Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2014.07.28Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, July 28, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 14, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. 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. 1119 Eastmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Dan Nejasmich, property owner) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier a. 1119 Eastmoor.reso.docAttachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2025 July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 a. 1011 Morrell reso.docAttachments: 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 b. 1240 Capuchino reso.docAttachments: 1504 La Mesa 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 (Shawn and Victoria McNamara, applicants and property owners; Audrey Tse, Insite Design, designer) (39 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin c. 1504 La Mesa.reso.doc 1510 La Mesa Ln - 07.28.14 recd after.pdf Attachments: 1048 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition and a new detached garage (Anthony Ho, LPMD Architects, designer; Mr. & Mrs. Wilson Cheng, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier d. 1048 Balboa Ave - 08.11.14 staff rpt.pdfAttachments: 1419 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story dwelling and a Conditional Use Permit for a new detached garage (Karen Curtiss, architect and applicant; Elisa Lee and Jeff Reed property owners) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit e. 1419 Paloma reso.docAttachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1510 La Mesa Lane, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Variance for building height and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Audrey Tse, Insite Design, designer and applicant; Isako Hoshino and Matthew Machlis, property owners) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. 1530 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Environmental Review Scoping, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (John Stewart, applicant and architect; Chris and Meaghan Schaefer, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier b. 1530 Burlingame Ave - 07.28.14 recd after.pdfAttachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2025 July 28, 2014Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Commission Communicationsa. City Council Regular Meeting - July 21, 2014 (cancelled)b. FYI: 1534 Los Altos Drive, Zoned R-1 – Review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. c. FYI : 1505 Sherman Avenue, Zoned R-1 - Review of Conditional Use Permit approved 1 year ago for a preschool operated by a church in an existing church building. d. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on July 28, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on August 7, 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. 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. Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/9/2025 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1119 Eastmoor Road, Zoned R-1, Dan Nejasmich, 1119 Eastmoor Road, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owner, APN: 025-241-150; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Bur lingame on July 28, 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. 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 categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. 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 28th day of July, 2014, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1119 Eastmoor Road Effective August 7, 2014 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 16, 2014, sheets A.4 through A.6, A.8 and L.1, and date stamped July 3, 2014, sheets A.1 through A.3, A.7, G.1 and survey; 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 June 19, 2014 memo, the Building Division’s May 21, 2014 memo, the Parks Division’s May 20, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s May 22, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s May 20, 2014 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition 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; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recyc ling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1119 Eastmoor Road Effective August 7, 2014 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. 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; 12. 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 Buildi ng Division; and 13. 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. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story additions to an existing dwelling at 1011 Morrell Avenue, Zoned R- 1, James Cormack, property owner, APN: 029-026-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 28, 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. 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 categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. 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 28th day of July, 2014, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1011 Morrell Avenue Effective August 7, 2014 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 7, 2014, sheets A1.0 through A6.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 Divisions May 6, 2014 memo, the Building Division's March 28, 2014 and May 13, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s April 1, 2014 memo, the Fire Division's March 28, 2014 memo, and the Stormwater Division ’s March 31, 2014 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition 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; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1011 Morrell Avenue Effective August 7, 2014 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the 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; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a new two-story dwelling and detached garage at 1240 Capuchino Avenue, Zoned R-1, Rajiv Gujral , property owner, APN: 026-095-270; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 28, 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. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and com ments 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 categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. 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 28th day of July, 2014, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1240 Capuchino Avenue Effective August 7, 2014 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 17, 2013, sheets A0.0 through A3.1,and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Engineering Divisions March 19, 2014, and May 19, 2014 memos, the Building Division's March 11, 2014 and May 5, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's March 3, 2014, and May 12, 2014 memos, the Fire Division's February 24, 2014 memo, and the Stormwater Divisions March 3, 2014, May 12, 2014, and May 19, 2014 memos shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Managem ent District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1240 Capuchino Avenue Effective August 7, 2014 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1504 La Mesa Drive, Zoned R-1, Shawn McNamara Tr, 1504 La Mesa Drive, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owner, APN: 027-022-160; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 28, 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. 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 categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. 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 28th day of July, 2014, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1504 La Mesa Drive Effective August 7, 2014 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 30, 2014, sheets A1.0 through A2.4 and date stamped July 22, 2014, sheets A4.0 through A4.3; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Building Division’s June 27, 2014 and March 11, 2014 memos, the Parks Division’s June 25, 2014 and April 29, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division’s April 1, 2014 memo, the Fire Division’s March 14, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division’s March 10, 2014 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition 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; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 1504 La Mesa Drive Effective August 7, 2014 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Buildi ng Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. - In 2012, an 80’ long, 18’-20’ deep underground retaining wall that was drilled 12’ into the bedrock was installed. It runs along the entire width of the property along the front side of the house and part of the driveway. Also installed is a second 80’ long wall on the downhill side of the lower La Mesa Lane loop. The retaining wall was designed to retain the soil and the house through flash-flooding, groundwater presence, storm drain overflow/leaks, and seismic activity. The geotechnical engineer who designed the structure had stated that "even if all the soil on the hillside washes away around the house, the walls, the house and the road behind it will be left standing". Due to the location of this wall we could not consider an addition by increasing the footprint of the house towards the downhill side of the property. Soil erosion downhill from the property and soil stability on the property are not issues of concern for this hillside. Due to all of these expensive and extensive measures along, with good housekeeping efforts, every possible opportunity to stabilize the soil on the property has been taken. Additionally, the yard is heavily vegetated to further stabilize the soil. Structurally speaking, any new distributed load for the addition will be taken up by the existing foundation (which is anchored into the bedrock) and will not add to any lateral destabilization of the soil. The point that the Chins make about my client’s “frequent complaints about the soil and water drainage onto their own property” is due to the excessive surface water drainage onto my client’s property originating from their property as well as associated soil erosion. In fact between property surveys completed in 2003 and 2014, indications are that the fence line has shifted between 6”-12” in some areas farther into my client’s property while the masonry retaining wall in the backyard has not moved. My client has planted heavy vegetation between the retaining wall and the fence along with a French drain to capture any excess water coming from the neighbor’s property. My client’s concern is that the Chins’ barren yard precipitates soil movement towards my client’s yard. Re: the Chins’ concern with soil stability in their yard, it is noteworthy to address the steady elimination of mature and healthy trees, including two large pine trees with trunk diameters in excess of 24“and associated circumferences over 168” in their yard that would be aiding in soil stabilization. Additionally, it is important to note that in November of 2013, just as the rainy season began, the Chins dug up an approximately 6’w x 5’d hole towards the bottom of their property without any shoring support. The reason for this hole is unclear. It is located at the steepest slope of the rear yard just before the common fence line and it has been left uncovered for 8 months now. Also left dangerously exposed is the water supply line for a neighboring property that runs in the utility easement in this part of the neighbor’s backyard. Item 2: View obstruction The proposed addition raises the top of structure height by 7’0”. The top of ridge at this highest point projected across to the Chins’ home is below the floor level of their lower floor. We acknowledge that the Chins may lose the ability to look straight down into the canyon. Their horizontal view or long distance view should not be affected from the habitable levels of their home. When discussing views, it usually does not include the ability to look straight down into someone else’s property. In fact that ability is generally discouraged by Burlingame’s design guidelines. In my clients’ observations over the past 15 years the Chins have lived there, they have rarely spent any time in the yard. It is unkempt, barren aside from few weed bushes and saplings they were required to plant by the city arborist due to a lack of trees in general on their property. Please see attached photos of the backyard at 3036 Hillside Drive. They do not use their yard to appreciate the view as stated in the letter since my client’s home would constitute that view, not the canyon. The upper level deck and windows and the lower level deck are significantly better suited and more convenient for such purposes. Please see attached photo indicating the relationship of my client’s home in elevation to the Chins’ home. We’ve added in a 7’h profile line indicating the top of the proposed ridge for the second story addition. Please note that in evaluating the effects of the addition on neighboring properties and in order to maintain the architectural style and character of the existing house, the proposed gable roof has a reduced slope of 3:12 as compared with the 4:12 slope of the existing roof. The Chins’ home is skewed in the direction towards the Bay. Please see attached Google Earth image. You can see that the intended massing of the addition away from the Bay is intended to minimize any view obstruction. At least one neighbor has confirmed that this approach has eliminated their concern about any view obstruction from the proposed addition. In designing the addition, we had discussed and contemplated the idea of a flat roof profile, however such a profile would look so different from the style of the current home. As well, my client would like to consider a volume ceiling in their upstairs family room since they only have a flat ceiling profile throughout their house currently and would prefer for once having some more “height” to their home’s interior to enjoy the light and air that is one of the few benefits they receive on their property. Item 3: Daylight obstruction Please see comments included in the above item 2. The addition will extend about halfway across the current structure as opposed to the claim that it will run along “most of [the Chins’] back property line". Again referring to the image of my client’s home in front of the Chins’ residence, it is clear that theirs is the property that not only looms 30- 35’ above my client’s home with its massive three-story structure but also is a major source of shadow for a good portion of the year. The Chins’ basement foundation itself is several feet above my client’s current roofline. Please note also that the Chins have a deck on their lower level that looms 20+’ above my client’s backyard. The highest roof ridge of the addition will still be few feet below the deck/lower level of the Chins’ home. Please see the attached sun path diagram for the area. The sun generally rises behind the 3034 and 3036 Hillside Drive homes and sets on the canyon side. Currently most of the morning sunlight into my client’s house and yard is blocked by 3036 and 3034 Hillside Drive. Thus when designing the addition, much thought went into minimizing losing afternoon sun into my client’s backyard which butts up against the rear yard of the Chins’ 3036 Hillside Drive house. We could have tried to minimize the shadow into my client’s backyard, increase the view to the bay from the upper level, and consequently increase the sun into the unused portion of the yard by shifting the addition to the left side of the house instead of the right. However, as stated above, that would have potentially a greater impact on views not just to the Chins’ home, but also possibly to 3034 Hillside Drive and some other neighbors on La Mesa Drive. In the winter, the sun travels almost along the house’s length, thus most of the shadow cast by the proposed upper level will fall onto the existing roof, and thus loss of sunlight in the Chins’ yard is minimal, perhaps only 30-45 minutes just before the sun sets behind the hills. In short, the impact of sunlight is minimal to the Chins’ mostly unused backyard and there is no loss of sunlight to the living areas in their house. As well, shadow effects are also minimized by reducing the pitch of the upper level roof which is noted as a design solution above. The reduced pitch is a decision intended to mitigate any effects of the addition on the Chins’ property. There isn’t any vegetation that would be affected by the shadow of the added structure into their yard. Please see attached photos of the backyard view of 3036 Hillside Drive. Thank you for your time to read this lengthy reply to the received letter. In the limited time we had to prepare a thoughtful response and provide you with appropriate information we felt it was important to put this statement together in writing for your early perusal prior to tonight’s meeting. We are happy to address any of your questions and or comments in this letter at that time. Sincerely, Audrey Tse Principal, Architect inSite Design 3034  Hillside   3036  Hillside   3040  Hillside   1510  La  Mesa  Ln   1508  La  Mesa  Ln   1512  La  Mesa  Ln   Sun  path  diagram,  San  Mateo,  CA   source:  hBp://www.gaisma.com/en/locaFon/san-­‐mateo-­‐california.html   3036  Hillside   ~7K   Yard  view  3036  Hillside  Dr   Yard  view  3036  Hillside  Dr   Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit for a new two-story dwelling and detached garage at 1419 Paloma Avenue Avenue, Zoned R-1, property owners, APN: 026-074-090. WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 28, 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. 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 categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Conditional Use Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. 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 28th day of July, 2014, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit 1419 Paloma Avenue Effective August 7, 2014 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 16, 2014, sheets A0.00 through A7.01, and Boundary Survey and Topographic Map; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Engineering Divisions June 19, 2014 memo, the Building Division's May 21, 2014, and July 3, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's May 21, 2014 memo, the Fire Division's May 19, 2014 memo, and the Stormwater Divisions May 20, 2014 and July 8, 2014 memos, shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street ; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit 1419 Paloma Avenue Effective August 7, 2014 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of t he new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.