HomeMy WebLinkAbout2509 Easton Dr - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permits
`4ddress: 2509 Easton Drive
�
Item No.
Action Item
Meeting Date: February 27, 2012
IRequest: Applocation for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height
envelope for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage.
a4pplicant and Designer: Stotler Design Group
IProperty Owner: Emporio Group LLC
�eneral Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 027-195-060
Lot Area: 8,850 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
�nvironmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of
mew, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential
zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe
�onstructed or converted under this exemption.
Action Meeting (December 12, 2011): At the Planning Commission design review action meeting on December
12, 2011, the Commission voted to deny the project without prejudice noting several concerns with the proposed
project (October 11, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes attached). Please refer to the attached meeting
minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission.
In response to the Planning Commission's concerns, the applicant submitted a response letter, dated February
9, 2012 and revised plans, date stamped January 31, 2012. Although some changes were made, the
Community Development Director reviewed the revised plans and determined that the revised project does not
represent a substantial change to the project which was denied without prejudice. However, the applicant
requested that the revised project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review of the proposed changes.
Please refer to the revised plans and applicant's letter dated February 9, 2012 for a detailed list of changes
onade to the project. Measureable changes to the project are listed below; please refer to the applicant's letter
and revised plans for a description of the changes to the design which relate to aesthetics and mass and bulk.
■ Reduced the floor area ratio by 148 SF (from 3922 SF to 3774 SF);
■ Reduced the lot coverage by 78 SF (from 2260 SF to 2182 SF);
■ Reduced the plate heights on the entry and lower levels by 1'-0" (from 10'-0" to 9'-0");
■ Increased the rear setback by 2'-0" (from 90'-0" to 88'-0"); and
■ The roofi ridge height at the rear of the house was reduced by 2'-0".
Since the Planning Commission has had several reviews of this project, it was determined that the project as
currently revised could be brought back as an action item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more
study or changes to the project, this item may be placed on an action or consent calendar for a second review or
ireferred to a design review consultant.
Study Meeting (October 11, 2011): At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on October 11,
2011, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and voted to place this item on the
RegularAction Calendarwhen the plans have been revised as directed (October 11, 2011 Planning Commission
Minutes attached). Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by
#he Planning Commission.
Planning staff would note that the project designer requested that this project also be revised by the design
review consultant, along with the project at 2508 Easton Drive.
The applicant submitted a written response dated December 7, 2011 and revised plans date stamped December
5, 2011. These plans were reviewed by the design review consultant and serves as the basis for the analysis
prepared by the design review consultant.
Design Review and Special Permits 2509 Easton Drive
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: In a written analysis dated December 5, 2011, the
design reviewer summarizes how this project complies with the residential design guidelines (included in staff
report for reference). However, the design reviewer also notes suggestions to improve the project further.
Please refer to the design reviewer's analysis for a summary of changes made to the project as well as
additional suggestions. In summary, the reviewer notes the following:
"The applicant has provided an improved project as compared to the original submittal. The project could be
further improved in a few ways. All of the plate heights are not shown on the elevations. The architect has
reduced the plate heights at the front of the house but I see in the building sections that there are 10' plates
being proposed at the lower level and middle level, and 9' at the upper (master bedroom) level. Bringing those
heights down (and it appears that they could be) would lower the upper roof in the back by up to 3' (which may
address some of the adjacent neighbor's concerns). I had also suggested looking at reworking the floor plan a
bit to pull the master bedroom inboard, such that the lower roof could wrap around it, which would significantly
break up the three story wall in the back. I do not know if that was attempted but didn't work for some reason.
While it doesn't impact things too much, I did point out that the master bathroom pop-out on the rear elevation
seemed arbitrary and could be studied further. As previously stated, while the massing of this proposed structure
is nearly the same as what was previously presented, it looks much better due to the detailing. I did not receive
or review any other concepts for structuring a house on this site. If this is indeed the best way to do it, then I
could support the direction with some of the massing modifications mentioned here. "
Project Description: The properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive were once owned and used by one family,
which contained the main house and an accessory structure at 2517 Easton Drive and a detached three-car
garage w/storage room and cottage at 2509 Easton Drive (the properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive consist
of two legally subdivided lots). The properties were sold a few years ago and an addition was completed at 2517
Easton Drive in 2010, which included converting a portion of the existing house to a one-car garage to provide
parking for the house at 2517 Easton Drive.
With this application, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached three-car garage and cottage
at 2509 Easton Drive to build a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (the lower
level meets the definition of a half-story since it is less than two-thirds of the area above it). The lot slopes
downward approximately 42'-0" (23%) from the front to the rear of the lot. The proposed house and attached
garage will have a total floor area of 3,774 SF (0.42 FAR) where 3,932 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed
(including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 158 SF below the maximum
allowed FAR and is within 4% of the maximum allowed FAR. A Special Permit is required for an attached
garage and declining height envelope along the right side property line (159 SF extends beyond the declining
height envelope).
A total of four existing protected-sized trees are proposed to be removed at the front of the property, including a
40-inch diameter Coast live oak, a 24-inch diameter Coast live oak, a 19-inch Hedge maple and a 24-inch
Canary island palm. An arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011, was
submitted as part of the application and is attached for review. The report provides an assessment of all existing
trees on-site and of the perimeter trees on the adjacent properties. The report also includes a Tree Protection
Plan. The report notes that "The property has not received recent maintenance. The site has a mix of native
oaks and imported trees. The native oaks are all in poor condition with decay in the trunks or stems." In his
memo dated September 30, 2011, the CityArborist notes that a protected-tree removal permit will be required to
remove any protected-sized trees and that the project will need to follow the tree protection measures as outlined
in the arborist report.
The project includes an attached garage which provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces for the
proposed five-bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All
other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS
25.57.010);
�
Design Review and Special Permits
■ Special Permit for attached garage (CS 25.28.035 (a)); and
2509 Easton Drive
■ Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side
property line (159 SF e�ends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.035 (c)).
2509 Easton Drive
LotArea: 8,850 SF Plans date stam ed: Janua 31, 2012
PREVIOUS REVISED ' ALLOWED/REQUIRED
(12/5/11 plans) : (1/31/12 plans) '
i
SETBACKS �
Front (1st flr): 19'-0" No change 16'-4" (block average)
(2nd flr): 25'-0" No change 20'-0"
(attached garage): 25'-0" No change 25'-0" (two single-wide doors)
---------.._.__._._....._ .............................................__......_.._._.......--------- ----._._.._..----------- ---:-.._........._._....---.._........._..._..__...._...._---....._......._.._..---...........................__...........----.......__..__.....---......------......----------..._.._._...._...__....-----
Side (left): 5'-0" No change 4'-0"
(right): 4'-0" No change 4'-0"
---- ------........__..... ............._.................................................._.........___.......-----..._._..-- ----------._....._....-----._.,.-------------....._.._.......----._...._..__.........................__.._.._......._._._:.........._......._..---..._........_.._..._._.....__.._.._...__...._.__.....---......._.......--------........._..__..._....
Rear (1st flr): 90'-0" � 88'-0" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 90'-0" 88'-0" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2260 SF 2182 SF 3540 SF
25.5% 24.6% 40%
FAR; 3922 SF 3774 SF 3932 SF
0.44 FAR 0.42 FAR 0.44 FAR
- ---_........_......._.....-----------....------._. ...............---.. ---......_....._....._..........._......,.._..................._.._._._..._..................------------...----.-..--.;.._....._..___..........._._.._.......____....-------.._..__._._._.._....----...._._......._.....__._...
# of bedrooms; 5 No change ; ---
. ._ . _ ..., .. ............._. ...........___._._....------------------ ------------......_.._..---...----- ---_...
Parking: 2 covered � No chan e 2 covered
(20' x 20') g
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
_. ..............__.......�9' x 20')..............__......................_1.............._.._._..................................._. ; (9' x 20')
Height: 18'-4" 18'-4" 30'-0"
DH Envelope: Special Permit No change CS 25:26.075 '
required '
(159 SF extends `
` beyond declining'
z :
` height envelope) ;
' (0.32 x 8,850 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,932 SF (0.44 FAR)
z Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side
property line (159 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.035 (c)).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the City Arborist, Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire
Marshal and NPDES Coordinator.
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
Design Review and Special Permifs
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.
2509 Easton Drive
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for attached garage and declining height
envelope, 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 conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
January 31, 2012, sheets T1, C.O, A1 through A5, L-1, L-2 and GPC;
2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection
measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist
Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones shall be established and inspected by the City
Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit;
3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks Division to remove
any protected-sized trees;
4. 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 staffl;
5. 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;
6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor's September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the Chief Building
Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire
Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met;
7. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
0
Design Review and Special Permits 2509 Easton Drive
8. 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;
9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
10. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
12. that 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;
13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010
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; and
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.
�".
Design Review and Special Permifs
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Stotler Design Group, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Applicant's Response Letter, dated February 9, 2012
December 12, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant's Response Letter, dated December 7, 2011
Design Reviewer Analysis, dated December 5, 2011
October 11, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Applications
Arborist Report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011
Staff Comments
Photographs of Neighborhood
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed February 17, 2012
Aerial Photo
2509 Easton Drive
�
§ d `a:
g �� �
k �
`��5;��
d�o�
349 FIRST STRE,E,T SU. A
LOS ALTOS, GALIFORI�IIA 94022
PHONE: (408) 309-2'I63
F,B.�c: (650) 559-0458
Attention: Burlingame Planning Department
Re: 2509 Easton Drive
Ruben,
� �—� �� �.. �� 4��� �
�
� � � �..�...}�' .5� e `.� �. .
F�s � � �;�;?
CIT�'.'�'�F C�UR! l�1C�,4l�/i�
�C?�-['s'il�l�li�{G Ql4�.
Date: Feb. 9, 2012
Please find our substantial modifications of the proposed new residence per the
planning commission's comments and requests:
After meeting with some planning commissioners and hearing again their concerns
and issues we have made several modifications that we believe make this a much
improved project. We feel that this new version is consistent with good design and
the town's design policies and intents given this unique and very steep down-sloping
lot.
• The FAR has been decreased as requested by reworking the floor plan.
• The upper level has been redesigned to allow it to step back from the main level
rear wall, thus breaking up the building mass.
• Decreased all floor wall heights by 1' thus lowering the overall height by 3'.
• Upper balcony off the Master Bedroom was eliminated.
• The Master Bathroom was redesigned to allow for more setback to minimize
appearance of mass.
• The lower yard area is proposed to be filled +/-3-5' to eliminate additional stucco
wall thus creating less mass.
• By proposing the small fill, the lower level exits onto the ground patio thereby
allowing the removal of railing thus making a cleaner and simpler exterior elevation.
• The resulting overall decrease in rear facing stucco facade across the rear
elevation is +/-8' vertical (almost 25%) less wall height and overall massing than the
previous version.
• The roof lines have been reconfigured over the family room to break up the mass
further which makes the exterior look much simpler and conventional.
In conclusion we believe that these substantial modifications will break up the mass of
rear elevation and is the collaborative best design for this lot and would hope you agree.
If you should have any questions please give me a call. 408-309-2163 (best)
Sincerely,
Scott Stotler
Stotler Design Group, Inc.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 92, 2019
6. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FORATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO AND ONE-HALF
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EMPORIO GROUP LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT:
RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated December 12, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were
suggested for consideration.
Questions of staff:
■ None.
Chair Yie opened the public hearing.
Scott Stotler, 349 First Street, Los Altos; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Likes the redesign — what are the columns on the front door? (Stotler — stucco)
■ Are the rafter tails supporting the roof and consistently spaced? (Stotler — will be consistently
spaced; 24" on center and will be true rafter tails that are not "scabbed on".)
■ What is the flashing material? On top or underneath the tile? (Stotler — wili be lead flashing
mounted on the top. Has never seen it installed in that manner.)
■ Should look in to Bituthene for waterproofing and to conceal the lead flashing. Do not lead flashing
mounted on top of tile. (Stotler — will need to consult with a roofer.)
■ Still has a problem with the declining height envelope encroachment on a new structure — could be
re-worked to comply with the design guidelines.
■ Still feels that pushing the home back further on the lot could be a better approach. Perhaps a
3,900 square foot home is not appropriate given the lot configuration.
■ House doesn't necessarily need to be built to the street.
■ Has a problem with the three-story "apartment building" appearance of the rear.
■ House should be built to conform to the lot.
■ Could do a higher plate height on the front, but drop down as it moves to the rear. (Stotler—would
separate the master bedroom from other bedrooms. Affects the livability of the floor plan. Is an
extremely difficult lot to build a house that conforms to the IoYs contours. House on the left has a
detached garage in the rear that is built up on a bridge — is less desirable.)
■ Asked if there has been a soils report prepared? (Stotler — yes, it has been prepared.)
■ Could conceivably build even more of the house into the lot. (Stotler — burying the lower level into
the hillside is a logistical problem to design on a narrow lot. Feels would be denied a privilege that
others enjoy.)
■ Agrees that it is a tough lot — likes the detailing and the aesthetics, but is simply a rearrangement of
what was proposed and presented to the Planning Commission previously.
■ Reinforced the Commission's desire to have a design that is more respectful of the terrain. Noted
that design reviewer noted alternate site plan options could be explored. Noted that the bedrboms
are designed as suites — there is an opportunity to provide a design that provides better use of the
lot. The applicant rejected alternative approaches in favor of the design sought by the applicant.
■ Is a 2'/ to 3 story mass working its way down the slope — there is a way to address the terrain. Still
a large mass along the sides and at the rear. (Stotler — 50% of the projects he does are spec
99
C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 12, 2011
homes; doesn't feel that the client will move forward with the direction stated by the Commission.
Takes a special buyer for a home with a lot of steps. Marketability is limited.)
• Could detach the guest room and other space and create a separate cottage at the rear. (Stotier—
will need to speak to client — doesn't believe it will be an option.)
■ Would have fewer stairs with a two-level house.
Public comments:
Paul Delora, 2505 Easton Drive; Tiffany Liu, 2517 Easton Drive; and Cathy Nicho, 2500 Easton Drive;
spoke:
■ Appreciates the efforts of the Commission and the applicants.
■ Greatest concerns are the size of the house and potential impacts upon privacy — they can see into
the rear of the applicanYs property.
■ Will also look into the windows of the new home and vice-versa.
■ Concerned about the overall depth of the building; don't want to see the home pushed back too far
and question why it is as large as proposed.
■ Would appreciate a smaller footprint.
■ Indicated that they would support the design with a smaller footprint.
■ Requested a more formal and specific landscape plan that can assist in determining privacy
impacts.
■ Concerns about the similarity of design for 2508 and 2509 Easton Drive.
■ Commissioner— is 2505 Easton Drive built on two levels? Owner— somewhat split level with a deck
that provides access to the rear yard.
■ The home seems too large for the neighborhood.
■ Agrees with other neighbor's comments.
■ Concerned about similarity of homes and both of them being over-scaled.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Is a large lot; could potentially be supportable for a 3,900 square foot house; however, there are
other ways to embrace the terrain of the lot — referenced the project on Adeline Drive. There is a
specific market that this type of home will appeal to if designed for the lot's terrain.
■ The uniqueness of the design is that it becomes a three-story home in the rear — not the type of
uniqueness that is desirable.
■ Need to look to a design that addresses the unique character of the lot.
■ The architect and applicant need to work with the terrain of the property.
■ Disagrees with the neighbors' desire to retain a view to the property.
■ Feels the height of the structure is inappropriate for the lot.
■ The Easton elevation is handsome, but the stepping down and the rear are not done well — looks
like the rear of an apartment building — needs to work with the terrain.
Commissioner Cauchi moved to deny the application, without prejudice.
The motion was seconded by CommissionerAuran.
Discussion of motion:
,�
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes December 92, 2011
■ Denial "without prejudice" will allow revisions under the current application or appeal to the City
Council.
Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5-0-2-0
(Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
9:15 p.m.
13
Attention: City of Burlingame Planning Depattment
Re: 2509 Easton Drive
E
A ���������
Date: 12/7/2011
RuUen,
DEC - 7 2011
GITY OF DURLI�IGAfVI�
uC?D-PIANf�11l�G BIV.
Please find in this application proposal the following revisions Uased on cornrnents fi•om the planning
commission and one of the town's architectural consultants, Randy Cn•ange.
In review of the design comments on this home we went through a few altetnative design concepts in
order to address ihe concems. After our redesign choices we have made our choices that we believe are
best. In our previous versians of the Uest realistic and liveable design on this very steep down slope lot,
we had t�•ied a few differeni approaches for the floac plan. Every other approach we h�ied was causing
the home to not just creep down the Iull but because the lot sloped even steeper the further down we go,
the home was get�ing rnuch higher above grade. This design that we still have today is very close to
the natural grade and in fact cuts in that grade demonstrated Uy provided cross sections to keep the
home footprint as shallow as possible and close to the natural grade. Please keep in rnind that the actual
st��eet elevation is f/- 5%et abave the finish floar of the main entiy Ievel. This will doubt take away
fiom massing of walls of the second level when viewed fi•om the street. The owner has agreed to
redesign style exterior to a more relaxed "Spanish" style horne which we believe is compatiUle with
this diverse neighborhood, thus keeping the stucco (lower maintenance} exterior �nish with wood sills,
head t�•im, and wood exterior h•im throughout. We aIso believe that this home is quite different in color,
overall feel and style than that of the othex• hame propased at 2508 Easton. We have made these
revisions through a series ofmodifcations with the consultant's feedbaek. These modifications are
listed in his letter to the commission and his recommendation to support the project provided ihat we
have looked into the redesign of the fIoor plan and ]�aving determined that we have the Uest approacli
possible for this steep lot. This had Ueen done previously as mentioned ai the hearing.
In conclusion, this process has Ueen very helpful in clarification and improvement on what we Uelieve
�vas a nice design Uut became better as a result of'these comments and modi�cations. We would really
like to rnove this forward and get your approval at the hea��ing next Monday.
If you have any questions, please call.
Regards,
Scott Stotler
Stotler Design Cn•oup, Inc.
349 First St. suite A
Los Altos, CA
94022
Design Review Memo
City of Burlingame
Date: December 5, 2011
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: 2509 Easton Drive
Architect: Stotler Design Group
Planner: Ruben Hurin
I have received and reviewed the revised plans for 2509 Easton Ave. I have visited the
site and surrounding area. I reviewed the original submission to the Planning
Commission, and the Planning Commission's comments as presented in the meeting
minutes. I also met with the Planner, owner, and architect about the project. I also
reviewed two interim designs and commented on them as well.
The Planning Commission comments from the original meeting are as follows:
■ Noted that the cover sheet indicates that all windows are to be aluminum clad wood
windows with simulated true divided lights — but inside the plan set this detail
disappears.
■ Noted that the corbels are provided at the front, but disappear as you move to the
side and rear of the home. The architectural details are not carried through from
front to rear.
■ Doesn't have a problem with the pre-cast stone sills as long as details are provided
around the windows. Ensure that the sills do not overpower the windows
themselves. (Stotler — has recessed the windows by two inches throughout, rather
than provide trim — believes the recess is a more classic look.)
■ Feels the rear of the house looks tall per the plans. (Stotler — the building is stepped
back.)
■ With respect to the balcony; are looking for a design that encourages the use of the
front area of the home. The balcony on the second-floor is not necessarily a
substitute for providing design elements on the ground that encourage use of the
area in front of the home. The balcony may not be necessary. (Stotler — is attempting
to pick-up as much glass area as possible to the interior of the space — the upper
balconies provide this opportunity.)
■ Clarified that the lot was split by a prior action involving the adjacent lot to the right.
■ Is a difFicult lot to develop — a difficult lot does not always warrant a simple solution.
Feels that too much of the house is at the street. Feels that no one will use the rear
of the property given the scale of the house. The driveway can go downhill to the
garage. Doesn't feel that the house fits the lot. The heart of the lot is further back on
the property — a different design solution would be appropriate.
■ Concerned about the arborist's report supporting removal of so many trees.
Requested clarification regarding the Coast Live Oak listed as being removed from
the median strip. The lot is heavily wooded; it appears like it is being clear-cut.
(Stotler — placing the garage further back on the lot will make it less desirable for the
occupants. The majority of the trees that are being removed are in disrepair.
Wishes that more width was available to allow a different driveway configuration.
2509 Easton Drive
December 5, 2011
Are actually getting pretty close to grade at the lower level of the lot. Noted that the
entry door and living room are at about five-feet below the street.)
■ Are also maxing out the FAR; the home doesn't need to be that large. (Stotler —
described the difficulties encountered with dropping the structure while keeping the
interior floor plan workable.)
■ Difficuit to develop the property without removing some of the trees.
• Could an elevator or a funicular be provided to improve access given the topography
of the lot? (Stotler — an elevator could be something to consider, but they are costly
— there would also be limited access to the garage.)
■ Suggested limiting the front elevation to a single-story and take advantage of the
topography of the lot by building more of the structure further back on the lot.
• Doesn't feel that enough direction was provided to the applicant — though have given
some direction regarding the architectural style.
• It is up to the applicant to bring back a design that is approvable.
■ Must consider the design of this project with the project across the street.
• Could be appropriate for a design reviewer to be involved to interpret the
Commission's direction and provide the best opportunity to move forward
• Clarified a consistent style around the entire home; improve the pedestrian
experience; create a design that doesn't feel pretentious.
■ Why doesn't the design take better advantage of the topography of the lot?
Revisions to original design:
General: When we all met about this project I suggested that since there was a strong
discussion about alternate site planning options, the architect should study other
alternatives, specifically pushing the house down and back on the site, or having it one
level at the front and moving the bedrooms elsewhere. If indeed those options don't work
as the architect has indicated, then he could document those studies in some fashion for
the Commissioners to see. I did not see other alternatives to the site planning, but was
assured that it had been done, and the decision was to stick with the originai direction.
Based on that, I made a few suggestions: move away from the "Italian Renaissance"
direction (precast corbels, heavy columns and balustrading, heavy sills) which is more
suited to a flat site, and go for a looser, more casual, "Spanish" style which can step
down a hill. Also, we discussed simplifying the massing, and bringing down the heights
and big walls. Following is a summary of changes from the original submittal to the
current submittal.
• General:
The floor plan has been modified slightly to square off the family room. The front
has been lowered by reducing the plate heights on the lower level from 10 to 9
feet and the bedrooms above from 9 to 8 feet
• Front elevation:
The elevation has tightened up, deck reduced in size, balustrading and formal
columns removed, corbels replaced with rafter tails (stained wood?), heavy sills
removed, timber headers added.
• Left elevation:
The window details have been carried through. Trim band added at lower level.
Note: there may be conflict between roof and one of the bedroom windows (to be
addressed later?).
2
2509 Easton Drive
December 5, 2011
• Rear elevation:
The window details have been carried through. The family room and lower guest
area have been squared off. The railing details have been modified a bit.
• Right elevation:
The window details have been carried through. A belly band has been added to
the lower level.
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
1. Compatibility of the Architectural Style with that of the Existing
Neighborhood:
• There are a variety of house styles in the neighborhood, and the proposed
architectural style will fit in with the neighborhood reasonably well.
2. Respect for Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood
• There is a mix of attached and detached garages in the neighborhood, and
the proposed garage seems to work.
3. Architectural Style, Mass & Bulk of the Structure:
• The mass and bulk of the structure is similar to the previous submittal. The
design and the level of detail proposed for the structure is improved over the
original submittal.
4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each
Side:
• See summary below. Some massing modifications could help.
5. Landscaping and its proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural
Components:
• A landscape plan has been included. Additional landscaping and tree planting
is always encouraged. Given the number and size of the trees proposed to be
removed, significant replacement trees and screening should be provided.
u�1�1T/_1:i'/I
The applicant has provided an improved project as compared to the original submittal.
The project could be further improved in a few ways. All of the plate heights are not
shown on the elevations. The architect has reduced the plate heights at the front of the
house but I see in the building sections that there are 10' plates being proposed at the
lower level and middle level, and 9' at the upper (master bedroom) level. Bringing those
heights down (and it appears that they could be) would lower the upper roof in the back
by up to 3' (which may address some of the adjacent neighbor's concerns). I had also
suggested looking at reworking the floor plan a bit to pull the master bedroom inboard,
such that the lower roof could wrap around it, which would significantly break up the
three story wall in the back. I do not know if that was attempted but didn't work for some
reason. While it doesn't impact things too much, I did point out that the master bathroom
pop-out on the rear elevation seemed arbitrary and could be studied further. As
previously stated, while the massing of this proposed structure is nearly the same as
3
2509 Easton Drive
December 5, 2011
what was previously presented, it looks much better due to the detailing. I did not receive
or review any other concepts for structuring a house on this site. If this is indeed the best
way to do it, then I could support the direction with some of the massing modifications
mentioned here.
Randy Grange, AIA
0
CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANNING COMMISS/ON — Approved Minutes Ocfober 11, 2019
8. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO AND ONE-HALF
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EMPORIO GROUP LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT:
RUBEN HURIN �
Reference staff report dated October 11, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker briefly presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
■ None.
Chair Yie opened the public comment period.
Scott Stotler, 349 First Street, Los Altos; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Noted that the cover sheet indicates that all windows are to be aluminum clad wood windows with
simulated true divided lights — but inside the plan set this detail disappears.
• Noted that the corbels are provided at the front, but disappear as you move to the side and rear of
the home. The architectural details are not carried through from front to rear.
■ Doesn't have a problem with the pre-cast stone sills as long as details are provided around the
windows. Ensure that the sills do not overpowerthe windows themselves. (Stotler— has recessed
the windows by two inches throughout, rather than provide trim — believes the recess is a more
classic look.)
■ Feels the rear of the house looks tall per the plans. (Stotler — the building is stepped back.)
■ With respect to the balcony; are looking for a design that encourages the use of the front area of the
home. The balcony on the second-floor is not necessarily a substitute for providing design elements
on the ground that encourage use of the area in front of the home. The balcony may not be
necessary. (Stotler — is attempting to pick-up as much glass area as possible to the interior of the
space — the upper balconies provide this opportunity.)
■ Clarified that the lot was split by a prior action involving the adjacent lot to the right.
■ Is a difficult lot to develop — a difficult lot does not always warrant a simple solution. Feels that too
much of the house is at the street. Feels that no one will use the rear of the property given the scale
of the house. The driveway can go downhill to the garage. Doesn't feel that the house fits the lot.
The heart of the lot is further back on the property— a different design solution would be appropriate.
• Concerned about the arborist's report supporting removal of so many trees. Requested clarification
regarding the Coast Live Oak listed as being removed from the median strip. The lot is heavily
wooded; it appears like it is being clear-cut. (Stotler— placing the garage further back on the lot will
make it less desirable for the occupants. The majority of the trees that are being removed are in
disrepair. Wishes that more width was available to allow a different driveway configuration. Are
actually getting pretty close to grade at the lower level of the lot. Noted that the entry door and living
room are at about five-feet below the street.)
■ Are also maxing out the FAR; the home doesn't need to be that large. (Stotler — described the
difficulties encountered with dropping the structure while keeping the interior floor plan workable.)
■ Difficult to develop the property without removing some of the trees.
• Could an elevator or a funicular be provided to improve access given the topography of the lot?
(Stotler — an elevator could be something to consider, but they are costly — there would also be
limited access to the garage.)
11
C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISS/ON — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011
■ Suggested limiting the front elevation to a single-story and take advantage of the topography of the
lot by building more of the structure further back on the lot.
Public comments:
Robin Hendry, 2505 Easton Drive; Tiffany Liu, 2517 Easton Drive; and Laura Bryant, 580 Edgewood Road,
San Mateo; spoke:
■ Concerned about the removal of all of the trees.
■ Would like to see story poles to show the configuration of the home.
■ Would also like the trees to be tagged to show what is to be removed.
■ Concerned about the impacts upon privacy of her property.
■ Purchased their home because of the privacy of the lot.
■ Concerned about the potential loss of the trees — doesn't understand why the trees must be
removed.
■ Sees nothing from her windows but the trees on this property. (Commissioner—the property owner
has a right to build a house.) Perhaps install more replacement trees should be provided to protect
neighbors' privacy.
■ Is it possible to require story poles for both of the homes across from one another?
Additional applicant comments (Dimitrios Sogas, owner of 2509 Easton Drive):
■ This lot just had a garage on it previously.
■ The one tree to be removed is unhealthy others removed are in the center of the lotwhere the home
is to be placed.
■ Have worked with the window placement in an effort to preserve privacy of adjacent properties. Also
want to maintain privacy on the property.
■ On the upper level, are maintaining an 18-foot setback from the home on the left.
■ Windows are in the stairwell and in the bathroom — can be obscured if needed.
■ Have tried to site the house in the best manner possible.
■ Likes the code feature that allows the garage to be detached and placed further back on the lot.
Can certainly design the garage to minimize its street impact.
■ Feels itwould be unfortunate to hide the structure belowthe grade—encouraged the Commission to
consider ailowing the home to be brought further forward towards the front of the lot.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
■ Doesn't feel that enough direction was provided to the applicant— though have given some direction
regarding the architectural style.
■ lt is up to the applicant to bring back a design that is approvable.
• Must consider the design of this project with the project across the street.
■ Could be appropriate for a design reviewer to be involved to interpret the Commission's direction
and provide the best opportunity to move forward
■ Clarified a consistent style around the entire home; improve the pedestrian experience; create a
design that doesn't fee/ pretentious.
12
C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011
■ Why doesn't the design take better advantage of the topography of the lot?
Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:54 p.m.
13
R �ei�
���
Type of application:
�, Design Review ❑ Variance
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit
❑ Parcel #: € �1 .
❑ Other:
PROJECTADDRESS: z-� G I �V�S"��� e��t��" C7��Y'—Lj t�+C��yyFiC O2�'" �"I j� �
� Please indicate the contact person for this project
/�FPLICANT project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: S-�'��ti �`('S'� � i` C"t�:��--t•��
Address: �� �� {�'---�'f S-�� �;�-� V
City/State/Zip: �-�>S .%�9L`��S o C,.� L% `���Z—
Phone: �Z �� �� ! `� Z� �
Fax: �� �°� .� � — L i�,���
S'C,c-!"� L S-{"v"�' (-Fr .� S;�v,-��- i`" i.n.�J : L�Y-�
E-mail: ��Gz�i���C= 5��--%� w^��E' �a; �ti U F-u J�: �,�v.
PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: l-� �,,,, D �� �1 �> � v��, ,. n�c� �
Address: � �iC% �( �l�c�J�L , 1�'LcZZ
r
City/State/Zip: �c,� r� I�.� a r,� . i�� ��/OlO
Phone: (�? /D �l Z
Fax:
E-mail: � � � r� r�. n. on�
`-- v
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: ���=`��,� ���5 � t�1ti C�^_�-�;��
�
Address: � � � � �� � f :ri f � j��
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City/State/Zip: �5 �.-'��5
Phone: �� �J :�i `� '' Z� L y
Fax: �CG.Sti� �SLI �—� `�
E-mail
� �.
�,� , �E �s ���1
�v �I �E' S'.�..E� �
' ZZ
° I��'�`�'_' [ �� � �Gtcc.��t:-�
�� � ���
�k Burlingame Business License #: 2� � � �
��9 �! ��
JUL 2 2 2011
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��-�u-�= �y�� 5`�E" G�a� � �' ��C �Scd,�� S��+r2 (�z � C Ui�� �
��� %' �'C('�--t.���! ' %� � S! �� �� �"�'"e � �- �f' `�� �
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby cert�..aflder penalty of perjur that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief. i� --
Applicant's signature: ��� `! �� Date: �/ ��/��
� " �- i �
I am aware of the proposed application and hereby aut��the above applicant to submit this applic tion to the Planning
Commission. �
, �j/ 1
Property owner's signatu e: - ^� i Date: `/
/ � �'22�11
Date submitted:
* Verification that the project archi 'c esign�has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time plication fees are paid.
❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. s:�Halloours�Pcapplrcaf�on zoos.h❑ndout.doc
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Only
�
Project Description:
�" � �'';�! ��� CC� � � `i1
r `�_s�
�5���
�� :O �ti'�� ---�p i
, r.. ^ � � _ � , ��.,
f �-�v � �, o_�n c� ,
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DHE Declining Height Envelc
DSR Design Review
E Existing
N New
SFD Single Family Dwelling
SP Special Permit
City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinqame.orq
CITY OF BURLINGAME _ `: , .4
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION = - ' `���'�
2509 EASTON DRIVE
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE
��„T - c. 2� �j
- ;;c _'!�-;� �.;,!:^;l'�.;tl�'
�_ _. , d ... ..,.+� Li�`��.
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the
decision as to whether the findir�gs can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to
the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, sca/e and dominant structural characferistics of the new
construction or addition are consisfent with the existing structure's design and with the existing
street and neighborhood.
The proposed new 2 story residence with an attached 2 car garage will replace the existing residence at
the bottom of the lot and the 3 car garage at the street level. The proposed residence is consistent with
the surrounding properties in terms of mass/scale and the architectural style. Due to the extremely steep
lot we had to attach the garage pushing the house closer to the south/west property and outside of the
"Declining Height Envelope" (see exterior elevations) requiring a special permit application.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish maferials and elevations of the
proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing strucfure, street and
neighborhood.
The proposed residence roof lines, exterior finishes and elevations are consistent with similar style
homes. The architectural style and elements will blend well with the character of the neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed pro%ect be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by
the city (C.S. 25.57)?
The proposed single-family residence with attached garage is consistent with the residential design
guidelines and complies wit� zoning requirements except for the attached garage and "Declining Height
Envelope" that requires this special permit.
4. Explain how the 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. What mitigation is
proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate.
The trees tha�t are being removed must be removed due to the steep lot and to accommodate the new
residence and garage at the street level not the bottom of the lot. The property lines are lined with trees that
provide screening from both neighbors. The entire site will be provided with complete new landscaping and
irrigation including the addition of several trees.
City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinqame.orq
CITY OF BURLINGAME _ _ _ �
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
:`� � � } 2Q;;
t.
2509 EASTON DRIVE
ATTACHED GARAGE - �'-% �' `�
� `.: "r: _ . � _ . .,
_.v'!., �..,., _. . _ .
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the
decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to
the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of fhe new
construction or addition are consistenf with the existing structure's design and with the existing
street and neighborhood.
The proposed attached 2 car garage is consistent with the surrounding properties in terms of
mass/scale and the architectural style. Due to the extremely steep lot we had to attach the garage to the
house requiring a special permit application.
2. Explain how 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.
The proposed residence roof lines, exterior finishes and elevations are consistent with similar style
homes. The architectural style and elements will blend well with the character of the neighborhood.
3. How will fhe proposed pro%ect be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by
the city (C.S. 25.57)?
The proposed attached garage is consistent with the residential design guidelines and complies with
zoning requirements except for the garage being attached to the residence which requires this special
perm it.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within fhe footprint of any new structure or addition
is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is
proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigafion is appropriate.
The trees are being removed to accommodate the house due to the very steep lot.
�
Kielty Arborist Services
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
P.O. Box6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650 — 525 — 1464
August 30, 2011
Stotler Design Group
Attn: Mr. Scott Stotler
349 First Street Suite A
Los Altos, CA 94022
Site: 2509 Easton, Burlingame, CA
Dear Mr. Stotler,
{ .� _ —� ,� _.���
a� i '
>EF :� � 2Gii
.-. .,< <.� :_,`� ; �:�_
�� ; ;�r� ,. ��:r�. ._
�; + .i�� t . :. .
As requested on Monday, August 28, 2011, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on
the trees. New construction is planned far this site and as required a survey of the trees on site
and a tree protection plan will be included.
Method:
All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The
trees in question were located on a map provided by you. The trees were then measured far
diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were
given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees' condition rating is based on 50 percent
vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale.
1 - 29 Very Poor
30 - 49 Poor
50 - 69 Fair
70 - 89 Good
90 - 100 Excellent
The heights of the trees were measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was
paced of£ Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided.
Survey:
Tree# Species
f►7
3
Coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
Coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
Coast live oak
(QueYcus agrifolicz)
DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments
40est 45
24.1 55
28est 55
50/70 Vigor fair, form fair, cables installed to
support tree.
50/40 1' from existing building, bend in trunk,
heavy to the south.
50/50 Vigor poor-fair, form fair, codominant at 5'.
2509 Easton/8/30/11
Tree# Species DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments
4 Privet 8.6 40 45/25 Poor vigor, poor form, codominant at 4'
(Ligustrum japonicum)
5 Hedge maple 19.1 55
(AceY campestre)
6 Coast live oak 19.6 40
(Que�^cus agrifolia)
7 Plum 9.8 60
(Prunus spp.)
�2)
45/35 Multi at 6', vigor fair, form poor
50/25 Lealis against structure, very poor form, fair
vigor
35/25 Fair vigor and form
8 Hedge maple 20est 55 35/25 Fair vigor and form
(Acer campestre)
E
10
11
Valley oak 20est 30
(Que�cus lobata)
Hedge inaple l lest 65
(Acer campestre)
Canary island palm 24est 70
(Phoenix canariensis)
35/55 fair vigor, very poor form, nearly horizontal
40/20 On property line, fair vigor
12* Italian stone pine 24est 65
Pinus pinea)
*denotes neighbor's tree
25/30 Good vigor, good form, 5' of standing trunk.
35/25 Good vigor, fair form, located between
structures.
Summary:
The property has not received recent maintenance. The site has a mix of native oaks and
imported trees. The native oaks are all in poor condition with decay in the trunlcs or stems. Oak
#1 has several decayed areas within the canopy. The installation of cables has helped preserve
the tree but does not guarantee the safety of the tree. Tree #2 has a large bend in its trunk and is
located less than 1 foot from the existing structure. Tree #6 has very poor form and is being
supported by the structure. The trees around the perimeter of the property can be retained with
little or no adverse effects to their long term health.
2509 Easton/8/30/11 (3)
Tree Protection Plan:
Tree protection zones:
♦ Should be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project.
♦ Fencing for the protection zones should be 4 foot tall orange plastic type supported by
metal stakes pounded into the ground. The support stakes should be spaced no more than
10 feet apart on center.
♦ The location for the protection fencing should be as close to the dripline as possible still
allowing room for construction to safely continue.
♦ Signs should be placed on fencing signifying "Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out".
♦ No materials or equipment should be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones.
♦ Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the dripline of protected trees, where foot
traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4 to 6 inches of chipper chips.
The spreading of chips will help to relieve compaction and improve the soil structure.
Root Cutting:
♦ Any roots to be cut should be monitored and documented.
♦ Large roots or large masses of roots to be cut should be inspected by the site arborist.
♦ The site arborist may recommend fertilizing or irrigation if root cutting is significant.
♦ Cut all roots clean with a saw or loppers.
♦ Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and
kept moist.
Trenching:
♦ Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason should be hand dug
when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes
below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus
reducing trauma to the entire tree.
♦ Trenches should be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to
near its original level.
♦ Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time should also be covered with layers
of burlap and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect
exposed roots below.
Irrigation:
♦ Normal irrigation should be maintained throughout the entire length of the proj ect.
♦ The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months.
♦ During the summer months the trees on this site should receive heavy flood type
irrigation 2 times a month.
♦ Irrigation during the winter months may also be necessary, depending on the seasonal
rainfall. F1ood type irrigation 1 time per month during the fall and winter months may be
advised by the site arborist.
♦ Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing
water consumption.
♦
2509 Easton/8/30/11 (4)
Demolition, Parking and Staging:
♦ During the demolition process all tree protection must be in place.
♦ An inspection prior to the start of the demolition may be required.
♦ All vehicles must remain on paved surfaces if possible. If vehicles are to stray from
paved surfaces, 4 to 6 inches of chips shall be spread and plywood laid over the mulch
layer when inside root zones. This type of landscape buffer will help reduce compaction
of desired trees.
♦ Parking will not be allowed off the paved surfaces near protected trees.
♦ The removal of foundation materials (including curbs, asphalt and retaining walls), when
inside the driplines of protected trees, should be carried out with care. Hand excavation
may be required in areas of heavy rooting.
♦ Exposed or damaged roots should be repaired and covered with native soil.
♦ Tree protection fencing may need to be moved after the demolition. The site arborist
should be notified and the relocated fence should be inspected.
This information should be kept on site at all times. The information included in this report is
believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Kielty
Certiiied Arborist WE#0476A
Project Comments
Date:
i�
From:
September 14, 2010
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
X Parks Supervisor
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
0 NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage
and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family
dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1,
APN: 027-195-060
Staff Review:
1
2
3
Landscape Plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape
Regulations'. Complete attached Water Conservation in Landscape checklist.
Protected Tree Permit required b_ ore construction begins. Application may
be obtained from Parks Division (558-7254).
Include Tree Protection Diagram (attached) on plans and note as determined
by Arborist Report.
( . Cr�?�-��,� � �� � :���� ��,�-C/���.� %
�;, ������� ���� � �� �������� f � ��� � ����� �
� ;�;,�
a
f �f�,�,�
,
Reviewed by: B. Disco Date: 9/20/11
,
URBAN FOREST MANAGEA;_ . ✓T PLAN
(,._ -_
�
� ` r
`
�, �---�
� �.
�L —`" y �
� � ' ��
. ` ��
:�:�... . ..x . ,_
{PRC,iCCT�"4 Tt�iOT �CtitE)
0
Ei41Sl7NG TREE
TO REM11N.
PRt37EGTfVE FE�C��G
?��J1E5:
1. Pi20'CEC�4E FEHGI�G 5}�iLi
9E SftIGH7 OliJ�t1GE
PC�LYPRc�P'fLEhtE FEIdClhic;.
�. N�9TH9MG INSd�E Ti6E
DR9PU7�E ARFJI 5t3v41!_ BE
iLiYCEU. G6iT, STOR£iD. OR
O7Fi�R"N'�5E DIST[F326E➢,
3. t�►i'lR,��fioR �Fta�t� T:�:6Cf
EXik£'Jf CAR€ ANb
6�it41"ECT iLil �i571Nfs
7REE5 T� REY+1J�19{. A5
ltE4U1kED BY EJ,i�[D���PE
Pt�ia.
4. TR�E P�9�G�14Pi �NAl3-
BE 9NST�tt�-LEC3 ?�1
ACG9'RDt�3C� �lf�7ii
Pf2DdES';T .i4Ft'$-Q}"l�53 Rr'P9:RT
i"
. � f't � L... � � � T � � � t � �I F� � �� # � B T�-iE�J�aBDRCST PRI[3�c �
`. 7i7 FFIE EF�t'EPTI[7Fb DF �F�'
N�� T�7 sC;��.E �voRx.
Updared July 20, 2009 - 32 -
OUTDOOR 1NAiEi USE E�FICIEMCY CHEC}4LiST
that the s ject roject meets the specified requirements ofthe Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance.
%
�� �-ZB-l1
re Date
� Single Family O Multi-Family O Commercia! 0 institutional 0 irrigation only Q lndustrial ❑ Other:
Appficant Name {print): �Qy�n � ��.f �� Contact Phone #-
� �lD - 8LlZ -OzL/
Project Site Address: 2, �Q9 ��.�� �r, � Ur 1 i►� f�YI�Q. C� •
Project Area (sq.ft. or acrej: �� � 2� s,-�}. # of Unitr: �, # of Meters• a
� '
a . ' f e � � ' Total Landscape Area (sq.ft_}: � _ � '
y . a:� �s€ �� � �
e: .s a- eo �1• -
�(,72`f Sq� ��Y ��_p
'� °- w' ` Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft_): � Z j S
�. � � u '�- F'f"'
- i Non-l'urF Irrigated Area (sq.ft.j: '�� (pD�j Sq. -i •
6. e �a_ o- n� fo
_ e �'�`= : _ a . _: _ Speciai Landsppe Area (SLAj (sq.ft.): N. f} ,
g a - � " - _ Water Feature Surface Area (sq.ft.)c . }'� .
6 �q� �
'"4f�4 3' . ,� § . @ , 0� � � 6 ' S0 _ -
.. . . . _. . � » . ' _. _ ' y . .. :
Turf Less than 25% of the landscape area is � Yes -
a
�� ❑ No, See Water Budget
All turf areas are> 8 feet wide � Yes
All turf is planted on slopes <25% � Yes
Non Turf At leasc SO% of non-turf area is native ■ Yes
or low water use plants ❑ No, See Water Budget
Hydrozones Plants are grouped by Hydrozones � Yes
IY/lulch At least 2-inches of mulch on exposed � Yes _
soil surfaces
irrigation System Efficiency 70% ETo (160% ETo for StAs) � Yes _
No overspray or runoff ❑ Yes
lerigation Systern Design System efficiency > 70% � Yes
,' Automatic, self-adjusting irrigation C] No, not required forTier 1
i controllers � Yes
I Moisture sensor/rain sensor shutofFs � Yes
No sprayheads in � 8-ft wide area. � Yes
' Irrigation 7ime System only operates beiween 8 PM � yes
and 10 AM '
Metering Separate irrigation meter � No, not required because < 5,000 sq.ft. �:
❑ Yes
Swimming Pools f Spas Cover highly recommended ❑ Yes �. a� -
� No, not required
Water Peatures Recirculating 0 Yes
Less than 10� of landscape area ❑ Yes
Documentation Checklist � Yes
Landscape and irrigation Design Plan ❑ Prepared by applicant
� Prepared by professional
VVater Budget (optional) ❑ Prepared 6y appiicant �q
❑ Prepared by professional l�'r�� -
Audit Post-installation audit completed ❑ Completed by applicant N. �. :
❑ Completed by professional :
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
July 25, 2011
� City Engineer
(650) 555-7230
0 Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
X City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
1. Protected tree permit required for all trees proposed for removal that are 48
inches in circumference or over measured 54in from ground level. Contact
Parks Division (558.7334) for permit application.
��2. Landscape plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape
�egulations" (attached). Irrigation Plan required for Building permit. Audit due
for Final.
' 3 Landscape plan must include 4(four} 24" box size tree as per Landscape
�quirements.
4�Add new Street Tree in parking strip, if Public Works requires sidewalk
eplacement, Policy for Expanding Width of Planter Strip needs to be
impCemented. Street Tree list attached.
Reviewed by: B Disco
Date: 7/27/11
Date:
To:
From
September 14, 2010
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ Parks Supervisor
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage
and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family
dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1,
APN: 027-195-060
Staff Review:
No further comments.
All conditions of approval as stated in the review dated 7-26-2011 will apply to
this project.
Reviewed , i Date:9-15-2011
f
Date:
rC•�
From:
Subject:
Staff Review
July 25, 2011
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
C� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California Building
Code, 2010 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2010 California
Mechanical Code, 2010 California Electrical Code, and 2010 California Plumbing
Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1856-2010. Note: If the
Planning Commission has approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December
31, 2010 then the building permit application for that project may use the
provisions found in the 2007 California Building Codes including all amendments
as adopted in Ordinance 1813.
�On the plans provide a copy of the GreenPoints checklist for this project at full
�.,
scale.
� Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California Energy
Efficiency Standards.
Go to http://www.enerqV.ca.qov/tifile24/2008standards/ for publications and
details.
� Specify the roofing material to be used. If the roofing material weighs more that
51bs/ft. then Indicate on the plans that the roof will comply with Cool Roof
requirements of the 2008 California Energy Code. 2008 CEC §151 (f) 12. The
2008 Residential and Non-Residential Compliance Manuals are available on line
at http:/Iwww.enerqy.ca.qov/titie24/2008standards/
(� Place the following information on the first page of the plans:
"Construction Hours"
Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m.
Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
(See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.)
� On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that
require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for
these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning
Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must
submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated in these
plans prior to performing this work.
7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame
business license.
8) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
9) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a
completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition
Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project.
10)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed
property lines
11)Obtain a survey of the property lines.
�n the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the
property line.
1� Indicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the
property line will be built of one-hour fire-rated construction. (2010 CBC, Table
602)
�ooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or
door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of
all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. Note: The areas labeled
"Guest Bedroom" and "Bonus Room" are rooms that can be used for sleeping
purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement.
5�Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the
Department of Public Works.
�Some guardrails, as shown, appear to be 36" in height. Revise the plans to show
that all exterior guards will be 42" in height per 2010 CBC §1013.2
17)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at
any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the
Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in
height.
18)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
19)Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
20)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of
the building within ten feet. 2010 CBC §2113.9
NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically
address items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 must be re-submitted before
this project can move forward for Planning Commission action.
Reviewed by: `� i� � Date: 7-26-2011
���
Project Comments
Date:
��
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
July 25, 2011
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
1. See attached.
2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
3. pplicant is advised to call City Arborist regarding potential relocation of
sidewalk area around trees in the planter strip.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 8/17/2011
`� PUSLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANl�ING REVIEW COMIVVI�NTS %�� � `��
Project Name: �'n�af ��,LI�+�K
Project Address: � �"t�-t f�L.
The following requirements apply to the project
1 � A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey sha11 show all property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building permit issuance.)
2 _� The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street� (Required prior to the building permit
issuance.) �Yt- � ,� e�' ��t IYR.b��/ 5'`fS� .
3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
•-�,-���r-�'��f
5 � A sanitary sewer lateral �is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standards. , )
6. The project plans sha11 show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis
shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures.
8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project.
9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
10. The project sha11 file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map shall show all existing properly lines, easements,
monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map.
Page 1 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews.
12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel
map.
13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
14 � The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
appurtenant work.
15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 The project sha11 submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
18 �_ Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State
Department of Fish and Game Pernut and Aimy Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 `� No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
20 � The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
21 The project does not show the dimensions of e�sting driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMNIENTS.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the street into private property.
24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The
sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMI��NTS.doc
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
StafF Review:
July 25, 2011
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
� City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7279
❑X Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly —
Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building
Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split
between domestic and fire protection lines.
3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall
clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings
shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
Reviewed by: �� G���f� Date: z�� !/
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
July 25, 2011
0 City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
0 City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
X NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) during construction.
Please include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention best
management practices (BMPs), as project notes, when submitting plans for a
building permit. Please see attached brochure for guidance. The brochure may also
be down loaded directly from "flowstobay.org." It is recommended that the
construction BMP's be placed on a separate full size plan sheet (2' x 3` or larger as
appropriate) for readability.
For additional assistance, please contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at
(650) 342-2727.
� - ' -� .� ..._..:�
..�UL �v Ll'Pi
C['�'t ra�: ;:3(_�;,i li3s�,t �,. -
i � � —=' ' .,.c._�,.
Reviewed by: 'a � . ��
����
� 9��
Date: rJ ��,,�, c���
�
�4
o/ % 5lmmwn�c
� PoDuGanP�cumCwPmgcam
:� w�
' aa
�*..,� ;�
"�k;si:.� ;r
��ry � �
r7CI1C�lAI '�„`^' /
1
Constructian
& Site SuQervision
��,,�,�m�_.
.��.?,� .'e' ��'�
.r�a me�.� m.m. m m�.�nao�
m,�e�.�w:w.
=e���e '
J(=rRL�V �� m�w'oJ M� e�. u mm
�mw�mn�awm mm.avur�
M
�����`+z�v�r�e m rcecm�we�
hun• 4� av ���u.demwmvm rro �u�a
�anvNlmmwJ�weietr��tenum
�^N�"�����.FinaWtlu �
��rm•�
J �wmdc���uG.vd+w�xquq...-".
m� � au�6vNNudl.�ry
6�m�mv �CedL�imdifum.
��v m.�.m4 w�of6o �w� waso� �muQ
� . .. w�� �yug or
� mm�.�.wv
�i '�F�J V����� ���J nW' �n P4�a va�h ma
' � .�v�ew�am.a�m �m�
`��bIXn P� wlav uua�W m nmm M'v�c
. duvrcL.VwwYvuw6meumce+M.
.m L�� a.ouk�aehw n e.v wumm� ml
Ia w��+.e4+m�odvw���a�•�1�u
wrydiootmnm�meeLLm µa�domv�
mLLrwttmEwd+m.UnJn�v_-` .
�rtrmvFa6�d �Wwc mcvmr,unJm�
��e�
lCmv md m�6u� dvm➢�� @e2 BMamih' Nr
tr.MceA+mm�m�vrm4x `nm wimmp�
W��a��a..�um.mammm.
.•_ v�asnc�u���mnawyR.m
6i.6e of 6pu4 N�.v dry av� � d�Yt� h
•. , i 4 do.o m En em.mi.von tlm.
Jl(�b.� C��� bileh s milv�aWd� v..ur
..e�� � Mu�ly�v
��w.aww^wb. �k m'�Jev Lpmtlrkr
w�s4(i/n�.ro
JMtb wvm ��e�Wm - malmlm �.nc vm
� rt�Yelpt+mra66 nnme�c��m e My�.
Iw�Wea �em=•m.qmNKs
a��n u u� �`k m rm�b �. m.wv.
N �iNa�IhlmuoW4
JD*L.y �� m.mvw.d.�ra.m S. v�wb
aolmwemdd�..4 N��t..nm�ew�
dm A4�u4� ad drbu 0ss emoi ne �ecycb6��mu� i
����a�aa�
�m��m� � � �
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
Pollution Frevention — It's Part of the Plan
It is your responsibility to do the j ob right!
Ruooff&om s�eets and otherpaved azeas is a major source ofpollurion in local creeks, San Francisco Bay aad the Pacific Ocean.
Conshuction activities can directly affectthe health of ourwaters unless contractors and crews plan ahead to keep dirt, debris, and other
constiuction waste away from storm drains and creeks. Following these guidelines will ensure your compliance withloeal stoimwater
ordinance requirements. Remember, ongoing monitoring and maintenance of installed con4ols is crucial to proper implementation_ . . .
Heavy Earth-Moving Roadwork & Paving F:esh Concrete Painting & Application Landscaping,
Equipment Activities & Mortar Application af Solvenls 8c Adhesives Gardening,
Operation — a�d p�1 Main���
� L
� . -
� \
. �..�. Jo.woP�dmWmz�aw�l.'mmm� n�.utv
mdmrmn�ami. . �rl�
m6p.NvewmtSrAywwba w-^.hLrPmmm
�m�Ctvuwlw J�w��y�m�fv�u6uE.epd.luYinapW�a.t J� .LL��adE9�3�6wadm.✓.iavqhvm _ _
wdae.rvatlmmlYwhmibolnrbmiu. ,��Y�l�mwu�.+..Y�Rm6wutwLafROP Gomleom.chaC6v C�R+��mlvdal�aom.Llqunlmam.a6em �� �' , �.
awyLw6amuauadav�i�c. `� edea Weudwmm�xtim:o-.ao+nme P�.�a�.vilrmr.W4md� Imtdcae holxinx4'�uvllod¢v�[�1.6�wmu.si
qml�maP�a...+u.l.m.m�: g.�. ✓W^mnT '[�wU.Idw�4m�m.wm.eam�ax J�auwi�.m ¢maw'eLwtlurmqtA��Gom E�W�wannevdmutbadu➢ o[u.tumm�u �unbY��[��ued.rmrvm�csseePLricJu�unc
aordmeevuyr*.s+.Ymrmwam�nol� �k��m��eidrmo�nwm+r .um rm�alinm.i�l.samwml. �mou.mifidl�bfaew.rmbd�.ua
�/umpn=���e.b�rv�.rt.�ew�r�,� �,ewo..nae.�,wmoon��,aware��et J9weu�or�e.m
rmd�s.w�dr.��uv. �t � m�.r.rto�.e«nt�n w� } ' m.�mmr �mowar+�mmmma
�Y•^d^l�d �Le��La4u.mm� 1PmmEo+z+toved�.grr�a..tr�taaaum J➢ouauudledoobM1imlo¢mtlrmwa��m �adbbwvamwv�a�+rfi�rv�4:m�m ;�el�e
%� � aim�vi6� a.mm� bbm��V'����� �R��x�=uWdlb.'�m�u.mmr..hotm �f0'^im��l.eE.wo¢ . N� clmmwlr.m�.. J Aywomc
�4m�rw'�4�'-mR�fio- �4 • �P�b� ��� Wlumunimemua S�JV.NYe6o�5mCcvvnWnG�ieklar
J Wuhcut�o�emuas w�4 ��mm ume. m.ev�m
e+mtlY �Ca JU�� dawwdinMmGmt�Bwmiomw '� M'mm�[Noeb.c�a�mlM�m m a+bmdvi¢�.ewubmduu. aLa3umNre��aQmay
�� � m4.bmuewww�nmwmwwcmi� Jeorw,�-w.nr�d.a�auh.meuurmm�
4��wmbd'vcL��ae6ahn�ort�4Wa+ofu �aitq'�mmmroY�E�w
wr�m.lo.v:�+..a«w.Pa..w.m'�.m °'�9iL ++�sr�e,�ra.e ��uwn�..eWwrolS �m�¢Me�me �����mumWcm�W.w....rwmmt..,wo.q. Je�onauo�womo-a.�mwY��.x,m..mr�
' Jn.waw.me�.do..ove m.w..mnr.ew�.m
wrv�����bms�er� lbvc�u�try �danr.Ww�wo4xnmtlwn�m .� imom�.mfmmrcNmvG+WuMwuLwtimo weO�w�Emn.Miv. '
6uhwwxalwillluw�mamoue A.mxtoWma�+b4�=�wtim5u.«�eum� . aulhxuNR�Ywmum.e
�v � a„��e�.�..oa,.n;.�«.��. wm"'°`°°`. . .r�,m.aoe��wme��..em+�*�e �fam-s.we.�a�me.,�maw,�v� �
mo eeCuOv�wmwcb�bm JAo�iry�wmdminem�LLomvo.mnNmm� �+4�buYx.Lbewl4� �Cmaeweov mtltl '' wuhawmaP�<mmmx. 8v�h���4muvVm[(mmoluo.imm�dim
uWJ�Pm1�w�fbOm.va�mriA.maN � UKriekdmiNo-da.m6��uNva�ro�daamd muMmmeSW.mc.bm�uttlms�wiu bmdme5�mmdwlrmb.11:wzofe¢ss� �
•M���'�. W m.Y�lcvsxvcWmbk.m J a,
EiqmavCOwe.uh�b,uw�e lAv�,y.npm�GNueaNemirmmdutimm«mwl� JNe�sxvuheeumuaiilfidmapeaLa60�t�rm- vum�ey'. ]yuiLaGmilueuhvmdca�.nne. Lv6iurv�G.N�M.uim,no
omlvumeomi�WbemwmammdNnUl- � JfIreWW�+d�•.vdlollo.Yheltl4atiomRmmew-
mmmduma. pwpmmm m .m�m.wia.�aamY. �mdroydumeu�m&rt�a sm maow�mJlm���m�mamvYW�m Pae.maw �a.ww.cauew.¢ruPm��+NmvaF�aua
pv.s �� J��bmaomcmo.oa.tmwrul�hwA J�'°vmr6�. !�� ma�.Is.e.ve6.mma�d.Y��ee��¢ ' ma
lxm'��.m.aN'deb.mb. Js.sd.�m.Wm I e�im4�Qi.WeSabwd`� _ rvm¢wi0� ��i<m�oYW� dureiwY� � EnP�IdM.�a6Npo�Wo(vtr.S mlimetlmpWtiv JDiapu�of�muC➢m�m�a�bmNmuwe4e
Ovwal➢v�m �wbca�ladneoWc ,�GVh�tlriY6tm]amwiOtlriPPmrc�baEm[m�I ' wu Wn
�Cl�mm.�i�i�an.�mle� s.mmevsmooim,u: �e9�@•�eu'�n � lCemio-ta��mmme+adm�omemMmadpe Jcdm6w.mw���oem0�p�emew+ecmt�
Jv�crmm+iape�atnpinm'�rfiomWeiobnm. Immm�ePsmdmPmbrootrm'm�l�m 3utyl ui�me+mVi[eamaY.vWm�mi
�°"` ��"0����fOd�` ��ercwbm.tldeFi.pu�e„�m.�vamxmw''�����!'���•o)�m&CW�d���ammL JPnm.ew�&4xuhsomddrcwryM��mmwmn �mmmbaal7,osdafm�vaw.+.v4�.
6mmwm¢rive�mMucRo,c
U..dry�l�v�+tr E� wah�wh.iavu���v�<L-ryb�.ama^vM weEwl v�dW�ivbart '�Owuhwad'v� JWLmatq�PmCore�mmsa^'dm6eaimm�wiONeb- JDom�Y�wamm.wwc�xlummmwlusN0.
m+beae��wxmtiva��a fCm:l.mmxkm�ewowo��Yanpa.�� �e'A.��wme�.mpi�Q
vp)wnanv 6omd�d�. wTblaka.m�.Nuhwaiawm.Jve
�rok¢ra�e�na,�iw�wm� .e.>Ks+�am..on �e�n,rwx<aem�eo.��waoww�p,m wa„�w�ew i """ � ���o-a�auuwm
dwda.o JDoouussd�vloJmkbK.amelauaryymm�mP� JAvddmer+VGiia'unM19.�.�cmnM1fwdmtmouvL �wo�ffceylugmmm:.��hCvmi�m�Ln �Ym ��yw�w�a.t(moPn b�bvdfili�6w ,
!�W�uelMmmcl��m��mu1'Y.Nc¢aL AUdlmmilmlymhdD�����tLtmY6aam- ���0°�°Rmrvv! �10� r.m�1EWIGuB�6rv+�¢add'�wramlhevhy 1Wm[bbvmvTe�uxa.cb.hm6�nmt
ro'bahN�.a.Y".iwoay.wbmY�hrm nmieamd JbuWwtio6ccauAmNnutr iu[++PM1+��mrvn- ���eof�hewmv.mYhe�ttm�mmWAc
VmvtiWevmrsspmmlk6rOm�vnL IfmYolWe�amGtlm�oeobw*ad,wt(xawhma.timu � mfd �y��hmemPickWe�WeP�m mn trf.+�mmteu@uuymm4mBittkdsroa ?uol/AmvhaS�fMuv(raufi
maR.�m�M1SmQ++1IlYGmuvlEmi `��b'm�e.w.oYlw•�stWwnuimoveill �` . �rvWnMndl�':n..+FflePxwmn�h�n
✓amW9�meWumMtiLo�8�4miPm'+�Y md�emc� IbmJed� JHxYae6¢e.�IDmEavtMotm�et.un�iel6LL Jpa,Moe'�p+xC�c�v�..aeeaud�palutu� �ermEnm. .
ebp�eoh�m.�ea.at it�W.Wmomermt��+n�.ocodw JMhamabatmM•�m�doam�romemmaonw'uh A_."hoWE�m�JmwxwYa6ovanLb.aauxW. JWbmmpyeg.pml:qybt��mm.d'�a.�+fm5m
��ww���v�+nu.Nwom�ew�+evw+< �bmMed��� JAaee�eYiwmE�lx�u �md�mumolm.11�ouvmo(�mM�Ncw�4 W�nwy..��M'mn�Nrv+e�mtwe
��i'.Ymw � �e`�' �SStcvd mw�m�h. bwucvv.memi4cbms�9Md�.romlo[sspf. �dirillm�ay��wvMdJem¢nP��fmma
wd�h'wum� . swdbm.4�.+cem.n a.aunm ae�n�w� .�mr �ee .� �.udmmmeaswo-�waw.ram..mm
,�vew��u�meoaaw��tim.'nwro 'a ruorummw�d,w�t ��••wnn' "
N. Rv^N+�•NLauu.fwiw:oeu�=�lu�.t JNersbm<&�mme.und�We.hedLlc96a'i lNe.v6vYm JR.uwldbma�•..•
silms� .i)Gll •.a9gWcd. eaotiee.bdrn... � r+wa�a�gm�F6 J�.rdw�cm(ibeudtrr3n¢etm��iury �
y�x�,�.�..�mwmi aemmy)M
�s@�IesiOm.ev��m�. s �w'mae � l5mJ19�Yarna���tmJ6NaswimWoSmM.ko ���u.•mmm.WtiH�km
��tenam�aoleNmDl.4maw�a�r�une �
acL�domvukd'apmd "� -. vc[�mpm,.L.ed�p�oEe�.h�� Jw�MS
St:oim drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $25,000 per day! '��:��:,�;;�,;,.,�= ��,�„,� �.����;.
- e:�m�.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW
AND SPECIAL PERMITS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
Desiqn Review and Special Permits for attached qaraqe and declininq heiqht envelope for a
new, two and one-half story sinqle familv dwellinq and attached paraqe at 2509 Easton Drive,
zoned R-1, Emporio Group Inc., 1630 Balboa Wav, Burlinqame, CA, 94010, propertv owner,
APN: 027-195-060;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 27, 2012, 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:
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 Article 19, 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. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family
residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review and Special Permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permits 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 27th dav of Februarv, 2012 by the
following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits.
2509 Easton Drive
Effective March 8, 2012
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped January 31, 2012, sheets T1, C.O, A1 through A5, L-1, L-2 and GPC;
2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree
protection measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report
prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones
shall be established and inspected by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building
permit;
3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks
Division to remove any protected-sized trees;
4. 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 staffl;
5. 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;
6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor's September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the
Chief Building Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's
August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met;
7. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
8. that demolition 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;
9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
10. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits.
2509 Easton Drive
Effective March 8, 2012
11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
12. that 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;
13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2010 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;
and
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.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD = ` -
�-_` ', �I BURLINGAME, CA 94010
PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) 696 3790
www.burlingame.org =
�i�t�: ��09 �ASTON ��IV� -- _ -
The ti4y af Burlingame Planniiag C�mmission onnounces the
follawing pu6lic hearing on MON6AY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012
at 7:00 P.IVIe in the Ciiy H�II �ou�agil Chambers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA:
Applicafion for Design Rzview and Sp�cial Permits for attacned
garage and declining height a�velope for a new, two nnd ane-
half story single family dw�lling and attached gurage at 2509
EASTON DRIVE zoned R-1. APN 027-195-060 (/tem
fontinued from fhe s�ebrrrary 13, 2012 Planning
Cammission Meet�ny st fhe �eqe�est of the app/itant.J
Mailed: Februnry 17, �U9�
(Please refer to other side)
_ _? w . _ _
� __ _
� �
Cetv of �c�rlin��r�ae
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be.limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivere�i to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
Wi!liam Meeker
Community Development Director
. •
(Please refer to other side)
City of Burlingarne
Design Review and Special Permits
Address: 2509 Easton Drive
Item No. 6
Action Item
Meeting Date: December 12, 2011
Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height
envelope for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Stotler Design Group
Property Owner: Emporio Group LLC
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 027-195-060
Lot Area: 8,850 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per 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. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe
constructed or converted under this exemption.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on October 11, 2011,
the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and voted to place this item on the
RegularAction Calendarwhen the plans have been revised as directed (October 11, 2011 Planning Commission
Minutes attached). Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by
the Planning Commission.
Planning staff would note that fhe project designer requested that this project also be revised by the design
review consultant, along with the project at 2508 Easton Drive.
The applicant submitted a written response dated December 7, 2011 and revised plans date stamped December
5, 2011. These plans were reviewed by the design review consultant and serves as the basis for the analysis
prepared by the design review consultant.
Analysis and Recommendafion by Design Reviewer: In a written analysis dated December 5, 2011, the
design reviewer summarizes how this project complies with the residential design guidelines (included in stafF
report for reference). However, the design reviewer also notes suggestions to improve the project further.
Please refer to the design reviewer's analysis for a summary of changes made to the project as well as
additional suggestions. In summary, the reviewer notes the following:
"The applicant has provided an improved project as compared to the original submittal. The project could be
further improved in a few ways. All of the plate heights are not shown on the elevations. The architect has
reduced the plate heights at the front of the house but I see in the building sections that there are 10' plates
being proposed at the lower level and middle level, and 9' at the upper (master bedroom) level. Bringing those
heights down (and it appears that they could be) would lower the upper roof in the back by up to 3' (which may
address some of the adjacent neighbor's concerns). I had also suggested looking at reworking fhe floor plan a bit
to pull the master bedroom inboard, such that the lower roof could wrap around it, which would significantly break
up the three story wall in the back. I do not know if that was attempted but didn't work for some reason. While it
doesn't impact things too much, I did point out that the master bathroom pop-out on the rear elevation seemed
arbitrary and could be studied further. As previously stated, while the massing of this proposed structure is nearly
the same as what was previously presented, it looks much better due to fhe detailing. I did not receive or review
any other concepts for structuring a house on this site. If this is indeed the best way to do it, then I could support
the direction with some of the massing modifications mentioned here. "
Design Review and Special Permits 2509 Easton Drive
Project Description: The properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive were once owned and used by one family,
which contained the main house and an accessory structure at 2517 Easton Drive and a detached three-car
garage w/storage room and cottage at 2509 Easton Drive (the properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive consist
of two legally subdivided lots). The properties were sold a few years ago and an addition was completed at 2517
Easton Drive in 2010, which included converting a portion of the existing house to a one-car garage to provide
parking for the house at 2517 Easton Drive.
With this application, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached three-cargarage and cottage
at 2509 Easton Drive to build a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (the lower
level meets the definition of a half-story since it is less than two-thirds of the area above it). The lot slopes
downward approximately 42'-0" (23°/o) from the front to the rear of the lot. The proposed house and attached
garage will have a total floor area of 3,922 SF (0.44 FAR) where 3,932 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed
(including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 10 SF below the maximum allowed
FAR and is within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR. A Special Permit is required for an attached garage and
declining height envelope along the right side property line (159 SF extends beyond the declining height
envelope).
A total of four existing protected-sized trees are proposed to be removed at the front of the property, including a
40-inch diameter Coast live oak, a 24-inch diameter Coast live oak, a 19-inch Hedge maple and a 24-inch
Canary island palm. An arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011, was
submitted as part of the application and is attached for review. The report provides an assessment of all existing
trees on-site and of the perimeter frees on the adjacent properties. The report aiso includes a Tree Protection
Plan. The report notes that "The property has not received recent maintenance. The site has a mix of native
oaks and imported trees. The native oaks are all in poor condition with decay in the trunks or stems." In his
memo dated September 30, 2011, the City Arborist notes that a protected-tree removal permitwill be required to
remove any protected-sized trees and that the project will need to follow the tree protection measures as outlined
in the arborist report.
The project includes an attached garage which provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces for the
proposed five-bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All
other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
� Design Review for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS
25.57.010);
■ Special Permit for attached garage (CS 25.28.035 (a)); and
� Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side
property line (159 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.035 (c)).
2509 Easton Drive
Lot Area: 8,850 SF Plans date stam ed: December 5, 2011
PROPOSED I ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS I
---- .....................__......._.__._.._....__...._......__.......------_..._..___...._..--------.._....------..._._.__.._ __.._.._....._.__...._._.......__._.....----._......---------------------------.._..---------._._....-----------
Fronf (1st flr): 19'-0" � 16'-4" (block average)
(2nd flr): 25'-0" + 20'-0'°
(attached garage): 25'-0" � 25'-0" (iv✓o single-wide doors)
_._...._..---...---_...__....._---._._...._._..---- --------......_....---- ------...__.._-- ----........._..----------- -------...------.....___...------.._._..._..----------------....---...__...---.,....._._.__._._.._..__ -----_..---..__.
Side (left): 5'-0" � 4'-0"
(right): 4'-0" ; 4'-0"
_..._._....----....__..�......... _ _.._....------ — --------- -------------...-----_ ------.._.�...----- --------- -- ----- - -- - -- ----- -- ...-----
_ _. . . . .... - -
Rear (1st flr): 90'-0" ; 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 90'-0" 20'-0"
2
Design Review and Special Permits 2509 Easfon Drive
2509 Easfon Drive
Lot Area: 8,850 SF Plans date stamped: December 5, 2011
PROPOSED � ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Lot Coverage: 2260 SF ' 3540 SF
25.5% 40%
FAR: 3922 SF 3932 SF
0.44 FAR ` 0.44 FAR
_..._.--- --- ---..._.._.__....__...---.....__......._ ...............................................----�-----._........_._.__. _ . _.
_.. . —
# of bedrooms: 5 ---
------_..-- -----._.....-- -----._........_.._..._......-- -:----------._...__...--------- -- -- -----.....--
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered
(20' x 20') (20' x 20')
1 uncovered ! 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') ; (9' x 20')
----- ---- ---- .........................._.....------------...---- ------ --
_.._........._......__..._.....---------...__..._._..-------'-------------- ---...-------------........._.
Height: 18'-4" i 30'-0"
-----...__ ..............--------....------------
--- -------- ---- ---.._._..__....-----......._._...._....._...__._..._..----�-------- ---.._------_..------ -- --- - -
DH Envelope: Special Permit required '
(159 SF extends beyond declining � CS 25.28.075
height envelope) 2 ;
' (0.32 x 8,850 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,932 SF (0.44 FAR)
2 Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side
property line (159 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.035 (c)).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the City Arborist, Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire
Marshal and NPDES Coordinator.
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.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for attached garage and declining height
envelope, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section
25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The biend 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
3
Design Review and Specia/ Permits 2509 Easton Drive
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistentwith the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation forthe removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
December 5, 2011, sheets T1, C.O, A1 through A5, L-1, L-2 and GPC;
2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection
measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist
Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones shall be established and inspected by the City
Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit;
3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks Division to remove
any protected-sized trees;
4. 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);
5. 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;
6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor's September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the Chief Building
Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire
Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met;
7. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a buiiding permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
10. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof notvisible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction pian
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
�
Design Review and Special Permits 2509 Easton Drive
12. 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;
13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010
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 rafio 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 fioor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation
at the top of the form boards perthe 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; and
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.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Stotler Design Group, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Applicant's Response Letter, dated December 7, 2011
Design Reviewer Analysis, dated December 5, 2011
October 11, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Applications
Arborist Report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011
Staff Comments
Photographs of Neighborhood
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed December 2, 2011
Aerial Photo
5
At�eniion: City of Burlingame Planning Depai�tment
1Ze: 2509 Easton Drive
����������
Date: 1217/20I 1
RuUen,
I�EC - 7 20 i1
CIT`t L7'r C�liRi��a�JGAiVi�
i C?D—�LAIVf49PJ.�.z �IJ
Please find in this applicatian proposal the following revisions Uased on comments ft•om the planning
commission and one of the town's architectural consultants, Randy Cn•ange.
In review of �ie design comments on this home we went tluough a;Few alternative design concepts in
order to address the concems. After our redesign clioices we have rnade our choices that we tielieve are
best. In our previous versians of the Uest realistic and Iiveable design an this very steep dawn slope lot,
we had h•ied a few different approaches for the floor plan. �,very other approach we h•ied was causing
the home to not just creep down the hill bui because the lot sloped even s#eeper the further down we go,
the home was getiing much higher aUave grade. This design that we still have today is veiy close to
the natu�•al grade and in fact cuts in that grade demonsirated Uy provided cross sections to keep the
home footprint as shallow as possible and close to the natural grade. Please keep in mind that the actual
st��eei elevation is �-/- 5 t'eet above the �nish floor of the main entiy level. This will doubt take away
fi•om massing of walls of the second level when viewed fiom the street. The owner has agreed to
redesign siyle exterior to a more relaxed "Spanish" style home which we Uelieve is compatible with
this diverse neighborhood, thus keeping the stucco (lower maintenance) exterior fnish with wood sills,
head h7m, and woad exierior i�•im throughout. We also believe that this home is quite different in color,
overall feel and siyle than iliat of the othet• home proposed at 2508 Easton. We have made these
revisions tlu•ough a series ofmadifcations with the consultant's feedback. These modi�cations are
listed in his letter to the commission and his recommendation to support the project provided that we
tiave looked into the redesagn of the tIoor plan and having determined that we have the besi approacli
possiUIe for this steep lot. This had Ueen done previousIy as mentioned ai the hearing.
In concIusion, this process has been very helpful in clarification and improvement on what we Uelieve
�vas a nice design Uut 1�ecame better as a result of these comments and rnadifications. We would really
like to move this forward and get your approval at the hea��ing next Mond�y,
If you have any questions, please ca�l.
Regards,
Scott Stotler
Stotler Design Cn�oup, Inc.
349 Firsi Si. suite A
Los Altos, CA
94022
Design Review Memo
City of Burlingame
Date: December 5, 2011
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: 2509 Easton Drive
Architect: Stotler Design Group
Planner: Ruben Hurin
I have received and reviewed the revised plans for 2509 Easton Ave. I have visited the
site and surrounding area. I reviewed the original submission to the Planning
Commission, and the Planning Commission's comments as presented in the meeting
minutes. I also met with the Planner, owner, and architect about the project. I also
revieweci two interim designs and commented on them as well.
The Planning Commission comments from the original meeting are as follows:
■ Noted that the cover sheet indicates that all windows are to be aluminum clad wood
windows with simulated true divided lights — but inside the plan set this detail
disappears.
■ Noted that the corbels are provided at the front, but disappear as you move to the
side and rear of the home. The architectural details are not carried through from
front to rear.
■ Doesn't have a problem with the pre-cast stone sills as long as details are provided
around the windows. Ensure that the sills do not overpower the windows
themselves. (Stotler — has recessed the windows by two inches throughout, rather
than provide trim — believes the recess is a more classic look.)
- Feels the rear of the house looks tall per the plans. (Stotler — the building is stepped
back.)
■ With respect to the balcony; are looking for a design that encourages the use of the
front area of the home. The balcony on the second-floor is not necessarily a
substitute for providing design elements on the ground that encourage use of the
area in front of the home. The balcony may not be necessary. (Stotier — is attempting
to pick-up as much glass area as possible to the interior of the space — the upper
balconies provide this opportunity.)
■ Clarified that the lot was split by a prior action invoiving the adjacent lot to the right.
■ Is a difficult lot to develop — a difficult lot does not always warrant a simple solution.
Feels that too much of the house is at the street. Feels that no one will use the rear
of the property given the scale of the house. The driveway can go downhill to the
garage. Doesn't feel that the house fits the lot. The heart of the lot is further back on
the property — a difFerent design solution wouid be appropriate.
■ Concerned about the arborist's report supporting removal of so many trees.
Requested clarification regarding the Coast Live Oak listed as being removed from
the median strip. The lot is heavily wooded; it appears like it is being clear-cut.
(Stotler — placing the garage further back on the lot will make it less desirable for the
occupants. The majorify of the frees that are being removed are in disrepair.
Wishes that more width was available to allow a different driveway configuration.
2509 Easton Drive
December 5, 2011
Are actually getting pretty close to grade at the lower level of the lot. Noted that the
entry door and living room are at about five-feet below the street.)
■ Are also maxing out the FAR; the home doesn't need to be that large. (Stotler —
described the difficulties encountered with dropping the structure while keeping the
interior floor plan workable.)
■ Difficult to develop the property without removing some of the trees.
■ Could an elevator or a funicular be provided to improve access given the topography
of the lot? (Stotler — an elevator could be something to consider, but they are costly
— there would also be limited access to the garage.)
■ Suggested limiting the front elevation to a single-story and take advantage of the
topography of the lot by building more of the structure further back on the lot.
• Doesn't feel that enough direction was provided to the applicant — though have given
some direction regarding the architectural style.
• It is up to the applicant to bring back a design that is approvable.
■ Must consider the design of this project with the project across the street.
■ Could be appropriate for a design reviewer to be involved to interpret the
Commission's direction and provide the best opportunity to move forward
■ Clarified a consistent style around the entire home; improve the pedestrian
experience; create a design that doesn't feel pretentious.
■ Why doesn't the design take better advantage of the topography of the lot?
Revisions to original design:
General: When we all met about this project I suggested that since there was a strong
discussion about alternate site planning options, the architect should study other
alternatives, specifically pushing the house down and back on the site, or having it one
level at the front and moving the bedrooms elsewhere. If indeed those options don't work
as the architect has indicated, then he could document those studies in some fashion for
the Commissioners to see. I did not see other alternatives to the site planning, but was
assured that it had been done, and the decision was to stick with the original direction.
Based on that, I made a few suggestions: move away from the "Italian Renaissance"
direction (precast corbels, heavy columns and balustrading, heavy sills) which is more
suited to a flat site, and go for a looser, more casual, "Spanish" style which can step
down a hill. Also, we discussed simplifying the massing, and bringing down the heights
and big walls. Following is a summary of changes from the original submittal to the
current submittal.
• General:
The floor plan has been modified slightly to square off the family room. The front
has been lowered by reducing the plate heights on the lower level from 10 to 9
feet and the bedrooms above from 9 to 8 feet
• Front elevation:
The elevation has tightened up, deck reduced in size, balustrading and formai
columns removed, corbels replaced with rafter tails (stained wood?), heavy sills
removed, timber headers added.
• Left elevation:
The window details have been carried through. Trim band added at lower level.
Note: there may be conflict between roof and one of the bedroom windows (to be
addressed later?).
2
2509 Easton Drive
December 5, 2011
• Rear elevation:
The window details have been carried through. The family room and lower guest
area have been squared off. The railing details have been modified a bit.
• Right elevation:
The window details have been carried through. A belly band has been added to
the lower level.
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
1. Compatibility of the Architectural Style with that of the Existing
Neighborhood:
• There are a variety of house styles in the neighborhood, and the proposed
architectural style will fit in with the neighborhood reasonably well.
2. Respect for Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood
• There is a mix of attached and detached garages in the neighborhood, and
the proposed garage seems to work.
3. Architectural Style, Mass & Bulk of the Structure:
• The mass and bulk of the structure is similar to the previous submittal. The
design and the level of detail proposed for the structure is improved over the
original submittal.
4. InterFace of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each
Side:
• See summary below. Some massing modifications could help.
5. Landscaping and its proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural
Components:
• A landscape plan has been included. Additional landscaping and tree planting
is always encouraged. Given the number and size of the trees proposed to be
removed, significant replacement trees and screening should be provided.
S U M MARY:
The applicant has provided an improved project as compared to the original submittal.
The project could be further improved in a few ways. All of the plate heights are not
shown on the elevations. The architect has reduced the plate heights at the front of the
house but I see in the building sections that there are 10' plates being proposed at the
lower level and middle level, and 9' at the upper (master bedroom) level. Bringing those
heights down (and it appears that they could be) would lower the upper roof in the back
by up to 3' (which may address some of the adjacent neighbor's concerns). I had also
suggested looking at reworking the floor plan a bit to pull the master bedroom inboard,
such that the lower roof could wrap around it, which would significantly break up the
three story wall in the back. I do not know if that was attempted but didn't work for some
reason. While it doesn't impact things too much, I did point out that the master bathroom
pop-out on the rear elevation seemed arbitrary and could be studied further. As
previously stated, while the massing of this proposed structure is nearly the same as
3
2509 Easton Drive
December 5, 2011
what was previously presented, it looks much better due to the detailing. I did not receive
or review any other concepts for structuring a house on this site. If this is indeed the best
way to do it, then I could support the direction with some of the massing modifications
mentioned here.
Randy Grange, AIA
n
CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011
8. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO AND ONE-HALF
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EMPORIO GROUP LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT:
RUBEN HURIN �
Reference staff report dated October 11, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director
Meeker briefly presented the project description.
Questions of staff:
■ None.
Chair Yie opened the public comment period.
Scott Stotler, 349 First Street, Los Altos; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
a Noted that the cover sheet indicates that all windows are to be aluminum clad wood windows with
simulated true divided lights — but inside the plan set this detail disappears.
■ Noted that the corbels are provided at the front, but disappear as you move to the side and rear of
the home. The architectural details are not carried through from front to rear.
■ Doesn't have a problem with the pre-cast stone sills as long as details are provided around the
windows. Ensure that the silis do not overpower the windows themselves. (Stotler— has recessed
the windows by two inches throughout, rather than provide trim — believes the recess is a more
classic look.)
■ Feels the rear of the house looks tall per the plans. (Stotler — the building is stepped back.)
� With respect to the baicony; are looking for a design that encourages the use of the front area of the
home. The balcony on the second-floor is not necessarily a substitute for providing design elements
on the ground that encourage use of the area in front of the home. The balcony may not be
necessary. (Stotler — is attempting to pick-up as much glass area as possible to the interior of the
space — the upper balconies provide this opportunity.)
� Clarified that the lot was split by a prior action involving the adjacent lot to the right.
■ Is a difficult lot to develop — a difficult lot does not always warrant a simple solution. Feels that too
much of the house is at the street. Feels that no one will use the rear of the property given the scale
of the house. The driveway can go downhill to the garage. Doesn't feel that the house fits the lot.
The heart of the lot is further back on the property— a different design solution would be appropriate.
• Concerned about the arborist's report supporting removal of so many trees. Requested clarification
regarding the Coast Live Oak listed as being removed from the median strip. The lot is heavily
wooded; it appears like it is being clear-cut. (Stotler— placing the garage further back on the lot will
make it less desirable for the occupants. The majority of the trees that are being removed are in
disrepair. Wishes that more width was available to allow a different driveway configuration. Are
actually getting pretty close to grade at the lower level of the lot. Noted that the entry door and living
room are at about five-feet below the street.)
■ Are also maxing out the FAR; the home doesn't need to be that large. (Stotler — described the
difficulties encountered with dropping the structure while keeping the interior floor plan workable.)
� Difficult to develop the property without removing some of the trees.
■ Could an elevator or a funicular be provided to improve access given the topography of the lot?
(Stotler — an elevator could be something to consider, but they are costly — the"re would also be
limited access to the garage.)
11
CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011
■ Suggested limiting the front elevation to a single-story and take advantage of the topography of the
lot by building more of the structure further back on the lot.
Public comments:
Robin Hendry, 2505 Easton Drive; Tiffany Liu, 2517 Easton Drive; and Laura Bryant, 580 Edgewood Road,
San Mateo; spoke:
■ Concerned about the removal of all of the trees.
■ Would like to see story poles to show the configuration of the home.
■ Would also like the trees to be tagged to show what is to be removed.
■ Concerned about the impacts upon privacy of her property.
■ Purchased their home because of the privacy of the lot.
■ Concerned about the potential loss of the trees — doesn't understand why the trees must be
removed.
■ Sees nothing from her windows but the trees on this property. (Commissioner—the property owner
has a right to build a house.) Perhaps install more replacement trees should be provided to protect
neighbors' privacy.
■ Is it possible to require story poles for both of the homes across from one another?
Additional applicant comments (Dimitrios Sogas, owner of 2509 Easton Drive):
■ This lot just had a garage on it previously.
■ The one tree to be removed is unhealthy others removed are in the center of the lot where the home
is to be placed.
� Have worked with the window placement in an effortto presetve privacy of adjacent properties. Also
want to maintain privacy on the property.
■ On the upper level, are maintaining an 18-foot setback from the home on the left.
■ Windows are in the stairwell and in the bathroom — can be obscured if needed.
■ Have tried to site the house in the best manner possible.
■ Likes the code feature that allows the garage to be detached and placed further back on the lot.
Can certainly design the garage to minimize its street impact.
■ Feels itwould be unfortunate to hide the structure belowthe grade—encouraged the Commission to
consider allowing the home to be brought further forward towards the front of the lot.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi.
Discussion of motion:
■ Doesn't fee/ that enough direction was provided to the applicant— though have given some direction
regarding the architectural style.
■ It is up to the applicant to bring back a design that is approvable.
■ Must consider the design of this project with the project across the street.
■ Could be appropriate for a design reviewer to be involved to interpret the Commission's direction
and provide the best opportunity to move forward
■ Clarified a consistent style around the entire home; improve the pedestrian experience; create a
design that doesn't fee/ pretentious.
12
C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISS/ON — Approved Minutes October 11, 2011
■ Why doesn't the design take befter advantage of the topography of the lot?
ChairYie called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendarwhen plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-9-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:54 p.m.
13
�E s
�3�,�..1�',-� ''
\,.,�
COMMUNIN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ° 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PL.ANIVINC COi�1MISSION
Type of application:
�, Design Review ❑ Variance
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit
❑ Parcel #: - `°�1
❑ Other:
D��'" � � �
PROJECTADDRESS: Z-�� I ���-�`�� p�44!� ��E-L�����
O Pleaseindicate fhe contactperson forthis project
AFi'LICANT project contact person ❑ PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
{�-, �
Name: 5-�-���t 1/�S ��"i �� C-�v�'a-�. r� Name: _1-� lnAo�C���f) �v�r, U A �r��
-�,_ —
Address: � E �� �'�-S� ��< �}� Address: � �-%v �t ��� h , I�c2Z.
City/State/Zip: �-'�S �L-�°S E� 7�`��z-` City/State/Zip: �c,�r��i�a��,,, i��j �YD//S
Phone: �Z �� •3� l'" 2� � 3 Phone: ��� i�? lD �t Z
Fax: ��5�'� :S�J� ) — � �S� Fax:
�� L v'�'-t ,�`� fc�-�' l t'r c� i S��-t�^-��- Y' �ti.� : C<:�^"—
E-mail: cFc-7g+�-' /G 5=fo-{� �c:�e�,ra n� ��c��: z�ti�.._ E-mail: � C�r, e ia � r�ri n�; Hc. Cran.t
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑
OK to send elecfronic copies of documents ❑
Name: ��'�-�'� f�� S ��i,�- ���c�-�.-'�
�
Address: � I ��4�-�'f �r ��
City/State/Zip: �'� ���-'���
Phone: ����J ��%`� '� ���y
Fax: (�051'� ��1 'C �
� �:: kf � s--h -f-( �-
E-mail: �n r��-E � ����f � ���
* Burlingame Business License #:
=-,�- �4��z._-
sc:��J ��a`i���� — i37 ! ��c�.�t �-�
�
��. �� rU t C��� .
S��v ��� �S�s-�
2`1 l D g
' `�',
JUL 2 2 2011
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDQ-PtANNING QIV.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��+� �� S`E" G�`d� �'- 1' �'fc�C�SS6��� S �4� (� � � ��� �
C'a ���t"f'z-c.� i� ew s'i �t� �� �� r�- i' ��-�t �
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certif �� der penalty of perjur that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief. � �/ ��
ApplicanYs signature:
� /�2/'�/ Date: � �
s
I am aware of the proposed application and hereby auth r the above applicant to submit this applic tion to the Planning
Commission. 7 � /1
�
Property owner's signatu e: - f �% Date: �
/� Date submitted: 1�22'�0
_
�k Verification that the project archi c esign as a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time plication ees are paid.
❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. s:�HarvoouTs�Pcapprrcotro� zoos.handoutdoc
City of Burlingame Community Development Departmeht 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinqame.orq
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION '
2509 EASTON DRIVE
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE
f�i� f , �'I�;(
: � , ,,-_ ;,_ ._1,. _
i -
� �.-� _. ;ti
..,_it:-, __ �......._, .._...
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the
decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to
the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
7. Explain why the Blend of mass, sca/e and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construcfion or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with fhe existing
street and neighborhood.
The proposed new 2 story residence with an attached 2 car garage will replace the existing residence at
the bottom of the lot and the 3 car garage at the street level. The proposed residence is consistent with
the surrounding properties in terms of mass/scale and the architectural style. Due to the extremely steep
lot we had to attach the garage pushing the house closer to the south/west property and outside of the
"Declining Height Envelope" (see exterior elevations) requiring a special permit application.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of fhe
proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and
neighhorhood.
The proposed residence roof lines, exterior finishes and elevations are consistent with similar style
homes. The architectural style and elements will blend well with the character of the neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with fhe residential design guidelines adopted 6y
the city (C.S. 25.57)?
The proposed single-family residence with attached garage is consistent with the residential design
guidelines and complies with zoning requirements except for the attached garage and "Declining Height
Envelope" that requires this special permit.
4. Explain how the removal'of any frees located within the footprint of any new structure or addifion
is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestafion requirements. What mitigation is
proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate.
The trees that are being removed must be removed due to the steep lot and to accommodate the new
residence and garage at the street level not the bottom of the lot. The property lines are lined with trees that
provide screening from both neighbors. The entire site will be provided with complete new landscaping and
irrigation including the addition of several trees.
City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinqame.orq
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
2509 EASTON DRIVE
ATTACHED GARAGE
�,::. `<<
_ _ _ _:� _�.§
-i _. e; � l� � .
; F , _
i� _
:•_�+. i , .� _,. ..�.; ;...,
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the
decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to
the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
i. Explain why the blend of mass, sca/e and dominant strucfural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with fhe existing structure's design and with the existing
street and neighborhood.
The proposed attached 2 car garage is consistent with the surrounding properties in terms of
mass/scale and the architectural style. Due to the extremely steep lot we had to attach the garage to the
house requiring a special permit application.
2. Explain how 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
neighhorhood
The proposed residence roof lines, exterior finishes and elevations are consistent with similar style
homes. The architectural style and elements will blend well with the character of the neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent wifh fhe residential design guidelines adopted by
the city (C.S. 25.57)? �
The proposed attached garage is consistent with the residential design guidelines and complies with
zoning requirements except for the garage being attached to the residence which requires this special
permit.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees locafed within the footprint of any new strucfure or addition
is necessary and is consistent with fhe city's reforestafion requirements. What mitigation is
proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate.
The trees are being removed to accommodate the house due to the very steep lot.
Kielty Arborist Services
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
P.O. Box6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650 — 525 — 1464
August 30, 2011
Stotler Design Group
Attn: IVI�. Scott Stotler
349 First Street Suite A
Los Altos, CA 94022
Site: 2509 Easton, Burlingaine, CA
Dear Mr. Stotler,
a-- ,;
.�
;EF _ _ c;.`:i
, �jr ` ._ .... . . . �.
As requested on Monday, August 28, 2011, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on
the trees. New construction is planned for this site and as required a survey of the trees on site
and a tree protection plan will be included.
Method:
All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The
trees in question were located on a map provided by you. The trees were theii measured far
diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were
given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees' condition ratuig is based on 50 percent
vitality and 50 percent foim, usillg the following scale.
1 - 29 Very Poor
30 - 49 Poor
50 - 69 Fair
70 - 89 Good
90 - 100 Excellent
The heights of the trees were measured using a Nikon Foresfry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was
paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided.
Survey:
Tree# Species
1
2
Coast live oak
(Quercus ag�^ifolia)
Coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments
40est 45
24.1 55
3 Coast live oak 28est 55
(Quercus agrifolia)
50/70 Vigor fair, form fair, cables installed to
support tree.
50/40 1' from existing building, bend in trunk,
heavy to the south.
50/50 Vigor poor-fair, form fair, codoininant at 5'.
2509 Easton/8/30/11 (2)
Tree# Species DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments
4 Privet 8.6 40 45/25 Poor vigor, poor form, codominant at 4'
E
�
7
0
0
10
11
12* Italian stone pine
Pinus pinea)
*denotes neighbor's tree
(Ligustrum japofaicum)
Hedge maple 19.1 55
(AceY campestre)
Coast live oak 19.6 40
(Quercus agrifolia)
Plum 9.8 60
(PYunus spp.)
Hedge maple 20est 55
(AceY ca�npestre)
Valley oak 20est 30
(Quercus lobata)
Hedge maple l lest 65
(Acer ccz�npestre)
Canary island palm 24est 70
(Phoenix canariensis)
45/35 Multi at 6', vigar fair, form poor
50/25 Leans against structure, very poor form, fair
vigor
35/25 Fair vigor and form
35/25 Fair vigor and form
35/55 fair vigor, very poar form, neally horizontal
40/20 On property line, fair vigor
25/30 Good vigor, good form, 5' of standing trunk.
24est 65 35/25 Good vigor, fair form, located between
structures.
Summary:
The property has not received recent maintenance. The site has a mix of native oaks and
unported trees. The native oaks are all in poor condition with decay in the trunks or stems. Oak
#1 has several decayed areas within the canopy. The installation of cables has helped preserve
the tree but does not guarantee the safety of the tree. Tree #2 has a large bend in its trunk and is
located less than 1 foot from the existing structure. Tree #6 has very poor form and is being
supported by the structure. The trees around the perimeter of the property can be retained with
little or no adverse effects to their long term health.
2509 Easton/8/30/11 (3)
Tree Protection Plan:
Tree protection zones:
♦ Should be established and maintained tY�roughout the entire length of the project.
♦ Fencing for the protection zones should be 4 foot tall orange plastic type supported by
metal stakes pounded into the ground. The support stakes should be spaced no more than
10 feet apart on center.
♦ The location for the protection fencing should be as close to the dripline as possible still
allowing room for construction to safely continue.
0 Signs should Ue placed on fencing signifying "Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out".
♦ No materials or equipment should be stored or cleaned inside the hee protection zones.
♦ Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the dripline of protected trees, where foot
traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4 to 6 inches of chipper chips.
The spreading of chips will help to relieve compaction and improve the soil structure.
Root Cutting:
♦ Any roots to be cut should be monitored and docuinented.
0 Large roots or large masses of roots to be cut should be inspected by the site arborist.
A The site arborist may recommend fertilizing or irrigation if root cutting is significant.
♦ Cut all roots clean with a saw or loppers.
♦ Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and
kept moist.
Trenching:
♦ Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason should be hand dug
when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes
below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus
reducing hauma to the entire tree.
9 Trenches should be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to
near its original level.
0 Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time should also be covered with layers
of burlap and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect
exposed roots below.
I�zigation:
♦ Normal irrigation should be maintained throughout the entire length of the project.
m The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months.
0 Dui-ing the summer months the trees on this site should receive heavy flood type
iirigation 2 times a month.
0 Irrigation during the winter months may also be necessary, depending on the seasonal
rainfall. Flood type irrigation 1 time per month during the fall and winter months may be
advised by the site arborist.
0 Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisiure, thus reducing
water consumption.
2509 Easton/8/30/11 (4)
Deinolition, Parking and Staging:
♦ During the deinolition process all tree protection must be in place.
♦ An inspection prior to the start of the demolition may be required.
♦ All vehicles must remain on paved surfaces if possible. If vehicles are to stray from
paved surfaces, 4 to 6 inches of chips shall be spread and plywood laid over the mulch
layer when inside root zones. This type of landscape buffer will help reduce compaction
of desired trees.
♦ Parking will not be allowed off the paved surfaces neaa- protected trees.
♦ The removal of foundation materials (including curbs, asphalt and retaining walls), when
inside the driplines of protected trees, should be carried out with care. Hand excavation
may be required in areas of heavy rooting.
♦ Exposed or damaged roots should be repaired and covered with native soil.
♦ Tree protection fencing may need to be moved after the demolition. The site arborist
should be notified and the relocated fence should be inspected.
This information should be kept on site at all times. The information included in this report is
believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Kielty
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
Project Comments
Date
To:
From:
September 14, 2010
0 City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
i� Parks Supervisor
(650) 558-7254
0 Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage
and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family
dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1,
APN: 027-195-060
Staff Review:
�
3.
Landscape Plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape
Regulations'. Complete attached Water Conservation in Landscape checklist.
Protected Tree Permit required b.e ore construction begins. Application may
be obtained from Parks Division 558-7254).
Include Tree Protection Diagram (attached) on plans and note as determined
by Arborist Report.
�. ,.,..
._.
�.- �
t, �c?;�,��;;�.�.t.r`— � �- � ..�-���' ��f;G'i-��-��--�
�j ,� ,r`� �
� ._. ' ,,.�; �-���Lf r— �Z'' �� � �at�'���f �k�,t�> Z;%��fs�='�j 1��✓'' ��E%�'.:"j
��r � �j,�'Z y,.��'j,�%�c r 1 f �
} .e
��,�1 r�af�
!.. i
����L�%
Reviewed by: B. Disco Date: 9/20/11
URBAN FOftEST MANAGEN _ . ✓T PLAN
( - --
IX15'k7N� TREF
TO 'REMAlH.
�Fit�'tEGilYE FEHG��G
�
i. RRD[EGY3+JE FEN�]fdG 5�33L!_
BE $itl�HT OitJi�IGE
PL'�'L'YPRdiP'ftEt�E FEFd:Clt+16;<
2. t;^O7M3KIG IH�]D6 Ti6E
DR1P�IHE R{?EJl �NALL !3�
RI,!(EU. GUT, ST{3f3iED. �JR
17TS€�Et'll`�5E 015TUR.BE➢.
3. Giaf��RAiG�O�*i Stlttfl T�:K�
EXTfif�f C� 7�NLk
i°i2tSTE�P i1�1 �t1�'TIH�
FREES TO RENi�U9l. as
REQtiaR'fk� &Y L[�[D��APE
P�.
�. TIiE� F�Qt��iN �2fdt11
BE 3N8L�tLkE[i T�ti
liGG9ltiA�l3C� 1ti�5#1
Pfi4,�CCT sUi��S:�' iiE��fi7
(
- � � � G... � �"�.'Li ! �� � � 4J � i� � �$1 # L � TF3E�l.�z9l�L3tS? !s I R b
'�, 7CJ FFfE lF�L`iPTl6t# i7F li{y"'l
I�(�T T�3 �+Cik�.E Wfl�2K.
Updated July 20, 2009 - 32 -
� ' _ � ! � � `,' ,a: ' _ :�:
that the st ject roject meets the specifred requirements of the Water [onservation in Landscaping Ordinance.
/
7ti�,�, .�/ - � - Z B - lI
•e _ Date
ti
� Single Family O Multi-Family 0 Commercia! 0 Institutionai k7 Irrigation only f3�tndustrial O Other:
ApplicantName(print): ��y�� "- �l.f�� ContactPhone#- yv -��Z _OZ��
Project Site Address: z �'Q� � �,�� ��, 7� U f � � � �� /� !y • ,.:�
l.,)'� :���'.
ProjectArea {sq.ft. or acre): �` ��"
� O Z�$' .�T• # af Units: �, # of Meters: � '`�
-r 1
' � ' � '� �aE � � Total Landsca e Area s .it. � `��s��.`"�`'� �,
P { 9 )- ��€� a eYc ,€� � o r-
, _ - . a� � ; - a t �, 7 Z � sq- �f• � � �������` 4 �-�
� . � E ` �:��-�,������,'�� �.__ l�Y�:
�.e „-"� �,Y Turf lrrigated Area {sq-ft•): I Z i S 9� F'i' • ��
�
s ' �'• -1 'w5y �x F :
� y ��,.nr "�-�, Non Tur€ Irrigated Area {sq.ft.►: '�� (pO�j Sq. -�• ,�:�
k a
- Special Landscape Area (SLAj (sq.ft_): N.� , z4�
::� - - - - -
: = e - �WaterFeafure5urfiaceArea(sq.ft.): h}.�}.
� ='�
Non Turf
Hydrozones
Mulch
irrigation System Efficiancy
Irrigation System Design
Yima
MeYering
Svuimming Rools % Spas
Water Eeatures
documehCation
Audit
Less than 25% of the landscape area is �I' Yes �
turf ❑ No, See Water Budget
All turF areas are > 8 feet wide � Yes
All turE is planted on slopes < 25,6 @i Yes
At least 80% of non turFarea is native � Yes .
or low water use plants ❑ No, See Water Budget
Plants are grouped by Hydrozones ■ Yes
At least 2-inches of mulch on exposed � Yes
soil surfaces
70% Efo (1fl0% ETo for SL4s) � Yes
No overspray or runoff ❑ Yes
ISystem efficiency> 70% � y�s
Automatic, self-adjusting irrigation � No, not required forTier 2
'controllers � y�$
�Moisture sensorJrain sensor shutoffs � Yes
No sprayheads in a 8-ftwide area. � Yes
,System only operates between 8 PM � Yes
�and lOAM
Separate irrigation meter � No, not requfred because < S,QDO sq.ft.
❑ Yes �
Cover highly recommended ❑ Yes �j. {�•
� No, not required
Racirtulating ❑ Yes
Less than 10%of landscape area O Yes
Checklist � Yes
Landscape and Irrigation Design Ptan O Prepared by applicant
� Prepared by professiona(
Water B�dget (aptional} L! Prepared 6y appiicant 1 !�
❑ Prepared 6y professional `�'f��
Post-installation auditcompleted ❑ Completed by applicant N.�.
❑ Completed by prafessional
-.�..��::-�.,�. ,,�� r ,�_ � � -
� ' • •
� - - -- -
Date:
To:
From
Subject:
Staff Review:
July 25, 2011
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
X City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
J u ly 25, 2011
1. Protected tree permit required for all trees proposed for removal that are 48
inches in circumference or over measured 54in from ground level. Contact
Parks Division (558.7334) for permit application.
2. Landscape plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape
' egulations" (attached). Irrigation Plan required for Building permit. Audit due
for Finai.
�3�.'�Landscape plan must include 4(four) 24" box size tree as per Landscape
requirements.
{r���Add new Street Tree in parking strip, if Public Works requires sidewalk
'—replacement, Policy for Expanding Width of Planter Strip needs to be
implemented. Street Tree list attached.
Reviewed by: B Disco
Date: 7/27/11
Date
��
From:
September 14, 2010
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ Parks Supervisor
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
C1 NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage
and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family
dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1,
APN: 027-195-060
Staff Review:
No further comments.
All conditions of approval as stated in the review dated 7-26-2011 wiil apply to
this project.
/
Reviewed i , i' , Date: 9-15-2011
Date:
To:
From
Subject:
Staff Review
July 25, 2011
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California Building
Code, 2010 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2010 California
Mechanical Code, 2010 California Electrical Code, and 2010 California Plumbing
Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1856-2010. Note: If the
Planning Commission has approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December
31, 2010 then the building permit application for that project may use the
provisions found in the 2007 California Building Codes including all amendments
as adopted in Ordinance 1813.
� On the plans provide a copy of the GreenPoints checklist for this project at full
scale.
�Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California Energy
Efficiency Standards.
Go to http://www.enerqy.ca.gov/titfe24/2008sfiandards/ for publications and
details.
� Specify the roofing material to be used. If the roofing material weighs more that
51bs/ft. then Indicate on the plans that the roof will comply with Cool Roof
requirements of the 2008 California Energy Code. 2008 CEC �151 (f) 12. The
2008 Residential and Non-Residential Compliance Manuals are available on line
at http:/lv�rwww.energv.ca.qov/title24/2008standards/
(� Place the following information on the first page of the plans:
"Construction Hours"
Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m.
Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
(See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.)
� On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that
require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for
these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning
Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must
submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated in these
plans prior to performing this work.
7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame
business license.
8) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
9) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a
completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition
Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project.
10)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed
property lines
11)Obtain a survey of the property lines.
�On the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the
property line.
1'3 Indicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the
property line will be built of one-hour fire-rated construction. (2010 CBC, Table
602)
v4�} ooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or
door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of
all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. Note: The areas labeled
"Guest Bedroom" and "Bonus Room" are rooms that can be used for sleeping
purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement.
; 5)Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, wi.11 be obtained from the
Department of Public Works.
�Some guardrails, as shown, appear to be 36" in height. Revise the plans to show
that all exterior guards will be 42" in height per 2010 CBC §1013.2
17)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at
any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the
Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in
height.
18)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
19)Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
20)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of
the building within ten feet. 2010 CBC §2113.9
NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically
address items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 must be re-submitted before
this project can move forward for Planning Commission action.
�_=�= -=- ___--_�
Reviewed by: � �` � Date: 7-26-2011
� �
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
July 25, 2011
d City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
1. See attached.
2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
3. pplicant is advised to call City Arborist regarding potential relocation of
sidewalk area around trees in the planter strip.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 8/17/2011
. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMIVVI�NTS �� �� "��f
Project Name: �in� r�3,+M�+ (��a��
-ProjectAddress:_ .� ��'���, �
The following requirements apply to the project
1 � A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey shall show aIl property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building permit issuance.)
2 � The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street� (Required prior to the building peimit
issuance.) ��2- �-v � <iv�1c �.�� iyA..A�+�./ ��S� ,
3. The applicant shall submit project grading aud drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
.--� � ��i"
5 � A sanitary sewer lateral s required for the project in accordance with
the City's siandards. )
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project: The sewer analysis
shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures.
8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project.
9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map shall show all e�sting property lines, easements,
monuments, and new properfy and lot lines proposed by the map.
Page 1 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COM[vfENTS.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews.
12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel
map.
13 The proj ect shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
14 ,� The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
appurtenant work.
15 The project sha11, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the Ciiy.
17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
18 __�___ Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State
Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 � No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
20 � The project shall comply with the City's NPDES peimit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
21 The project does not show the dimensions of e�sting driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMI��NTS.doc
PUSLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the street into private property.
24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The
sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COn�IIvfENTS.doc
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review
July 25, 2011
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
� City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7279
0 Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
0 NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly —
Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building
Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split
between domestic and fire protection lines.
3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall
clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings
shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
Reviewed by: /2 Date: z�� 1/
Project Comments
Date:
��
From
Subject:
Staff Review:
July 25, 2011
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
� City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
0 Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
X NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) during construction.
Please include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention best
management practices (BMPs), as project notes, when submitting plans for a
building permit. Please see attached brochure for guidance. The brochure may also
be down loaded directly from "flowstobay.org." It is recommended that the
construction BMP's be placed on a separate full size plan sheet (2' x 3` or larger as
appropriate) for readability.
For additional assistance, please contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at
(650) 342-2727.
i" � �;�
- , _1 s%
`� ��' �'' L' 4 �� I .
�;{'(�`_> r'�c .�� �e,� �
t t��.�s'7i_'ti+!i��i?it4+_
�'C✓ (�',�� —`i_r"';t `,s;..,, ;�, �:-1
� ,�tt L;t`..
t�
Reviewed by: u' � '' �
i��:%�
� ���
Date: r� 7��, � ��
:�;
/ ,�,;,`•�r`�
.���<, , .i rP• �. -+`!rl`.� 1
° `r ,r���-.:�;
.�`�V�:
�
�. :
C0715iLl1CilOII
& 5itc 5upervision
:�,"�`.. �"�.�;,,� � �
�,`.� n ��� 'e`�
.n�a��.��.em�.�a�,
amwn�u�. a ru.e. a.mee.a�wm�. .
JCmml i6� �mae� ela�uSvn�da>� d�
(=�b �[ ���J �f �[ hm x ksw
� w�•��.a�a��vm�«u¢uNw'.+mew
mbr
•� �Nba �r �t C�m sm �vee.�
AmbuLvu� ml w��cmav�
aitlWmm� a�lnum.av
f�v���eld�mm��N�m{mobuYL.s
,C�1�G ��k�rlls md+wJ� wv�rmut
Jm'� mv�ivWbeWlurey
�9um uR��t d�6m�d �(uss
✓I�+'P�I.mL �u(11a�us�Pmw��mu¢
.'.' .� •m� � Wva�
_ . .. wimv �wt>
�T+v pol�vvm o¢m�ueA m8eu PLm m�h �a
� �m�woonmedmmm_--_
✓Dn �� P�M.a� Wu y.W m.wm a..iv,
cvb, achmJa]lw�m�a� 0 W'mi4mmnry.
µM� oroY�s vsWyaa u uµ rM1mm� ml
Ja �e4dcy.mdcdc4U�����o-�bm
�m mun.mn�¢uue m�.ncm�....
-.•. wwm9uGw.UAM��v�.b6
..t.nnrro�r I(rvamwde.,mc�wl�
Uv�ml�m�lWu� Aw�6
Pl.�ed�m��wuu i .ov��imumpr
e W��a�mwuo-m�boauWewm
' Iwu4rvwmmm6lbpmm
k.an irrrm..N�a�wi.�mti
Wn14 dwv m W. rouwmim Ju.
JF46.m�vdb��� anwlveJa.dmmoE
4simdaby ' mm�yspA.Iv�nn
�nbaw w rw�h. �rk m�n ew��b f
�torxnwater Po11uti�� Prev�ntion Progra�n.
Pollution Freve�tio� — It's Part of the P1an
It is your responsibility �o d� the j ob right!
Runofffrom streets and otherpaved areas is amajor sovrce ofpollurionin local creeks, SanFrancisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean,
Conshuction activities can direcfly a$'ect the health ofourwaters uuless contractors aad crews plan aheadto keep dirt, debris, and other
conshlictionwasteawayfromstormdrainsandcreeks.Followingtheseguidelineswillensuzeyourcompliancewithlocalstormwater �
ordinance requirements. Remembe , ongoing monitoring and maintenance of inscalled controls is cruciai to proper implemenTation. .
�CBV j�
Equipment
Opexation
❑
Earth-Moving
Activities
Lm'vv Cmwtlm
JA�mmedaepvyss.um m1Ywlm.bwLuryvm�.
Roadwork & Paving
JiwdwnY�mBmim.�r• awimJk�tli.vmtmmelPlwfw
J�dawc��W cnmM1a+dma.osfo�M'*�x
J�dIw+��m�rw�aUud.�vdrle�¢.9���
J�Ym�ir+wim�c�.rtpi�i WwuWULNmwP
J RT�rzE+daerm.Ncbm+�m.tum�ozmun4
m e wuc.�`�¢mm�comGIe4lYm.mm-duaamry
J �m d1�1o111olWnbmmelwutM�rmm
✓� P��'�RmeoelsbNmuy�liec
J't6lnaqbym'mume �ebutwmpwmipem�
l�wr•��Yme�ewwu�maw �aErP���uY•�&��wamim�col�
..d6w�uma�aamN+WmW.. ,�°�'arNme�.mmeao'nm[f�-.4'aetyplmee6
�^l��i��➢�LrcPudinGaofm�e lRaciLonuilcyeJ��um4�ke4e'da�
n5besdcNi�ma!amee „y�smNom��Ye�unaum4�.m1
" . .an�I�vdbvawa�tlmY�fio- fe�K MtvAlttGum_
4+m Y ��4�INv Wvmi Nwwdi"4lrcatliMw�oQ�mmimw
�m.l«vm�amwntr..m. J=�m c.mm,.
Jw��vm��c�=�
J Vro.madvnaul+adxesaao4Mimemim.
a�M1v➢mdtmdiSmtldpqmr+mW m.vein
�N��rv����U6xx W apmtmWy
d��iu o�i �ua�dou. n.��F'm2k m
I➢amee�Wamlm Waamea�aNb�m
1pejwu�NkYrl�twu4�.
Q+n W 4vI4� wL+�eellR%„e
JN�� �dvn�dmy�va.amdormpe�npb
"T-� �Lemyele�_ -•
� � �a�l�@�esm�
�Ywldovrt
lSvu9W Tnldrym�oia4�¢sS.JY.Nera�4
uq.am".ruh�trm.mY"vIW..Yc.m FaY�6m.
U'e v liN. wm u yoe3k 6r Ga mewL
��wmwm�.�m�mro�w��r
�:ot��m�w,w.
/ �J�4m�Ni+xih�Mer� �
�+��dr.rww
�a�Hvm,� ahom�mm.im+�.a�Wba
YwrkN��m�mu� nGil
� ...@oales-wssucu�.yysn.;wwm�m¢
� tu�w�bn
lrmew�lnmdmwlwuwiW�avrtd�P�m °bw�e wuKWwa.�+mc.mx4m�mo
d���w "vfas�aMmeFu4w�mm[rvJl Wwi�
' JCo�vssEmiaaL6a.�amdmmLols�whmaPPb'me
J � �rmwuo�.vdwimmanvmwaw..�dimm� •Wrml�WvYx4/uaw4dc
f ILe ebsY dm5 eio-lia. a b�s b Awt �Rssmmd
lmme�l vl�a�mw�e o(wbemduL"mwrowul� �m�e ummrsamvvi.ILnmowui.sVet�rve-
+..�`mr. ^e Ww.munnm�mWnCol-
Irtmtlroryds�dya�cw&nsa.
ya
�wcPm�p�.�m�r.��„ar�i.�nmMd a,m
Js.s.d�.b=n..�loe.dm�s�brMwmw� p � mo4orvL4ic�haa4�odbvm+.
JprcLtlriW fivmD+rswimLiPPm+miluvbmtm�l�l
JPcfimm+iQR�rt�minw�amrLumWoiobriw (dO�nV.We)Y1�uvaametl�wewhmmlie�ua
JOm W enma�mdl��t'td'memom(.'v�.
J �Nwl�¢m.vLmedJ�Y/ne����m�ttmv ilenimw'ni4iA*W).mN6Wmd�orccmt�ml.
Lnm��, wlmiu.mmn���hb�,.�momsr JCo¢alaW+xl�'km�vmow�rai�pwcofuwss
,�Ks+.dm..m.
JOoouvssd4uloilmluLrimbrceban�i�mmimP� IAwNmeuOP�utionTYxai¢wrMf �rtmovoL
wac5rm.�uuesm�n�do+v�aemrm� lA� ��s ���tr�sw��mmu.
hmlun3
mY�EWr�mtlifl�.artabu*m4w1la�NmmYan JAh�6almeWddw�tbeaww�mmeill
.an m. �i�v.�a�n��s� .� m�m��.
. v�wma�m�c,�w.�.awo. .rea.re.,�Pu�n�m.:m��m��.,,wn
. Ae��m��D�� +»�owa��w�e�mw.ue�a=wN�ssm.a
. smAbme4�.vmut �^*e�n��m.mow�.mSe
JN MedixvmvumolmvupmoWdin.Uvery
��'ay me6eev
F resh Concrete
& Mortaz Application
� 6
Gmal➢�v�lsa-Ym
Mbmyaodsntmao-dal�imGruv �,or.aGom
ard�um¢Ymtat yYuvt�lafivmwid.
Paiuting & Application Landscaping,
af 5a�vents & Adhesivcs Crardeaing,
and Pool Maini�noe
1
�
� �Pb�taam�Ladx+��uaRllrm
c�a+��ml md a� dvmt [1m��� rtdA.a Lmm
�aWimWuiv�dmw�ho ��elmid�nc J� iaiohd=mdlmde�po[mee1.4L�waGam
&s➢oxdoFrt�LamJow � M�[OMwulumwmwwel9W�ic`8e«¢
�m9eetlmficllh(mvue�vuv bd w�.+.ia
SemoWy�tN�a[aM6..Y.artoPSBam�nt�P } . lSlme�q��(uplmSmiaWv�k.L'aloons
Jmmdbbwu¢amP+��+�'++YL�P��.s6vm P�i.e�e�=^�mP
�idu6qmEwnR .l:mi�Immwbc�edwepJssawWuv�ivu� fSrBCNtlee�o6mtlae��tlwP�9abfxyYweW¢
l�Wu6at�idcmi-n� 6�•SVw4nvmtiv:4m.ha�m. md� R
4.Eevu�ww�rnLm➢ow"m�mmvW�mt ,G��Jvm� Y.m�aGCLu w.wo nm'
' pmLvomaG'rt.L��mbmlmWJ4pomaf.. P�b�sRiu�mP�.T�w[hneLem�mm�
�.�Nhmc.eya..mlcmnlcnaAmeMP�me JP��+�m4rmm�im �wx�+v.�w �mewbo�i�iy.w
mua�fmnmeNomdi+➢�w�nuletimo NawrWaf�dwuaMm.
mww.�mmJNT4dvm+RJY&a.ush�� fFmw46vui .
P�4P���aww=mbwyo—
tMie6 '�atwcov aUvadtlmwuhm�rtwuhwl'm�P�Nvm.inx.
JOmYmzwmmcwh�ocemur.mvtwmpowiu F➢wmd�wam�m�mdnUm'.P�wxofmcv
vcln.M'. liyWd.cdmiNwuhmvlvawWt
mlW�amWmw��nrtrc�,YW+Ib AmearmaN
�a�o➢rlo5c J�� .wdulGmmo�h.m�x�.M'mieee¢
w��Im��w.9eau.vw.r�cwNw.h=am4uNw. �°cmn'te..,Muaumumeeup6�m
l0ett�a[m �ev�oxtlowvm.e.i.9w.yumw
���6P�A�wuhL�mAircrvry/pticmM�•^:—
mo-.mga�dNulbrcppepmw`h ovb L'vt
w.�m�mma�.
✓ e� n�r m� a oma ��o.mwa m�.o.a� m
•+ "`�¢�Smme�zrm�LelwcltmrLra
�v��m
J Whshe�¢viPn'�IsmemPiekW v0�flc.n
.mmc,K�y,
� xmb � �rea �t �a� �m �. w,wi
/��or��.0 �,�er�amr�..+tw�a
! Nwc6vYwFimh�vn�auvr+vwwiaL
Sborm drain polluters may �be liabie. for fines of up to $25,000 per day!
amp NWa�vdNWwaa[aatu6
J Chm�nl ytm rtdqu� rmyuv m1'y�y my ye�
�� W�mpmYmotrluutl=dalvlwyi
be tliq�W a(cE��danwvb.
�wa.a.��o.�G�swr m<a:d:.dmwW'
Nmoeeno�.T.bb.keWmdo�. WvLwacmm �det
4e�9+d� iNo mi1.04 check a1W Ibe I ml wrenvkr
o�0utly m�d wt IIYw �m m0at (mop m
..com)6Wldlogdmm6wwtaddi�wwb Wntmibry
�ew�¢ �Smry�lbt �WemurmYbempmadbml¢5e
�Ymmdagihtlw'u¢
✓��e �..,��m.w�o�....
aw�mwwn,dwa..�.ou�,a� ti�xa�w
� w �_�'� m'�mo�'worssrr.
bg+m�udnry4Nm1.
��umao�w..<aWw.n=w==��w"w,
' odba.ww.�h.�Jauwvm. .
,Gmasnneo s�ia�II� .., ximSeSmMwv
P�o6�uKWt
@t�ao� amn�a
.� umu�a �. o� a�� mn sa wro b x�� m m�
wlrmdam.ckxiW Sovmin�R��Ni1�'1nY'
brY'N�x
.ie�u�mv " n.l�sw+m.Ghcmss
xuuviuleµve.cu�mumea
JHawyn�lw L m we.V.mtTmw o(uovim�oltor
myuh
! U�a �mm Vuw.Wu ud (olb. �bel tl4ectiwe IImm co-
m�mme.Wme �m..m+bv P�occA.vno a[m�N
JDi�pascafm�W yeYcidc ssEmNwu wu2
J tL11m1�mard�tlmelVO"mH.F�ew+4m�ers
trlmmr�w. �P Jmmuy. aed dmpm L
✓� �dn+mdmwwc��Inv�m�wlsawiM
-rna.vk �me n.� �rwma..m w�e
w¢ Grptlup W�pvvef Wp ormwmi Ox �
b �ImNJI lbl remV���ri�lassb. .
Jlb mL Ww m N�c IuiR tta Wa me mmv
JNnca -� e.�h{}v-deetarum�mator
i wn,�,eebpa.�qv�.e«.m••rva�s m
� e,n xnm �x..m M a�oa x mm�nr mm.
� e.to�a��toadumm.�re.,.uro..�
/oa�.nvm�n.mu�,=n.¢dwa�ru� '
+�isi.Lonw:unmul @�namzi.�wa;�Y)H
�%n� .�Nwa.mw�i+�
Jna vo�ue �.arouat•b:� (mwJw�wim
���..�.<,�mmo�.,��.�-
�GA�LY�W m pmW Iih�n c��bo
�9 �mv.adM �m �-n� Gaam[y1mc.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
Desiqn Review and Sqecial Permits for attached garaqe and declininq heiqht envelope for a
new, two and one-half story single family dwellinq and attached qaraqe at 2509 Easton Drive,
zoned R-1, Emporio Group Inc., 1630 Balboa Wav, Burlingame, CA. 94010, propertv owner
APN: 027-195-060;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
December 12, 2011, 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:
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 Article 19, 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. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family
residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review and Special Permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permits 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 12th dav of December, 2011 by the
following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits.
2509 Easton Drive
Effective December 22, 2011
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped December 5, 2011, sheets T1, C.O, A1 through A5, L-1, L-2 and GPC;
2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree
protection measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report
prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones
shall be established and inspected by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building
permit;
3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks
Division to remove any protected-sized trees;
4. 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);
5. 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;
6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor's September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the
Chief Building Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's
August 17, 2011 memo, the .Fire Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met;
7. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shail be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
8. 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;
9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans sh:all be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by �he Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
10. that ail 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 shail be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits.
2509 Easton Drive
Effective December 22, 2011
11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
12. that 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;
13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2010 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;
and
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.
m
�CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ; �{ s �� �
' BURLWGAME, CA94010 €v;— ``K�` . ;
� PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) 696�379 �0. � ;
�
www.burlingame.org ° '�f _���' _
l,�._i:L �. v ; i ;��: - :� .- �
�``�L�`.�.f� t ;,� n � Jz..��
Si�e: 2509 EASTON �Rlil� ��3�
The City of Burlingame PlQnning Commission announces
the following public henring an NIONDAY, DECEMBER
12, 2011 at 7:00 PeNi, in the City Hall Coun�il
(hambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Appli�ation for Design Review and Special Permits for
attuched garage and declining height envelope far a
new, two and ane-half story single family dwe►ling ond
attached garage at 2509 EASTON DRIVE zoned R-l.
APN 027-195-060
Mailed: December 2, 201 �
(Please refer to other sideJ
�.�... _
I��_i. . , _t. _ ...
���� ! ��.r
PU�LIC MEARI�IG
NOi'ICE
Citv of �urlinqame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, yo� may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing,
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informin their
fenants about this notice. g
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250
William Meeker
Community Development Director
Thank you.
(Pleaserefertootherside) ���`'��'' �E����� ��'����
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permits
Address: 2509 Easton Drive
Item No.
Design Review tudy
Meeting Date: October 11, 2011
Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height
envelope for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage
Applicant and Designer: Stotler Design Group
Property Owner: Emporio Group LLC
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 027-195-060
Lot Area: 8,850 SF
Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive were once owned and used by one family,
which contained the main house and an accessory structure at 2517 Easton Drive and a detached three-car
garage w/storage room and cottage at 2509 Easton Drive (the properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive consist
of two legally subdivided lots). The properties were sold a few years ago and an addition was completed at 2517
Easton Drive in 2010, which included converting a portion of the existing house to a one-car garage to provide
parking for the house at 2517 Easton Drive.
W ith this application, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached three-car garage and cottage
at 2509 Easton Drive to build a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (the lower
level meets the definition of a half-story since it is less than two-thirds of the area above it). The lot slopes
downward approximately 42'-0" (23%) from the front to the rear of the lot. The proposed house and attached
garage will have a total floor area of 3,914 SF (0.44 FAR) where 3,932 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed
(including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 18 SF belowthe maximum allowed
FAR and is within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR. A Special Permit is required for an attached garage and
declining height envelope along the right side property line (60 SF, 3'-2" x 18'-10" extends beyond the declining
height envelope).
A total of four existing protected-sized trees are proposed to be removed at the front of the property, including a
40-inch diameter Coast live oak, a 24-inch diameter Coast live oak, a 19-inch Hedge maple and a 24-inch
Canary island palm. An arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011, was
submitted as part of the application and is attached for review. The report provides an assessment of all existing
trees on-site and of the perimeter trees on the adjacent properties. The report also includes a Tree Protection
Plan. The report notes that "The property has not received recent maintenance. The site has a mix of native
oaks and imported trees. The native oaks are all in poor condition with decay in the trunks or stems." In his
memo dated September 30, 2011, the City Arborist notes that a protected-tree removal permitwill be required to
remove any protected-sized trees and that the project will need to follow the tree protection measures as outlined
in the arborist report.
The project includes an attached garage which provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces for the
proposed five-bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All
other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS
25.57.010);
■ Special Permit for attached garage (CS 25.28.035 (a)); and
■ Special Permitfor construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side
property line (60 SF, 3'-2" x 18'-10" extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.035 (c)).
Design Review and Special Permifs 2509 Easton Drive
2509 Easton Drive
Lot Area: 8,850 SF Plans date stam ed: Se tember 13, 2011
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS ;
---- — — — -------------�------ --
Front (9st flr): 19'-0" 16'-4" (block average)
(2nd flr): 25'-0" 20'-0"
(aftached garage): 25'-0" ! 25'-0" (two single-wide doors)
Side (left): - --5'-�" ---� — 4'-�" -
(right): 4'-0" 4'-0"
------------- ---- --- -------- ,- — ------
Rear (1st flr): 90'-0" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 90'-0" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2260 SF � 3540 SF
25.5% 40%
FAR: 3914 SF 3932 SF
0.44 FAR 0.44 FAR
--- -- --------- -- -- -- --------�-------- ---
# of bedrooms: 5 i ---
-- --------------- -- -- ------...----------------------------------
Parking: 2 covered i 2 covered
(20' x 20') (20' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
Height: 19'-10" 30'-0"
DH Envelope: Special Permit required ;
(60 SF extends beyond declining CS 25.28.075
height envelope) 2
' (0.32 x 8,850 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,932 SF (0.44 FAR)
2 Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side
properLy line (60 SF, 3'-2" x 18'-10" extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.035 (c)).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the City Arborist, Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire
Marshal and NPDES Coordinator.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Stotler Design Group, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Application to the Pianning Commission
Special Permit Applications
Arborist Report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011
Staff Comments
Photographs of Neighborhood
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 30, 2011
Aerial Photo
2
R .,�,a','�
: �'� - -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
,APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
� Design Review ❑ Variance
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit
❑ Parcel #: —' � —" `i �
❑ Other:
� � � �4-'� S"r�� t � Q2-"i- � �l � �
PROJECT ADDRESS: � _ � �� ��� ��� �'! �C���r`�1�
� Please indicate the contact person for this project
AFPLICANT project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: � ��G� �-CS : �� �. �-1�' � �'y='
Address: �� �� I�' �T S�� �"4- ��
Y P� [�c�S f4 L'C�S C�`�' `F�ZZ,
Cit /State/Zi i � ti /
Phone: �7 ��� 3� l'^ �� � 3
PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: _ �� �, �C� r� �) r 9�n �. n�ti �
Address: j �-(�� �t � _�� � �'�cZZ
City/State/Zip: � c.� r� li� a.-� E i��Y�l(>
Phone: (�Y7 il�� /D ��Z
Fax: ���J °� 3�,� � -- � `{,S �� Fax:
.� c ��'-t C'- sf�-f - l.�,rcl c� S':�,.,_�j i� c;L�,� : c::.� �.
E-maiL ����t����C`' S�e-l�� �;�-c:tE�.�"� s-�,.�-'�: c.t.�v�..�. E-mail: ��� ri r� K<<r�n�
�
ARCNITECT/DESIGNER Pro�ect contact Person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
j � . r
Name: ��� ��-�r �� � 5 '� 7.t,� �--� �.-._c�-�,`�
�
Address: � � � � ��� S'S .S�< � f�
City/State/Zip: Lc:�
Phone: �� ��� ��
Fax:
��iF�'
�" L�.vS , �v'-�
'' 2 l L� f5c'�-'� J
r�i.S� � �,� �? '
�� -�-F � s-h -f-
�, ,,, � -� i C:�{-;�-F I
�y-' f�F'LJ-."�'ti�.Y�
,� �l �' S': 5� t� �;` rc:
� Burlingame Bu�siness License #:
_ �:
JUL 2 2 2011
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDQ-PLANNING DIV.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��-�� ��-� S� b"�b� 5� � �'T�GCrSS�=�� r S. ���� U�- t li�'�'�' �
C'C N� � (�� i� � �/ /�f� �-�� �'�"€ ! €.— �' ���"" 1 �
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby cert�� der penalty of perjur that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief. - -
�z 7f� �(
Applicant's signature: � /� �-J Date:
I am aware of the proposed application and hereby auth riz�the above applicant to submit this applic tion to the Planning
Commission. =� /;�'� `� � %�
Property owner's signatu e: / � ' � /i Date: � �
' � � �f f
/ Date submitted: 22 ��
x Verification that the project archi�ec esign as a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time application ees are paid.
❑ Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for fhis project. s:�HaN�ours�acapplicotion zoos.hondout.doc
� Z�
� i1Ju�".��L'"" �7�� i (Gt2�t:�
J !
-t,� : c� u-- .
City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinqame.orq
CITY OF BURLINGAME �
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION --- �� -
�T _
lr` �. .,
2509 EASTON DRIVE
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE _ _
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the
decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to
the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why fhe blend of mass, sca/e and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existing sfructure's design and with the existing
street and neigh6orhood.
The proposed new 2 story residence with an attached 2 car garage will replace the existing residence at
the bottom of the lot and the 3 car garage at the street level. The proposed residence is consistent with
the surrounding properties in terms of mass/scale and the architectural style. Due to the extremely steep
lot we had to attach the garage pushing the house closer to the south/west property and outside of the
"Declining Height Envelope" (see exterior elevations) requiring a special permit application.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish maferials and elevations of the
proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing sfructure, street and
neighborhood.
The proposed residence roof lines, exterior finishes and elevations are consistent with similar style
homes. The architectural style and elements will blend well with the character of the neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by
fhe city (C.S. 25.57)?
The proposed single-family residence with attached garage is consistent with the residential design
guidelines and complies with zoning requirements except for the attached garage and "Declining Height
Envelope" that requires this special permit.
4. Explain how the removal'of any trees located within fhe footprint of any new structure or addition
is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigafion is
proposed for the removal of any frees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate.
The trees that are being removed must be removed due to the steep lot and to accommodate the new
residence and garage at the street level not the bottom of the lot. The property lines are lined with trees that
provide screening from both neighbors. The entire site will be provided with complete new landscaping and
irrigation including the addition of several trees.
City of Burlingame Community Development Department 5D1 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinqame.orq
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
2509 EASTON DRIVE
ATTACHED GARAGE
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the
decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to
the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, sca/e and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construcfion or addition are consistent with the existing strucfure's design and with the existing
street and neighborhood.
The proposed attached 2 car garage is consistent with the surrounding properties in terms of
mass/scale and the architectural style. Due to the extremely steep lot we had to attach the garage to the
house requiring a special permit application.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the
proposed new structure or addition are consisfent wif/� the existing structure, street and
neighborhood.
The proposed residence roof lines, exterior finishes and elevations are consistent with similar style
homes. The architectural style and elements will blend well with the character of the neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed projecf 6e consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by
the city (C.S. 25,57)?
The proposed attached garage is consistent with the residential design guidelines and complies with
zoning requirements except for the garage being attached to the residence which requires this special
permit. �
4. Explain how the removal of any frees located witl�in the footprinf of any new structure or addition
is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requiremenfs. What mitigation is
proposed for fhe removal of any trees? Explain why this mifigation is appropriate.
The trees are being removed to accommodate the house due to the very steep lot.
Kielty Arborist Services
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
P.O. Box6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650 — 525 — 1464
August 30, 2011
Stotler Design Group
Attn: Mr. Scott Stotler
349 First Street Suite A
Los Altos, CA 94022
Site: 2509 Easton, Burlingame, CA
Dear Mr. Stotler,
— :._ _..
F'.
;>��� { ;i;
`_r ; <F ,__..
- � , _ _ :-
As requested on Monday, August 28, 2011, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on
the trees. New construction is planned for this site and as required a survey of the trees on site
and a tree protection plan will be included.
Method:
All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The
trees in question were located on a map provided by you. The trees were then measured for
diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were
given a condition rating far form and vitality. The trees' condition rating is based on 50 percent
vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale.
1 - 29 Very Poor
30 -
50 -
70 -
49 Poor
69 Fair
89 Good
90 - 100 Excellent
The heights of the trees were measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was
paced off. Comments and recommendations far future maintenance are provided.
Survey:
Tree# Species
2
Coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
Coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments
40est 45
24.1 55
3 Coast live oak 28est 55
(Quercus agrifolia)
50/70 Vigor fair, form fair, cables installed to
support tree.
50/40 1' from existing building, bend in trunk,
heavy to the south.
50/50 Vigor poor-fair, form fair, codominant at 5'.
2509 Baston/8/30/11
(2)
Tree# Species DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments
4 Privet 8.6 40 45/25 Poor vigor, poor form, codominant at 4'
(Ligustrum japonicuna)
5 Hedge maple 19.1 55 45/35 Multi at 6', vigor fair, form poor
(Acer campestre)
6 Coast live oak 19.6 40 50/25 Leans against structure, very poor form, fair
(QueYcus agrifolia) vigor
7 Plum
(P�unus spp.)
8 Hedge maple
(Acer campestre)
9 Valley oak
(Quercus lobata)
9.8 60 35/25 Fair vigor and form
20est 55 35/25 Fair vigor and form
20est 30
10 Hedge maple l lest 65
(Acer campestre)
11 Canary island palm 24est 70
(Phoenix canariensis)
12* Italian stone pine 24est 65
Pinus pinea)
*denotes neighbor's tree
35/55 fair vigor, very poor form, nearly horizontal
40/20 On property line, fair vigor
25/30 Good vigor, good form, 5' of standing trunlc.
35/25 Good vigor, fair form, located between
siructures.
Summary:
The property has not received recent maintenance. The site has a mix of native oaks and
irnported trees. The native oaks are all in poor condition with decay in the trui�l�s ar stems. Oak
#1 has several decayed areas within the canopy. The installation of cables has helped preserve
the tree but does not guarantee the safety of the tree. Tree #2 has a large bend in its trunk and is
located less than 1 foot from the existing structure. Tree #6 has very poor form and is being
supported by the structure. The trees around the perimeter of the property can be retained with
little or no adverse effects to their long term health.
2509 Easton/8/30/11 (3)
Tree Protection Plan:
Tree protection zones:
♦ Should be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project.
♦ Fencing for the protection zones should be 4 foot tall orange plastic type supported by
metal stakes pounded into the ground. The support stakes should be spaced no more than
10 feet apart on center.
♦ The location for the protection fencing should be as close to the dripline as possible still
allowing room for construction to safely continue.
♦ Signs should be placed on fencing signifying "Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out".
♦ No materials or equipment should be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones.
♦ Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the dripline of protected trees, where foot
traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4 to 6 inches of chipper chips.
The spreading of chips will help to relieve compaction and improve the soil structure.
Root Cutting:
♦ Any roots to be cut should be monitored and documented.
♦ Large roots or large masses of roots to be cut should be inspected by the site arborist.
♦ The site arborist may recommend fertilizing or irrigation if root cutting is significant.
♦ Cut all roots clean with a saw or loppers.
♦ Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and
kept moist.
Trenching:
♦ Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason should be hand dug
when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes
below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus
reducing trauma to the entire tree.
♦ Trenches should be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to
near its original level.
♦ Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time should also be covered with layers
of burlap and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect
exposed roots below.
Irrigation:
♦ Normal irrigation should be maintained throughout the entire length of the project.
♦ The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months.
♦ During the stulliner months the trees on this site should receive heavy flood type
imgation 2 times a month.
♦ Irrigation during the winter months may also be necessary, depending on the seasonal
rainfall. Flood type irrigation 1 time per month during the fall and winter months may be
advised by the site arborist.
♦ Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing
water consumption.
2509 Easton/8/30/11 (4)
Demolition, Parking and Staging:
♦ During the demolition process all tree protection must be in place.
♦ An inspection prior to the start of the demolition may be required.
♦ All vehicles must remain on paved surfaces if possible. If vehicles are to stray from
paved surfaces, 4 to 6 inches of chips shall be spread and plywood laid over the mulch
layer when inside root zones. This type of landscape buffer will help reduce compaction
of desired trees.
♦ Parking will not be allowed off the paved surfaces near protected trees.
♦ The removal of foundation materials (including curbs, asphalt and retaixring walls), when
inside the driplines of protected trees, should be carried out with care. Hand excavation
may be required in areas of heavy rooting.
♦ Exposed or damaged roots should be repaired and covered with native soil.
♦ Tree protection fencing may need to be moved after the demolition. The site arborist
should be notified and the relocated fence should be inspected.
This information should be kept on site at all times. The infortnation included in this report is
believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Kielty
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
Project Comments
Date: September 14, 2010
To: 0 City Engineer � Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271
0 Chief Building Official 0 Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600
X Parks Supervisor 0 NPDES Coordinator
(650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage
and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family
dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1,
APN: 027-195-060
Staff Review:
1.,,� Landscape Plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape
='J Regulations'. Complete attached Water Conservation in Landscape checklist.
2. Protected Tree Permit required ore construction begins. Application may
be obtained from Parks Division 558-7254).
3. Include Tree Protection Diagram (attached) on plans and note as determined
by Arborist Report.
� l� .�'-���,c-z-�-f��
� N_ ��- 2- � 3 :��� � �--.
, ��,�ru��� ��
�
�.�.�-��.�c,i`�r� �,..��� ,-- '� �.c�.- G����,'��, : c%��� t{ l � � `�' �
�� ��������
� ��Lj��
Reviewed by: B. Disco Date: 9/20/11
URBAN FOREST MANAGEN:_. ✓T PLAN
�
� — ` �
�
� �V/ -
� �
, �_ ��_ J,_�
�� _�� ��.
.r.: t �
�:r.�'=.' . .. .. .. .. .. .. .��,.it .. .
(PRfJ7�CT�`� R�OT Ti37iE)
E3LiSl7M� TREE
TO REM�JM.
�����c�vE �ga�c
rz�t�s:
1. RRpTEG7l5tE f'F�1L.7�� 5�31:Li
6f �GPiT OiL+:fii�E
PCYLYPR6P'{LEt�[E FEIt+Clkd�.
2. ►t�JTHBMG IN�DE 1�fE
DR���1�+1E �fsFJl ai�,UJ- 9�
w,xm, citr. sri�;€i+. oR
O7f-iEK4^PsSE R1ST'tfRBE➢,
3. Gt��'�1€t,tTO�t SFli:l1 T�K�
E:�Tft�4�£ L� aNfs
C�it4TEt7 ili.l. �X757IN�s
1'kE�S T�1 f?EI±l1�13(, �
t�Eqti3F�D BY E.�.l�[�kPE
PLsW.
�. TFiE� Pfipl'f�K7N 5}f�13
9E 3HSfiLLi€[i 3?I
AG'G9R�Ist3C� 5!(i�#3
PFtl7JE�T ;Rf,i��ST ii�'PO:E{'E
j- .�3�C1 53i�1t1 9E f���:fC7�b
__ �RE�.. P��T����t�� �3ET��� �� �,F ���� ��►��
', - �Q ��tE �rics� o� �:�r
F�s�� T�? �C��.E wo�x.
Updated Jv.ly 20, 2009 - 32 -
a
OUi�00R WATER USE EFFlCIENCY CHECKLiST
that the ject roject meets the specified requirements of the Water [onservation in Landscaping Ordinance.
/
� �-28-11
�e Date
� Singie Family ❑ Multi-Family ❑ Commercial 0 fnstitutional C! Irrigation only � lndustrial O Other. �
Appficant Name (print): �Q y�n ~ ��.� �� Contact Phone #: (av _ �, 12 _Dz�%
Gf
ProjectSiteAddress: z�Qq ��.�� �� '�?uT�i� �� C�
Project Area (sq.ft. or acre): �� � Z j S_�. # of Units: �, # of Meters: � >
- � � ¢ .'. 7otal Landscape Area (sq.ft.}_ - - � � � ;�, � � ," ;.
_ . etlo , p � S 5
_ y, 7 Z q sq. t• � g �,
e ` • "�� ;, TurflrrigatedArea{sq_ft.j: jZj S9. �-�-. -
: - e:s P-
Non TurF Irrigated Area (sq.ft.): '�� (p D�j �q, -} • "
° fv -
_ _ , Special Landscape Area (SLA} (sq.ft_)= rj .pi , �
- Water Feature Surface Area (sq.ft.): �}. �}. „
Errigation 5ystem Effici�ncy
lrrigatipn System Design
Ilrrigation 7ime
Metering
Surimming Pools / Spas
WaterFeatures
Documentation
Less than 25°� of the landswpe area is � Yes
turf ❑ No, See Water Budget
All turf areas are > S feet wide � Yes
All turf is planted on slopes < 25/ (� Yes
At least 80% of non-turF area is native 9 Yes .
or low water use plants ❑ No, See Water Budget
Plants are grouped by Hydrozones � Yes
At least 2-inches of mulch on exposed � Yes
soil surfaces
70'�U ETo (14Q% ETo for SLAs) � Yes
No overspray or runoff L7 Yes
System efficiency > 70°6 � Yes
Automatic, self-adjusting irrigation G] No, not required for Tier 1
controllers � Yes
Maisture sensor/rain sensor shutoffs � Yes
No sprayheads in < 8-ft wide area. � Yes
System only operates beiween 8 PM � Yes
and 10 AM
Post-installation audit completed
Separate irrigation meter � No, not required because < 5,a00 sq.ft.
❑ Yes
Cover highly recommended ❑ Yes �. (�•
❑ No, not required
Recirculating ❑ Yes
Less than 10% of landscape area ❑ Yes
Checklist � Yes
Landscape and Irrigation Design Pian ❑ Prepared 6y applicant
� Prepared by professional
Water Budget (optional) Q Prepared by app�icant I
Prepared by profPssional t�'��
Completed !sy applicant N. � -
Completed hy professional
Date:
To:
From:
September 14, 2010
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ Parks Supervisor
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7279
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage
and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family
dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1,
APN: 027-195-060
Staff Review:
No further comments.
All cond;itions of approval as stated in the review dated 7-26-2011 will apply to
this project.
-----�
Reviewed r Date: 9-15-2011
Date:
��
From
Subject:
Staff Review:
July 25, 2011
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building OfFicial
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California Building
Code, 2010 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2010 California
Mechanical Code, 2010 California Electrical Code, and 2010 California Plumbing
Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1856-2010. Note: If the
Planning Commission has approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December
31, 2010 then the building permit application for that project may use the
provisions found in the 2007 California Building Codes including all amendments
as adopted in Ordinance 1813.
� On the plans provide a copy of the GreenPoints checklist for this project at full
scale.
� Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California Energy
Efficiency Standards.
Go to http�//www.enerqV.ca.qov/title24I2d08standards/ for publications and
details.
� Specify the roofing material to be used. If the roofing material weighs more that
51bs/ft. then Indicate on the plans that the roof will comply with Cool Roof
requirements of the 2008 California Energy Code. 2008 CEC §151 (f) 12. The
2008 Residential and Non-Residential Compliance Manuals are available on line
at http�//www,eneray.ca.qov/title24/2008standards/
� Place the following information on the first page of the plans:
"Construction Hours"
Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m.
Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
(See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.)
6� On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that
require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for
these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning
Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must
submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated in these
plans prior to performing this work.
7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame
business license.
8) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
9) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a
completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition
Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project.
10)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed
property lines
11)Obtain a survey of the property lines.
�n the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the
property line.
�Indicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the
property line will be built of one-hour fire-rated construction. (2010 CBC, Table
602)
��ooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or
door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of
all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. Note: The areas labeled
"Guest Bedroom" and "Bonus Room" are rooms that can be used for sleeping
purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement.
;�Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the
Department of Public Works.
�Some guardrails, as shown, appear to be 36" in height. Revise the plans to show
that all exterior guards will be 42" in height per 2010 CBC §1013.2
17)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at
any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the
Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in
height.
18)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
19)Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
20)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of
the building within ten feet. 2010 CBC �2113.9
NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically
address items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 must be re-submitted before
this project can move forward for Planning Commission action.
Reviewed by: ^�� ' �� Date: 7-26-2011
�
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From
Subject:
Staff Review:
July 25, 2011
o City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
X City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
0 NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
1. Protected tree permit required for alf trees proposed for removal that are 48
inches in circumference or over measured 54in from ground level. Contact
Parks Division (558.7334) for permit application.
�Landscape plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape
egulations" (attached). Irrigation Plan required for Building permit. Audit due
for Final.
��,Landscape plan must include 4(four} 24" box size tree as per Landscape
Yequirements.
,
4. �Add new Street Tree in parking strip, if Public Works requires sidewalk
eplacement, Policy for Expanding Width of Planter Strip needs to be
implemented. Street Tree list attached.
Reviewed by: B Disco
Date: 7i27/11
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review
July 25, 2011
d City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
1. See attached.
2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
3. pplican�t is advised to call City Arborist regarding potential relocation of
sidewalk area around trees in the planter strip.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 8/17/2011
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMNNI�NTS �� �° ` '�Y`'�f
Project Name: �'iznil�s.� r� tvy' (��n
Project Address: .'� �'�, �
The following requirements apply to the project
1
� A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land
all property lines, property corners,
and utilities. (Required prior to the
surveyor. The survey shall show
easements, topographical features
building permit issuance.)
2 _� The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street� (Required prior to the building perrnit
issuance.) � �v �� e��' �� l�j�l �CS� ,
3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
.--�.-j���C'
5 � A sanitary sewer lateral �is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standards. )
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project: The sewer analysis
shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures.
0
�
Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the proj ect.
Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map shall show a11 existing property lines, easements,
monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map.
Page 1 of 3
U:\private development�PLAI�TNING REVIEW COMIv1ENTS.doc
PUSLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. A latest preliu�ivary title report of the subject parcel of land sha11 be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews.
12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submiited with the parcel
map.
13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
14 � The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
appurtenant work.
15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year
flood and e�sting improvements with proposed improvements.
18 _� Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State
Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 ` ES No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
20 � The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMI��NTS.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the sireet into private property.
24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The
sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMI��NTS.doc
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From
Subject:
Staff Review:
July 25, 2011
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
0 City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
0 Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
0 Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
� NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly —
Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building
Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split
between domestic and fire protection lines.
3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall
clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings
shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
Reviewed by: ��/ 6�`��— Date: a..� ��/
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From
Subject:
Staff Review:
July 25, 2011
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
0 City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
Planning Staff
0 Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
0 Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
X NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family
residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060
July 25, 2011
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction
activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) during construction.
Please include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention best
management practices (BMPs), as project notes, when submitting plans for a
building permit. Please see attached brochure for guidance. The brochure may also
be down loaded directly from "flowstobay.org." It is recommended that the
construction BMP's be placed on a separate full size plan sheet (2' x 3` or larger as
appropriate) for readability.
For additional assistance, please contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at
(650) 342-2727.
�" `�
- �x - _ _ �=
�'�� � � �r...
r;,�,-�,�= -,,,� - �,,,
`'-� i'._ ,��.�:�!.-w�:�L
Ii
Reviewed by: �'j;� ;�` ;
fL ��
� ���
�ate: rJ 7�� � !l�
o .. ,, �torna�vater Polluti�r� Prevention Progra�n _ -
i„ S�mmwnta
� PoDutianP+cumriwRvgem . .
'��� oa Pollution Pre�ention — It's Part of the Plan
It is your responsibility to do tlie job rightl
'�:;,..;` ---'�-¢ Runofffromstreetsaadotherpavedareasisamajorsovrceofpollurioninlocalcreeks,SanFranciscoBayandthaPacificOcean.
'�`��;;;� ; ��t Constructionactivitiescandirecdyaffectthahealthofourwatersunlesscontractorsendczewsplanahpdtokeepdirt,debris,andother
`'i.� ' consttucLionwasteuwayfi�omstonndraiasandcreeks.Followingtheseguidelineswillensureyourcompliancewithlocalstormwuter �
GEI1CIg1 �'''r��� � ordinance rP� ,;*emenLs. Remember ongoing moniioring and maintenance of installed conhols is cmcial tn proper implementalion �
Comstruction
& 5ite 5upervisian
�"m'm""��.,�� � m,
...��. i, � wo.��„�� �„o-
��a������e�
�;����m�.���
�,�.a,�.,a;�..
.� �,�.d,.
�1^i°��W�um.�oW h�e�>moe
mlmva��p��°ipilmwmwuvu mw•vel�tl�
��wd wR
r.�..��ab¢�puv1'..ma#.e.m> _mmwm< �
���.me .o�ee..w..
mmn�ry � �m�y �on�muroece�
mp4e� �uW+�3 tlet
� Omdb�qi�Prtra
I Jn..4P•e m�r�b m�u4d � h em
�a. ��m'�m�.�mdem��r
�1 ��md Vums
Ji<ry n.�.ml�w��LL. �w-n=•ool weu
. . . 'mc� fnrvry�eptaa!
+dlm�n�almmciJavtiLVWdc.b+dn[�r
�/%a rd�<^m sa.�.<e nmea. w.. m.h ou
� mep�.�amuWmvYummlv��
✓�EVtt�Lm��i.rvfav, �b�hmwu�mJNa
�tltl��neih¢ �u•baL�ael.
u�nlr�wau�rud4mnml
w inM nW+.m ca�u m� �m�,rti�.e
��by' mmt�.mwenuw v��•�Q��...e
. •, wpwerzGa¢IInM��9mwod�
nl.vmrvmdic Ifnamnu..u,��u
lCv�c vEm6nYdam
�.cm.xe«rvmeyrm
� rs.a ro�mm. mee �r� � � .im �v.
.�...k n.nu.v ..m.e �a m. � .e m.
�p� ta. A VI W e Ilm L�ea�mdd m pnw
lubso of 6�id� Ne.m de.o w� � d�pdv y
Wby h 6�.v m me ttamudn� �'u.
J646 w� u+b�. IdLM1 m mdWJv.d In uod
.m�4ai mdm bl'Yuc Iru�vs �Y� � ��rw
9b��a�o(PW��F Chxk Ia4v LW��Y(w
/�44/m.n
�.x ��ua> r�m ��
Ue �v.�el�bb mr�l�l� nLm��c N�mle M�y�
lmTx+�vel�ee�eabb m��aW� w n �caa<n.
+9a�4 pN rx�k dlwm.. dmaa..m.e+.c�
�NIeMm�iwm�. . ••
��v'.nno u6 em��Wlm hmY
, .Y..og.d.oM...me..wo•��t.at��awai�,
Falea �ry W �i �vd �vm'. xvci �M dmd vq��r
�����������
��.;.�� ����..
dam In tba mm� cewu � vmk o� Wvm.b�d.
Heavy Earth-Moving Roadwork & Paving F iesh Concrete Painting & Application Landscaping,
Equipment t�ctivities & Mortar Application af "aoiveais & Adhesives Gardening,
Operation — � p�1 Ma;ntr.n�n�
t
�
.y.�i. JOc�uu�m�uaalmJUNmwtmnw.Iniw� , �
�AdWcaur�WmmimdmO�udlvmYwmWa SwV�nCt+b�PaMmtr ' .
���m �v��c�x��4�m�rwwa.mm�la�bum�de� J� muawawb'mamu.m �� m�..wm �
aer�F�'���•rvmtlmmb'vmabn��k4'�+- Jmsi �aw�mu�wwod�ia.����[otmoV� '�< yse.mrm�.nW.emw�.0 me Wue.m��..wm4vAnmd�elwhsv Paact,�xmae.mimacq+=cmmi.6t� '.m
drcP���v�+�l'Ra��lmewfmrmuvlrm JN�n�emr�dcWaN4�m.Wm�.m�w6c ,�u�.ed ¢Pfowiwtivemapo��Gom 1�1wv�<n�ut6u�vdmunhaduDu.do[ss.WmJow J�viuh'M�[OmuoFr'vYxwveM1PW&�La6ne.
�/Gdwr•wY�l•msladwo���m�.' ���wMw�.w�.mebeu�aW dwawG4dd¢ula�m.wlaWYmohaeduam+Y aum J�Ymnv.afiamw�uL � 0dlry(m^e.�i.Y�1ml�.m
$'a�eL ➢ ¢�} JSbrt��r.�.ln.tuotimlmEai6crL�k�Lmium�a
eooe4r.�...1'4wre.�Q..w�Mlnmint Wm.amtlom.mdnvh J� Nuofammt.mmry.wof�Demebkn'4 m� mea+8e=bi�e
ler.w.een��Y��w�enN.11su�od�ao� nwaeo.vbzd�!g�wvqro�taauem JmmweJlodeumluMm�mamH��m ' y.m=mese�dcmV'L�ee��.wm �P:�r4��/.m��
„�.umlw^4�v.�a�ee 'ib�s�o-�mil�nmhm�����•o0t i°' �io�+�4�vEmn¢ .JNmrelm6nuhaemivY��wmueam�Am� J
mmneNv�-�w re<a ormm . � �e��^�'�•�at,otm.�u�.Nc .e.xis�an<.v.av:aor.mm. sswu.tv�emnoa.a�lwvmi>nkrM.mwe
fa+m��.d�4elvt ItN�dvYd.m..v&ksubdinn�.moH..o�am..- lThWmPM'minu-0uCWmb.rtm.miemwP ��s !W� ��mbvseM'm0e4tm�dwuhmt.w � L�rk xNanun4w+woRavry
q.mvdewuc.nnwwwomos��� JPrcw.en•m..6v�KY+�owtruawm�vmei .r�dvsu �
vmm.laouar�.a*m��bDtud..Wrb�E tl�.dv�dd:... WtivFfud�utbn � l�rcoobd'vtLiomvaabalmudd'uWwofu mbkHlv.emWe�mita'��emauyvnNwpioN
Ja'h��r�nmeeRtll� vaW '¢m4Wm.rie¢Wa 6�.eeWbxmWumIGRF�w+bnYbYV�m¢ I�d��imLomwekvlwnn'nurwmm��uWomy. a�umWeh4uvimM'6lRke�4GM1vwrc
1Gv+u�4��md.mNdwYaiW..vrtdm➢fm '� .awvmamxbm� � ImmuvafmmueNamAToaa(wnbWlvb VWP��dowv.daiv. o
d��+�e bCmeaMmte mwmd�nalluwi�oeme. ��,,,S.remn���e4ddu¢vaWu�4xse�m. � � ��NNPA�uwmuu¢e.
uw� ,.m�.�,a,.s.e..msm. � � �v..ao�ms,+ee �Faa-m.<ae�a e�mse�m� . .
� wAivve+vd�wwwm J �LHmau.ulm.lnu'ma¢wawwi.d�mem �d�°+l�radma.�4� U„royraemwe'm .bbmlamMmm�w.oM1oaf�.mowco�oiox �S.wvW�w6.n.�e.rvwra�ot.ro.m.mwlG.
euchmMamv�mt6i.uw���eto � Juwrm.kema�rm�rcb�.wm.en�moPcama Jp�n•imkwmm.6o6.mce¢orr�umm.iu F�wadm.em�w.man�.m�aP'uwwaf�eu Wdw.
�i�+����'aW�Yd�vbeaevaWmblem mwNou.' w'm�M� tipoiLmamiLwuhemiv���vk. —�
dupvno(0�.'tl�uh�.iavxwc �m�l cl�m�wwnuubotl wmd�Nimm�mwal� JN «��s�miwi.IGSmweutr�CV�V�wv- ' JII••�•�r�•r•N����•°�
Wm�am.tm�mem4nm.U1" miN�awnl��� c W�d�Plo11a�4balE4sJw�Rhmw
Jlbnum5vdNmNh4+mmtlxe..q�b�m � mduYdtvAR�eb5rtu . '�amp.�m.. mri@au�1W+'m '�WrmdbuaGul4mmo-6�mtnu�n4pAVV�ot malmaNmvavh '�V��t�vneeF�mW
.�s . . 1G.v.wqwmaoNu�mmi�mwmMO twmtmrsm.�.�4�w�=mweMmpWe'm
v o.aysltNmmlaxAs �➢wucmWPmiatEvmNe611mdFn+�dmvn¢wW J9l6o���m�v[eeOeJumnY��WowhmuNeba �WeUWedNqoadofvtru6 ✓1Trym�olwrW dauEmNwnnoG
Junnb�.mwmaeeelc�e. lsawb .w � mof.orvWncSm..mtomv �.,yy �!
ee ee.dv+�cwk6rM.>ma. l�o-LdnWfivmWmviOJ�iPGmQab�ubmtm�l dcamnm�dv400� J�.d�mrn�Wo JChm�cdP�timppk�maWvmde5lpmidut JCdlmlmvmdP�odY4mq.l�miw+FsmdNs
JPc4mm1.<a��m��+J��+F*l'LomWoloFrir (du4m9.ee)O�wEus.�d%vax6mmlewa . m�meWlw�m1�6�1*6ilodelab+H1 vi�ma�PifacmuY.+edmvq�w�
�as��rwa�uy'isw� Jca�w.umwmei..e�c"M"m.�mm�I.nm �� .e�•s�.�twmaa.�v+rh�covwni� fm' mmma�.�ao(Qa�mauw�.
�He m,�.aeew,o�s��v. �u �•.s�• ��•c,e�..�aw��m.m�n� �o�n���m,w,.n),amcwma���. m,r�imk.��sw.,.n�eu� a .rmro�wo.r�..weae�b���.nm
aa.(�e�mww.�euw.�eoo�).,n� ,z�,�mw.',w�. .nnm.�vi.mre�wa..a+r �caw.ima��r,ewow=idrww�er�... ..dmervw�mmaw �wem�meameR�ca�asee;m.mmah ewa rw.,n��ee.<aanme�w�,mme
���=..m*.um.x.�ade..w,m..,m�.aa .�.,arae�nm+vr�ac=.��aocwm
�ua¢ra�n�++�.m,;w��m�m � �n��dam �u�tri.�,�wmr �a�wt ✓e�n.rm�.aomaw���weaa+o.wwm e�`mw�iw>w.a�amuKmaw�a m.�uu+r�eyaa„n,.
dmldo«v JDovdu�edLeddlmh5rioxrcJyoaQ,iqmmimW� WovmmMm��mavrz.mwbCav4rarSu .p^�)��ejmmE�aodd�.pwealh.miWY JDoeotbNaa�Y'4raWuM1vsuml.
,�wwm��dAnmtw4mm�d�b.ik�e�4 �Ned(mcLMyaod+d4�v'�brtmfbeao— lA�wiJc�mEog�iAeokokinC N•a��°eolWemw.ml'h�mQmdm�nWSe
tm+a.nwm.w.y•.w.�m�.mbmrm� ry��M. vpWl�nrw JWhmh=4Memo�+�zhwem kk .ntle �n�mv+�no-r+mrnt
VratlWexmuryd�k6adwmmot mYN�LaewdWm.�abuvmtbilor�mm6�.tiva ✓ md ➢ W P�� ^�ul'm�8iudidriva PooVPwvfa!¢SP+Niletm�ox
•Retl�R'mQu+litlt'�ooeloaai '�"�'^ll^e��w•�tDa.�wb�mw.aY d'WUP�b. cwN�otvis•s�n�.dFp'��Pwrssxm.zatv
�c����mNnuauMd�iwml � P'���u+. A�w6�.�rl�bh �wmWa .
Jdwo��orr�ie.mi.ml. awdr �ar�E leN�tmm�b�o+me••�mam��emmomweh �rtOLr�=�.me.mmUo[b.dn..mo.i.u.tleasa uay�=erNyerotem.....aa.:eay.w.n.
•• .�mndltlmi��+�.aeda . 6�weEoNNaNwowncwnstimSullb.auwW. JNLm
J�J�w�ximpp�p�b+WYme�� �bWm.�.11.���� JP �¢*mM�wmNvmldeuAvloa:wmtles5bval fmJmwm��VaYv aumofaemM'��RRM �^,� ��eWYmY.�+vl�maweJ ]tl.n13m�'k�..m blfLluSo.d:aWefutm
- dy.ra.n'erv�hwu�qwn . �d�m.4�,ar.-.. uwm.n�'d�e�me��owam5. eAe�bm.�bew�oaorssw- h�.mv��o+�o�mma
.4vaWm�..a.eotmauaemww..ivndin¢ � � , y,�m.od^n�. ,� �.o�minuea�mam.wmerm..�
wl +.��.'..+N4eYn.leVovmt�a�sl)Diil JNe�ahvedmnmwamelmn�PmekWtl4eih[+Y NmmbnYmFim6mWsvamw4dal p� oJm��el
Idbmoi4�b�edpivtD'epwa(mimllyiy ' ' vum bebdiwb�¢elbmemi
siierr� om�eor m��.rs w•�v�xe� ..Rv�."..�•
iwm�os.edea.. t��h�. ma. .�wclu.ua.m T� en nm x,r.� e.amml.ne�m'u>] M
�«R�let'/.�lSaFAMv.} � s �'m^�^Y.fanm.ue�uY�tauwaP'MawMn�w
�Cmyn�m�v�v� I��nd�M.Llrmn �uwSmM.uo
W�¢��n�t
w4�dovawNqnp - J➢avotmmyy.sbud»i��w-�awldP=MA
St:oim drain polluters may be liabie for fines of up to $25,000 per day� ';�°°w°°^��`°���'��`~��^~m° ��.�h1�m^m�°���;^°
..ndrcauk.im�be.=edv�ewd�rm�n'b^1` hi�m.dbu.....ian,matp�.m,.
— d�" Wticl. ,
CITY OF BURLINGAME
� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD i=,f'"'�'��=.':r��`±' c
BURLINGAME, CA 94010 } , ., �
�� f PH: (650} 558-7250 e FAX: (650) 696 3790 ' _
www.burlingame.org _.. - ` =
's`— _
Site: 2509 EAS�i6Fi PRIVE - _--
The City of �urlingame Planning Commission announces
the foflawi�g pu6lic f�earing o� TUESDAY, OCTOBER
1 i, 2Q11 a� 7a�� PelV�, in the City Hall Council
Cham6ers, 5�l Pri�nrage R��d, �urlingame, CA:
Application for Desig� Review and Special Permits for
attuched garage �nd deciining height envelope for a
new, fwo nnd one-half story single family dwelling and
attached garage at 2�09 EASTQN DRIVE zoned R-l.
APN 027-195-�60
Mailed: Sepfember 36, 201 T
(Please refer to other side)
'` ,'���;
� `-' ` `'r —
� _ = . _ :�.
PIJBLIC FIEARIVYG
NOi10E
�itv of Burlingame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
ihe meeting at the Community Qevelopment Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject applicafion(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this noti.ce.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
Wiiliam Meeker
Community Development Director
PIJ�LtC ME�►RING P�O7'IC�
(Please refer to other side)