HomeMy WebLinkAbout1804 Davis Drive - Staff Report (2)City of Burlingame Item # /�
Design Review for a New Two-Story House
Address: 1804 Davis Drive Meeting Date: 2/28/00
Request: Design Review for a new two-story house.
Applicant: Nimesh Amin
APN: 025-201-050
Property Owner: same as applicant
Lot Area: 5,250 SF (50' x 105')
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential
CEQA Status: 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.
October 25, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting: At the Planning Commission meeting on
October 25, 1999, the Commission reviewed the applicants' request for a two story house with a full
basement living area and denied the project (October 25, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes). The
Commission in their action noted the following:
• concerned with the height of the building above grade and the way the building is massed;
• too much square footage on the lot, basement is too big, rooms are large and there is an
excessive amount of storage;
• concerned with the project not being compatible with the neighborhood;
• suggested that the second floor addition be placed over the garage so that more bedrooms
could be added on the second floor rather than have the bedrooms in the basement;
• concerned with having bedrooms, bathrooms, a laundry room and a conditioned but
unfinished storage room in the basement; and
• basement could have the potential of being used as a separate dwelling since there are doors
to the outside of the house.
Current Project Revisions (January 28, 2000 plans): After the October 25, 1999, Planning
Commission action meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans (date stamped January 28, 2000,
sheets A-1 through A-6). The following revisions were made:
The finished floor at the front of the house was reduced in height from 3'-0" to 1'-0" above
average top of curb, therefore reducing the overall height of building from 26'-1" to 24'-3"
as measured from average top of curb.
Design Review for a New Two-Slory I%use
1804 Davis Drive
■ Overall building square footage, including the basement area, was reduced from 4,404 SF (.83
FAR) to 3,343 SF (.64 FAR). The basement area was reduced from 1,624 SF (including the
unfinished storage room) to 563 SF (1,061 SF or 65% reduction in area). Storage space has
been reduced with the elimination of the unfinished storage room and bedrooms in the
basement level proposed in the previous project.
■ Applicant placed the addition partially over the attached garage at the front of the house.
This allowed an additional bedroom to be added on the second floor (increase from 2 to 3
bedrooms) and eliminated all bedrooms at the basement level.
■ Applicant eliminated two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a laundry room, and an unfinished
storage area in the basement. With the cunent proposal, the basement level measures 563 SF
(including the stairway to the first floor) and contains only one. habitable room, which is noted
as a`prayer room'. This room complies with emergency egress requirements.
■ Exterior doors in the basement have been eliminated. There is only one door, which now
provides interior access to the first floor only.
With the new project lot coverage has been reduced from 39.4% (2,072 SF) in the previous proposal
to 37.3% (1,958 SF) in the current proposal. There was no change in the floor area ratio (2,780 SF,
.53 FAR proposed and maximum allowed) because the basement area is not included in FAR. This
proposed change did reduce the total square footage in the house from 4,404 SF to 3,343 SF.
Project Description (January 28, 2000 plans): The applicant is proposing a new two-story single-
family dwelling which is subject to design review at 1804 Davis Drive, zoned R-1. The project meets
all zoning code requirements.
The existing single-story house on the lot will be demolished and a new house built. The new two-
story house with attached garage will contain 2,780 SF (.53 FAR) of floor area (excluding the 62 SF
covered porch and 563 SF basement), where 2,780 SF (.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
The basement (563 SF including the stairway) will contain one room (labeled `prayer room' on the
basement plan). This room will not contain a closet or a bathroom. The applicant has complied with
emergency egress requirements by providing a window and light well at the rear of the house.
Planning would note that because 50% or more of the basement walls are below grade, the basement
is not considered a story and is exempt from height and floor area ratio calculations.
The house will have a total of five bedrooms. The family room is considered a potential bedroom for
parking calculation purposes. The `prayer room' is not considered a bedroom since it is open to the
stairway. The proposed 20' x 20' (interior clear dimensions) double-car attached garage meets the
covered parking requirement for a five-bedroom house. A 9' x 20' uncovered parking space is
provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
2
Desrgn Review for a New Two-Story House
SETBACKS
Front (Ist):
(2nd):
Side (right):
(left):
Rear (Ist):
(2nd):
Garage:
LOT
COVERAGE:
FAR:
PARKING:
HEIGHT.•
DH
ENVELOPE:
BEDROOMS:
CURRENT
PROPOSAL
1/28/00 Plans
21'-6"
32'-3"
4'-0"
5"-10"
25'-6" to deck
34'-6"
25'-0"
37.3%
1,958 SF
2,780 SF
.53 FAR
2 covered
�Zo�-o�� X Zo�-o��)
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
24'3"
complies
5
This project meets all zoning code requirements.
26'-1 "
complies
�
1804 Davis Drive
ALLOWED/REQ'D
15'-0" (average)
20'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
25'-0"
40%
2,100 SF
2,780 SF
.53 FAR
2 covered
(Zo�-o�� X Zo�-o���
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
3 0'-0"
see code
N/A
Staff Comments: The City Engineer notes (January 31, 2000 memo) that the roof and site drainage
shall be directed to the public street. At time of building permit submittal, the plans shall show the
underground drainage for the prayer room and shall also show the driveway profile with elevations.
The City Engineer also notes that a sewer lateral test shall be performed per city standards. The Chief
Building Inspector notes (January 31, 2000 memo) that the State Building Code, Volume 1 Section
310.4 shall control for exiting from the prayer room at ground level. The Fire Marshal had no
comments on the project.
Planning would note that because the grading for the basement may come close to the wet weather
water table, excavation should occur during dry weather or the program be approved by the city
before it is initiated (applicant's letter dated October 18, 1999, addressing underground water is
attached). Copies of neighborhood letters addressing the previous project (October 25, 1999) are
also included for your review. These letters addressing the earlier project are copied on blue paper.
PREVIOUS
PROPOSAL
10/25/99 Plans
21'-6"
3 7'-4"
4'-0"
4'-6"
32'-5" to stairs
35'-6"
25'-0"
39.4%
2,072 SF
2,780 SF
.53 FAR
2 covered
(20'-0" x 20'-0")
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
3
Desi�?n Review for a New Two-Story House 1804 Davis Drive
Planning staffwould also note that in November 1999, the applicant submitted plans to the building
department for a new single story house (2,063 SF) with a full basement (1,643 SF) and two-car
garage. Because it is single story and was submitted before the code change to extending design
review to new single story single family houses became effective, this plan is not subject to design
review. The plans show that there would be a total of four bedrooms (one bedroom on the first floor
and three bedrooms in the basement level). With this building permit submittal, the first floor would
be 3'-0' above average top of curb. At this time, a building permit has not been issued for the single
story house. The applicants are addressing comments from several departments. The City Attorney
verified that a Planning application may be submitted concurrently with a building permit submittal.
Design Review (January 28, 2000 plans): Based on the plans date stamped January 28, 2000,
the reviewer notes in his February 1, 2000 memo that this is a new submittal by a different
designer. The proposed project represents a defuute improvement over the previous project which
was denied by the Planning Commission. The new design has a better residential scale, is reduced
in height and has a consistent window and shutter treatment around the entire house. The
basement has been reduced in size to approximately 500 SF (1300 SF previously proposed).
Preliminary comments (design reviewer's memo dated January 20, 2000) were forwarded to the
applicant. The applicant addressed the design reviewer's concerns and submitted revised plans
date stamped January 28, 2000.
The reviewer notes that the architectural style of the new house is similar to other houses in the
neighborhood and is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. The interior
arrangement is consistent with the structural design. The proposed attached garage is appropriate
to the neighborhood.
In regards to the interface of the proposed structure with the adjacent structures, the reviewer
notes that although the houses immediately adjacent to the proposed house are single story, there
are other two story houses in the immediate neighborhood (1700, 1711, 1712, 1801, and 1805
Davis Drive and 1636, 1648, and 1656 Lassen Way). The height is mitigated by stepping in the
two story portion from the sides (approximately 11' from the left side property line and 15' from
the right side property line). The mass is further mitigated by setting back the front of the second
story approximately 32' back from the front property line. The first floor height has been reduced
to 1'-0" above average top of curb.
In regards to landscaping, the design reviewer notes that the proposed landscape treatment is
proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components.
The design reviewer recommends that the design review for the proposed new house be approved
by the Planning Commission.
Study Meeting: At the February 14, 2000 Planning Commission study meeting the Commission
asked several questions regarding this project (February 14, 2000 P.C. Minutes). The applicant
submitted a written response dated February 18, 2000, and revised plans (sheets A-4, A-5 and A-6
date stamped February 18, 2000, addressing Planning Commission's questions. Planning would note
0
Design Review for a New Two-Story House 1804 Davis Drive
that the design reviewer did not review these revisions to the plans. The Commission requested to
see the landscape strengthened so that it is more in keeping with the mass and bulk of the structure.
The applicant revised the landscape plan (sheet A-6, dated February 18, 2000) and added three
additional 5-gallon size trees at the front of the property in order to reduce the mass of the structure.
The Commission noted that this is a better project than was seen before and- requested that the
applicant provide dimensional detail on the precut foam molding being used around the windows.
The applicant provided 8'/2" x 11" window sill details (No. 200) and window and door trim details
(No. 354).
The Commission commented that the porch columns do not look like anything else on the house and
suggested that they be changed to match the proposed style of the house. The applicant revised the
entry porch and column design to match the proposed architectural style of the house. The applicant
also provided an 8'/z" x 11" detail of the pre-coated foam column.
In regards to the FAR, Planning staff rechecked the FAR calculations and verified that the proposed
FAR is 2,780 SF (.53 FAR) where 2,780 SF (.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The Commission
noted that on the north elevation, there is a split roof and a one foot change in plate line and
suggested that a hip roof be used to tie the roofs and plates together better. In his written response,
the applicant considered adding a hip roof to this area, but felt it would look heavier, bulkier and not
very interesting.
The Commission asked if the Prayer Room will only be used by the family or will it also be used by
outside people coming to meetings. The applicant indicates that the Prayer Room will only be used
by the family living at this site. There will be no visitors comirig to the site for meetings.
In regards to the chimney and the required separation, the applicant notes that the proposed chimney
is a gas-burning fireplace only. Therefore, the proposed chimney is not required to be taller to meet
the separation requirements. The applicant noted the type of fireplace on the First Floor Plan, sheet
A-2. The Chief Building Official reviewed the plans and verified that the gas-burning
fireplace/chimney complies with the California Building Code.
Design Review Cri#eria: 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.
E
Design Review for a New 7'wo-Story House
1804 Davis Drive
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be by resolution and include findings, and 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 January 28, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-3, and date stamped February 18, 2000, sheets
A-4 through A-6, including a 563 SF basement (including the stairway) containing one room
which shall not contain a closet, a bathroom, be used as a bedroom or have an exterior exit added;
any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building including expansion of the basement
shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that prior to scheduling a foundation inspection the applicant shall provide a survey by a licensed
civil engineer of which will establish to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the ceiling height
in the basement area shall not exceed 8'-1" with the basement floor surface at elevation 92.4', and
the finished first floor shall not exceed elevation 101.5', and that the elevation shall be confirmed
by a licensed surveyor and accepted by the City Engineer before each required inspection by the
Building Department;
that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows arid architectural features
or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
4. that the City Engineer's January 31, 2000, memo regarding roof drainage, underground drainage
for the basement and driveway profile elevations, and the Chief Building Official's January 31,
2000, memo regarding emergency egress from the basement shall be met;
that a grading permit shall not be issued by the Building Department until the following
requirements have been met: that all grading shall be done during the dry season unless the City
Engineer approves the proposed program, all city requirements for grading including silt and dust
control shall be met, and that all NPDES requirements shall be met; and
6. that the project sha11 meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c: Nimesh Amin, applicant and property owner
0
City oJBurlingame Planning Con:mission Minules
143d�ALOMA AVENUE, ZON�
SECTIt�1 18.22 FOR PROPERTY IN
�ebruary 14, 2000
R-1 - APPLICATION F VARIANCE FROM MLJIVICIP DE
ECIAL FLOOD I-IAZARD A FOR A FIRST AND�S�CO FLOOR
CP Monroe bri y presented the staff report. Deal indicated that he has ha a past business relationslu�d{ith the
applicant and wo d abstain from this item. The ommissioners asked: has the been any history of trou� with
flooding on this bloc � are there any other houses on �s block now below the floo elevation; is this project subject
to design review. The it was set for the February 28, 00 meeting providing all the i ormation is submitted to the
Planning Department in ti e.
509 CORTEZ AVENUE, �'QNED R-1 - APPLICATION i��w0 SOTORY SINGLE-F �Y RESIDEN E
�RMIT FOR HEIGHT AND D�B,SIGN REV�W FOR A NE
CP Monro briefly presented the staffrepo The commissioners asked: h e looked at this design and t detaiIs are
going to ma e or break this design, could e applicant give us more info ation on the details of the ea e, posts,
railings, windo s and apron around the porc • no landscaping plan was sub itted, need one in order to �e the
relationship bet en the porch and the ground; ould like to see what the por railing will look like; would�'staff
confirm the front set ck numbers existing on the bloc and for this property since th taff report has one number and
the applicant's data is a ifferent number; for this proje the applicant needs to pay att tion to the shingling pattern,
it should be changed on di rent parts of the house, could t submit a shingling plan; plans how the distance between
the finished floor and joists be 9.5 inches, that seems too ' tle, if it is made larger will a t height, please confirm
this dimension ancl explain; the plicant needs to address the nt setback variance, would no like to see this house
t much closer to the street than e one ne� door to the south, that neighbor is at 15 feet, th this proposal may
not too difficult; provide informati on the gable end detail, it will b important to the character o e structure also
the ve detail; like the project, would ' e to make it great; if the front tback is increased, will it af% the height of
the struc re. The item was set for pub ' hearing at the February 28, 00, meeting providing all the 'nformation
requested i ubmitted to the Planning Dep ment in time.
� 1804 DAVIS DRNE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE.
(N�IMESH AMIN APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERI
CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report The commissioners asked: would like to see the landscape plan
strengthened so that it is more in keeping with the mass and bulk of the structure; this is a better project than was seen
before, would like to see dimensional detail on the precut foam molding being used around the windows; the porch
columns do not look like anything else, can they be changed to match the style; the FAR is so close to the maximum,
would staff recheck their calculations; this project has been improved to the point that we are down to the details, on
the north elevation there is a split roof and a one foot change in plate line, you could use a hip roof to tie the roofs and
plates together better; will the prayer room be used just by the family or will it also be used by outside people who will
come for meetings; the number of cars is the issue; if the chimney shown is to be used it will need to be taller in order
to get a proper separation, have the building department check and revised drawings The item was set for public hearing
at the February 28, 2000, meeting providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time.
2
i
.,
SHAH ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTURE * PLANNING * INTERIOR DESIGN
1487 Floyd Avenue, Sunnyvale, California 94087 .(408) 245-7883
FEB. 18, 2000
To : Ruben Hurin — Planner
City Of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, C A 94010
RFF : Response To Planning Commission
Study Meeting Comments Of 1804 Davis Drive.
Dear Mr. Rubin Hurin,
The following responses are listed to Planning Commission comments.
• The Landscape Plan Sheet # A-6 is revised. Five Gal. size trees are added in order to
break the Building Mass (Scale).
• For Molding details please see attached sheets.
• Entry Porch and Column design is revised to match with the building overall look,
please see East Elevation on Sheet #A-4.
• The North Elevation Split Roof to change into Hip Roof and tie down with Garage
Roof looks very heavier and bulky and does not look very interesting.
• The Prayer room at basement will be used by the family only, nobody will be allowed
and invited from outside.
• The Fireplace is designed to use only Gas and make interesting interior design of
living area.. In this case the Fireplace Chimney will not be required taller to get a
proper separation. Please see note on Floor Plan Sheet # A-2.
Please give me a call at (408) 245-7883 if you need any additional information.
Thanks.
Sincerely
v—d
�r RECEIVEC�
Vinu 5h � chitect. `
FEB 1 8 Z000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
'.;
-, �� � Window Sill Shapes Scale: 1/4-�= �-�
>
r
l
�
,,
i
F E B 1 8 2000 SPECIfLLTY
� FOAM
CITY OF BURLINGAME PRODUCI'S
PI ANNIN(; nFPT
Pnge S
KtI,tIVtU
: :,
;;�� �
,;1�:�
� Uii/in do w a n d D o o r 7rim Specify size when ordering
No.350
No.351
No.352
No.353
No.355
No.356
No.357
SPF,CIALTY
FOfIM
PRODUGTS
,_ .;,;:
- _=-_s� .
;_ ''= ` _
k`
VED
FEB 1 8 ?000
CITY OF BURLINGAME p"�e l5
PLANNING DEPT.
�
�a
o �v
��
z�
d�
_ �,\\ --- ,\
�� � �
�
�
�
a
�
�
`�
�
t�
I
C�
O
�
�
�
C�
�
�
0
r
�
�
�
�
��
ro
��
'� z
dd
BAY AREA FOAM INC. * 20273 MACK STREET * HAYWARD, CA 94545 * 1-800-743-3626 * FAX:(510)-786-0297
>
�
_�
�
0
�
C
��
d r
m z
��
--� D
�
m
,
�
m
W
�
00
v
0
0
O
�
rn
l J
rn
C
m
�
�I
MINUTES
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMIVIISSION
` 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
October 25, 1999
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Coffey called the October 25, 1�, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
NIINLJTES
Commis ioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighra L;uzuriaga, Vistica and Coffey
None
City Planner, aret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Ande on; City Engineer, Frank
Erbacker; Planner, ben Hurin
The minutes of the Oct�ber 13, 1999 regular meeting minutes were approved as
mailed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item #6, 1804 Davis Drive was continued from the September 26, 1999, Planning
Commission meeting. Item #8; 1610 Chapin and #9; 1009 Burlingame Avenue are
continued to the November 8, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. The order of
the agenda was then approved.
FROM THE FLOOR
STUDY
APPLICATION FOR�
GARAGE AT 1108 VAN
There were no public comments.
GN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-S�ORY RESIDENCE WITH A DETACHED
J� AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (T. PET�LAM, AIA, APPLICANT AND DMITRI
CP Monroe briefly presented the staf report. C. Boju�s noted that he lived wit ' 300 feet of this project and he
would abstain from any discussion o this project. The commissioners then ask • why is there a parapet wall
on one side of the proposed garage st cture; will the second floor casement windows wn meet the emergency
egress requirements for bedrooms; the applicant should reconsider the design for the hous as shown it does not
fit the neighborhood; the driveway pavin width is shown at 9 feet, is 10 feet required; what e of windows and
window trim will be used throughout; none f the houses in the neighborhood have second story ba onies or stucco
columns, would the applicant explain how e are compatible; it is good that these plans are more schematic,
means that there is more room to change the design a expense; neighborhood compatibility is an issue, applicant
should explain how the height, bulk, mass fit with the adjac t properties; there are inconsistencies in the drawings
which need to be fixed, the roof plans do not match the elev tions, there are appendages shown on the elevations
which are not shown on the proper elevations; the balcony on the front of the building and the columns it sits on
�
City oJBuriingame PJanning Commission Minules �\� Oclober 25, 1999
APPI,ICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE AT 1804 DAVIS DRIVE, ZONED
R-1. (NIMESH AMIN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (38 NOTICED) - RESUBMITTAL OF A
PROJECT WHICH WAS CONTINUED FROM TIiE SEPTEMBER 27 1999 MEETING
Reference staff report, 10.25.99, with attachments. Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if there is
a limit on the amount of storage in a house. Planner Hurin noted that there is no limit on the amount of storage in a
house, but that the limit on storage in an accessory structure is 10% of the gross floor area of the house.
Chair Cof%y opened the public hearing. Applicant, Rajin Patel, noted that he would be glad to answer any questions
the Commission might have. Commission noted that there is a lot of storage built into the house; bedroom #1 has a
walk-in closet and a standard size closet, bedroom #2 has a closet which spans the full length of a wall, bedroom #4 has
two walk-in closets and a standard closet, and bedroom #5 has a walk-in closet and a standard closet. In addition to
these closets, there is also an unfinished storage room in the basement. The Commission asked the applicant to explain
the need for so much storage. The applicant noted that the lifestyle of Asian Americans requires that food for a year
be stored in the house. He also added that it is better to build more storage now than to add it in the future after
construction has been completed.
Commissioner expressed a concern in the amount of square footage proposed on the lot. This lot measures 5250 SF
which is allowed a certain development square footage, basement is not counted towards the FAR, if the basement area
were counted in FAR, the proposed square footage is equivalent to what would be allowed on a lot that is over 9000
SF. Therefore, the intensity of use on this lot is much greater than the zoning code anticipated; all properties are sold
at some point, applicant may be here five years, then the problem goes to the next owner, and still have a bulky building
with a lot of square footage, unlike anything in the neighborhood. The applicant noted that he looked all over
Burlingame for a 4-5 bedroom house; Palo Alto and other cities are starting to not count basements in floor area ratio
because it is an innovative way to increase the square footage, most cities are reducing the allowed floor area ratio; three
years ago, before the allowed FAR was reduced, a 3500 SF house could be built in this neighborhood, many of the
houses designed are over 3000 SF, does not make economical sense to build a 1500 SF house based on the purchase
price ofthe existing house and lot, existing smaller houses in the neighborhood were built 40-SO years ago. Commission
then asked the applicant if his argument was that because the property was purchased for a certain amount, that he
should be allowed to build more than what the zoning code allows. The applicant commented that the zoning code
allows a basement and that this was the main reason why the lot was purchased, otherwise he would not have purchased
the property; he checked with the city several times to make sure that a basement is allowed by code; would like to work
with the neighbors and city, would like to live in this neighborhood, addressed all concerns and questions expressed by
the Comtnission at the study and action meetings, difficult to address concerns because all Commissioners had dif%rent
points of view; this is design review, if you don't like something in regards to the design, changes can be made to the
design, has been to design review twice, both reviews have had positive recommendations; applicant submitted a sketch
of a typical foundation detail, noted that if a standard foundation is used the house will be 21 " above grade, applicant
is proposing 24" above grade; Commission noted that there are other typical foundation details that could allow the
floor being lower, floor needs to.be lower on only a small portion of the property because it slopes downhill, a double-
sole plate could be used so that the floor joist can be set down much lower; applicant noted that if a project was
submitted under the height limit, this typical foundation detail would be allowed; in his last letter he provided examples
of houses in the neighborhood where first floor is above grade, at the last meeting it was suggested that the applicant
consider placing some living area above the garage so that the second floor would not be so high and the structure
would present less mass and bulk to the neighborhood, it wasn't done, wondered if the applicant explored this
4
City of Burlingame Planning Comn:ission Minutes
October 25. 1999
a1te,�-native; applicant noted that the design reviewer did not like the idea of having living space over the garage; does
not know who to please - design reviewer or the Commission.
Katht�m Smith, 1811 Davis Drive, Teresa Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive, Leo Tealdi, 1640 Marco Polo Way, Jim Vangele,
1648 Marco Polo Way, and Bill Mason, 1808 Davis Drive spoke in opposition to the project: petition signed by 100
Ray Park residents was submitted which expresses that the house is over 4100 SF on a 5250 SF lot; has a 1337 SF
basement not included in the FAR, any basement over 100 SF should be counted in FAR, all water/drainage problems
should be addressed; the plan for the house is not compatible with the neighborhood in regard to height and design,
and the proposed house would have 5 bedrooms and 5'/z baths which could pose a parking problem; letter submitted
by Kathryn Smith addressing additional issues, no other house in the neighborhood has a full basement used for living
purposes, basement has potential for three bedrooms, and rear of house appears to be three stories; letter submitted by
Mr. Clark, 1800 Davis Drive, house is more like a triplex than a single family house, cannot understand house, such a
large house can be built on such a small lot which would allow a lot of cars and people creating a parking problem,
house not compatible with the neighborhood because of its size, height, and living space in basement; concerned about
diverted surface water issues, normal flow of water will be diverted into � their home, feels the engineering report
submitted by applicant dated October 18, 1999, does not address their concerns regarding underground water, asked
if Braun Consulting will accept responsibility if problems are experienced because the underground water test was done
during a dry period of the year, asked if City will accept responsibility of water problems if it approves the project; issues
have not been addressed, dropping the first floor to ground level and eliminating the storage room, ho�se from the front
is tallest on block, proposed 5 bedroom house could become a 6 or 7 bedroom house because of the basement layout,
storage room could be converted to a bedroom, 21' x 21' master suite in basement has two doors and two closets and
could be divided to make an extra bedroom, design review letter dated August 4, 1999, indicates that the design
reviewer is concerned about overbuilding the site with a potential 6 bedroom house and only a 2 car garage, talked to
neighbors in Ra.y Park who noted that it was unfair that the 1337 SF basement is not counted in FAK, feel that because
of a technicality that doesn't declare a basement having living space that the new FAR rules are not being followed;
speaker noted that he is a police lieutenant for a local police agency, noticed traffic and parking is getting worse in the
area, in order to cross street you have to pass through parked cars in the early morning and evening, intersection of
Marco Polo Way and Davis Drive is a high traffic thoroughfare for cars and children going to school; as a police officer
has been in other homes similar to the proposed which started off as a single family dwelling, no doubt that this house
will become a multiple family dwelling, applicant admits that most houses in the area are smaller, alarmed at the plans
and design of house, should meet the concerns of the Commission and 100 other residents that live in the neighborhood;
speaker owns large five bedroom house on Marco Polo Way, house is built on same size lot as proposed project but
does not have a basement and does not violate any city codes, feels this project has aspects of a Winchester mystery
house with large closets, one kitchen for three families and two children now, but what will happen five years from now,
does not object to building a new house, but should build within code limits; appears to be three stories at rear of house
as a result of the sloping grade, lives next door spend a lot of time in rear yard and will have to look at three story
structure; frequently during heavy rain storms Davis Drive tends to flood, diversion and pumping water from basement
will add to existing water problems.
The applicant responded to the comments made by the public, noted that the basement is allowed by code, if he is doing
anything that is against the code, he can be stopped; letter prepared by the consultants was submitted and addresses all
water concerns, if neighbors or the city think otherwise he will bear the cost for another study by a different consultant,
if result is the same as original study, neighbors should bear the cost, he does not want to live in a house that floods;
tried to contact several neighbors and commissioners to review the revised plans, but got no response;'door between
the bedrooms was added because of emergency egress requirements, feels neighbors opposition is based on fear; there
will be no increase in traf�ic, there is an existing house on the site now with a two car garage, not proposing increased
s
Ci[y ofBurlingame Planrring Commissio�t Minutes
Oclober 25, 1999
development; this is a joint family, takes time to understand the concept of a joint family, neighbors fear what could
happen in the future, meets code requirements now, any house after it is sold may be in violation of a code, that is why
there is code enforcement; the typical foundation detail shows the finished floor 21 " above grade, applicant is proposing
the foundation 24" above grade. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comments: applicant has a point, exception for basement, does not count in FAR but thinks it is a mistake,
building code doesn't count basements as usable space because they don't tend to add building code type problems, but
a basement as useable space does add impact, classic example of why we need design review, need to discuss
compatibility with the neighborhood; regardless of basement, the way spaces and size of spaces have been allocated
throughout the building is what is causing this to be a big building and the need for the space in the basement;, design
reviewer apparently did not understand the compatibility issue in the neighborhood, issue is height of building above
gade and the way the building is massed, too much square footage on the lot; project sent back to the design review
because the Commission was concerned with the size of house and how it fit into character of neighborhood, to say that
the project adheres to the code and therefore you should have what you want is wrong, design review was established
because people were abusing the code; in past few years the code has been taken to the maximum in many respects; still
not compatible with the neighborhood, basement is too big, proposing square footage that is equivalent to a 9000 SF
lot; not too concerned with the water problems because this issue will have to be addressed later; basement ordinance
was intended for someone to add underneath an existing house in the hillside, never intended to build an entire floor;
basement issue is regulated through design review; engineering issues can be easily addressed, design review was
established to thwart the construction of monster homes allowed by code two years ago, with basement, use on property
will be intensely magnified, design review has done what it is supposed to do, should pursue the study of basement
ordinance, cannot support project; not an easy project to make a ruling on, understand applicants' arguments, final
determination lies in the design review, two story house with a full basement is a different house than what the rest of
the neighborhood is made up of, lots of single story houses adjacent to this house; rooms are very large, excessive
amount of storage, these items can be addressed and reduced to bring the house closer to the size of other houses in
the neighborhood; responsibility of the commission is to plan for the future and protect the neighborhoods; strong
showing iiom neighbors that don't believe the project is in keeping with the neighborhood, there are alternatives to this
project to meet the needs of the applicant.
Additional commission comments: suggested that the second floor addition be placed over the garage so that more
bedrooms could be added on the second floor rather than have the bedrooms in the basement, adding a room or two
in the basement is an innovative way to add space and not add bulk above ground; felt that the definition of basement
did not consist of bedrooms and bathrooms, not saying applicant cannot have a five bedroom house; concern is having
bedrooms, bathrooms, a laundry room and an unfinished storage room in the basement; how will the basement be used
in the future, basement could have potential of being used as a separate dwelling since there are doors to the outside
of house; there is the possibility of putting basement bedrooms on the second floor and using basement mainly as
storage area; general view of basement is not habitable area, feel bedrooms can be relocated and the house redesigned.
to accommodate the relocation and still be able to provide storage space in the basement; applicant seems to be flexible
and is certain a solution can be reached perhaps by making bedrooms and storage areas smaller; feels applicant has a
clear direction now; storage room in basement may be converted to a bedroom in the future by another property owner,
doesn't feel code intended a full living floor in the basement; code is what the city allows, city is made up of families
and neighbors, applicants have property rights and neighbors have neighborhood rights, project does not fit the
character, size, height or integrity of the neighborhood, 100 neighbors oppose the project, they too have neighbors
rights.
C. Deal moved denial of the project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
CilyofBurlinga»re Plannir�g Commission Minufes Oclober 2S, 1999
On the motion: Commission asked how does denial without prejudice work versus a straight denial. Denial without
prejudice relieves the City Planner of having to make the determination whether a revised project which is submitted
is substantially different than the previous app:ication; commissioner requested that the maker of the motion reconsider
the motion to be a straight denial.
C. Deal moved to amend the motion to a denial, C Bojues, the second, agreed.
On the motion: Commission asked if it would be possible to waive the fees for resubmitting. City Attorney notes staff
does not encourage the waiving of fees, difficult to differentiate between this applicant's position and some other
applicant's position where the commission might not waive the fee, better to be consistent; tendency would be to deny
without prejudice and then give clear direction, if saw an application that took a more compact approach to building
a house, a more restrained approach on how far it comes out of the ground, and took the compatibility with the
neighborhood seriously, meaning the height at the front, the height and distribution of the mass, it might be a better
project; applicant is relying on the fact that he is meeting the codes, applicant must realize that there is design review
also; need to send a strong message that 4100 SF is not tolerable on a 525.0 SF lot, gave applicant opportunity by
continuing the project and by sending it back to design review.
Chair Coffey called for a voice vote on the amended motion to deny; the amended motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal
procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR SECOND-STORY
REAR SETB K FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE F RESIDENCE AT 1021 DRAKE AVENUE,
7n�n R_ t (Tn CruT .F.CTNC'TF.R APPT .T(' ANT ANi� F.T T('TF. .. TPANT('H PR (�PF.R TY CIWNFR 1
Reference staff report, 10.25. 9, with attachments. City Planner discussed thf
Department comments. Five c nditions were suggested for consideration. The �
what the city's construction equirements were when building near a creek
construction practices would be required, they would have to stay clear of t:
change the direction of the flo in the creek, and they would have to get a I'ish �
one; is construction limited du ing wet weather, not by code but possibly by c
eport, reviewed criteria and Planning
mmissioners asked the City Engineer
ed, CE noted that best management
100 year flood level, they could not
i Game permit if the agency required
Chairman Coffey opened the pu ic hearing. Eugene Supanich, 1036 Cabrillo, h e owned this lot for some time and
want to build a new house on it o retire into; we were originally confused about etbacks, discovered that the
narrow frontage (Drake) is the front, ere is an alley way (10' easement) at the rear of his lo , here are only two houses
behind them on Carmelita so he will have ' n his property plus the easement between him an the house behind which
is 40' further back from the property line. The ' of the house is not too visible, we will ad more trees; we need a
bathroom on the second floor and one bedroom wi e used as an office and the bedroom do nstairs will be used as
a pool room.
Commissioners asked: what is wrong with the house tha is there now, remodeled it 35 years o, the foundation is
almost gone, the rooms are small, lived in it and am tired of , want a nice new home; worked to ake the new house
fit into the neighborhood and it will be quality; the house that is there reflects a lot of the ch acteristics of the
neighborhood including a front porch. This is a double lot y exception, not a lot of space to use tween the new
retaining wall and street, the creek takes considerable room. Concerned at study about the height of the structure
proposed-this is a large building-nice looking but big, as increase ize need to mitigate could do by reducing second floor
height, have a flat ceiling on the second floor with a 9.5 foot plate ould have an 8 foot plate and vary the ceiling inside.
�
trL cir �
' BURUNQAM� CITY OF BURLINGArv�
`�,.
� APPLICATION TO TI� pLA►NNIN,G COMMISSION
Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other ����, p,�,; e���
Project Address: /,� 0�- n,� �/r S 1��i Ve j3 U� y�,� �� yv� e C�
Assessor's Parcel Number(s): �� ' 2 d)- O�
APPLICANT
Name: �,�� �1'V) /= S!-� �'�
Address: _ a�oZ L�- ,Y1 i s S i p�v� �' �-
City/State/Zip:_��l t'1 � Y� C' I S C o
Phone (w): �- � S G4 �-��� � 94 i� a
��
(h): � - � SS 12q�
fax:_ -4- �� � 41 �g 2� 3
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:_ �O�se.s�- ,(��Pi'� �irvS�-t �
Address:_�o • a.��,4. �nis S i ov� S�- •
City/State/Zip:_ Scc ��c�'v�C' � S� o C'R �� 4
Phone (w): L�- l S 6',L� � `�-� Z4
(h�:_ ('sZ� 3ss /29 �
fax:__ 1� � s 41 `� z L�
Name: �DA�I C C� � L��t�
Address:_ 50 �(f�U�� �T,
City/State/Zip: S(�N �AtSG(.�a Gh- .��-�( l o
Phone (w):
(n): 4 (� - o2.lQ -�a23
fax:_ — ��"(s� �2Co � �25 �
Please indicate with an asterisk * the
contact person for this application.
PROJECT DESCRIP'rION: /V�o r� � •-�r,,,., ��•.�,,, �� r � .�cc,-,,,,, ,� ( C,.�, -�-E ,,_, ,Q
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given
herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
/1 /�s �,�„ �/6 `� �_
Applicant's Signature Date
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
.�� ��� ���/ � �
Pro e Owner s Si nature Date p C'\'C
,
-- -----------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------------_1C��� V !��
--------------------------- P- - g
Date Filed: 7(o � F�: 3to; -� 500 �'— JUL - 6 1999
Planning Commission: Study Date: �� �3'� � Action Date: ��27- q 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME
- p� QNNING DEPT.
��.�� � I ..� �., ��� �. � � I�Ih � �.., ��� � �R�.hvL ��lu. • i ia�. J� 177t3 �tf! S.SH�`l �1
II*I� * * .� '
* (� * OLD R.EPUBLIC TIT�E COlYYPANX
III I,k **� 1361 Linda Mar Center • Pacifien. CA • 9a044�341 •(650) 355-a91 G• FAX (650) 355-1853
July 15, 1999
Attn: Nlmesh Amin
Mr. and Mrs. Nimesh Amin
138 Panorama Court
Pacifica, CA 94044
Re: Escrow No.; 271375-SH
Property: 1804 Davis Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Nimesh and Dipika and Manish and RuJuta :
�E�ElVEC�
JUL 16 1999
CITY UF BURLINGAME
PLANNING D�PT.
We are pleased co inform you that the escrow covering your purchase of the above referenced property
has been closed. The conveyance document was recorded on July 15, 1999 and wlll be mailed directly
to you irom the Of�ice of the Courrty Recorder. Your Policy of Tltle Insurance is being issued and
will be malled to you under separate cover.
In connection with the completion of your purchase, we are enclosing the following:
1. Check in the amount of $127,49
2. HUD-1 Settlement Statement
3, Buyers Closing Statement
4. Copy of Insurance for your records
5. Form 590-RE for your records
We appreciaied the opportunity to work with you In this transactlon and hope that It was handled to
your satisfaction. If at a future date you refinance your property or offer It for sale, please
request the order ba placed with OLD R.��(JBLIC TIT'LE COMPANY. Because our title
department has retalned thls recent examinatlon of the publlc records covering your property, a
future search may be accomplished In an even more timely manner.
We hope you enjoy your new property and if you have any questions, piease feei iree to contact me.
incerely,
asha Hartmann �
' EScroW otf►ce� �, �°�� ' � v b � 7�1 � V �' �
�'' , m eS � � Y•�• � '�
a'ar'' � N .
enclosures: as noted above 6� 1 ���
1-� I S"
ROUTING FORM
DATE: January 28, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family residence
at 1804 Davis Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-201-050. (Revised Plans)
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, 7anuary 31, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
�/3' o o Date of Comments
�--�'���s _ - -_ - =-��
.�T •
- � �� .� � C`�`'� � �--' � � �`�` ��
( (e.c�� a�--� r t l�e d'�°` �
�
s%,�-�-�i` � � ,�}�� �.�c«� .�..�
v..d.t�- , d'u`'"' � t �
� o,, � d v�-' �- �'`
ti1 ��� � , v l� � �� �Q�
�� �� � r �l
3
��
� �
� t �,,vv,, v�. o,�,,, �, l� �
�"u � s I.•cc-�` � C' � � r.��
S.0 w �ev �-� `r°t'1
S � • ,, tl i l..e.
n �,� ���� r f
�� .
�,,,/ �cl c
„�,. �-t.,,,�,e s l�-�.t.l �
p� C��
1 �
s G�•�w►ti .
ROUTING FORM
DATE: January 28, 2000
TO: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BiJILDING OFFICIAL
FIRE MARSHAL
SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family residence
at 1804 Davis Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 025-201-050. (Revised Plans)
SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING:
STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, January 31, 2000
THANKS,
Maureen/Janice/Ruben
�/�r� ��1���ti�
� /D r L� ��i, �C
�,�� ��'�Y�
— %" ate of Comments
c o �� U6L ��r� .2
�'���T�L�L— �U2 �X�Ti,�/c5
/��� �'�.Pdc;��c1� Lc�Z
��� �
��
Feb-Ol-00 11:1OA Gumbinger Associates
98121.28/2.7
MEMORANDUM
DAT'E: February 1, 2000
TO: Ruben Hurin, Planner
City of Buriingame
FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA '
RE: 1804 Davis Drive
Burlingame
REVISED PLANS DATE STAMPED January 28, 2000
(Received January 31, 2000)
BACKGROUND
Sent Via Facsimile
650/696-3790
RECEIVED
F E B- 1 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
This is a new submittal by an entirely different designer and as such, represents a definite improvement
over the previous project that w�as denied by the Planning Commission.
The new design has a much better residential scale, is reduced in height and has a consis�ent window
and shutter treatment that follows around the entire house. The basement has been limitcd to a Prayer
Room of approximateiy 500 sf.
Preliminary comments were sent to staff and lhe revised drawings respond to ihe Design Reviewer's
concerns; refer to Memorandum dated January 20, 2000.
DESIGN GUmELINES
I. COMPATIBLILTTY OF TI-� ARCHITECTURAL STYI.E WITH THAT OF TI-IE EXISTING
CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
The architectural style of the proposed new house is compatible with the existing character of lhe
neighborhood.
2. RESPECT TE� PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN T'HE NEIGHBORHOOD.
Tl►c proposcJ dttachcd garage is appropriate to Wc ncigl�borlioc�d.
3. ARCHITECTURAL, STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF'THE STRUCT'[IRE, AND INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY OF TI� STRUCTURAL DESIGN
The architectural style of the proposed new house is similar to other houses in the neighborhood. The
interior arrangement is consistent wiih the structural design.
4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE W[TH Ti� ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO
EACH SiDE.
Althougt� the neighboring houses on each side are one story, there are two story houses in thc
immediate neighborhood; i.e. 1700, 171 I, 1712, 1801 &c 1805 Davis Drive and 1636, 1648 & 1G56
Lassen Way. Thc height is miligated by stepping in the two story portion from the sidcs
(appro!amately I 1 feet from the left and 15 feet from lhe right property Iines). The mass is furiher
mitigatcd by setting the front of the two story portion back approximately 32 feet from lhe front
property Iine. The first floon c�ight from thc average top of cu� has been reduced to 1'-0".
5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL
COMPONENTS.
The proposed landscape treatmenl is proportional to �he mass and bulk of the structural components.
RECOIvIIviFNDATION
It is recomcnended that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review for the proposed new
house. •
650 579 1402 P.Ol
.��►
�r�
���
. �.�-= GUM�NGB�
` ASSOCIATES
_ =
-
� b0 EOs1 Thn7 A�.pnu� :�.��fa 300. iOnMoif?�:�.('J�9as��
Fox (b50) 579-1.9C2 • 1cL (650) 579-09�:5
E-Moii guR�C?ossocCa-a? cxn
AI?CHITECTS
?��u+ J Citn�Uinoc:r. =fV.4
Timc: 2 Nours '�esdent & CEU
`�;��m: K �:r.Cm. �JA
fssx io'e
Jan-20-00 05:54P Gumbinger Associates 650 579 1402 �.Ol
98121.28/2.7
MEMORANDUM
REi��.�VED
JAN 2 1 2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
DAT'E: January 20, 2000
TO: Ruben Hurin, Planner
City of Burlingame
FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA �� ..
-
_____
_
= = GUM�NG�
- - = AS;�OCIAIES
`
� 60 ECst Tnud Averx+P. :�nlc; 30�. Sm �'k�t�c; CA 9d:01
Foz (650) 579-1�0: • iEL (�5�1 519-0995
E•nno�l gumbossa �e com
ARCHITECTS
Sent Via Facsimile
650/696-3790
RE: 1804 Davis Drive
Burlingame
PLANS DATE STAMI'ED Januar}� 14, 2000
(Received January 20, 2000) •
PRELIMINARY COMIvIENTS
The proposed design is a definite improvement over the previous project which was denied by the
Planning Commission.
Sheet A-1
Projcct Summary
Delete the ��ords, "Appro�." after thc square footage shown for the Proposed Total F1oor Area.
Sheet A-2 �
1" Floor Plan
Show 20' c 20' clear inside dimension for garage.
Sheet A-3
2nd Floor Plan
Show fireplace chimney
Roof Plan
Show chimney cap as shown on elevations.
Sheet A-�3
East Elevation
Modify chimney height to meet requirements of Uniform Building Code.
(Chimney is shown appro�imately 5'-6" from sidewall of second floor; chiumey needs to be
much higher to meet code.)
Show detail of front door design.
There should be 5 seclions for a t�pical garage door.
Sheet A-5
North Elevation
Break between lower roofs looks awkward.
South Elevation
Chimney heiglit?
Time: 2 Hours
POuI J. GumC•irK�rt. F.A'A
F12S'C}=nl & C�O
�'o@mJ K .4v!am, AIA
Assoc�o�a
FROM : BRAUN�CONSULTIIJG FR:( Na. : 7�7^0872425 Oct. 18 1999 09:27AM P1
t r �t3�J.1�—�_13.��..11ii.1 � �
Engineerit�g Geolag}'---Ge�technical Engine�rii�g---C�ydrog�ology
P.d. Box 1623 Farestrrille CA. 95��6 {phone & iax) '707-887-2425
RECEIVED
OCT 1 8 1999
Mr. Rajen J. Patcl Oct�ber 18, ]999
5315 S,IivR Ave. CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Richmond, CA. 9486�
Subjoct: Hydr�geolo5ic Evaluation az Sitc of Proposed New ResidEmee
1 soa Davis brivc
Burlingarna, � .
Dear 11+ir. Patel:
At yQur requc^st, '�raun Consulting has prepared this lcttor prorriding the resuits of
our recec�t suUsurfau:e stud� al 1804 D�vts Dr�ve, Burlingacne, C�1��4�• �� aT� � thc
pr�cess af prepar�ng a geotr.�hnical rcport: for thc proposed new residence, V1re understand
that a sL�bbasesi�ent i� desirad and will bc approximately 4 inet balow ex9sting grade.
Qn October � 5, 1999, on� exploratory borinr was drilled and sampled to a cotal
depih of 2�-1l4 faet. Tl�e geoioSic la� of thc boring will ba prescntod in tiic geateciuucal
report. Th� results af our sub5urface study indicate that th� site is underlain by soil
maxerials cv>>siytin,{� of silt �.d sand,y srilC to a depth of 4.5 feet w}rich are inturn underl2.in
by rlay and sandy cl�y to a depth vf 8.5 feet.'�elow a d�pth o£8.5 foot, aaudy materials
are present cansisting of silt.y sand(SM); weU graded fln� az�d medium-grained
sarid(S��');and poor}y �.raded sand(SP). C'xroundwater is preboat at a depth below gr�de of
14.5 �eet as de#ern-�ined by usc of an electric water ievel gauge a�euratc tu 0.01 fC�t.
�'he sand materisls encountered below R dopth of 8.5 feet �d extent�in6 ta atlt��t
ths znaximum depLh �xplared (24 L/4 Eaet) �rE oonsidered ae tk,e aquif2r. Addiuonally, tlic
aquifer is cunrently uncarrfined. As wc are near the end af the dry seaSon� it is ceasonsUl.�
to coz�clude that th� groundv�ater teble is at or near Che lowest leval of the sea.son. As the
sand zanc is overlain Uy clay mat.eriAl�, I conclude th,aC th< rns�timum heighc of th� water
tabl� during late sFns�r, { end of the t,ypical rainy sea,aon ) wou!d be at a dep�th of 8_5 fcet at
which point the aquifer wauld hecome confined-
As curren.tly proposed, a bacemenL rvill be excavated tio s de�th of about � feet.
Grannd��ater ��ill �e0t be e�acOuniEred during cxca��azi�n to this depth.
Shouid any qucstions arise codeerning this ietter or our interpretatiou of tht
hydro�ealogy at the site, please do not hesitate to cantact us at 707-887�2425.
Sincerely
�'���'�'�" Donli. $raun 'ficciEn�inoering Gcolagi.st #�1310
1to. 131 G
CERTi�t�4
EhiGlt';EE�.i�
GEOLUG75r b • ...
t�'nr..n� &� �
ATTY-Anderson, Larry
From: Marti Knight [msk455@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 9:29 AM
To: Larry Anderson
Subject: Fwd: <no subject>
Larry: Sorry I'm sending this YOUR way, but I'm not sure what to tell
him. I guess since I'm listed first on the web page I get ALL the email! Can you
copy council, Dennis, Meg and I'll talk with you when I get back from
SF with George today re answering him? Thanks. Marti ----------------
Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: 09/28 8:58 AM
Received:09/28 9:23 AM
From: Mike Shea, mshea ,�premierm-d.com
To: msk455 earthlink.net
Marti,
Hello, my name is Mike Shea, my residence is located at 1812 Davis Drive. I am
writing you about the proposed construction at 1804 Davis Drive. The plan does
not make sense. Last night the planning commitee decided to send the project
back to design review. How the project ever got through design review is
extremely questionable. We need to quickly evaluate that committee, and make
changes. In the meantime, I suggest placing a moratorium on demolition and
new home construction.
The proposed construction @ 1804 is as follows:
Lot Size: 50 x 104
Bedrooms: 5 Master Suites
Bathrooms: 5 '/2
Sq F`t: 4000+ - They will tell you that it is less. But, when you add in the basement
where two of the couples will be living it adds up to 4000+ sq.ft..
What can I do?
Mike Shea
697.5957
333.6799
End Forwarded Message