HomeMy WebLinkAbout1555 Cypress Avenue - Staff ReportItem # �
Consent Calendar
,. ,�Y
,__ � w
-- . _ :-� �� �;
!s- � �e'y
. _ -i4tnt�.�rl1'�" �. . _. .. . . . 'wr.�� u.'��.Aial.� 4�^"MR�ZY
PROJECT LOCATION
1555 Cypress Avenue
Item #
Consent Calendar
City of Burlingame
Design Review for a New Single Family Dwelling
Address: 1555 Cypress Avenue
Meeting Date: 07/9/O1
Request: Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1555 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S.
25.28.040)
Property Owner: J. Kurt Steil
Applicant/Designer: James Chu, Chu Design & Eng., Inc.
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Date Submitted: Apri125, 2001
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section:
APN: 028-301-190
Lot Area: 6,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited
numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the
building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or
converted under this exemption.
Summary: The applicant is requesting design review to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling and
detached accessory structure and construct a new two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 1555
Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1. The proposed house would have a total floor area of 3,446 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,458
SF (0.56 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There would be two covered parking spaces provided for this five bedroom
house in the detached garage (20'-8" X 20'-8") located at the rear of the lot.
CURRENT PROPOSAL PREVIOUS ALLOWED/REQ'D
(6/15/O1) PROPOSAL
(5/3/O1)
SETBACKS
Front: Ist flr 20'-0" 20'-0" 15'-0" or block average
2nd.�r 20'-0" 31'-0" (18'-1")
20'-0"
Side (left): 6'-0" 5'-6" 5'-0"
Side (right): 11'-0" 10'-0" 5'-0"
Rear: Ist flr 34'-0" 36'-8" 15'-0"
2nd flr 49'-2" 36'-8" 20'-0"
LOT COVERAGE: 36.8% (2,256 SF) 35.5% (2,178 SF) 40% (2,448 SF)
FAR: 3,446 SF/ 0.56 FAR 3,378 SF/ 0.55 FAR 3,458 SF/ 0.56 FAR
PARKING: 2 covered (20'-8" x 20'-8") 2 covered 2 covered (20'-0" x 20'-0")
+ 1 uncovered (20'-8" X 20'-8") + 1 uncovered
+ 1 uncovered
Design Review I555 C}press Avemie
CURRENT PROPOSAL PREVIOUS ALLOWED/REQ'D
(6/15/O1) PROPOSAL
(5/3/O1)
HEIGHT: 3 0' 3 4' -4"'
Special Permit for height (34'-4" 2'/z stories 30' whichever
proposed where 30'-0" is the 1S IeSS
maximum allowed)
DH ENVELOPE: Meets requirement Meets requirement See code
Staff Comments: See attached.
May 25, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: : On June 25, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed this project
for design review (see attached 6/25/O1 Planning Commission minutes) for the second time. The initial review of
the project was at the May 14, 2001 study meeting. The comments from that meeting are detailed below. The main
issue of concern to the Planning Commission at that meeting was the height of the building and concern that the
character of the proposed structure would not fit into the neighborhood. The applicant revised the plans to address
those concerns by changing the design from a Tudor style to a craftsman style and reducing the height to 30'-0".
There were four neighbors who spoke at the June 25"' meeting with concern about the removal of three trees on the
subject property and felt that the height should be reduced fiirther. The Commission commented that the new design
fits the neighborhood. The Commission requested staff to research and report back on the tree removal issue.
May 14, 2001 Design Review Study Meeting: On May 14, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed this project
for design review and a special permit for height (see attached 5/14/Ol Planning Commission minutes). There were
three neighbors who spoke at the hearing with concerns about the height and the character of the proposed design.
Concerns expressed by the Planning Commission included the following:
• A lot of mass in this design, concerned with building fitting into the neighborhood, neighborhood compatibility;
• Redesign the building to a style which is more compatible with the neighborhood, such as arts and crafts style
• Redesign should include a larger porch; and
• Height should comply with the 30' height limit in order to blend in with existing structures.
The Planning Commission requested that this item come back to the design review study calendar when the project
has be redesigned.
Current Project Revisions (May 15, 2001 plans): After the May 14, 2001, Planning Commission design
review study meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped May 15, 2001). The following
revisions were made:
• Proposed building has be redesigned, and is no longer a Tudor style;
• Height has been reduced to 30' therefore the request for a special permit for height has been eliminated; and
• Finished floor is lowered slightly from 45.5 feet to 45.17 feet.
Tree Removal: The applicant applied for the removal of two trees on the subject property: a 22.7"circumferance
Monterey pine tree in the front yard and a 39.9"circumference poplar tree in the back yard. An arborist report was
submitted with the tree removal application. On February 2, 2001 the City Arborist issued a letter of intent to issue
a tree removal permit for both trees because both trees had serious non-correctable structural defects with co-
dominant stems and the poplar tree had heart rot decay in trunlc. As required by the Municipal Code notice of the
2
Design Review I555 Cypress Avenue
intent to issue the tree removal permit was mailed to eight surrounding property owners. No appeals were filed by
those receiving notice and the tree removal permit was issued on February 14, 2001 with the condition that two 24-
inch box trees be planted as replacements, as required under the City's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection
Ordinance. In order to be deemed complete, the installed replacement trees must be inspected by the City Arborist.
This permit has not been completed and expires August 14, 2001, by which time the replacement trees must be
planted. The permit holder is entitled to request an extension. Each extension is for six months.
The third tree that was removed was a pine tree, with a circumference of approximately 54", on the east side property
line of 1561 Cypress Avenue. The tree was located on the property line shared with 1555 Cypress Avenue. The
property owners of 1561 Cypress Avenue, Peter Lundquist and Laurelle Gutierrez-Lundquist, applied for the tree
removal permit . On October 20, 2000 the City Arborist issued a letter of intent to issue a tree removal permit for
the pine tree due to the root mass causing significant property damage to the foundation of the home located at 1561
Cypress Avenue as well as to the surrounding hardscape and the damage caused to the driveway at 1555 Cypress
Avenue. Notice of the intent to issue a tree removal permit was mailed to five surrounding property owners. No
appeals were filed and the tree removal permit was issued on November 1, 2000 with a condition that one 24-inch
box tree be planted as a replacement, as required by the City's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance.
The replaced tree has been planted and the permit was deemed complete by the City Arborist on May 3, 2001. Both
permits and notices are attached for your reference.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
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;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's June 25, 2001, design
review study meeting, the new design is smaller with more articulation on each elevations, the Craftsman style fits
the character of the neighborhood and is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design
review guidelines.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should
be made by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. 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 Department date stamped June
15, 2001, Sheets A.1 through A.6 and L-1, site plan, floor plans and building elevations;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a
dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
3
Design Review
/555 Cypress Avenue
that the conditions of Fire Marshal's Apri125, 2001 memo and the City Engineer's, Recycling Specialist's
and Chief Building Official's Apri130, 2001 memos and shall be met; and
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame.
Catherine Keylon
Planner
cc: James Chu, applicant/designer
, �l��I���M�
.�
�� _ � o �
, . � ,.
�'�AT[D JVM[�
0
TREE CTIY USA
PARKS & RECRE.�TION DEPART�'�IENT
850 BURLING.4ILIE A ifENL'E �
BURLINGA11�lE, CA 94010
(6�0) 5�8-7330
The undersigned owner of the property at:
ADDRESS: /SSS C'y/�JZ,�,lj
(print or type)
hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 .of the crown or roots of the following
protected tree(s):
SPECIES /'vP�-�IL � MDN�rE2�y P�N,� CIRCLTMFERENCE .3�1 � `I �� ,+��p(,a-i�. Z�, 7 �
� aivTE� ZF`1
�4 i rY �
LOCATION ON PROPERTY P/fr� lj �o�,� �,,�d ) ��P�� •' �f� A�Ic ��� p�
WORK TO BE PERFORMED 2,Eh�0 V.�
REaSON WORK IS NECESS�RY S�� /k�f�fC/-f,Ed �,C,QOx�
(please use back of form for additional comments)
NOTE: A PHOTOGRA.PH OWNER �U�� S�/ L
OF THE TREE(S) MLTST BE �D�ss _y�r 1� p2�w,/�c�1,E. u�tclrJ�qrvj,� C,�} 4yar
SUBNIITTED WITH THIS
APPLICATION PHONE ( GSa ) yoo —S�ZQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER�'�IIT
This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) �
pro��isions of the Urban R�forestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal
B�� si7ning this permit, the app(icant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter
comply wlth its provisions and all condirions listed below; and at alJ� p ais
resoi��ed. �� / /1���
OWNER
CONDITIONS: ���
--------------------
C ITY RE
24 - znch box size tree(s) required if conditions are not met tivitfein the
allotted tinee as specified in S'ection 11.06. 080, payneent of $-J00 for euc%
tree i�:to the tree replaceneent fund will be reyuired.
N� replacement(s) required Contact t/ie Parks Diti�ision at (650) 5�8-73.i0
�vf:e�� remova!(s) cvmpleted
DATE PERMIT EFFECTNE �<<i � PERMIT EXPIRES� ��� ��
in accordance with the
Code Chapter 11.06).
11.06, and agrees to
have eYpired or been
A copy of this permit ncust be available at the job site
at ul! times wlee�t fvork is being perfor»�ed
�' IV�ayne Tree Expert Company
�
, ESTABLISHED 193t
'"�' =— 535 BRAGATO ROAp, SUITc A S.i��l CARLOS, CA 9a070
�.• i, � TE�: (650� 593-4400 FAX: (650) 593-4413
E-�b1AIL: info yma�ne;ree.com
COMPLETE TREE CARE: Pruning
RICHARDL.HUNTINGTON Pest Controi Cabling
PRESIDENT STATE LICENSED:
Contraccor's License .a276793
Certified Arborist b'iC 0119 Pest Control Advisor �06894
/ Pes; �ontrol Bus Lic. �0106t-COOCG
CUENT �h �u�/ (`�,z,
JOB SITE �' ��- �
PROJECT
BILLING ADDRESS_ y(ki %�r,,�, ,,,,,r-�
CITY
DATE ��� �` C" (.� CONSULTANT• R N k� ���
MEMBER NAiIQNA�
ARBORIST
ASSOC 1 A Tlp,y
Consultations
KEVIN R. KEILTY
Cerified Arborist b+/C Ca?6
KENNETH D. MEYER
CeRi!ied Arborist b'/C O102
Consulta;ion Fee S
y changes or additio`ns to the above work may change the cost of the estimate. `
� the responsibility of the property o�Nrer to c!early mark all underground utilities including irrigation systems, and to advise the b1ayne Tree Expert Company of
;h locations. The ��iayne Tree Exper, Company will not be responsible for damage to utilities unless the above conditions have been satisfied:
—FiMS: Payable in lull upon receipt of invoice. Service charge of 1-1/2% per month on all accounts over 30 days. Minimum monthly service charge 52.00.
= EPTED BY
TEL
CONTACT
TEL—
DATE
_'� IVti'ayne Tree Expert Com an
. � ., ., p Y
ESTABLISHED 193t
� 9�• = 535 6R.�GaTO ROAD. SUITE A SAN CARLOS. CA 9a0�0
': � , � TcL: (6�0) 593-4400 FAX: (650) 593-4113
E-M�,IL: info�ma�netree.ccm
COMPLETE TREE CARE: Pruning Pest Control Cabling
RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON STATE LICENSED:
PRcSIDENT Contraccor's License �276793
C2Rified Arbonst WC 0119 Pest CocVol Ad�nscr �C6gg4
P�s: Cortrol Bus L c. �01061-OCOCO
CUENT
JOB SITE
PROJECT
BILLING ADDRESS
CITY
DATE CONSULTANT: R H, K K, K PJt
u-,,,.,
_��,� /
�
1 [ '� ��' �(
� �
/'� ,!`-,� �--� (` _ ,� r.r �"� �i �,
� � � %� %- % cy �-
.� , _ � � ��. i
TEL
CONTACT
TEL _
ZIP
� —
/ C�
� 1.�, �� :- .r� �..,,„ ;�,.
MEMBEA HATIONAL
ARBORIST
A S S O C I A T I O N
Consultatior
KEVIN R. KEILTY
Cerified Arbonst V'JC Oa7g
KENNETH D. MEYEF7
Cer,ified Arbonst WC 0162
Consultation Fee S
HOURS
�
A��,10UNT
Any cnanges or additions to the above work may change the cost of the estimate.
It is the responsibility of the property owner ro clearly mark all ur,derground utilities including irrigation systems, and to advise the Mayne Tree Expert Company of
such locations. The tilayne Tree Expert Company will not be responsible for damage to utilities unless the above conditions have been satisfied.
TERhiS: Payable in full upon receipt of invoice. Service charge of 1-1/2�a per month on all accounts over 30 days. Minimum monthly service charge 52.00.
ACCEPTED BY
DATE
.R ��.,c: • -. ^. , fp.:,�r
�Y _, . . ' :
�.�.. " .: �
"',}* t r+L�� .`' ,.!4
� .�i• � . ��` ''C
� • ' +'}��:'!i� t ' �`�"'
� x s �t i�
- •.;�"',.i:a: ke. .��r,` �
. � ,T— � �?'�!,� �+i�
���� � ��; -�'n:.i '`'�.
'± ^��� �yi .
� � �r
a
�
' �. '' � : � t ; �' ,.� .� M' '� '
�, �� �
" � . �-
ti
�i � ��. k �
I
9t� ���
��
t:, � 1,.
c�. r . i �: �,;,� � R. :
�:: � � � .3. e. ' � • . ' ` .,
sz '
� � ;��
;4 ,
.�
: ; �, �/ '
�? t � ,
�� , �
� .:-r�-
� r .
� ♦
, =r.
M�. ,, . ._ . . .
. f, f .
'� f '`, ,� ' ` � . .
. . . ., _ � r �-.
,+M� .. � �. '� ' �," �r
,,.,,�.;. .�y � �� .
- "�>� . ,� �;:.,,,rw ,
�
�. r
�
/� C�T� O
� <�_\
I 6 U R L I N G A M[
I -_�-
���r ,
CIT1' OF BL�RI.I\Ga:�1E
P.-�RKS �C RECRE.aTIO\ DEP.�RT'�II:\T
��I) I�UI IIII;:llll�' :�\�IIUI�. [3urlin�_ain�. C.ilil�irnia ���{llO-��'��;
���'i.��hci�l�� I(i�Oi �i\—�,;iii� • I'.ul.� I'r��� Ih��ii �i�_- :�,
f':L\ 1���11)(l�)(�-���(� • f:-Ill�;ii. '�III�I'�'Cl'i.:i:�.l't)Ill
,a� � �
.�
=,� �
� i T�^ ,
�
-- -- � �
Fcbruar� 2. 2001
Kurt Steil
-LOl K Primrose Road (1��� C��press ���enue)
Burlingame, C.-� 94U 10
RE: REnL'EST FOR REMOV.�I OF ONE POPI�IR & ONE PI.'�'E TREE 'a
1 �� � C�PRESS .-� VENUE - B URLINGAME
1 re� ie�ti ed vour request for the remo� al of a Poplar tree and a Pine tree. in the front � ard of the house at
the above address. and ha� e made the follo«�ing determination:
1) Both trees have serious non-correctable structural defects �iith codominant stems.
2) The Poplar tree has heart rot deca� in the trunl:.
�) Replacement �tith two 24-inch box size trees ���ill be required as defined in Section
1 1.06.090 of the Ui�ban Refnrestatioj� and Ti-ee Protection Ordinartce.
Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the remo� al of the tree subject to the pro� isions of the Burlingam�
Municipal Code. If you agree with the conditions, p[ease sian the enclosed permit and return in the self
uddressed eni�elope BEFORE February 1-1, 2001.
If ��ou �i-ish to appeal this decision or am of its conditions or findings, �ou must file a���ritten request b�
Februarti� 1=�, 2001 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urhan Reforestation and Tree Protection
Ordinance (Biu�lin,�ame Municipal C'ode Chnpter 11.Oh). The permit ��ill be issued if no appeal has been
recei��ed b�� that date.
Sincereh _
���r—C.
Ste� �n Porter
Cit� .�rbonst - ([S_� #WC-�073)
S P/l:h •
Enclosure
0
�, ��r� o\ CITY OF I3URLItiGA��IE ��a����, �I
`��`, 1 P:�RI�S �� RECRE:�TIO� DEP:aKT:�I��;T ,, � ,
�BU RLINGA M EI -����.
:�]��� `c��fiurlin;�:in���.\��nu�•.Burlin��;ii»�.��,ilif��rnia�l.1OiO-_'����� L �
I�����Q�I �:,�Il�li�lll' IL�I)I �.l\__,,��� • • f�:li�{�� TI���� ((��I�) ���-.. �I) •��� �ii
Fa� i(,�r1�(,�1�,-,�Il; f:-niail: hurir�<<<�:i,�l.���n� � i'
February 2, 2001
Barto, Jr. & Ruth Price
15� 1 Cypress Avenue
Burlingame, C:A 94010
RE: REOUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE POPLAR & ONE PI.'VE TREE r
1 ��� CY"PRESS A VE,'VL� - BURLI.NG.�ME
The owner of the propert�- at the above address has applied for a permit to remove a Poplar tree and a
Pine tree in the front yard of the house at the above property. Based on the following facts, I intend to
issue a permit for the removal:
1) Both trees ha�e serious non-correctable structural defects «-ith codominant stems.
2) The Poplar tree has heart r.ot decav in the trunl:.
3) Replacement «ith two 2�-inch box size trees �ti-ill be required as defined in Section
11.06.090 of the Urban Refor•estation and Ti•ee Protection Ordinance.
If you wislz to uppeal this decision or any of its conditions or findings, you must file a written request
by February l,i, 3001 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestatioit and Tree
Protection Ordinarzce (Burlingarrze 111unicipal Code Clzapter 11.06). The permit will be issued if no
appeal has been received by that date.
Sincerel_y,
s--�—�
Steven Porter
City Arborist - (ISA #WC-3073)
S P/l:h
Enclosure
� ciry
���
I' IB�Uf7LINGAME
� I� ���.
.� --
,,,�c ... . ee ,.
—;� �
Februar� ?_ 2001
CITI" ()F I3L�RLI'�G_a�1E �:u�f�
ti��` '�
P.aRtiS & RECRE.aTION DEPAR"1'�-IE�iT ��;
�l�) �Uf�lll`'[Illl� .�\�'I;Ut'. E3UI�II1`'.II11�. � �t�l���l'III.I �)�OIO-�ti�1�) �� '�
T�I���h��n� l(i��(li ���_-.;O(I • P:U�{.�;'�T����.� I(i�l)1 `�\--_;,;(i '�'�z:-
" ' �
F,i� I(��OI (�''(�--� I(� • �:-n�i,�il: hui�I����C� ,iul.���il�
��'illiam 5ullivan
GO Maureen Spencer
903 E. Santa Paula St.
Santa Paula, C:� 93060
RE: REOL'EST FOR RE.'I�IOV'<�L OF ONE POPI.AR & ONE PINE TREE r"a.
1»� CYPRES.S A VE:VL'E - BURLI.�VGAME
The own�r of the property at the above address has applied for a permit to remove a Poplar tree and a
Pine tree in the front yard of the house at the above property. Based on the following facts, I intend to
issue a permit for the removal:
1) Both trees have serious non-correctable structural defects �� ith codominant stems.
�) The Poplar tree has heart rot deca� in the trunk.
=) Replacement �tiith ttiro �-�-inch bos size trees ��ill be required as defined in Section
1 1.06.090 of the Urhan Reforestation and T�-ee Pi•otection Ordinance.
If ti�ou wish to appeal this decision or anl� of its conditions or filllllit�S, you must file a written request
b1' Februar3� 1-1, 3001 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urhan Reforestuiion a►id Tree
Protection Ordinance (Burlingame M�uzicipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued if no
appeal has been received by that date.
Sincerel��.
�i� ���—.
Steven Porter
Ciry Arborist - (ISA TWC-3073)
S P/kh
:
Enclosure
j� �� ��r� o� CITY OF BURLI:��G.a1�IE ����
,.Q ' -P
'.; ;B�R�-�=E PARkS �1 RECRE�aTION DEPART1�IEi�1T �:,
;i '-�'�— I \�O BLII'IIII�'�in�c:\��nuc. f3urlin�_:in�r. C��iliturni;i �?�ulO-���1�1 'y��
� i • — - :�
�i '��:��,,;� Tcl�•��h��n�• i(��f)i ���--�U(i • Nurl.� l_r�c� i(��(�� „ti=_;_;(1 ;'��:
-- Fa� I(»111(��)(,-�'�Il, • I.-nluil: hurlr��C<<<,�,I.�c�n� �
February 2, 2001
Peter & Rebecca Gong
15>2 Cypress Avenue.
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: REQ UEST FOR REMO VAL OF ONE POPI_AR & ONE PINE TREE (a
1 � � � CYPRESS .A VE:'V�'E - B URLING.AME
The owner of the propert_y at the above address nas applied for a permit to remove a Poplar tree and a
Piiie tree in the front yard of the house at the above property. Based on the follow�ing facts, I intend to
issue a pernut for the removal:
1) Both trees have senous non-correctable structural defects «�ith codominant stems.
2) The Poplar tree has heart rot deca�� in the trunk.
�) Replacement «�ith two 2-�-inch box size trees ���ill be required as defined in Section
1 1.06.090 of the t�'rban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance.
If you wish to appeal t/iis decision or any of �ts co�td�t�o�ts orf�td�nas, you mustfile a writteiz request
b}� February ]-1, 2001 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestution and Tree
Protection Ordinance (Burliitgume 117unicipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued if no
appeal has been received by that date.
Sincerelv,
, f /��
Steven Porter
City Arbonst - (ISA �WC-3073)
SP�:h
Enclosure
' ,�, ��r� � CITY OF BliRLINGAI�IE �U��.r,�
� ����.
' �� � P�RkS & RECREATIOiV DEPART:�IE�V"T ��� ��
, ��B U R L I N G A M E \\:`�r�.
; �' �—��; � ti�(1 13urlin��<<m��:�>�cnu�. f3urlin_�an��. C;iliiurni,i �)�OIO-�ti�)�) � �
� T
; <tia��-�; T�I���h��n� I(»UI �iti-7�U1) • Ptu�h� r Trcc� I(��i)� �;�-, ;;U '�" �
, (=ci� lh�Oi!,�l(,-,�!(, • f:-niail: hurlr�rc�r:iul.�un�
Februar�• 2, 2001
William Bohlken
1556 C��press Avenue
Burlingame, C� 94010
RE: REO UEST FOR RE1110 V;4L OF ONE POPL,IR & ONE PI1VE TREE (a
1 ��� CYPRESS A VENUE - B URLING.AME
1fie owner of the property at the above address has applied for a permit to remove a Poplar tree and a
Pine tree in the front yard of the house at the above properry. Based on the follow�ng facts, I intend to
issue a permit for the removal:
1) Both trees have senous non-correctable structural defects �vith codominant stems.
�) The Poplar tree has heart rot decav in the trunk.
�) Replacement „ith two 24-inch box size trees «-ill be required as defined in Section
11.06.090 of the Ui-bnn Refa-estation and Tree Protection Ordinance.
If you wisli to appea[ t{zis decision or any ojits conditions or findings, yoit must file u written request
by February 1-1, 2001 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the lirban Reforestation and Tree
Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued if no
appeal has been received by that date.
Sincerel��,
�o---�—
v
Steven Porter
Ciry Arborist - (IS.� #WC-3073)
S P!kh
Enclosure
i�, ��o. CIT�' OF BURI.INGAI�IE Y��& I��
"'�—� P.�RItS � REC.'REA"I'ION DEP.�RT�IE:vT _ ��� �
B U R L 1 N G A M E ^
, i—��-'�; '�, ��(1 l�urlin_,in�� .-��cnur. 13urlin��an�c. C:ilil�„rni,i �)-lUlll-���)�l = �
:L:
`"�,, � ��������1�inC i(»OI �i\-'.;l)U • f�ar�.�. i TI"C�'. i(�iO) ���- �.;U ^?'�y,�� ��
F,�� i(,�(h (,Vl,-; � I(, • l:-n�.iil: h.irlr�� <<, ,��;I.��,n� �
Februarti�', 2001
Pravin Patel
1 �60 Barroilhet Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: REOUEST FOR REMOV,�L OF ONE POPLAR & ONE PI.�VE 77ZEE �a'.
1 � � � CYPRESS .A VENUE - BURLINGAME
The o�mer of the property at the above address has applied for a permit to remove a Poplar tree and a
Pine tree in the front yard of the house at the above property. Based on the following facts, I intend to
issue a permit for the removal:
I) Both trees have senous non-correctable structural defects ���ith codominant stems.
?) The Poplar tree has heart rot decay in the trunl:.
�) Replacement ���ith two 2�-inch box size trees �till be required as defined in Section
1 I.06.090 of the tirban Reforestation and "lree Protecnon Ordinance.
I,jyou wislt to appeal t{:is decision ur any of its conditions orfindings, you mustfile a written reguest
b�� February l,t, 3001 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation a�td Tree
Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued if no
appeal has been received by that date.
Sincerel��,
— ��
Steven Porter
Ciri• Arborist - (IS.� rWC-30T)
S P,�l:h
Enclosur2
�. ��r� o CITS' OF BL�RLI\G:11�TE ���� �;
� P�RIe� �� �2E('REA1'ION DEP.-�RT1�1E:��' �'` � I�
��� t �
���BURLINGAMEI .=�... �I
—���� , A�I) �iLIl��lil,;llll� .�\CIIUc'. �3UI'llil�_':1111�. � ,tii�ulllGl �1�1)��)-���)�) � I�
��T �
�c , o"�� ��������1nI1C I(i`fli ii�_?i11O •• f�;ll'��; �I'�C� Ih`Ili �i�-;,;;Il � � II
�
f-;i� �i,�i11r,�1(,-i�IC, �.-nlail: i�urlr���r�.;,�1.���nl ��
--------- -- ----------- --- — —� I
Februan� 2, 200 ]
Re�ina Dore
1550 Barroilhet _�venue
Burlin�ame, CA 94010
RE: REQUEST FOR RE,'YIOV,�L OF ONE POPI�IR & ONE PI;tiE TREE �a
1»� CYPRESS A VENUE - B URLINGAME
The owner of the property at the above address has applied for a permit to remove a Poplur tree and a
Pine tree in the front yard of the house at the above propertv. Based on the following facts, I intend to
issue a permit for the removal:
1) Both trees have serious non-correctable structural defects �� ith codominant stems.
�' ) The Poplar tree has heart rot decav in the trunk.
�) Replacement «�ith nt�o 2-�-inch bo� size trees ���ill be required as defined in Section
1 1.06.090 of the �,'�•ban Refoi•estation and Ti�ee Pi•otection Orc�innnce.
Ifyou wis/i to uppeul this decision nr any of its conditions orfindings, you must file a written request
b}� Februar3• 1-1, ?001 as proi�ided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree
Protectioft Ordii:ance (Burlingame Mrcnicipal Code Chapter I1.Ofi). The permit will be issued if no
appeal has been received by that date.
Sincerel��.
�,,� _ �
Ste� en Porter
Citv .-�rborist - (IS.� �WC-307>)
S P;1:h
Enclosure
��. ��T� o\ CIT1' OF I3L'RLI:�G.�:�IE �����
fBURL-��M1 PARItS & R�:CRE.-�TI()'�i DEPaRT:��IE��T �� � w
, �—_ � ��M1.
; ti�(i I;u;lin��an�� .\��nuc. !=,��nlin�_ani�. Culi���rnia ��-�illi)_�����) ;
, �
:,ti� �_ � �---,-� ��I::�l�lull�' i(i,l(li l��-;.;U�� • ��;ll'i��l Tl���'�(�i�lli ii\_7;;1) �'k� �L
` J� , /\
�';lA I i»(I1 h'�I(i- ���(� {.-Ill;ll�: ��lil'�I'�Cl« .ii��.�(�Ill
February 2, 2001
James & Clare E��ans
1548 Banoilhet .�venue
Burlingame, C� 94010
RE: REO UEST FOR REMI� �AL OF ONE POPLAR & ONE PI.'�'E TREE �a.
1.5�� CYPRESS.� VENUE - BURLI.�VG.-�ME
The owner of the propern� at the above address has applied for a permit to remove a Poplur tree and a
Pine tree in the front yard of the house at the above propertv. Based on the following facts, I intend to
issue a permit for the removal:
1) Both trees have serious non-correctable structural defects ���ith codominant stems.
2) The Poplar tree has heart rot deca�� in the trunk.
3) Replacement �z-ith tu-o 2�-inch box size trees ��ill be required as defined in Section
1 1.06.090 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance.
If3�ou ivisli to appeal this decision or any of i1s conditions nrfindings, yott mustfile a written request
hi' Februarti� 1,1, ?001 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of tlie Urhan Reforestatioft and Tree
Protection Ordinance (Burlingame :'l7unicipa/ Code Clzapter 11.06). The permit will be issued if no
appeal has been received b�� that date.
Sincerely,
��i �-- �
Steven Porter
Cit}� .�rbonst - (IS � �V�'C-3073)
S Pi�;h
Enclosure
;� � �: ��T� � CIT1� OF BC�RLItiG.�:�IE ,+i�P��&�
� iBURL���E� P.aRhS & RECRE.aTION DEP.�RI'�-IE:�T �
I; ; i���� \. (I huilin�_,imc:\��nu�. 6uilin��,iinc. (�,ililc�rni�i �)-�UI(1-'\�)�) =�^
;�
���---� �C�C�llli�lll' I�l�l) ��1_� i���) • • � � � � l ll .c: �vrr
a.�_ I I.if� ,'�TI���' i(i. (11 A-�,;;(i �.
F::�. �f,�(I1�,�)h-��Il, f:-niail_ hurlrr�(�-:iul.���n'i �
February 2, 2001
James & C.J. Thomson TRS
1556 Carol Avenue
Burlingame, C.a 94010
RE: RE(l UEST FOR REIVIOVAL OF ONE POPI�IR & ONE PINE TREE ru.
1 � 55 CYPRESS A VE.'V LIE - B LRLI.'VGAME
The owner of the propert_y at the above address has applied for a permit to remove a Poplar tree and a
Pine tree in the front yard of the house at the above properry. Based on the following facts, I intend to
issue a permit for the removal:
1) Both trees have serious non-correctable structural defects ��ith codominant stems.
2) The Poplar tree has heart rot decav in the trunk.
3) Replacement �t-ith tx�o •24-inch bo� size trees ��-ill be required as defined in Section
1 1.06.090 of the Urban Refoi-estatinn and 7'ree P�•otection Ordinance.
1_ f1'ou wish to uppea! this decision or an3� of its conditions or ftndings, you must file a written request
h3� February 1�, 2001 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Refnrestation and Tree
Protection Ordinance (Burlinganze Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued if no
appeal has been received bv that date.
Sincerely,
���_—�-
Steven Porter
Cit_y Arborist - (ISA #WC-3073)
S P/kh
Enclosure
CITY OF BURLINGANIE
PARk.S & RECREATION DEPAF
S�0 Burlin��ame .-�venue. Burlin�,ame. C�lif�rnia 9
Telephc�ne (650� ��S- % �00 • Parks / Tre�s (6j0
Fux lG�0J696-'�l(i • E-mail: hurlre::(�a�
:�pril 11, 2001
Peter Lundquist &
Laurelle Guitierrez-Lundquist
1 �61 Cypress :�venue
Burlinaame, CA 94010
J �'� � cy��z��s
,
�- �
� � �`� c � ci2 � 6? ''�
`� ,
�C' `a' S l� �G E �( �c ,t� it.c,��j �
.- �\ f
` -- -.__�_--_�
� ��. S �� cct�E � s /3 a
�
�_(� �
RE: REPLACE:�IE�T OF OivE REDWOOD TREE � i� 1>61 C��'RESS .�����,`L� -
BURLI:v G.�.� y
The tree removal permit issued on November 1, 2001 expires on May 1, 2001. Please inform
us of the location of the one 24-inch box size replacement tree so that we can schedule an
inspection.
If you have any questions, contact the Parks Division at ��5-7330.
Sincerely,
�
t.
Steven Porter
Cit�� :�rbonst - (ISA 7WC-3073)
��4�
11 L L 1 L11 111LL 1lLlIlU d t-�,L
PERMIT APPLICATION
BURLINGAME
' P4Rh'S & RECREATION DEPART1tilENT
,•° 850 BURLINGA1�tE A irENUE
Ju"` •� � B URLING.4ME, CA 94010
(6�0) ��8-7330
The undersigned o��-ner of the property at:
0
TREE CITY L'S:�
.aDD�ss: i5�1 cYPr�E�s A�v�rvu,E �u.t�.�ir�U �tc
(print or ripe)
hereb�� applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the crow�n or roots of the follo�vin�
protected tree(s):
SPECIES __ R ED�Vp� CIRCL�iFER.ENCE ± 2O'
LOC:�TION ON PROPERTY �►J FRvPE�2.TY LIIJE v�� ►55,5 CY►� SS A�VEiJ(,�.0
WORk TO BE PERFORvtED T"►z�� ��Mp f�
RE.�SON WORK IS NECESS�RY _D�MA�[�E To Fo�l tJD�TIo��� 156 I CYPt2��
(please use back of form for addirional comments)
�ET�- Lu�DQu►sT
NOTE: A PHOTOGR�PI� Ow�iER �-Atic.rt��.t.E G t-iT►�c i2.YZEZ -►�1DQucs�
OF THE TREE(S) MUST BE I5� � CYPf'ZEss A�/�N��
SLBMITTED WITH THIS �DRESS
APPLICATION PHONE ( 65 0 � 5-TG - 4 55 �,
( �t�s� q55- �BCv —�j
------------------------------------ o v E�
PERIVIIT
This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s j in accordance wzth tile
pro��isions of the Urban Reforestarion and Tree Protecrion Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 1 i.06).
B�� si;ning this permit, the applicant acicno�vledges receipt of a cop�• of Chapter 1 1.06, and a�re�s to
�-r
cnmpt�, �,�-�th its previsieas and ail ccndi�ions iisted beiow; an that �1 �,p eals ha��e e.� ue r bee
resoi�•ed. _ .' . ,., .%D_ S%f-� � �-f� .. �. „ �
OWNE
CITY REPRESE:��I'ATNE
CO:��ITIONS: �
��.—�
24 - inch box si„e tree(s) required if conditions are not met witlein the
allotted time us specified in Seciion 11. 06. 080, payment of S-l00 for each
tree into the tree replacement fund will be required.
1V� replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Diti�ision r�1 (6�0) 5�8-7330
when removal(s) completed
DATE PERMIT EFFECTNE �� �� PERMIT EXPIRES
�� � o �
A copy of this permit n:ust be available a1 the job site
a1 a!! times when tivork is being perfornced
� -. . :} .
•' . �4 ,' +� _
._ „ ..;� . :�,�
� r: � _ .�.: :
�► ;,� �,_ w �, �
i. +. �\�_ `aR' �� ��� �
� '� . `� � . .
� r '
�. .�'��`• � .�-; -
,�r _ '�• � •,
♦ � .� :�. , ���� ;t* �' •
t �� � � r� •�, t� � '
� . V, � ^� � � .� ! }
, �y r"s �' �_w3,�''�y ` •+.� , .
z
' � �� s�y,'' � � ,
.
. .;,�: �, a, ti ' ' � :
a x�.y3
,� • � � .;. -�. �� ��
. .
'' , ' � �;,��
s♦ .1 rt
/.r ' , Y � '1 �Y
a � ; �o►�
r -}�7� �• (,-' • • A�� R 1Ra •
� a�
. �� �
. ` ,�
.
1 t �
' �� ••,•�' T �� F
.' ' ,
� r ��;� �� �� , j►'3t
.
� , � � a1;`
�'�',�"w ..1
.,� . y. � `
0
�� '�► •. � � � ,h
Y ` �
�i �� �,i . ' , � �'��� ,
� { �. � , �. �i� • �.:�� � .
'�'�► . � ,; �i , � �� s
�.'1��+. .r,,.�•���..,_ :'
1.,• v'„,4^ i�!"�?.,,.� � • .. �w�: .� r�
*��.�� .: .,.�. ��
�.��,� , �'
�a,'!' �. , �. , - .,
t �:. . . ;� t�� _ „
•� �.
.�,,�' �' . "'� �� �,�,, ' � i.:
, r�
; •, '�.� ��. � . _M� �:.
� iIl" • t �� ! � �s:.
M
�;► ; - .
� � <..; � ^ �A''; � .'� . x •
. ,, -. ; -
, �, �, ' -��,a � t �r e `
.�... ;=� ,
� ��-�t � __ ,. .
�' �i'�j�i,+ ' ,r. ��. S,,
j. �.
.,� �� t. ? , . .- - . .
!�1l� 1 '� •��1[ ' ti }
�`w't'/_"� ` • �
1f�\ '�. . / � •
71t� f i .� .''� ` � ` .i= t
. .`j
, �a
, <�
_- '` � i'"` ,
s'>�� "��. �
� ,. ,
; ,. .r,: � �._
,+;� ��, � �
z. . � ' .
�:; ►. �
�;
`; ' .
U r y� �e'; ,
�.
' ,�
- e '�r._.. � n _
� /� ��r� o� ('IT�� O�� I3LRLIti'G.-��IE ��,�-r.
� � �-�� ! Y:��RI�S �� RI:CR��:.�"l,IO� D�;I'_1Il"I'�II:�"I' _
� � 0 U R L I N G A M E!
� . '
' ��T� ' -���� ��li"��I.1 I�i'�;.. �\.' :U- (3!ifi�ll,'.:'.. �. l ,111:��111�., `�+Il�ll-�\�1�) — _
I. � _ � — ... •
�_?,: L �.' ��:�:��I1��11� -�1��1� ��V �_ � • f�.:l'h� �I'��� i�.�lll ��\ :11 ��9
�--`-�� �:,I\ 'h�l;.(i�)(i-^�I, . f'.-I'...:II: I�lil'�i'�. .;il�.�c�lll ^
October 20. 2000
P�[�r Lundquist
Laurelle Guticrrez-Lundquist
1 �h 1 C��press Avenu�
Burlingamc. C:� 9�30 l U
RE: REnG'ESTFORRE.'�10V.�1L OFO.NERED6�"OOD TREE'u I�hl CYPRE.SS.-1��'.VUE -
B URI ING,-��tifE
I revie«ed ��our request for the remo�al oti one Redtivnud tree, on the propem line, in the back�ard oti the
abo� c address_ and ha��e made the follo« ing determination:
1) Tlie Rechvoocl tr�e's root cnass is czusin� sisnificant prop�m damag� to
the homes foundation as �tell as to surrounding hardscape.
2) The Redltiood tree�s root mass is also causing damage to dnve«a� of
adjacent propem .
3) Replacemen[ ��ith one ?-�-inch box size tree «ill be required as d�,tined in
S�ction 1 1.06.Uy0 of thc (;r�han Refore.statior� ancl 7'rc�� Pi•otec�t�on Orclinanc.�e.
Th�refore, [ in[end to issur; a permit tior the r�mo� al of th� trce subj�ct to thc. provisions of thc; Burlin�aam�
�[unicipal Code. If l�ocr ugree ivith the conclition.�, pleuse si;;n t/re enclu.��ec! permit und retctrn in the self
udclressed envelope BEFORE No��ember 1, 2000.
[f �ou �cish to app�al this d�cision or sm of its conditions or tindin�s. �ou i7�ust til� a��ritt�►1 rcyu;:�t b�
November 1, ZD/1// as pro��ided in Section L 1.06.O80 of the (irhurr Rejore.station avrcl l���ee Protectioj�
��r�lrnance (Br.�r/in,ame,Lli�nrcipal ('ode ('hapt��r II.Of�. The pern�it ���ill be isstied if no appeal ha� b��n
received b�� that dat�.
Sincc;rcl� .
�_
_ ����_
St��en Portcr
Cit� .�rborist - (IS.-� =���C-�U7�)
S P;1:h
Enclosurc
� "T� \ CIT�� OF I3C�RLI�G.-��IE
�L�L�f��.,
������ �' P.-1R�S �� RI�:CRE.�TIO� DEP_�R"I'�IEti"I' -
9 U R L I N G A M E �
i � _
' �� ��T� �. \. li ���_,���!I1_,ll' . \\,•�,ii Il;. ��lil_ ,i. � ' �
.,i', i�;li.�, :_i��i� `y��u
� - ,� . _
l-. . � I�, .i�ll� i(�� i ��� -:. li . I�.J'i�� �:.:� i���l;i :�� ' t . �'��� ,
����,. o j f-.iv I h�l l � -� . �
h�)(�- _�r, f.-Ill,ll�: I�U�II'���� ;I��I �i�lll
October 20, 2000
C/O Charles Katz, Attorney
Bzrta Gray 475 E1 Camir.o Real
P.O. Box �89� Millbrae, CA 94403
San tilateo, C�-� 9�-�02
RE: RED L EST FOR RE.LIO V,-1 L O F D.� E RED WOOD TREE � u 1 Sh 1 CYPRESS .-1 ���.�'C "E -
I3C'RLI�VG.-t.LIE
Ti�e o���ner of the property at the abo��e address has applied for a permit to remo��e c�ne Rech� oocl tree. on
the property line, in the bacl.�•ard of the above property. Based on the followin� fact;, I intend to issue a
permit for the removal: `�
1) The Red�tiood tre��; root mass is causing si�?niticant propert� dama�� to
the homes foundation as «ell as to surrounding hardsc�pe.
�) The Reu�.vood tre::�s root mass is also causin� darnage to drive��a� of
adjacent propem . V �
�) R�pfacement ���ith c�nc� 2�-inch bo� sin tree ��ill be required as dctined in
Section 1 1.06.0y0 of the (,'rban Rerorestatton anc! 7�rc� Protectron C)rclinancc.
IJ��ou �vish to uppeu! this rlecision ur ujtl� of its coitrlitio�ts nr�11[ILi1,,s, }'ure rnustfl�e U tivTlI1C'li /'e(1![e.5'I
hi' ��ovenzber 1, �DOI) us proricl�d iit Section 11.Ob. /I80 uJ�t/te C�rhuji Reforestation un�l Tree Prr�tectinn
Urrlinunce (B«rlin�;a�ne:Llr��ticipul Code C/tupter 11.06). Th� permit �vill be issued if no appeal ha:
been received by that date.
Sincerely,
_ r" �-�---- __
Ste�•en Porter
Citv Arborist - (IS,-� =WC-30�3)
S P kh
Enclosure
��-��T�--a ('I"I'1" OF BC.'RI.I�iC` ��IE
l:-
�;���. I � �,a
BURLINGAME P=�R�� �� I2EC'RE.-�"1'I()�; I,)EI'_1K"T`IF.ti"T
, ���
� � -��— ��i� I�urlin_:ini�• \��n�i��. I�u�i,n_.:;n�. (�,iii:���in;..'�lii�ii-`����i
� -- � - -- - s � .
\��1 ,' 1�1�'���i��ll� i(i�l�i ���-�;IIII • i',il'��� . ir iili C: ��,-zr
�I�, �_ �l-1 �I1
f-.1A ih�i)I(��)h-���(� • �'.-i'.l;ll�: �1Uf11���4��:U�l.�i�111 �
October ?0, 2000
Lillian Vasev
1 �62 Cypress .avenue
Burlingame, CA 9�010
RE: REOL'E.ST FOR RE.LiDI'AI_ OF ONE REDWOOD TREE �a 1561 CYPRESS.�1 ���VL"E -
13 L'RLING,-�.LIE
The owner of the property at the above address has applied for a permit to remove one Rech�oo�l tree, on
the propem,� line, in the baci.yard of the above properry. Based on the following facts, I intend to issue a
permit for the removal:
1) The Rcdwooc� tree�s root mass is causin� signiticant propert�� dama��� to
the homes foundation as �vell as to surroundinv hardsca � V
P'
�) The Reclti��ood tree�s root mass is also causing damage to drive���a�� of
adjaccnt propert� . -
�) Replacement «ith onc� ?�-inch box size tree ��ill be required as detined in
Scction 1 1.06.090 of thc; I%rhnn Rc�forestatinn and "I'i•ee Protectio� C)rdii�ancc�.
If yuu wis/� to appeu! tltis decision nr ruiy of its conditioi�s nrJi�trli�i,�ls, 3'nr� nu�.st file u writteii rc�rlrce.st
by_Vuvember 1, 'OUD us provided i�t Sectiu�i 11.06.OSU oftl�e L�rhun Reforest�ttio�e rind "!'ree Prutectiu�r
Ordinunce (B«rlinhame .Llunicipa! Corle Cliupter I1.06). The permit will be issued if no appeal has
been received bv that date.
Sincerely,
_,��� ��-�
Steven Porter
Cit�� Arborist - (IS:� =�y'C-3073)
S P,�kh
Enclosure
� CITY
. � ���'���\1
��� BU RLI NG/l M E;
I � ��_ �
1 � .
\��� _�.. `�%
\��---�
October 20, 2000
CI"1'�� OF I�C.'RI,Iti(;:11II�:
P:�IZI�S �'� R1:�'RE.-�"1'IO� UEP:1R'I'�iE�1' -
�ci�i���.lrl����_,�nt� A���lu�.li�,:�.!i'_.I'll�.l�.�ill�����ll,:��--��;�)-'V�)�� ���:;
i�l�;�i;�ill� i(��III �`\ :ill' • ��,;I��� �!�:� �(i�(II "�- ',;I1 -"iT,:� _
f,l\ i ii�l l l(��ifi-' � j�� • �:-Ill.t� �: ��lll��l'C�.'t:; ,1���.. i�lll �
�Iar��n & Elizabeth Horton
1 �60 C�press .�venue
Burlin,ame, C.� 9-�010
RE: RE(�t;EST F(>R RE:LII>�;�11_ OF U:NE REn6i%'OUD "I'REE �u l.�hl CYPRESS.-16��,�'L'E -
B URLI.-VG.�t.tilE
The owner of the property at the above address has applied for a permit to remove or�e Re�h��oocl r�-cc. on
the property line, in the backvard of the above property. Based on the following facts, I intend to issue a
perm►t for the remo��al:
I) Tl�e Redticood tree�s root mass is cau�in�� significant propert�� damage to
[he homes foundation as «cll as to surrounding hardsc�pe.
2) The Rechtior�cl trte�s root mass is also causing dama�e to drivc��a� �f
adjaccnt prop�rt� . "
3) Replacement ���ith onc� ?�-inch bo� sizc trce ���ill b� required as detined in
S�ction 1 1.06.090 of thc (;nc��n Reforc�.stc�tron ay�c( Tree Prolec•tinra �)rdinanc� .
If l�ou �vis/t to �appeul tltis rlecisiu�t ur �i�t�� of its coftrlitinrt.s nr fi�tdi�t�;s, _l�nu n�ir�st_file u tivrittefi rer�rre.st
hti� :��uvember 1, '0l)D us pr��i�i�lerl i�i .Sectinn 11. 06. O80 nf �t/ie t�rhuft Rc,fi�restatiu�t cutrl "I'ree Protectio��
(>rdiit�utce (Burlii:�;u��ie.Ltunicipul Code Chupter IL06). The permit �vill be issued if no appeal has
been received bv that date.
Sincerelv,
���
Steven Porter
Cit�� .-�rborist - (IS.-� =WC-3('�T )
S P; kh
Enc(osure
��-��r� �� C'I'1'�� O� BL�RLIVG.��if: •��„� :..
��'���\` P:�RI�� �� IZ1�:('RI�::1"I'I()� I�N:Y:1��"I��I�:ti"I' 'W
� B U R L I N G A M E
' --4��r1 �-- V�I) �ill;.11l_;IIII� �`�,,.�,.. li�„�il!_..Ili�.l ,ll;�.�ll?'„ `)-�i i _`�i�ii ���..
I��`.-_ � I:�:��Il�ill� �l�.I!� "�!,. ,i�. • �',:In� �i'�,'�'I�I'(II -`� .:�) L -.]�,\
�� i';1\ ih�l)I!��1(,- �, I �•
_ I'-itl:ll�: ��UI'�I���Ic�:l��l.���lll
October 20. ?U00
W'illiam Bohlk�n
l S�6 Cvpress .�venue
Burlin�Tame, C.-� 9�OI0
RE: REULEST F(�R RE�LI04�AI_ l�F (l �E REI�WUOD TREE �u 1.561 CYPRE.SS',-� �E.�"L"E -
BL�RI_I:V(,;-t,tilE
The owner of the propem,• at the above address has applied for a permit to remo�e onc Rc;chvooc! trcc, on
the property line, in the backvard of the ab�ve propertti�. Based on the fo(lo�ving facts, I intend to issue a
permit for the removal:
1) The Redtit�oocl tree�s root mass is causing si�niticant propert}� damage to
th� homes foundation as ��ell as to surrounding hardscape.
2) The R�cltiti�nucl tree�s root mass is zlso eausing damnge to drivc;���z�� of
adjzc�nt propert� . -
�) Replacemc;nt ��ith ortc° ?�-inch bo� siz� tr�e ��ill be rcquircd as detin�d in
S�etion 1 l.Ub.Oy0 of ttle (;'rbcrf� Ize�toj•e�.stcrtt��n c7ncl Trc�c P�•nteetinn �)rdif�ciitc��.
Ijl�ou ,visli tn uppeul t{�i.ti� r[c,�cisio�t ur u�i1' uf�its cn�iditinn.c� nrJi�trli�i�;s, l�nu mu.��tjile u ti��ritte�t reyr�e.tit
by:Vovember l, ?/I/IU us pruvided iu Secti��i� 11. (/(.OS/1 uf �tlze L'rbr«e RcJore�stutiun uierl "1'ree Prutection
Urrliitance (Rurlin�;reme :Ll�uiicipu! Code C{iupter 11.06). The permit ���ill be is�ued if no appeal ha:
been received bv that date.
Sincerelv,
�_ � �--�-
Ste�en Porter
Ciri' .-�rborist - ( IS.-� Tw'C-3073 )
SP��:h
Enclosure
/ CITV
���F���
I
BU RLI NG.I M E�'
l �;.. �� �� ,
�\\o � �',
October 20, ?000
(�["I'l� OI� I�L'�zLI�(;.1�IE �.:,,; �,
P:�RI�� �� IZEt'IZI�::1"T[O� DEY:1R"I��IF.ti"1'
.:,,I;�,I�n_;ii��. A�:nu,.l;;, . ,ini�.i.�u���ini..���i� ,�i_�����, _`,.�� .�_�
I�.i� �ii„n� ,n��i ���_':�ni . � - - -
� .. f,�il.. Ir:�, r„i� „� .:,, � :��`�, _
1-:�� �r,�n� �;r� -_;�, • I�. in:iii nui��i����, ,i�,!.���iii
Pravin Patel
6� Washington Street (1560 Barroilhet .-���e.)
Santa Clara, C.-� 950�0
RE: REOLEST FUR RE:tiT(�V.:�L l)F U�tiE RED6V0OD TREE;'a f�61 CYPRE.SSAL'E.VL'E -
BC'RI_I�'VG�:YIE
The owner of the property at the above address has applied for a permit to remove on� /Zc�cl�t or��! rrc:��. on
the property fine, in the bacl.��ard of the above property. Based on the followin�� facts, I intend to issue a
permit for the removal:
1) The Redtitiood tree�s root mass is causing significant propert� dama�e to
the homes foundation as ��ell as to surrounding hardscapc;.
2) The Redtirood trec�s root mass is also czusing dama�e to dri�c��a� of
adjacent propem . �
�) Rcpfacemc;nt ��ith u�7�� �-�-inch bo� sizc tree «ill be requir�d as detined in
S�etion I l.06.U9O of the (;rnarr Rcfnrestation ar�cl Tree 1'rotectr��n l)rclii�c���c��.
If �'ou wi,�•!� tu uppeul tltis decisin�c nr «�t�• of ILS Cn�irlitions orjin�linh.�•, i'uu ��u�.s7file « writte�i request
h�•:Vovenzher 1, ?000 us prnviderl in Sectio�: 11.Oh. II80 ufthe L'rhu�i Refnre.s•tation und Tree Protectiun
Orrli�tunce (Burlifigame ,Llu�eicipu! Code Clu�pter 11.06). The permit �vill be issued if no appeal ha�
been received bv that date.
Sincerelv,
�—�';�j�� ' .—ti�-
�
Ste��en Porter
Ci�;� .�rborist - ( IS.-� =WC-30T )
S P'kh
Enclosure
ROUTING FORM
DATE: April 25, 2001
TO: _City Engineer
Chief Building Official
►�Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family
dwelling and detached garage at 1555 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-301-190.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: April 25, 2001
TO: ✓ City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family
dwelling and detached garage at 1555 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-301-190.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, April 30, 2001
Q �� .�i,e� �-�u-�;.�- e�
� �
S� � �
�
/1„ n �j �.,r: �,l` ; �. � � � r''."'.� i .
„ w
� r - <�
-� .,���" ��G7 ,
� 2�' ��,,,�,s pQ�.�; v�-�;�,��-y, w; a-{-�,, .� �� �
��r,� , v �hk�t � � �% �� �� fi� ,
D-_ +_ , ��
�-�,,� -� ``� i�t��r �� i"aW�. Ge `Ti� `�"�R�I� �� �"� 1�", - 1.
i'�+ n � { � ..r. , :,��'.' ;� �
��- •
,
. r�`'
Reviewed By: -•�� �� � Date of Comments
� ' .. , ,
ROUTING FORM
DATE: April 25, 2001
TO: City Engineer
�Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family
dwelling and detached garage at 1555 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-301-190.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: Apri125, 2001
TO: _City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
►�Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family
dwelling and detached garage at 1555 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-301-190.
STAFF REVIEW: Monday, April 30, 2001
� i C�rJ'� S�_. S Gt � w� ��-- � W� S��,E'�d yU.G�7 0�1 /(,c r� .L
��� � `'� �'e-�l 6i•� � �- � H �- lJ Q-+'�^ o .L /v .e.�-./
� S��.
_ w , o� � l4-�'�a Kr c�� �... �/'� _�a I� S/�e.
VcSc f w�� � �/�� S � t
�
Reviewed By: � Date of Comments: 1�
City of Bzrrlingame Planr:ing Con:ntission Unapproved Minutes
June 25, 2001
11. 1131 OXFORD ROAD — ZONED R- PLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW OR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (LE RD AND ANNA HEYMANN, APPLIC��S AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, 7�ESIGNER) _ �
Planner Hurin briefly�ented the project description. There were` o questions of staff. �
Chairman Vis ''opened the public comment. Leonard Heymann, property owner, represented the project
with Je al, designer. Noted older home and that focus was on putting the ho_use back the way it had
been , meant adjusting and fixing older additions done 45 years ago. "�
Commission noted on the proj�ct:
• Old ho ith lots of character, nice to see someone working to put it back the way�
�
There wer other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. �r
�
C. B' es made a motion to refer this item to the consent calendar for the �eeting. The motion was
nded by C. Luzuriaga.
Chairman Vistica c for a vote on the motion to pla item on the consent calendar at the next
meeting if the s are submitted in time. The moti assed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent).
The Pla � ommission's action is advisory ot appealable. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m.
12. 1555 CYPRESS AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU
DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; J. KURT STEIL. PROPERTY OWNERI
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commisioners asked what happened to the trees on
site, particularly the one where the new driveway is located. Staff directed the question to the applicant.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, represented the project noting the
neighbor had a permit from the Parks Department to remove the pine tree where the new driveway is
located, it was planted on property line and the roots were affecting the foundation of his house; noted that
the present design is a total change in style from the project previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission, added a 200 SF porch to better match the character of the street; garage doors can be sectional
or one piece; house is shorter than previous design.
The following neighbors commented on the project: Burt Price, 1551 Cypress; Kerby Altman, 1517
Cypress; Christoper Andrews, 1544 Cypress; Diane Wirgler, 1536 Cypress. They noted: any addition
is better than house there now, fire trap; tree on property line was damaging house on other side; satisfied
with a decent house. Proposed house is too massive for 50' x 120; lot need to shrink it, lower the height,
step second floor back from street, remove one bedroom or couple 100 SF; house not being built by a
Burlingame family but by a speculator for profit and is not oriented to the fabric of the neighborhood,
commission's charge is to protect the fabric of the neighborhood, stop this; three trees removed from this
lot and replace one at almost the same location as one removed with a 24 inch box tree, why? three
-12-
City of Burlingame Plan�ting Con:�r:ission Unapproved Minutes
June 25, 2001
properties nearby with elderly residents all with important trees, will their trees be removed as well; how
can the neighbors monitor tree removal. CA noted that tree removal is the responsibility of the
Beautification Commission, should contact them. Glad to hear changes, reduced size, add porch, still too
large for block of one story houses. Designer noted that trees removed had permits, FAR is 2800 SF which
includes the 200+ SF porch. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commissioners noted:
• Staff should report on the tree removals and the permit process followed;
• New design better, smaller and more articulation on each elevation;
• Fits the character of the neighborhood, like to see other than Tudor, can't deny on the basis that
the project is two story, this craftsman fits the neighoborhood and the design parameters.
• Neighbors should voice concern about tree removal to the Beautification Commission.
C. Osterling moved to place this project on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place the project on the consent calendar at the
next meeting if the plans are submitted in time. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling absent) voice
vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:28 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPOR'
- Rev' City Council regular me � of July 2, 2001.
onroe reviewed the plan ' related items at the July 2, 200 ouncil meeting.
Commission discussed b' the change in rules for notic' nd procedure caused by adding a
citizen to the Neigl ood Consistency Subcommi , a standing committee of t anning
Commission. an Vistica noted that he had . � discussion at a previous mee ', asked Jerry
Deal if he ld be interested in continui participate on this committ " the capacity of
resid . He would follow up again Mr. Deal in light of these c` es in procedure. C.
riaga was apointed to the o ommission seat on the commi . �
- FYI - Disussion of C Action at 1441 Bernal Avenu
CP Monroe disc with the Commission the City ncil action on the
Noting th tion to the planter strip suggeste e commissioners sug
the d' ay for drainage in the planter stri be at least 6 inches in '
riveway be saw cut out under the o drain properly.
� this project.
d that the cores in
, 12 inches apart or
-13-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 14, 2001
There were no other comments from the floor hairman Vistica closed the public hearing.
�
Commissioners noted: ,. �,•�''
� that the house is wel gned, concern with porch design, it is essenti a stucco enclosure
with an arch, mpatible with style, sense that posts with case ening would reveal more
of porch s all wrapped in stucco, need some relief;
• on eft elevation there is a lot of blank wall, attic vent would help articulate, another window
uld be added for balance; ���'
there are some inconsistencies on the plans een the left side and the rear elevation, on the
rear elevation roof returns around edg�e �s not shown the same on left elevation;
• windows should match existing ' fraditional stucco mold trim;
• the chimney stack with the red extension will be a focal point on the front e ton, would
like to see more detail p of stack. ,�.,.
Y i�`'
Applicant spent tw ars designing, it shows, addition is carefully i ted to existing house,
concerns are ' r and could be brought back to consent with ca ct�an
a^^:� � , t to compliment the
�: Luzuriaga made a motion to place this ite the consent calendar at a time w e revisions have
been made and plan checked includin • ange the design of the porch, add ' ows and/or attic vents
on the left side elevation; corre inconsistencies on the left side an elevations. The motion
was seconded by C. Drei '
Chauman V' ' called for a vote on the motion to 's item on the consent calendar when plans had
been r' as directed. The motion passed o oice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is
ory and not appealable. This item ded at 8:55 p.m.
8. 1555 CYPRESS AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHCJ DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; J. KURT
STEIL, PROPERTY OWNER
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. C. Luzuriaga noted
that he had to recuse himself from the discussion because he has a business relationship with the applicant.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. James Chu, 39 W. 43'� Avenue, San Mateo, project designer,
and Kurt Steil, 939 Shoal Drive, San Mateo, property owner, were available for comment, and noted that
the proposed project fits in with the neighborhood, where there are diverse styles.
Commissioner comment:
• the front porch is a little shallow, could it be made deeper so two people could stand on it;
• concern on left elevation, bulk is pulled back from property line, but the impact would be less if
eaves pulled down as well;
• fascia on rake section is very large, like to see fascia and eaves smaller, create a thinner, lighter
edge.
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
May 14, 2001
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment to the floor: Kerbey Altmann, 1537 Cypress Avenue, Diane
Condon-Wirgler, 1536 Cypress Avenue, and Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue, commented on the
proposed design; what type of snow load is expected to require steep slope; height is taller than others in
area, should attempt to blend in, area has small lots, there are no other houses on the block with wood
shingles, why the need for additional four feet of height above limit; this house would be a lot higher than
others in neighborhood, would like to see story poles to see what the effect would be, this is the oldest
neighborhood in Burlingame; all houses in neighborhood have prominent front porch, don't think this
reflects style of neighborhood, the height is almost as tall as the condominiums on the corner.
Applicant response: not here for variances, right side setback is 5'-6" instead of 4' minimum, left side
setback is ten feet; regarding the special permit for height, would be willing to clip the top of the roof so
height would be reduced to 30', have looked at other styles, but this is the style the applicant wants, has
never built a Tudor, notes that plans were reviewed with neighbors on left and they had no concerns,
presented plans to neighbor on right and received no comments. There were no other comments from the
floor and Chairman Vistica closed the public hearing.
Commissioner comment: in certain circumstances, the Tudor style can benefit from steep roof, in this
context only small slice is above height; could consider using arts and crafts style, would be acceptable to
neighborhood, it would have a lower roof line; can still build Tudor style and comply with 30' height limit
if applicant wants Tudor style, this is a quaint neighborhood, since neighbors are concerned, should build
new that looks old, applicant has done design for other projects that are quaint and would fit nicely in this
neighborhood, would like to see something that fits and abides by 30' height limit; house is well designed
and articulated nicely, roof does not constitute a lot of mass, additional height is being used as intended,
support project; understand neighbor sensitivity, bigger than most, but considering what could have
happened before design review, much improved; great job with design, compatibility with neighborhood
questionable, could do a craftsman that would be more compatible, need to listen to neighbors as well, like
to see redesign; issue is house more in hannony with neighborhood.
C. Bojues made a motion to bring this project back to design review study calendar at a time when the
following revisions have been made and plan checked:
• the project should be redesigned to a style which is more compatible with the neighborhood such
as the arts and crafts style;
• porch should be larger;
• height of house should be within the 30' height limit to blend with existing structures.
This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
Comment on motion: would like to note that the floor area proposed is under the maximum, is fine, more
concerned with the mass and how it fits in to neighborhood, the setbacks proposed are fine, clear that house
is well designed, but overriding factor is neighborhood compatibility, since you have a choice, building to
sell, should choose another style.
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to bring this item back to the design review study calendar
when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 with C. Luzuriaga
abstaining. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:20
p.m.
The commission took a 15 minute break and reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
E
CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC.
39 West 43r Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403
(650) 345-9286; Fax (650) 345-9287
May 2, 2001
City of Burlingame
Planning Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Attn: Ms. Catherine Keylon
Re: New Residence at
1555 Cypress Ave.,
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Catherine:
The height/finished floor of the proposed residence has
been lowered to comply with the declining height envelope
requirement on the left side.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely
ames Chu �
ri���..�� . _��_�
MAY - 3 2001
CITY OF [3ltRLIPJG,4t��1E
PLANNI�VG DEPT.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(F,50) 696-3790
��� C I T Y O�
BURIJNGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�, : I. i
Type of application: Design Review y Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit '�' Other Parcel Number:
Project address: � �� �'�c�•
APPLICANT
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: ���'j�� G�L� Name: � ��L
Address: �J� �• � >�� Address:
City/State/Zip• �ity/State/Zip����� �.��II
Phone (w): ��• �� F��IG , �— � Phone (w): ��.�• �J�� �� ( 2
(h):
(�: �=� � �� ���'
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER�
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip: � t'� �
Phone (w): �����
(h):
���
.
�i/ "r/ �.:�.
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
I know about the propos��plication and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commis�ion.
/ �
Property owner's signature: Date:
� � � � � �I3ate ubmitted: 4 � Z5 ��
APR 2 5 2001
CI PLANNBNG DIEPT��
PCAVP.FRM
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby rtify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and co e the b�of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signatu e: Date: �
��.�' c'T���o,�, CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�o �•� BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1555 CYPRESS AVENUE
Application for design review for a new two-
story single family dwelling and detached PUBLIC HEARING
garage at 1555 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1.
(APN: 028-301-190) N OTIC E
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, July 9, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City
Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed June 29, 2001
(P/eusc rc�/i�r lo nihc�r stcic�)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of tl�e application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior
to the me.eting at the Pl�uuiing De��artment at 5p1 Primrose Road,
Burlii�game, California.
If yeu challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raisi�ig only ihc�se issues you or somcone else raisecl at the public liearinb,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the public hearing.
Propci-ty owners wl�o receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice. For ad�ditional information, please call (6_50)
558-7250. Thai�k you.
�; � __ ��
Margaret Mc�nroe ;;������'��� � `
City Planncr �.. -�,. ' `�" �
PUBLIC HE�4RING NOTICE
(Plen.sc rc�fc>r to othc�f� si�lc�)
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design
review for a new two-story house with a detached ara e at _1555 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, James Kurt
Steil, property owner, APN: 028-301-190;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on J�
9, 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony
presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the
project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per
CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3- construction and location of limited
numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with
the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be
constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such design review are set forth in the 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, Joseph Bojues , 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 9th day of July, 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
E�HIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review.
1555 Cypress Avenue effective July 16, 2001
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped June 15, 2001, Sheets A.1 through A.6 and L-1, site plan, floor plans and
building elevations;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding
or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design
review;
3. that the conditions of Fire Marshal's April 25, 2001 memo and the City Engineer's,
Recycling Specialist's and Chief Building Official's April 30, 2001 memos and shall be
met; and
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
f � 1 �`�` ' g
:., , � • ' ;;,�.,' r
.,,, . ,_
,, .
-� � :.�;,;. ::;.�. �"
;�*;,• °� t
� �y�. �. , y .
� ..;.
" � t��,j• '( lv�'�4
` �y w{ 1��.
'/� ' 1��` /4 .
x
r � � d ,y. ♦
j 4 "' �� ' F:
+ �� ,. ����/ `,y
, ,4 3� ' .
! ^ ` • ���' ' � ��#,. '��, f�
G� L`r �.
�� �•r� f '� .. �".
T�'�= '
����
.�
�ti* 4T*4
� �
\`.
./�... �. l �% �
�
� �
%' `J
\
City of Burlt.�game Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2001
TC�TAL SITE LANDSCAPING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE
PFRFORMANCE STANDARDS IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AND FOR VEHICLE PARKING IN THE
DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR AN INCREASE OF OFFICE SPACE [GARCIA/WAGNER &
ASSOCIATES, C/O PACIFIC BELL, APPLICANTS; AMVALL INC. (1832 ROLLINS ROAD) AND
ART MICHAEL (1860 ROLLINS ROAD), PROPERTY OWNERS; GARCIA/WAGNER &
ASSOCIATES. ARCHITECTI
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: concern with runoff from paved
area, the original approval for the paving of the drainage easement required installation of filters in the storm
drain system on-site inspection did not see any filters, and condition required that the property owner is
responsible for maintenance of system; would like to see maintenance records, what is the filter system, and
how is it inspected and maintained now, and how will it be maintained in the future.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR -17'ENts oN 7'xE Co1vsE1v7'C.1L�'�'DAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEYARE
ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT,
A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COM,�IISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION
TO ADOPT.
Chairman Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
3A. 1373 VANCOUVER AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BEN
BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NENAD VUKIC, PROPERTY OWNER)
3B. 1419 MONTERO AVENUE — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGF, (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STELLA HiJNG, PROPERTY
OWNER)
3C. 1131 OXFORD ROAD — ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (LEONARD AND ANNA HEYMANN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER)
r
� 3D. 1555 CYPRESS AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW
TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU
DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; J. KURT STEIL, PROPERTY OWNER)
C. Bojues moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and with the
Page -2-
City of Bur[.'ngame Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2001
approval of each resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran . Chairman Vistica called for a voice
�-ote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Luzuriaga and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were
advised.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
4. 1700 HILLSIDE DR�VE =
SECOND STORY ADDITIi
�NED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (JOHN AND CAROLYN LEUNG,
�.Y OWNERS; JOHN LEUNG, DESIGNER)
Reference staff report, 7.9.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. John Leung, property owner, and Patrick Au, friend,
represented the project, noting that they would answer questions. Commission asked about the retreat area
off the master bedroom and the windows and French doors serving this long narrow area because they cause
a complicated roof structure, applicant noted that this,proposal was a consensus arrived at with the design
reviewer, effort to maintain Spanish style; discussed tlie metal railing on the second floor balcony noting
that with this style house wood or solid railings are more appropriate, �lso railing on house does not match
metal gate at driveway or iron gate at front of house; stair�s.sin to the house at the front are misrepresented
on the plans so can't tell how the iron gate will work, will tk�ere be 2 steps or 6; applicant noted wanted
exterior gates and fences to keep small children in the yard beca�e Hillside is a busy street. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public hearing was clos�d.
C. Bojues noted that this project has made a lot of progress from where it started, concerned about the iron
gate at the front, know that Hillside is a busy street and there is a s ety need, move to approve the
application with conditions in the staff report by resolution. The motion s seconded by C. Dreiling.
.�
Comment on the motion: overall this project has definitely improved, but conce'r�ed about iron balcony rail
and gate, need to soften or eliminate the front gate feature it does not fit the de�sign of the house or the
neighborhood; this is a corner lot without much back yard so can understand the fence, the upper balcony
is off the retreat in the master bedroom, such an open railing will provide no priva�y in that part of the
narrow room, suggest a solid rail which would blend better with architecture as well; ne�d to address front
elevation problem on plans, recommend changes to plans as discussed and returning tlte project on the
consent calendar.
C. Bojues maker of the motion and C. Dreiling second agreed to amending the motion to continue the item,
bring it back on the consent calendar and to direct the applicant to revise the plans showing a solid railing
on the second floor balcony, correctin,g the plans at the front entrance, changing the iron gate to better fit
the style of the architecture of the building and to make all the gates and perimeter fencing consistent.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item to the consent calendar so that
revisions and corrections could be made and reviewed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 ( Cers. Luzuriaga,
Osterling absent). This action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:54 p.m.
Page -3-