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
30
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
The proposed single family residential development would not involve the transport, use, storage or disposal
of reportable quantities of hazardous materials. Future residents would likely use and store small quantities of
household hazardous wastes (i.e., ammonia, paints, oils) which would not be considered significant. By its
residential nature, this project will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans the City of
Burlingame may need to implement.
Compliance with the California Building and Fire Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame will
ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or potential health hazards. An
NPDES permit is required to ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent
waterways.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
31
The Fire Marshal has required that the building be equipped with a residential fire sprinkler system. This
requirement will reduce potential fire hazards for the project. Burlingame also participates in a county-wide
mutual aid program for large-scale fires and related emergencies.
There are two existing fire hydrants to serve this area; one located in the landscape median at the intersection
of La Mesa Court and La Mesa Lane and the other at the end of La Mesa Court. However, the Fire Division has
indicated that there is inadequate fire flow in the existing fire hydrants serving the area and that fire apparatus
access is inadequate. In order to mitigate requirements of inadequate fire flow and fire apparatus access, the
applicant has requested an alternate means of approval which has been processed and approved by the
Central County Fire Department with the following requirements.
1. All attic spaces created shall be equipped and protected by fire sprinklers.
2. The entire house construction shall comply with California Building Code Chapter 7A requirements for
buildings in a Wildland Urban Interface.
3. The landscaping shall be fire resistive in nature and be in concert with the publication; “Living with Fire
in San Mateo County”.
The proposed landscape plan includes fire resistive plants and vegetative management guidelines to ensure
fire safety throughout the site.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8a and 8b would ensure that fire hazards are reduced.
Mitigation Measure 8a: 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.
Mitigation Measure 8b: 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”.
Sources:
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, February 16, 2012.
City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memoranda, dated December 19, 2013; November 25, 2013; September 9,
2013; and letter from Rocque J. Yballa, Fire Marshal, dated December 19, 2013.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, San Mateo County Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire), Map NHD-41, January 06, 2000.
Project plans date stamped February 6, 2014.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
32
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion
This project is an in-fill development project with a new single family dwelling on a currently vacant parcel.
Mills Creek runs along the rear property line, located at the bottom of the subject property. The existing creek
bed will not be changed or altered by the development of the proposed single family dwelling. The project site
is located in Flood Zone C, which is outside the 100-year flood zone.
The Geotechnical Investigation notes that groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings at the time
of drilling. However, it points out that groundwater levels tend to fluctuate seasonally, and could rise to the
depths explored in the future. But, because of the strong subsurface materials and the absence of subsurface
flows, it is unlikely that liquefaction of the foundation soils would occur on this site.
The domestic potable water supply for Burlingame and the proposed project area is not provided by
groundwater sources, but rather from surface water sources maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC). Groundwater would not be used to supply water for the project, and no dewatering of
the site is anticipated.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
33
The project will not result in significant increases in storm water flows such that new systems would be
required. The Public Works Department, Engineering Division, requires that the site and roof drainage be
made to drain towards the storm drain system. Since the subject property is downward sloping, all site and
roof drainage will be directed to Mills Creek, located along the rear property line. Because the proposed
project would maintain soft landscaping around the proposed structure, stormwater runoff is not anticipated
to increase significantly as a result of the project. Therefore, stormwater generated on the proposed project
site is not expected to significantly impact existing stormwater drainage facilities.
Since the subject property is an undeveloped vacant lot, the proposed project would increase the amount of
impervious surface by approximately 4,000 square feet. However, the area surrounding the structures on the
property will be pervious by way of soft landscaping. Furthermore, prior to entering Mills Creek, a dry creek
bed and vegetation in the area between the proposed house and southeast property line will be added for
filtering runoff from the house and any hardscape areas. These elements will not only reduce the speed at
which stormwater enters the City’s drainage system, but in certain cases biologically clean some of the
contaminants associated with stormwater runoff, thus, further reducing any impacts to water quality.
The project will need to have an erosion and sedimentation control plan that describes BMPs, (best
management practices) that will be implemented for storm water management and erosion control. This plan
will need to be shown and describe what type of erosion control measures will be administered to prevent soil,
dirt and debris from entering storm drain systems and how these measures will be maintained. These
measures may include, but not be limited to, the following: sediment basins or traps, berms, silt fences, straw
bale, storm drain inlet protection soil blankets, and covers for soil stock piles. These measures need to be
installed to stabilize denuded areas and to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control
continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established. Implementation of the mitigation
measure below would reduce potential construction-related impacts to less-than-significant.
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. The project proponent will be required to ensure that all contractors implement BMP’s during
construction.
This project is subject to the state mandated Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance; compliance will be
determined by approval of a complete Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist, and landscape and irrigation
design plans at time of the building permit application.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 9a would reduce potential construction-related impacts to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measures 9b-9d would reduce stormwater and water use impacts to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure 9a: The project applicant shall prepare and implement a storm water pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP
shall include the following:
a) A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading
activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April
30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction
schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed
soils;
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
34
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.
Mitigation Measure 9b: The project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure 9c: The project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, City of Burlingame Water
Conservation in Landscape Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure 9d: That all surface storm water runoff created during construction and future
discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) standards as adopted by the City of Burlingame.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 26, Chapter 26.16 – Physical Design of Improvements, Burlingame,
California.
E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County,
California, 1972.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.20 – Grading, Excavation, Fills , Burlingame, California.
Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood
Insurance Maps, October 16, 2012.
City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated September 4, 2013 and November 18, 2013.
City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated September 25, 2013.
Project plans date stamped February 6, 2014.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
35
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
The proposal for the existing vacant lot includes construction of a single family dwelling and attached garage.
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. 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.
The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 SF for lots in this area, based on City of Burlingame
Ordinance No. 712, and this lot is 16,227 square feet in area. The Zoning Code allows one residential unit per
lot in this area. The proposed single family residential project is subject to design review and hillside area
construction permit. The general plan would allow a density of 8 units to the acre and the application is for
one single family dwelling on 0.37 acres, a density of 3 units per acre. Therefore, this proposal is consistent
with the General Plan and zoning requirements.
The proposed residence conforms to all measurable requirements of the zoning code. The Planning
Commission will review the project and determine compliance with design review and hillside area
construction permit criteria.
The proposed single family dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District. The project would not result
in a fundamental conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, there would
be no impact from the project on land use and planning.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
Project plans date stamped February 6, 2014.
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
36
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
Discussion
According to the San Mateo County General Plan, Mineral Resources Map, the project site does not contain
any known mineral resources. Construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
San Mateo County, General Plan, October 18, 2010.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
37
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
12. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
The subject site is currently vacant. However, the surrounding area has been occupied by single family
dwellings for many years. 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.
Construction of the proposed single family dwelling will be upon drilled, cast-in-place, reinforced concrete pier
and grade beam foundations, and therefore will not require pile driving or other significant vibration causing
construction activity. Due to the drilling required for the pier and grade beam foundation, 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.
In addition, the site is located outside the designated noise-impacted area from San Francisco International
Airport.
The project does not include any permanent operational activity that would result in excessive or perceptible
vibration, and the operational impact of the project on increased vibration levels would be less than
significant.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
38
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 12a and 12b would reduce temporary construction noise impacts to
less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 12a: 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.
Mitigation Measure 12b: 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.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California.
Chief Building Official Memos dated December 9, 2013; November 15, 2013; August 28, 2013.
Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Michelucci & Associates, Inc., dated July 23, 2013
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, February, 2012.
Project plans date stamped February 6, 2014.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
39
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
This site and the surrounding area are planned for low-density residential uses. The proposed development of
a single family dwelling on a vacant site conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code
regulations and does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is
consistent with the City's Housing Element. The proposed project will create more housing by adding one
dwelling unit where there is currently a vacant parcel. Since the subject property is vacant, the project would
not displace existing housing or people. A new road, extension of a roadway or other infrastructure is not
required for the new single family dwelling and therefore the project would not induce substantial population
growth. Thus, there would be no impact from the project on population and housing.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
Project plans date stamped February 6, 2014.
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 2010.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
40
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Discussion
The subject property is a vacant lot that is located within the City of Burlingame jurisdiction. The proposed
project includes adding one single family dwelling on the site, which represents an insignificant increase in the
total population of the City. Therefore, existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities
that can accommodate the proposed net increase of one residential unit.
Fire protection services in the City of Burlingame are provided by the Central County Fire Department, which
also serves the Town of Hillsborough. Three stations are located in Burlingame: Station 34 at 799 California
Drive, Station 35 at 2832 Hillside Drive, and Station 36 at 1399 Rollins Road. As part of the permitting process,
the Central County Fire Department would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure
compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and to ensure that adequate fire and life safety
measures are incorporated into the project in compliance with all applicable state and city fire safety
regulations. Because the proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional demand for fire protection
services, and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities, the project’s potential impact on fire
protection services would be less than significant.
Police protection services are provided in the City of Burlingame by the Burlingame Police Department, located
at 1111 Trousdale Drive. The proposed project would be comprised of one single family dwelling. Therefore,
the project would not result in an increased demand for police services or require the expansion or
construction of police facilities. The project’s potential impact on police services would be less than significant.
Students in the City of Burlingame are served by two school districts: Burlingame School District (BSD) for
grades K-8 and San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for grades 9-12. The proposed project would
add one single family dwelling unit; it is anticipated that the potential number of school-age children would
only increase slightly. Therefore, any students generated by the project would be accommodated by the
existing capacity of the two districts, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
41
The City of Burlingame is served by several parks and recreation facilities, including 13 parks and playgrounds,
an aquatic center, and a golf and soccer center. Since the proposed project would only cause an increase of
one residential unit, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or other public facilities and
therefore the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memoranda, dated December 19, 2013; November 25, 2013; September 9,
2013; and letter from Rocque J. Yballa, Fire Marshal, dated December 19, 2013.
City of Burlingame Website, www.burlingame.org
This space intentionally left blank.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
42
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
15. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor does it displace any
proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The sites involved in this project
are not presently zoned or used for recreational purposes. Since the proposed project would only cause a net
increase of one single family dwelling onsite, the project would not generate additional demand for parks or
other recreation facilities. Therefore, impacts to recreation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
43
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
The subject site is located on La Mesa Court, a private roadway which is maintained through a private
agreement amongst the property owners on La Mesa Court and the City of Burlingame. La Mesa Court
provides access to La Mesa Drive, which connects to Hillside Drive and then to either El Camino Real or Skyline
Boulevard, regional arterials. This project will not create an increase in the traffic generation in the area. All
arterial, collector, and local roadway systems in the City have the capacity to accommodate any temporary
incremental increase to traffic or trip generation produced by the temporary construction activities.
A total of four bedrooms are proposed in the proposed house. Based on the number of bedrooms proposed, a
total of two parking spaces are required on-site, one of which must be covered. 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. There is also an existing parking area on the subject property located across the
roadway, which provides three additional parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed project complies with off-
street parking requirements for a single family dwelling with four bedrooms.
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 be prohibited.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
44
Mitigation Measures
Based on the conclusions of the analysis, there would be no impact on parking supply. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 16a would reduce any impacts on emergency access to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 16a: 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.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 - Zoning, Burlingame, California, 2013 edition.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Program, San Francisco International Airport, February,
2012
City of Burlingame, Fire Division Memorandum, dated September 9, 2013.
Project plans date stamped February 6, 2014.
45
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
The subject property is vacant and there are no utilities on-site. There is an existing sewer easement along the
right side and rear of the subject property, which contains an existing 6-inch vitrified clay pipe sewer line which
then connects to an 8-inch vitrified clay pipe sewer line that serves the existing residences in the area. This
line has the capacity to accommodate the new single family dwelling. To prevent flooding a backflow
prevention device is required to be installed. There is an existing 6-inch cast iron water line in La Mesa Court
that serves the residences in the area. There is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the
proposed increase of one unit on this lot.
The site is sloped steeply from the front to the rear away from the street. The Public Works Department,
Engineering Division, requires that the site and roof drainage be made to drain towards the storm drain
system. Storm drainage is normally required to be drained to the street frontage, however in this case that is
not an appropriate solution. Since the subject property is downward sloping, all site and roof drainage will be
directed to Mills Creek, located along the rear property line.
The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to
these systems. All new utility connections to serve the site and that are affected by the development will be
installed to meet current code standards; sewer laterals from the main on the site to serve the new structure
will be checked and replaced if necessary.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
46
The City Engineer has indicated that there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer, water and storm
drainage systems to accommodate the incremental increase of one dwelling unit. Therefore, the project’s
impact to wastewater treatment requirements and facilities would be less than significant.
The current solid waste service provider is Recology, which hauls waste collected in Burlingame to the San
Carlos Transfer Station and the Recyclery of San Mateo County for sorting then disposal at Ox Mountain
Landfill. Demand for solid waste disposal services generated by the project could be adequately served by
existing capacity at the transfer station and landfill and the project would comply with all applicable
regulations related to solid waste; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
Construction activities would generate waste during the construction phase. The general contractor would be
required to recycle and to reduce the waste stream and transport and recycle the construction waste
separately. After reclamation and recycling from demolition, solid waste generated during operation of the
project would be typical for residential use, and would not be considered substantial.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources
The City of Burlingame General Plan, Burlingame, California, 2010, 2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
City of Burlingame, Engineering Division Memorandum dated September 25, 2013.
City of Burlingame, Stormwater Division Memoranda dated November 18, 2013 and September 4, 2013.
Project Plans date stamped February 6, 2014.
Recology San Mateo County, www.recologysanmateocounty.com , site accessed February, 2014.
Initial Study 4 La Mesa Court
47
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant or Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
The project does not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any potential short-term increases
in potential effects to the environment during construction are mitigated to a less than significant level, as
described throughout the Initial Study.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was
conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No
project-specific significant effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified that could not be mitigated
to a less than significant level. The proposed project would contribute to environmental effects in the areas of
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, a temporary
increase in sedimentation and water quality effects during construction, temporary increases in construction-
generated dust and noise, potential geology/seismic considerations with new development, and
transportation/traffic. Mitigation measures incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to
cumulative impacts associated with these environmental issues. Therefore, the proposed project does not
have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
The project may have significant adverse effects on human beings in the areas of air quality, noise and with
geologic/seismic considerations with new development. Mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study
would reduce the effects to a less than significant level.
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.
FYI Item
1378 De Soto Avenue
This item has been continued since the applicant did not
submit the application materials in time.
No memorandum or plans for
1378 De Soto Avenue are included in this packet.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers