HomeMy WebLinkAbout1516 Howard Avenue - Staff ReportCityof Burlingame Item No. 8a
J Action Item
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 1516 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: July 13, 2015
Request: Application for Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height
envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design APN: 028-291-040
Property Owner: 1516 Howard LLC Lot Area: 7,057 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based
upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was
indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood
Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be
potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any
property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any
significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially
eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 5, 2014.
The results of the evaluation concluded that 1516 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for
listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria.
Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, an Initial Study was prepared for the project. Based
on the analysis by Page and Turnbull, it was determined that there would be no adverse environmental impacts,
and a Negative Declaration has been prepared (see attached ND-579-P).
The purpose of the present review is to hold a public hearing and evaluate that this conclusion, based on the
initial study, facts in the Negative Declaration, public comments and testimony received at the hearing, and
Planning Commission observation and experience, are consistent with the finding of no significant environmental
impact.
Project History: This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 24, 2014 as a design
review study item and on February 9 and March 23, 2015 as action items (see attached meeting minutes). At its
meeting of March 23, 2015, the Planning Commission denied with prejudice the applicant's request for a
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two-story
single family dwelling and detached garage. The Planning Commission's concerns focused on the design of the
front porch, noting that the front porch is not harmonious with the rest of the house and that additional work was
needed to resolve the issue.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission's action, the applicant and project designer, Mark Robertson, appealed
the Planning Commission's action to the City Council. At its meeting of May 4, 2015, the City Council overturned
the Planning Commission's decision of denying the application with prejudice, and instead voted to deny the
application without prejudice, and directed that the application return to the Planning Commission with a strong
sense that the applicant and the Planning Commission can work out the issues with a renewed effort (see
attached May 4, 2015 City Council Minutes). They also directed that the revised plans be reviewed by a design
review consultant prior to Planning Commission review.
In their discussion, the Council noted that they were not necessary requiring that a porch be added to the front of
the house, but rather that the front of the house be articulated better so it does not look like the back entrance to
a home.
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
Summary of Changes to Project: The applicant submitted a response letter, dated June 24, 2015 and revised
plans date stamped June 26, 2015 to address the comments and concerns expressed by the City Council and
Planning Commission. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design
review consultant is provided in the next section.
In working with the design review consultant, the applicant replaced the previously proposed flat roof porch at the
entry (5'-10" wide) with a new, larger front porch which extends across the entry and living room (19'-2" wide).
The porch depth was also increased from 4'-2" to 7'-4" by extending the porch out further and eliminating the box
bay in the living room. The porch roof was revised from a flat roof to a combination hip and gable roof. In
addition, the front entry door was brought forward by 3'-9". Lastly, a stone veneer wainscot was added at the
front of the house. Please refer to sheets 5 and 6 on the revised plans, date stamped June 26, 2015.
Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the designer
and property owner to discuss the Planning Commission's and City Council's concerns with the project and
reviewed revised plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer's analysis and recommendation, dated
June 16, 2015, for a detailed review of the project.
In conclusion, the reviewer notes that "the applicant has responded verywell to the comments and concerns and
has agreed to add a front porch to the project. It was made clear that a porch was not "required" but the
applicant and designer have taken the comments seriously, and agreed to make this change." The reviewer
comments that the proposed porch design is somewhat different than the other houses on the block and that it
provides interest and a distinguished look from the other homes. The reviewer notes that the design is a
neighbor -friendly and compatible design is recommending approval of the project with no suggestions for
additional changes.
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing two-story single family dwelling and
attached single -car garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached two -car garage. The
proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,628 SF (0.51 FAR) where 3,758 SF (0.53
FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 130
SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 3% of the maximum allowed FAR.
A total of three off-street parking spaces are required for the proposed five -bedroom house, two of which must
be covered. The new detached garage will provide two code -compliant covered parking spaces; one uncovered
parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The
applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Negative Declaration, a determination that there are no significant environmental effects as a result of
this project;
■ Design Review for anew, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1));
and
■ Special Permit for declining height envelope (79 SF along the right side of the house extends beyond the
declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.26.075).
As noted above, the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for declining height envelope along the
right side of the house. The point of departure for the declining height envelope is based on the average of the
front and rear property corner spot elevations at each side (cannot be based on the 15-foot front and rear
setback lines because the difference between these two points is not more than 2'-0") (Code Section 25.26.075
(b) (4)). Due to the abrupt downward slope caused by an existing creek running along the rear of the lot, the
point of departure for the declining height envelope at each side of the house is approximately four feet below
the finished floor of the house. As a result, the right side of the house extends 79 SF beyond the declining
height envelope.
2
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
1516 Howard Avenue
Lot Area: 1,Ub1 51-
Plans date stamped: June 26, 2015
PROPOSED
ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
.........
Front (1st fir):
19'-3"
19'-3" (block average)
(2nd fir):
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................
27'-8"
20'-0"
Side (left):
........................................................................................_...;._............._.............................................
12'-0"
...........................................................................................
4'41
(right):
4'-0"
4'-0')
..............................................................................................................................................................__.......---..............................................................................................................................................................t..........................................................................................--........................................................................._...................................
Rear (1st fir):
54'-9" to porch
15'-0"
(2nd fir):54'-9"tobalcony
....................................................................................................................
20'-0„
...
Lot Coverage:
........................................................._._..._................................................................................. .............................................
2545 SF
_...........__...................
2823 SF
...........................................................................................................................................
36% i
40%
FAR:
3628 SF
3758 SF'
0.51 FAR
0.53 FAR
# of bedrooms:
5 I
---
............................................................................ ............................................ ..................................................
Off -Street Parking:
_..............................................................................................
2 covered
2 covered
(20' x 20')
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
1 uncovered
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._.......__........................................_............._...._......._._.......................
(9' x 20')
(9' x 20')
...................................................................
Height:
...............................................................................................................................................
26'-6"
30'-0"
DH Envelope:
...................................................................................................................
Request for Special Permit 2
_... .... ......... ............................... .....................................................................................
(79 SF extends beyond the declining
CS 25.26.075
height envelope)
(0.32 x 7,075 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,758 SF (0.53 FAR)
2 Request for Special Permit for declining height envelope (79 SF along the right side of the house extends
beyond the declining height envelope).
Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that Burlingame Creek runs along the rear of the property. There
are no improvements proposed beyond the top of bank. As part of the building permit application, the applicant
will be required to provide engineering calculations to demonstrate that the will be no impacts to the bank or
creek. See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions.
Negative Declaration: Because there was a potential impact on historic resources, the proposed project is
subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission held an
environmental scoping session for this project on November 24, 2014. An Initial Study was prepared by the
Planning Division staff. It has been determined that the proposed project can be covered by a Negative
Declaration since the Initial Study did not identify any adverse impacts from the proposed construction of the new
single family dwelling and detached garage (please refer to the attached Negative Declaration No. 579-P). The
Negative Declaration was circulated for 20 days for public review on January 20, 2015. The 20-day review period
ended on February 9, 2015 and no comments were received on the Negative Declaration.
Required Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review
and approve the Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in
writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
(negative) effect on the environment.
3
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must
find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation forthe removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Suggested Special Permit Findings (Declining Height Envelope): That because of the abrupt downward
slope caused by an existing creek running along the rear of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height
envelope at each side of the house is approximately four feet below the finished floor of the house which causes
the declining height envelope to extend into the house at a lower elevation, that the encroachment is consistent
with the design, and that the second floor wall which extends into the declining height envelope is broken up by
articulated walls at various setbacks and windows distributed along the wall, the project may be found to be
compatible with the special permit criteria.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report and within the Negative
Declaration. Affirmative action on the following items should be taken separately by resolution including
conditions from the staff report and/or that the commissioners may add. The reasons for any action should be
clearly stated.
1. Negative Declaration.
2. Design Review.
3. Special Permit.
At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
June 26, 2015, sheets 1 through 7, LO and L1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff);
4
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit 1516 Howard Avenue
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division's November 6, 2014, October 24, 2014 and September 15,
2014 memos, the Parks Division's October 29, 2014 and September 18, 2014 memos, the Engineering
Division's November 6, 2014 and October 29, 2014 memos, the Fire Division's September 15, 2014
memo and the Stormwater Division's October 27, 2014 and September 4, 2014 memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed
upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that
demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,
set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation
at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
5
Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit
1516 Howard Avenue
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design, applicant and designer
Attachments:
Design Review Analysis, dated June 16, 2015
Applicant's Response letter, dated June 24, 2015
May 4, 2015 City Council Minutes
March 23, 2105 Planning Commission Minutes
Response Letter Submitted by the Applicant, dated February 25, 2015
February 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Response Letter Submitted by the Applicant, dated December 16, 2014
November 24, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Photographs of Neighborhood
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed July 2, 2015
Aerial Photo
Separate Attachments:
Negative Declaration and Initial Study (ND-579-P), dated January 20, 2015
Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 5, 2014
0
W 1 NI r E
ARCHITECTS
6-16-2015
Burlingame Planning Commission
I V CD
501 Primrose Road, _IUN 2 2 2015
Burlingame, CA 94010
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Ref: Design Review 1516 Howard - New Residence GDD-PLANNING DIV.
Dear Planning Commissioners;
I have had one meeting with the applicant and designer, two site visits and several
reviews by email of design revisions. I have also watched all of the tapes from
Planning Commission meetings, and the City Council meeting. I have reviewed the
final resubmittal dated June 12, 2015, and have the following comments.
1. In my opinion, the applicant has responded very well to the comments and
concerns and has agreed to add a front porch to the project. It was made
clear that a porch was not "required" but the applicant and designer have
taken the comments seriously, and agreed to make this change.
2. Working with various options for the configuration of the porch roof and pillars,
we came up with an alternative that is somewhat different from the other
similar houses on the block. The use of a decorative lattice gable at the porch
roof is a traditional craftsman element and provides interest and a
distinguishing look from the other homes.
3. The porch will be supported by wood columns on stone bases. These columns
are spaced symmetrically around the living room window, and around the
front door.
4. A stone base material has been added which runs across the front from the
gate at the left elevation, across the porch and bedroom wall, and ends at a
fence on the right elevation. This stone veneer will match the fireplace
veneer. The window sill heights have been adjusted to be consistent.
5. The entry door has been brought forward and is not as recessed as the prior
design.
6. The Bay window at the living room has been eliminated to allow a deeper
porch. There is also a planter in front of the porch to create a sense of
separation from the public sidewalk and street.
WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE 311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX: (650) 343.1291 / in(oOwingesoio.com / TEL: (650) 343-1101
ARCHITECTURE / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / MASTER PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING
WIIIG_
ARCHITECTS
7. The other issues brought up in the hearings and city council meeting seem
secondary to the main issue of the front elevation, and these other issues seem
to be mitigated and/or solved. I do have the following comments on those:
• The driveway position is much better on the left side as shown to maintain
the neighborhood pattern, to give separation from the house on the left,
and to avoid having 2 driveways together with lots of paving and little
landscape on the right side. I definitely recommend leaving it where
shown.
• The left elevation has been heavily articulated and is almost too busy —any
more articulation is unnecessary and would be detrimental.
• Materials, windows and trim seem consistent and harmonious with the style
of the house.
• The garage design is simply done, and is consistent with the house design.
I thank the Building Designer and Owner for being flexible and working well with the
suggestions. I think this is a neighbor friendly and compatible design for the
neighborhood and street. I recommend approval of the design as presented, along
with the standard conditions of approval.
Very Truly Yours,
Jerry L. Winges, AIA. LEED-AP
WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE 311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX: (650) 343-1291 / info Owingesaia, com / TEL: 1'650/ 343-1101
ARCHITECTURE / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / MASTER PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING
I MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN a 1
6/24/2015
ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: NEW RESISENCE
1516 HOWARD AVENUE
BURLINGAME, CA. 94010
RE: RESUBMITTAL PROJECT AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPEAL
Dear Commission Members,
J U N 2b 2015
CITY OF BURLINGAME
ODD -PLANNING DIV.
Our project had previously been denied by the Planning Commission because we were resisting the
inclusion of a front Porch.
We appealed this denial to the City Council and received a 2 to 3 vote to send our project back to the
Commission. Two Council members voted to approve the project without a Porch and three Council
Members felt that the City Council should not get involved with Planning Commission design decisions.
The City Council felt it would be best to send our project back to the Planning Commission through a City
Design Review Consultant. The Council asked us not to put any undue pressure or attempt to influence
the redesign process too much, and to follow the Consultants directions. The Council also asked that
we not provide a Porch that is similar the house directly across the street as they agreed that similar
Porches would be a bit tract like.
This resubmittal is the result of having worked with Jerry Winges. We believe it is an outstanding result
and satisfies all the requests we received from the City Council. We hope you like it too, and that you
can approve this project with the addition of a substantial front Porch.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark Robertson.
918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399
CITY O�
BURLJNGAME
m
�FwTco �uuc 6
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 4, 2015
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A
NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE, ON
PROPERTY AT 1516 HOWARD AVENUE, LOCATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE
CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and advised that the applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-
story single family dwelling and attached one -car garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling
and two -car garage. Mr. Meeker said that at their March 23, 2015 meeting the Planning Commission denied
the application and their concerns focused on the design of the front porch, noting that the front porch is not
harmonious with the rest of the house and additional work is needed to resolve the issue.
Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing and David Finkelstein, attorney for applicant Peggy Statz spoke and
said the proposed house at 1516 Howard would be very similar to the applicant's home at 133 Costa Rica
Avenue in Burlingame. Project Designer Mark Robertson spoke and said the applicant was opposed to a
front porch since the house is so close to El Camino Real and it is bad feng shui.
Mayor Nagel asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak and Steve Schmidt, neighbor of 1516 Howard
Avenue spoke, the son of the applicant spoke, and Burlingame resident Pat Giorni spoke. Vice Mayor
Keighran clarified with CDD Meeker that the project did not go to design review and Mr. Meeker agreed.
City Council discussion and questions followed and Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to overturn
the Planning Commission's decision of denying the application with prejudice to denying the application
without prejudice, and return it to the Planning Commission with a strong sense that the applicant and the
Commission can work it out with one more go; seconded by Councilmember Root.
Mayor Nagel asked CA Kane if it was permissible to send it back to the Planning Commission without
prejudice, and CA Kane said yes. Mayor Nagel expressed concern that this could cause a financial burden to
the applicant.
Vice Mayor Keighran said she would prefer that the project be sent to design review. After reviewing at the
Planning Commission meetings, the design reviewer could provide clear direction and work with the
applicant. Council asked CDD Meeker for his input on Vice Mayor Keighran's recommendation and Mr.
Meeker said he liked the idea of sending the project to design review, and it would be an appropriate step to
take. Mr. Meeker said if the applicant chooses to submit revised plans for the project, staff would be
directed to refer the revised project plans to a design reviewer in advance of it going back to the Planning
Burlingame City Council May 4, 2015
Approved Minutes
Commission. Councilmember Brownrigg amended his motion and converted it to denial without prejudice
and if they want to resubmit the project, the requirement is that they go to design review. The seconder of the
motion agreed.
Mayor Nagel spoke and asked for clarification on the direction to the applicant and Council advised that they
were not requiring a porch be added to the front of the house, but rather the front of the house be articulated
much better so it does not look like the back entrance to a home. Council said they have given suggestions
and now it is time for the applicant, the architect and the design reviewer to figure it out.
Mayor Nagel called for a vote on the motion and the motion was approved 4-1 with Mayor Nagel voting no.
2
Burlingame City Council May 4, 2015
Approved Minutes
City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
Monday, March 23, 2015 7:00 PM Council Chambers
C. 1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration, Design
Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two-story single
family dwelling and detached garage (Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design,
applicant and designer; 1516 Howard LLC, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Sargent noted that he was absent from the last meeting on this item but watched the
video.
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property. All had visited the property.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff.-
> None.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant:
> Porch has been expanded.
> Massing on the driveway side has been broken up. Closet has been pulled in to have more roof on
the first floor.
> Dropped top plate to have roof come down and bifurcate the elevation.
> Had discussed flipping the house, but resistance in wanting to keep driveway pattern in the street
consistent. Would have two driveways side by side, and two detached garages within a couple of feet of
each other. Better to have the houses and garages staggered and separated.
Commission questions/comments:
> What changes have been made to the west elevation? (Robertson: Has added an indent between
the two windows. Roof has been dropped and eave extended down.) Change is very subtle, not sure it
would be perceived from the ground.
> Porch does not seem harmonious with the rest of the house. Odd to have a flat roof when the rest of
the house has peaked roofs. Other options that were studied were better, particularly Option #3.
(Robertson: Agrees, but owner is concerned that house across the street has the same porch. Would
look like a tract. This is owner's choice.)
> Door still seems lost.
> Changes to side are minimal.
> Planning Commission should not be spending so much time refining the design of application. This
is the third time this project has returned. (Robertson: This house is the "sister clone" of the house the
owner built at 133 Costa Rica. That house turned out well. Realtors told the owner to duplicate the house
as often as possible.)
> Likes Option #3 porch — this was the consensus of the commission. Fits location close to downtown.
> May have liked house at 133 Costa Rica but would not want to replicate the same house all over
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 711/2015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 23, 2015
town. The charm of Burlingame is the diversity of housing stock and architectural styles.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Aveue, spoke on this item:
> Has not seen substantial changes to the front porch from the last meeting.
> Designer is talented, but client appears recalcitrant.
> Should deny without prejudice.
There were no more public comments. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission questions/comments:
> If denied with prejudice, how long would it need to wait to come back? (Gardiner: 1 year, and would
need to be changed substantially.)
> Could benefit from design review consultant. It needs some tweaking — the front door and porch are
not resolved yet, but there are a lot of things to like about the house too.
> Agrees with rationale not to flip the driveway. Would be hard to justify switching driveway since it
would be a change to the pattern in the neighborhood.
> Special Permit for declining height envelope hard to justify for a brand new house where existing
house is being scraped. Creates a massiveness to the front that serves to squeeze front door and porch.
> Entry is still too weak. Would not be productive to send to a design review consultant since applicant
has resisted improving porch design.
> If application is denied with prejudice and appealed, could it be modified or does it need to be the
same plans? (Kane: The appeal would be of the action the Planning Commission takes. Cannot submit a
different project to the Council.)
> This project has been before the commission too many times already.
> Rest of house is acceptable, but porch does not work. Denial seems too heavy for just the
entry since the rest of the house has good qualities.
> Design review consultation may not be productive since applicant is not obligated to take
consultant's recommendation.
> Issue is with the process. Has already tried to send a message to the applicant - has already
continued the application, has denied it without prejudice but without success.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to deny the
application with prejudice. Chair Bandrapalli called for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by
the following vote:
Aye: 4 - DeMartini, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum
Nay: 3 - Bandrapalli, Yie, and Loftis
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 71112015
A
I MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o 1
2/25/2015 E I
ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME — PLANNING COMMISSION
FEB 26 120.-
PROJECT: NEW RESIDENCE
1516 HOWARD AVENUE CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 CDD-PLANNING DIV.
RE: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM OUR FEBUARY, 9T" HEARING.
DEAR COMMISSION MEMBERS,
The commission voiced strong concerns over several issues it felt were not yet addressed by our
resubmitted project. We have addressed these issues as follows:
HOUSE REQUIRES A FRONT PORCH:
The Commission felt that it was important that the house include a front Porch. There are three basic
options for adding a Porch to this particular house, and I have included them at the back of this letter
for your review. My client Ms. Statz sent the sketches to several other architects, her realators, and
her Feng Shui consultant and came back with the following conclusions:
Option one looks "cheap", and the bulk of the left side gable over powers the balance of the design.
Option two looks nice, but the Feng Shui consultant requires that the corner post be more ornate and
the lite at the front door be removed.
Option three also looked fine to most, but it was pointed out that this porch was identical to the house
directly across the street and Ms. Statz feels it would look cheap (like tract homes) to have almost
identical houses facing each other.
Thus, we are adding the Porch shown in option two with a more ornate corner post as shown in Detail
#E on Page #7, and the lite in the Entry door has been removed.
HOUSE MASSING ON THE DRIVEWAY SIDE:
The Commission felt the massing on the East Elevation was acceptable but still had concerns on the
driveway side and felt the issue was not addressed. To reduce the feel of bulk we have redesigned the
Master Closet and pulled it back a couple of feet to create more first floor roof area. We also lowered
the upper roof T.P. at the Master Closet to break up the massing further. The affect on the feel of
mass on the revised Elevation is quite dramatic and nicely resolves the concern.
FLIP HOUSE SO DRIVEWAY LOCATION STAYS THE SAME:
The Commission voiced concern that the Driveway location was swapped from the left to the right side
of the lot — that Public Works considers driveway relocations very unusual. The pre-existing layout is
unusual. It is normally discouraged to have two driveways together. The existing house has it's
918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399
garage at the front of the house. The existing driveway is only 18ft. long. Our proposal has a
detached garage at the rear of the lot with a driveway running the full length of the sideyard. If we did
not flip the driveway, we would have two 100 ft. long driveways side by side with two 2-car detached
Garages only a couple of feet apart at the end of them. This would create the feel of an enormous
bulky structure at the rear yard of both houses involved. Not flipping the driveway would also require
that we have two 2-story houses only 9 ft. apart on the right side. This would create a dark dingy area
between the structures and create numerous privacy issues. Both our neighbors on both side of our
project request that we leave the driveway layout the way it is.
Thank you for your kind attention, and we ask that our project be approved with these revisions.
Sincerely,
40
s
Mark Robertson.
ri)
C��
0-
INGAME
HALL
City of Burlingame B501 PRIMROSE ROAD
• 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURL®E BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
Monday, February 9, 2016 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
C. 1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration, Design
Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two-story single
family dwelling and detached garage (Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design,
applicant and designer; 1516 Howard LLC, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
Ex-Parte Communications: None.
Visits to Property.- All had visited the property.
Senior Planner Barber provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff.-
> None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant.
Commission Comments/Questions:
> Concerned that the applicant isn't going to live in the house, but very little has changed in the
design. Is very much like another home in the neighborhood. (Robertson - the owner has her idea of
what she wants. Has tried to convince her, but has hit a brick wall. The neighbors also like the current
design.)
> It is all well and good that the home is liked by the neighbors, but the Commission is looking at the
broader neighborhood context.
> Frustrated that the owner wouldn't consider any of the changes requested by the Commission.
(Robertson - the client knows that the other similar home is popular and well -liked, so she is afraid to
change the design. She wants to be assured that she has a winning house.)
> Any new house in Burlingame is a 'winning" house; they all sell." The argument for the design is
that "everyone else likes it". (Robertson - satisfied the next door neighbors. Since the comparable
house on Costa Rica was approved, then believes that this home would be approvable.)
> Feels the argument is a bit specious that the Commission approved the similar design on Costa
Rica. The charge of the Commission is to avoid creating "cookie -cutter" neighborhoods.
> Are getting to the point where the homes that are being torn down are more charming, not the
dilapidated structures.
> Doesn't feel the design fits in on Howard Avenue where homes typically have porches.
> Still concerned with regard to moving the driveway from one side to another. Concerned that the
neighbor wasn't anticipating such a change. The Engineering Division only recalls a few situations
where changes in the driveway location have been approved. (Robertson - felt that it wasn't pleasing to
have two driveways placed side -by -side.)
Public Comments:
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 311212015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2015
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue:
Agrees with the Commission's points. Has watched the drastic changes to the community over her
38-years of residency. The Commission evolves and has ensured that neighborhoods don't become
"cookie -cutter". The developer always sells the property and has no real need to contribute to what is
the community of Burlingame. Suggests not approving the design and send it back for review, or ask
the property owner come and discuss her position.
Steve Schmidt, neighbor:
The existing house has no driveway going by the neighbor. The applicant is just picking a side because
there is currently no driveway running along the property line, this is a non -issue. Is comfortable with the
design; is not a "cookie -cutter" design. Noted that the creek does rise up to three to four feet above the
existing ground. Believes that they will have water at the rear of the house on occasion because of
problems with the stormwater system on El Camino Real.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Was offended and annoyed by the response from the applicant. The applicant clearly has no
interest in considering the Commission's suggestions. Sees no reason to approve or continue the item;
suggested denying without prejudice.
> Noted that the comparable house on Costa Rica has a stone base that works its way around the
entry and helps to define the entry. Believes the designer is capable of refining the design to enhance
the entry.
> The character of the street demands a porch.
Vice Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to deny the project
without prejudice. The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: 5 - Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Terrones, and Gum
Absent: 2 - Yie, and Sargent
City of Burlingame Page 2 Punted on 311212015
I MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN o 1
12/16/2014
ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME —PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: NEW RESIDENCE li 2015
1516 HOWARD AVENUE
i',11Y Or BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 r,DD_PLANNING D!V.
RE: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM OUR 11/24/2014 HEARING.
DEAR COMMISSION MEMBERS,
Our hearing was attended by our neighbors who live on each side of our property, Kathy Schmidt at
1511 Howard Ave., and Amy Papazian at 1520 Howard Ave. The neighbors voiced concern that the
proposed new house was very large and would negatively impact their privacy. The Commission
suggested changing roof lines, adding Pittesporum hedge rows along our driveway, etc. to mitigate the
neighbors concerns.
The commission also mentioned that the two bathroom windows on the East Elevation formed a slant
that might look better evened up. The Bathroom windows were revised to be the same height as
requested.
The Commission also suggested that a Porch be added to the front of the house. I prepared a few
sketches of Porches and asked Ms. Statz (the property owner) to consider adding a Porch to her house
stressing that the floor area would be granted free, and would not impact her plan. She refused to
even look at the sketches. She considers a Porch as inviting in bad energy to the structure and very
much likes the look of the front of the house. Ms. Statz strongly objects to having a Porch and will not
consider it.
Our proposed new house is a clone of previous houses Ms. Statz has developed. Ms. Statz currently
lives at 133 Costa Rica Ave. which is three blocks West of our new location. The house is a realtor
favorite and Ms. Statz has received many compliments from friends and associates about how it looks
and how it feels. One of the commission members also commented that this house washer favorite of
all the plans of mine she has reviewed when she approved the house a few years ago. Several realtors
have recommended that Ms. Statz just crank out the same house over and over; "and not change a
thing".
I have a long standing promise with the Commission that I would not repeat the same plan and just
"cookie cutter" new houses in Burlingame. So I have modified the 1516 Howard plans slightly from the
133 Costa Rica plan so the houses won't appear the same. The Street Elevation has been changed on
the 2nd Fir. to add an extra corner and extra hipped roof line and the left gable wall on the I" Fir. has
been pulled forward a few feet. The East Elevation was changed eliminating a 2nd Fir. balcony. The
West Elevation has been changed with a different chimney configuration and the elimination of the side
entry. Due to the smaller lot size, the new house is aprox. 7% smaller and the roof pitch is slightly
918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399
lower than the Costa Rica house. Besides these changes and a few changes in trim, finishes and colors,
the houses are identical.
This gave me the rare opportunity of being able to show our neighbors an actual sample of the house
we are proposing to build between them. I dropped off a set of our plans for the neighbors a few days
after the hearing so they could have their own reference copies and we scheduled a meeting on
Saturday, Dec. 61" The meeting was attended by Steve and Kathy Schmidt, Amy Papazian and myself.
We walked the site and I located the new house relative to the existing house and the location of fence
lines and fence treatments and driveway drainage flow lines. We also discussed the creek and Steve
Schmidt described flooding issues and bank erosion issues that I will address when I prepare the
construction plans. We then walked over to 133 Costa Rica and I gave them a tour of the house, inside
and out, so they could see for themselves the views from inside the house, lines of sight for privacy, etc.
I described the various differences / changes between the two houses and I mentioned that I was hitting
a brick wall with my client when it came to adding a front porch. Steve Schmidt agreed with Ms. Statz
and stated that he felt adding a porch to the front of the house was unnecessary and would just "mess
up" a nice design. We returned to Howard Ave. and reviewed the privacy considerations with our new
point of reference. The neighbors seemed quite satisfied that the new house was not that obtrusive,
was not as massive as the drawings appear, and quite liked the overall design.
We propose the following changes to the plans as a result of our meeting:
1) On the right side of the lot, facing the Schmidt residence, we will saw cut the (E) concrete
driveway along the Property Line (set by the Surveyor) so as not to interfere with the (E)
drainage swale. We shall build a fence that exactly matches the (E) wood fence 6" inside of our
property line against the driveway saw cut. We shall plant trees as shown on the Landscaping
Plan along our side yard similar to the Costa Rica house.
2) On the left side of the lot, facing the Papazian residence, we shall reduce the driveway width to
T-6" as the Commission had suggested and we will plant a pittisporum hedge row down its
length. The hedge shall transition to a low Boxwood hedge at the front of the lot. We shall
also save an (E) Magnolia Tree that is on the property line and we promised Ms. Papazian that
we would install the fences before we start construction.
3) On the left side West Elevation I have deepened the recess of the second floor Master Closet to
show more lower roof. This is how the Costa Rica house was designed and I think reduces the
mass of the elevation significantly. It was decided not to lower roof lines because the
neighbors and I felt that having higher windows especially at the Master Bathroom bay window
provided greater privacy.
Thank you for your kind attention,
Sincerely,
Mark Robertson
c.c. Steve and Kathy Schmidt, 1511 Howard Avenue.
Amy Papazian, 1520 Howard Avenue.
Peggy Statz, 1516 Howard Avenue / file.
City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL
' 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURL®E BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
Monday, November 24, 2014 7:00 PM Council Chambers
a. 1516 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Review, Design
Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two-story single
family dwelling and detached garage (Mark Robertson, Mark Robertson Design,
applicant and designer; 1516 Howard LLC, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact:
Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum reported that he spoke with Debbie
Way at 1521 Howard Avenue and the Gallagher Family at 1517 Howard Avenue. Chair Bandrapalli
reported that she met with the renters of the house. There were no other ex -parte communications to
report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff-
- None.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Mark Robertson represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
- Concerned about the placement of the driveway and the impact upon a significant street tree. Could
the driveway be flipped? Also, could a different front -yard tree be proposed than the species for the
street tree? (Robertson - the landscape architect felt that the tree is overgrowing its location and
affecting the sidewalk that will need to be replaced. Two replacement will be installed, can increase to
24-inch box size.)
- On the East Elevation, there are three windows on the first floor that are stepping down, can you line
these up so the sill heights are the same? (Roberston - yes.)
- Questioned the height of the chimney, why does it need to be so high? (Robertson - it is a
wood -burning fireplace and needs to comply with building code requirements.)
- Asked if a more substantial front porch was considered? (Robertson - house is located close to El
Camino Real and for concerns with traffic and safety, the owner didn't want that type of feature.) House
could benefit from a more substantial element of this sort.
- Feels the architecture fits in quite well with the neighborhood. However, wonders if the massing
could be broken down a bit more, especially on the West Elevation.
- Speak to the client about adding a more substantial porch feature, would soften the house.
- Suggested sharing the plans with the neighbors.
Public comments:
Cathy Schmidt, 1512 Howard Avenue:
- Feels the style fits in with the neighborhood.
- Question regarding the declining height envelope and how it is calculated.
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 21212015
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 24, 2014
- Concerned with the proposed massing. The extension into the rear yard will completely block rear
yard with shading.
- There is a creek along the rear yard, not a ditch. The drainage element should influence the size of
the house.
- Would like a chance to speak with the designer and owner.
Amy Papazian, 1520 Howard Avenue:
- A big change is the addition of a driveway along her property.
- Seems like a massive project, especially as it extends toward the rear.
- Her house is a mirror image of the existing home.
- Likes the design; believes it will fit with the neighborhood.
- Concerned that there would be a driveway on both sides of her house, increase in vehicle traffic and
noise down the driveway.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Additional Commission comments/questions:
- There appears to be an error on the development table the staff report with regards to the FAR.
(Hurin - will review and correct.)
- The lot coverage and FAR are less than permitted, but feels like a massive house.
- Feels that there are revisions that need to be made.
- Encouraged revisiting the driveway width to assist in providing landscaping along the neighboring
property to provide privacy; perhaps a Pittosporum hedge can be used since it is fast growing.
- Look closely at adding a porch. Is likely a spec house, so someone buying the house would
understand being so close to El Camino Real, is signing up for urban living.
- Revisit side elevations to break up the massing.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Chair Bandrapalli, to place this item on the
Regular Action Calendar when ready for consideration. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote,
and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7 - Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 21212015
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
XDesign Review ❑ Variance
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit
❑ Parcel #: 028 -- Z9/ a�-O
❑ Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: / 516 HO WARD AVENUE
O Please indicate the contact person for this project
APPLICANT project contact person
OK to send electronic copies of documents
Name: MARK.
Address: 919 E . GMNT PL.',
City/State/Zip: SIGN 1' PtTC-0 , lam+ 1'3 /860Z
Phone: (65O) 1571 1/25
Fax: (650> 571 _
E-mail: MRNQh/II0 T50N 0, 6028L ' G0
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person
OK to send electronic copies of documents
Name: M KAok)EKT!�OI\'
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
* Burlingame Business License #: 2.2 6 0 5
PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: fl6iGi i 5/twii 5-'7`►i ?`-
Address:
City/State/Zip: 808DNOI'►'IE LIr-1 • l�f���
Phone: (6�J� 369
Fax: N /1A
E-mail: SING • 5T6727, OR, GMAIL ► C20
SEP 10 2014
:ITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: G)MPL_E_7_F_LY 8EMOLIE (E) P-574 5-F ,2- ®12Y I-O05E .► N)) PLACE
NX (N) 3 63 5, F, 2- 5Ta e-Y HD U5F I AND 431 5, F. bE71`iC HED G / FAAG C . PI Q657
IlYCLUf)ES N) DRVEWA`/ * 57�C--r CURD CU7 RE - LANb6CAMN6 rJF LVT .
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under enalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: Date:�S�zo;r
I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission.
Property owner's signature: Date:
Date submitted: I
* Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the
Finance Department at the time application fees are paid.
11 Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. s:IHANDourslPCAppiicotion 2oos.handout. doc
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Only
Project Description:
ZkA01-', -�nr L4-\v( Cbr) w, -�� I 12e v e /A;
DSR deposit/handling fee
paid by:
Pea
133 Gres-I-� 12 s c a- �e .
B yr l r. Gi r►�.c- G�}
Key:
Abbreviation
.Term::,,-,
CUP
Conditional Use Permit
DHE
Declining Height Envelope
DSR
Design Review
E
Existing
N
New
SFD
Single Family Dwellin
SP
Special Permit
City of Burlingame • Community Development Department • 501 Primrose Road • P (650) 558-7250 • F (650) 696-3790 • www.burfinuame.org
euRUNGAt.ME CITY OF BURLINGAME 9 V E D
4aw
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION 24 2014
:ITY OF BURLINGAME
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the C W!9!0H:Hi n6&
(Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
We are requesting a Special Permit to allow us to use the 15ft. front and rear setbacks as our points of
measure for our Declining Height Envelope. Our request to use the setback allowance was denied
because our lot is too flat between the setbacks — we do not meet the 2ft. differential minimum
requirement. At the very rear of our lot is a stream/drainage ditch and our P.L. happens to fall at the
bottom of this ditch. The ditch is 8 ft. below adjacent grade and is an anomaly to the area. A Site
Section diagram has been attached at the back of this application to illustrate the condition.
Requiring us to use the bottom of the ditch to calculate our DHE seems absurd and unreasonable. It
drops our point of departure 4 ft. below adjacent grade at the house, and creates a required 2 d Floor
setback of 11 ft. ! By allowing us to use the 15ft. S.B.s as our points of measure removes this anomaly
and will provide a balanced looking house. A Street Elevation drawing has been attached at the back of
this application to show the DHE calculated from the 15 ft. setbacks.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the
new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and
with the existing street and neighborhood.
The (E) 2-story house does not have an inset second floor on the right side. It actually overhangs the
first floor by 12". The Elevation is completely flat and has no articulation. Our new house will be a
vast improvement. Our second floor is inset in accordance with adjacent grade and is heavily
articulated. We have changed the driveway location for the new house, so it will now be flanked on
both sides by driveways. This creates a sense of balance and openness between the adjacent houses.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations
of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,
street and neighborhood.
The new house improves the pattern of the street by having driveways between both of our adjacent
neighbors. We are proposing a shingle style home that is nicely balanced and well articulated that we
believe will be a pleasing asset to the street. There are other shingle style homes on the street and we
feel that our design will mix well with the street.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)1
Our project is completely consistent with City design guidelines. The shingle style is found throughout
the neighborhood and will blend in well. The driveway pattern has been changed to provide open
space between our adjacent neighbors. The mass and bulk of the home is mitigated by lots of
articulation and our material selection. Open space has been provided on both sides of the house by
driveway location. The project includes full lot landscaping with the planting of 4 additional trees to
soften the mass of the house.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new
structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation
requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain
why this mitigation is appropriate.
Six minor fruit trees (Lemon), a Dracaena (in poor condition) and a City Street tree are to be removed to
make way for our new house and driveway. The Project shall be fully landscaped and 6 new trees and
30 significant shrubs shall be planted as show on our Landscaping Plans to compliment our project.
SIDEWALK
NUTal
REM E:;Z-b P61N ram. r-OF M Eft! U Rc DENIED
SPECIAL PERIM 1 T REQU 1;REL)
EN RUL)5E
(E) GRADE
� I
� REQUESTED POINT rZEQUESTED POINT
OF MEASURE OF MEASURE
5ET BA GK
5 TE SECTION
1
I1DRP,INAGE
DITCH
-7 ,1*x io�o
N-T 5.
RECEIVE[
OCT 24 2014
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV,
i 4;�stat� mutt,
93 R K nee.. Ask=
na•��ifne Sunni
Ann
ails WIN R11.
?PFT P1 I'x/e
v 4sr
Y�Ir. SA F Y
rl
r5 ,
y1,Y�
:YlL •xriW ��
a
d � '
n a
•M .�yy 4
e
f�
1 �L'
� II
Project Comments
Date: November 5, 2014
To: 0 Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
X Building Division
(650) 558-7260
0 Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
0 Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
0 Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Subject: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-291-040
Staff Review:
No further comments.
All conditions of approval as stated in all previous review of the project will apply to this
project.
In
Reviewed by
ate: 11-6-2014
Project Comments
Date: October 24, 2014
To: 0 Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
X Building Division
(650) 558-7260
0 Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
0 Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
0 Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Subject: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-291-040
Staff Review:
Second Comments:
A written response to plan check comments was not provided. In your written
r,�sponse specify where the information for each comment can be found on_th
pqs. __....._.__..._. ..._
14. the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line.
Information not found.
15. - icate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the property line will
e built of one -hour fire -rated construction. (2013 CBC, Table 602)
Information not found.
2 I pecify on the plans whether the fireplace is a gas or solid wood -burning device. If the
fireplace is a solid wood -burning device clearly state on the plans that the fireplace will meet all
requirements as a U.S.EPA Phase II certified wood -burning device.
Response not found.
Follow-up comment:
16. ms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that
mplies with the egress requirements. Specify the location and the net clear opening
height and width of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. 2013
California Residential Code (CRC) §R310.
Note: The area labeled "Office" is a room that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as
such, must comply with this requirement.
On the elevation drawings:
Specify the location and the net clear opening height and width of all required egress
windows on the elevation drawings.
In addition: The egress window at Bedroom #2 does not meet the minimum egress area
of 5.7 square feet.
NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address
items 14, 15, 23, and 16 must be re- itted before this project can move forward for
Planning Commission action.
Reviewey:�"'^p _ Date: 10-24-2014
Ol.// /650-558-7270
�a.
Project Comments
Date: September
To: 0 Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
X Building Division
(650) 558-7260
0 Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
0 Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
0 Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
(650) 558- 7204
Subject: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-291-040
Staff Review: September 15, 2014
1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2013 California Building Code,
2013 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2013 California Mechanical Code,
2013 California Electrical Code, and 2013 California Plumbing Code, including all
amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1889. Note: If the Planning Commission has not
approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2013 then this project must
comply with the 2013 California Building Codes.
2) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy
Efficiency Standards.
Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details.
3) Provide two completed copies of the attached Mandatory Measures with the submittal of
your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed
document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that
indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found.
6 Place the following information on the first page of the plans:
"Construction Hours"
Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m.
Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.
(See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.)
�n the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require
work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans
may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The
building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for
any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the
work.
6) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame
business license.
7) Provide a fully dimensioned site plan which shows the true property boundaries, the
location of all structures on the property, existing driveways, and on -site parking.
8) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of
Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of
Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No occupancy of the
building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
9) Provide a complete demolition plan that includes a legend and indicates existing walls
and features to remain, existing walls and features to be demolished, and new walls and
features.
NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit will not be
issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of any building
components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the project. The
property owner is responsible for assuring that no work is authorized or
performed.
10) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed
Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be
issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project.
11) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines
12) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures.
13) Obtain a survey of the property lines.
,1,4jOn the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property
line.
Indicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the property line
will be built of one -hour fire -rated construction. (2013 CBC, Table 602)
16) Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door
that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the location and the net clear
opening height and width of all required egress windows on the elevation
drawings. 2013 California Residential Code (CRC) §R310.
Note: The area labeled "Office" is a room that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as
such, must comply with this requirement.
(5) If shoring walls are require for this project then indicate on the plans that, at the time of
Building Permit application, plans and engineering will be submitted for shoring as
required by 2013 CBC, Chapter 31 regarding the protection of adjacent property and as
required by OSHA. On the plans, indicate that the following will be addressed:
a. The walls of the proposed basement shall be properly shored, prior to construction activity.
This excavation may need temporary shoring. A competent contractor shall be consulted for
recommendations and design of shoring scheme for the excavation. The recommended design
type of shoring shall be approved by the engineer of record or soils engineer prior to usage.
b. All appropriate guidelines of OSHA shall be incorporated into the shoring design by the
contractor. Where space permits, temporary construction slopes may be utilized in lieu of
shoring. Maximum allowable vertical cut for the subject project will be five (5) feet. Beyond
that horizontal benches of 5 feet wide will be required. Temporary shores shall not exceed 1 to 1
(horizontal to vertical). In some areas due to high moisture content / water table, flatter slopes
will be required which will be recommended by the soils engineer in the field.
c. If shoring is required, specify on the plans the licensed design professional that has sole
responsibility to design and provide adequate shoring, bracing, formwork, etc. as required for the
protection of life and property during construction of the building.
d. Shoring and bracing shall remain in place until floors, roof, and wall sheathing have been
entirely constructed.
e. Shoring plans shall be wet -stamped and signed by the engineer -of -record and submitted to the
city for review prior to construction. If applicable, include surcharge loads from adjacent
structures that are within the zone of influence (45 degree wedge up the slope from the base of
the retaining wall) and / or driveway surcharge loads.
dof shoring walls are require for this project then indicate on the plans that an OSHA
permit will be obtained for the shoring* at the excavation in the basement per CAL /
OSHA requirements. See the Cal / OSHA handbook at: http://www.ca-
osha.com/pdfpubs/osha userguide.pdf
* Construction Safety Orders : Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 6 , Section 1541.1.
(!Qndicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the
Department of Public Works.
20) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any
point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning
Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height.
21) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 2013 CBC §1009.
22) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
2�5pecify on the plans whether the fireplace is a gas or solid wood -burning device. If the
fireplace is a solid wood -burning device clearly state on the plans that the fireplace will
meet all requirements as a U.S.EPA Phase II certified wood -burning device.
�of the fireplace is a solid wood -burning device then specify on the plans that the fireplace
chimney will terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten
feet or will be retrofit with a fireplace insert (not a log lighter.) 2013 CRC §1003.9.
NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address
items 4, 5, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, and 24 must be re -submitted before this project can
move forward for Planning Commis n action.
Reviewed by: Date: 9-15-2014
ZZJo , BOY V5-558-7270
Project Comments
Date: October 24, 2014
To: U Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
U Building Division
(650) 558-7260
X Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
U Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
0 Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
U City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Subject: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-291-040
Staff Review:
1. Apply for permit for removal of existing City Street tree.(AlWad)
2. Irrigation plan required for Building permit.
3. Checklist submitted and approved.
Reviewed by: BDisco
Date:10129/14
City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 Kx
R R Phone: (650) 558-7300 - Fax: (650) 696-7216
recreation awhurlin >ame.orf
TREE WORK PLAN PERMIT FOR CITY TREES`r""`Y`°`"°'4�
(To be completed by applicant)
15/4, 14otjav-d AV, --
Address of Location Where Work is to be Performed Name of Applicant
Address of Applicant, if Different
Contact Phone and Email
Date
A separate plan is needed for each tree species. For groups of trees of the same species with similar needs, one plan will suffice.
Tree Species, Number of Trees & Location Relative to Property: (include a schematic, hand drawn or other, of location of trees on property.)
T�I (LIZ I lea 4 ?Ci aQ_V ba 0c 1 c) r_a 1 P_A 1' v�- Cj_t-u i lL (� S-�-v'� ►' 7
Pruning Objectives: Type of Work:
C3 improve Structural Strength and Reduce Failure Potential P� improve Aesthetics C� Remove 0 Plant ® Thin ® Reduce
O Provide Clearance for Pedestrians, Vehicles and Structures ® Repair Damage ® Clean ® Raise ® Restore ® Stump Removal
0 improve Safety for People and Property ® Reduce Maintenance
® Line Clearance 0 Re-establish View lq` Remove for Building Project -Permit ineffective until after Planning
Commission review.
Description of Work: (Please use back gfform for additional comments andor drawing of trees location on property)
Pruning shall be done in accordance with ANSI A300 Pruning Standards and should be done by an ISA Certified Arborist, Tree Worker or Tree Trimmer. Not more than 25% of
the crown shall be removed within an annual growing season. In cases where more than 1 '3 of the crown needs to be removed, such as to reduce the potential for structural
failure, a qualified arborist shall make an assessment c?fthe amount gfpruning needed to abate the hazard
This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Forest Management Plan. By signing this permit, the
applicant agrees to comply with all conditions listed. Permission is hereby granted to perform the above work only. All work shall be performed in the manner specified by the Parks
Division. The City shall not be made liable for the acts of private persons or their contractors upon city streets or public places by virtue of this permit. Contact the Parks Office at
650-558-7330 when work is completed. A Copy of this approved permit must be given to the Tree Company prior to the work being performed.
Property Owner Signature
City Arborist
Date Issued Expiration Date
September 29, 2014
OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST
} s
I certify that the sub j project m s e speci ed requirements of the Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance_.
i/ -- 12 4 20 i4
enna 10/21/14 (Revised)
Signature Date
t E
tt3 € Af�tAill�9 t31
r'.'Single Family ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Commercial ❑ Institutional ❑ Irrigation only ❑ Industrial ❑ Other:
Appli�ant Name (print): Contact Phone #:
Project Site Address: 1516 Howard Ave. Burlingame CA
Agency Review
(Pass) (Fail)
Project Area (sq.ft. or acre): 7057 SF # of Units:1 # of Meters: 1
Total Landscape Area (sq.ft.): 667 ' , 1_ .. i;. - i
A . ❑
+
Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.):
❑ ❑
Non -Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.): 6670
II
Turf Special Landscape Area (SLA) (sq.ft.): y nt� etir. 1 1400 VI / let eu
❑
i
Water Feature Surface Area (sq.ft.):
Turf
Less than 25% of the landscape area is
C1 Yes 715 200 = 935sf (23%)
'd ❑
turf
❑ No, See Water Budget
All turf areas are > 8 feet wide
❑ Yes
❑ ❑
All turf is planted on slopes < 25%
❑ 'fes
❑
Non. -Turf
At least 80% of non -turf area is native
V Yes
® ❑
or low water use plants
❑ No, See Water Budget
Hydrozones
Plants are grouped by Hydrozones
G Yes
Q ❑
At least 2-inches of mulch on exposed
G Yes
❑
Mulch
soil surfaces
Irrigation System Efficiency
70% ETo (100% ETo for SLAs)
U Yes
❑
No overspray or runoff
U `,'es
❑
Irrigation System Design
System efficiency > 70%
U Yes
❑
Automatic, self-adjusting irrigation
❑ 4No, not required for Tier 1
Gr. ❑
controllers
d es
Moisture sensor/rain sensor shutoffs
Yes
G] ❑
No sprayheads in < 8-ft wide area
(J Yes
❑
Irrigation Time
System only operates between 8 PM
LL Yes
❑
and 10 AM
Metering
Separate irrigation meter
U No, not required because < 5,000 sq.ft.
0' `; ❑
❑ Yes
Swimming Pools / Spas
Cover highly recommended
❑ ves
❑ ❑
No, not required
Water Features
Recirculating
❑ Yes
Er ❑
(0)
Less than 10% of landscape area
❑ Yes
❑ ❑
Documentation
Checklist
U Yes
❑
Landscape and Irrigation Design Plan
❑ Prepared by applicant
❑
D Prepared by professional
Water Budget (optional)
❑ Prepared by applicant
❑
U. Prepared by professional
Audit
Post -installation audit completed
❑ Completed by applicant
❑ ❑
❑ Completed by professional
OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST
I Aud itor:
Materials Received and Reviewed:
e Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist
❑/Wa'ter Budget
V Landscape Plan
❑ Post -Installation Audit
Date Itevlewed:
Cl Follow up required (explain):
Date Resubmitted:
Date Approved:
Dedicated Irrigation Meter Required:
Meter sizing:
❑ Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance
❑ Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist
❑ Water Budget Calculation Worksheets
❑ Plant List
❑ Other:
I �!+ j hillcJSt :e
❑ Drip irrigation
❑ Self-adjusting Irrigation Controller
❑ Plant palate
❑ Three (3) inches of mulch
❑ Soil amendment (e.g., compost)
❑ Grading
❑ Pool and/or spa cover
❑ Dedicated irrigation meter
❑ Other:
Comments:
The proposed landscape specifically includes low water plant selections, grouped appopriately
and utilizes synthetic turf trr pla6bof natural -lawns.
Selected Definitions:
Tier 1
New construction and rehabilitated landscapes with irrigated landscape areas between
1,000 and 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or
design review, or new or expanded water service.
Tier 2
New construction and rehabilitated landscapes with irrigated landscape areas greater than
2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review.
ETo
Reference evapotranspiration means the quantity of water evaporated from a large field of
four- to seven-inch tall, cool -season grass that is well watered. Reference evapotranspiration
is used as the basis of estimating water budgets so that regional differences in climate
can be accommodated.
SLA
Special Landscaped Area. Includes edible plants, areas irrigated with recycled water,
surface water features using recycled water and areas dedicated to active play such as
parks, sports fields, golf courses, and where turf provides a playing surface.
Professional
Professional is a "certified professional' or "authorized professional" that is a certified irrigation
designer, a certified landscape irrigation auditor, a licensed landscape architect, a licensed
landscape contractor, a licensed professional engineer, or any other person authorized by the
state to design a landscape, an irrigation system, or authorized to complete a water budget,
irrigation survey or irrigation audit.
Water Feature
A design element where open water performs an aesthetic or recreational function. Water
features include ponds, lakes, waterfalls, fountains, artificial streams, spas, and swimming
pools (where water is artificially supplied).
Project Comments
Date: September
To: U Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
U Building Division
(650) 558-7260
X Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
U Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
0 Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
U City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Subject: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-291-040
Staff Review: September 15, 2014
1. Dracaena tree (palm) poor condition. Consider replacing with new landscape
tree.
2. Completed landscape must include 3 landscape trees (non -fruit bearing) for
final inspection.
3. If Public Works requires sidewalk replacement, Policy for Expanding Width
of Planter Strip needs to be implemented.
l4) Existing City Street Tree may not be cut, trimmed or removed without permit
from Parks Division (558-7330)
5. `Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations" checklist submitted and
approved. Irrigation Plan required for Building permit. Audit due for Final.
6. No existing tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches from base of
tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Permit from the Parks Division
(558-7330).
Remove concrete in planter strip and replace with 2 new 15 gal street trees
from attached list
Reviewed by: B Disco
Date: 9/18/14
CITY OF BURLINGAME - PARKS DIVISION, 558-7330
e
850 BURLINGAME AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-2858
W.00 Ik
OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST - AUG 2010 9'.
fREt3CRY USA
TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS UNDER 4' WIDE
AND SELECTED TREES (*) FOR TREE WELLS IN PAVED AREAS
PICTURES OF TREES CANBE VIEWEDAT www burlingame-orQ UNDER THE PARKSANDRECREATIONDEPARTMENT
Site
Height at
Min
IDescription
Botanical Name
Common Name
Locations
Maturity
Spacing
* Acer buergemnum
Trident Maple
Washington Park Rose Garden
20-25'
25'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; roundish crown; glossy, three -
lobed leaves; fall color.
Aesculus camea
Red Horsechestnut
2212 Adeline
40'
30'
DECIDUOUS: Fast early growth; round headed; dark green leaves;
Plumes of crimson flowers inspring.
O Celtis australis
European Hackberry
1108 Cambridge
40-50'
40'
DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; gray -green, elm -like leaves; upright,
round headed form.
O Celtis sinensis
Chinese Hackberry
2711 Easton
3040'
25'
DECIDUOUS: Fast growth, glossy, dark green, elm -like leaves;
upright round form. Suse table to wooly aphids
Craetaegus phaenopyrum
Washington Thom
733 Lexington Way
20-25'
25'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; graceful open limb structure;
glossy leaves; foliage turns oran e, scarlet or purple in fall.
Geijera parviflora
Australian Willow
Wells Fargo Bank (Broadway), 117
25-30'
30'
EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; graceful branches; fine textured
Bayswater
leaves; pest free.
O Gingko biloba
Maidenhair tree
405, 409 Block Bayswater Ave,
30-50'
40'
DECIDUOUS: Slow growth; fan shaped leaves turn yellow in fall;
1240 Cabrillo
spreading, almost umbrella form.
Koelreuteria bipinnata
Chinese Flame Tree
209 Victoria, 139 Charming
20-35'
35'
DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; clusters of yellow flowers;
leaves yellow in fall, drop late.
Koelreuteria paniculata
Golden Rain Tree
1528 Howard
20-35'
35'
DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; yellow flowers; leaves
reddish inspring, dull -green in summer.
Lagerstromia indica
Crape Myrtle
Pershing Park, 1325 Drake
20-30'
25'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; spring foliage light green tinged
bronze red; red flowers July -September, yellow fall color.
Magnolia grandiflora
Magnolia `Samuel
2109 Ray Drive
30'
30'
EVERGREEN: Fast growth; upright branches; dark green foliage has
Sommer'
a rusty bronze coloring on leaf underside. White flowers in early
spring and again late in summer.
Maytenus boaria
Mayten Tree
900 Morrell
20-40'
25'
EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth; pendulous graceful
branches.
s O Pistacia chinensis
Chinese Pistache
2705 Easton, 121 Costa Rica Ave
3040'
40'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; dark green leaves, brilliant fall
color.
* Pittosporum undulatum
Victorian Box
1201 & 1230 Burlingame Ave
3040'
40'
EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; fragrant white flowers glossy
leaves;
round headed.
* Prunus cerasifera
Purple Leaf Plum
1320 Lincoln, Village Park
20'
15'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; coppery leaves; light flowers
Eastmoor side, 1320 Lincoln Ave
inspring
pink
* Pyrus calleryana
Flowering Pear
617 Howard, 2112 Adeline
25-35'
25'
DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; upright form; masses white flowers in
`Aristocrat'
spring,
red leaves in fall.
Robinia ambigua Idaho
Locust
1446 Capuchino
3040'
30'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; spring clusters of bright
magenta flowers; long leaves divided into oval leaves.
Sapium sebiferum
Chinese Tallow 2009
Deveraux Drive
35'
40'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; dense, round crown,
outstanding
fall color
* Trees appropriate for tree wells in paved areas
Q City recommended trees to increase the Urban Forest Canopy
OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST
I ify that bjAt project meets the specified requirements of the,, Vo tion in Lands&JM%Wdi'Wee.'w v—
Wa
SP� 10 2014
, Signawre/ ati
,, . 7nt. r e 7 VAAA
QrSingle Family 0 Multi -Family Q Commercial Q Institutional Q Irrigation only El industrial 0 other"'r) -PLANNING DIV
Applicant Name (print): Contact Phone #:
ject Site Address: 1516 Howard Ave. Burlingame CA
Project
Agency Review
(Pass (Fail)
Project Area (sq.ft. or acre): 7250 # of Units-1 # of Meters: 1
Total Landscape Area (sq.ft.): 667
El El
El Q
Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.): U
667 Non Turf Irrigate
d Area (sq.ft.):
Special Landscape Area (SLA) (sq.ft.): (Synthetic Turf 1400 SF)
Water Feature Surface Area (sq.ft.).
Turf
Non -Turf
r5ydrozones
Less than 25% of the landscape area is
turf
IV Yes
0 No, See Water Budget
❑
All turf areas are > 8 feet wide
0 Yes
All turf is planted on slopes < 25%
At least 80% of non -turf area is native
or low water use plants
Plants are grouped by Hydrozones
QJfes
Of Yes
OpNo, See Water Budget
Wes
Q
$1 Mulch
At least 2-inches of mulch on exposed
soil surfaces
Cf Yes
❑
Irrigation System Efficiency
Irrigation System Design
70% ETo (100% ETo for SLAB)
Cfes
y
_Xes
of Yes
No overspray or runoff
System efficiency> 70%
❑
Automatic, self-adjusting irrigation
controllers
_' 0' not required for Tie, I
LrYe,
❑
Moisture sensor/rain sensor shutoffs
M/es
❑
No sprayheads in < 8-ft wide area.
Mies
❑
irrigation Time
System only operates between 8 PM
and 10 AM
CY Yes
F
Metering
Separate irrigation meter
No, not required because < 5,00D sq.ft.
❑ Yes
Swimming Pools Spas
Cover highly recommended
es
VNNO' not required
Ll
Water Features
E
Recirculating
Less than 10% of landscape area
U Yes
P4es
Q
ii
Documentation
Checklist
Landscape and Irrigation Design Plan
Yes
Q Prepared by applicant
VPrepared by professional
❑
T
Water Budget (optional)
0 repared by applicant
Vprepared by professional
Audit
L
Post installation audit completed
❑ Completed by applicant
ILI Completed r.b-y-professional
❑
OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST
e Be CompletecUby
i•'
t.�►stlpf,�i1171r�,r r }:
Auditor:
stf nF+tare
Materials Received and Reviewed: ❑ Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance
Ouidoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist ❑ Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist
❑ Water Budget
❑ Water Budget Calculation Worksheets
❑ Landscape Plan
0 Plant List
❑ Post -Installation Audit
❑ Other:
Date Reviewed:
K%f Lam! ictCla�o1, . l �,1 i ijift
❑ Follow up required (explain):
❑ Drip irrigation
❑ Self-adjusting Irrigation Controller
Date Resubmitted:
❑ Plant palate
Date Approved:
❑ Three (3) Inches of mulch
Dedicated Irrigation Meter Required:
❑ Soil amendment (e.g., compost)
Meter sizing:
❑ Grading
❑ Pool and/or spa cover
0 Dedicated irrigation meter
❑ Other:
Comments:
The proposed landscape specifically includes low water plant selections, grouped appopriately
and utilizes synthetic turf in place of natural lawns.
Selected Definitions:
Tier 1
New construction and rehabilitated landscapes with irrigated landscape areas between
1,000 and 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or
design review, or new or expanded water service.
Tier 2
New construction and rehabilitated landscapes with irrigated landscape areas greater than
2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review.
ETo
Reference evapotranspiration means the quantity of water evaporated from a large field of
four- to seven-inch tall, cool -season grass that is well watered. Reference evapotranspiration
is used as the basis of estimating water budgets so that regional differences in climate
can be accommodated.
SLA
Special Landscaped Area. Includes edible plants, areas irrigated with recycled water,
surface water features using recycled water and areas dedicated to active play such as
parks, sports fields, golf courses, and where turf provides a playing surface.
Professional
Professional is a "certified professional" or "authorized professional" that is a certified irrigation
designer, a certified landscape Irrigation auditor, a licensed landscape architect, a licensed
landscape contractor, a licensed professional engineer, or any other person authorized by the
state to design a landscape, an irrigation system, or authorized to complete a water budget,
irrigation survey or irrigation audit.
Water Feature
A design element where open water performs an aesthetic or recreational function. Water
features include ponds, lakes, waterfalls, fountains, artificial streams, spas, and swimming
pools (where water is artificially supplied).
Project Comments
Date: November 5, 2014
To: X Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
U Building Division
(650) 558-7260
U Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
U Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
0 Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
U City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Subject: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-291-040
Staff Review:
Response to comment #2 is acceptable. All other comments still apply.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 11 /06/2014
PLAN ChECI� �dn15c�
Project Comments R EC' E I V E
Date: September
To: x Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
0 Building Division
(650) 558-7260
0 Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
0 Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
NOV -- 4 201 T
CITY OF BURLINGMAiF
C,rin-PIANNINC
0 Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Subject: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-291-040
Staff Review: September 15, 2014
1. See attached review comments #1, 2, 5, 14, 19 and 20.
New garage is being proposed at the top of slope which needs to be
determined by a licensed engineer and supported with engineering
calculations. If there are impacts to the creek, mitigation measures may be
required for 300 feet upstream and downstream of the site.
3. Applicant is advised to call City Arborist regarding potential relocation of
sidewalk area for street trees in the planter strip.
4. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
NEW �i A'l A qE WILL NOT &\1CA0AC H %P OF 6AN K
is —G K , Y OF SiVrE CGfYP.,I rl ED ON i/'f
FbgN X, *l �5Ef— TOP of PLAN d GA-PAr,E) .
kso Eni INEL-K "5 I5S LIED 6 ADMo VM'� -
10 ' lOFE 6Y 6,ft1(R6C- . 9eTKIC9a> AV -
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 10/29/2014
MARK ROBERTSON DESIGN a 1
10/23/14
ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME - ENGINEERING DIVISION
PROJECT: NEW RESIDENCE
1516 HOWARD AVENUE
BURLINGAME, CA. 94010
A.P.N. 028-291-040
RE: PLAN CHECK RESPONSES — GARAGE / CREEK NON-INTERFERENCE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I have reviewed the proposed plans for the new House and detached Garage at 1516 Howard Ave. and
can attest that the construction of the Garage will not interfere with the (E) Creek at the rear of the
property. I shall provide engineering calcs. when we submit our plans to the Building Dept. for permit
demonstrating that there will be no impact to the Creek or to the banked slope.
Sincerely,
OQRpFESS/OJOH
w w "3125 m
cc Z m
;E130/16
`•�J�T�rc CIVIC. .��P
' . OF �c 0o /
Edward Moran
( Project engineer )
918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF. 94402 U.S.A • TEL: (650) 571-1125 • FAX: (650) 571-1399
Project Comments
Date: September
To: X Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
0 Building Division
(650) 558-7260
0 Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
0 Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
0 Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Subject: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-291-040
Staff Review: September 15, 2014
1. See attached review comments #1, 2, 5, 14, 19 and 20.
GNew garage is being proposed at the top of slope which needs to be
determined by a licensed engineer and supported with engineering
calculations. If there are impacts to the creek, mitigation measures may be
required for 300 feet upstream and downstream of the site.
3. Applicant is advised to call City Arborist regarding potential relocation of
sidewalk area for street trees in the planter strip.
4. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 10/29/2014
t PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS Ow
Project Name: '/U4 W J (ri.�f &tj
Project Address:
The following requirements apply to the project
1 \50— A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building permit issuance.) LS
2_ The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit
issuance.)
3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
5_ A01tary sewer lateral 40 is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standards. )
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis
shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures.
8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project.
9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements,
monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map.
Pagel of 3
IJAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW CONM4ENTS.doc
i PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews.
12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel
map.
13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
14_ The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
appurtenant work.
15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State
Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 _ No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
20 io The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
T prevent storm water pollution.
21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re -submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the street into private property.
24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The
sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMI�IENTS.doc
Project Comments
Date: September
To: 0 Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
U Building Division
(650) 558-7260
0 Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
X
Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
U
Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
U
City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Subject: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-291-040
Staff Review: September 15, 2014
Provide a residential fire sprinkler system throughout:
1. Provide a minimum 1-inch water meter.
2. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — A
schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior
to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire
protection lines.
3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall
clearly indicate fire sprinklers shall be installed under a separate deferred fire permit,
approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
Reviewed by: G K Date: 9b 5 If+
Project Comments
Date: October 24, 2014
To: 0 Engineering Division
(650) 558-7230
U Building Division
(650) 558-7260
U Parks Division
(650) 558-7334
From: Planning Staff
U Fire Division
(650) 558-7600
X Stormwater Division
(650) 342-3727
0 City Attorney
(650) 558-7204
Subject: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-291-040
Staff Review:
1. Project proponent returned a completed and signed Stormwater Checklist;
project proposed several site design measures to comply with Provision C.3.i.
2. Previous comments shall be addressed during the building permit application.
Reviewed: EJ
Date: 10/27/2014
AN MAtTEO COUNTYWIDE
Water Pollution
Prevention Program
City of Burlingame —Office of
Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects Environmental Compliance
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) 1 103 Airport Blvd
Order No. R2-2009-0074 ; Order No. R2-2011-0083
NPDES No. CAS612008 Office: (650) 342-3727
Fax: (650) 342-3712
Complete this torn for individual single family home projects of any size, other projects that create and/or replace less than 10, 000
square feet of impervious surface, and projects in the following categories that create and/or replace less than 5, 000 square feet of
impervious surface: restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities', and parking lots (stand-alone or part of another
use).
A. Project Information
A.1 Project Name:
jy CIi ILL 5 I Q El C E
A2 Project Address: t 5► E; HOW,t P-0 AUE Lail AJNr,3 tME (/,A, 9WJ
A.3 Project APN: Q ` I - 04 C2
B. Select Appropriate Site Design Measures
BA Does the project create and/or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface2. XYes ❑ No
X If yes, and the project will receive final discretionary approval on or after December 1, 2012, the project must include one
of Site Design Measures a through f.3 Fact sheets regarding site design measures a through f may be downloaded at
http://www.flowstobay.org(bs new development.php#flyers.
❑ if no, or the project will receive final discretionary approval before December 1, 2012, the project is encouraged to
implement site design measures4, which may be required at municipality discretion. Consult with municipal staff about
requirements for your project.
6.2 Is the site design measure included in the project plans?
Yes
No
Plan
Sheet No.
❑
i a.
Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels and use rainwater for irrigation or
other non -potable use.
❑
b.
Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.
❑
c.
Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.
❑
d.
Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.
❑
L I e.
Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. D 4--
❑
f.
Li
Construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable DU
surfaces.
❑
I g.
Minimize land disturbance and impervious surface (especially parking lots).
xy
❑
h.
Maximize permeability by clustering development and preserving open space.
❑
i.
Use micro -detention, including distributed landscape -based detention.
❑
L' j.
Protect sensitive areas, including wetland and riparian areas, and minimize
changes to the natural topography.
❑
( k.
Self -treating area (see Section 4.2 of the C.3 Technical Guidance)
X
❑
I.
Self -retaining area (see Section 4.3 of the C.3 Technical Guidance)
❑
"m. Plant or preserve interceptor trees (Section 4.1, C.3 Technical Guidance)
I See Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes here.
2 Complete the C.3/C.6 Development Review Checklist if the project is not an individual single family home, and it creates and/or replaces
10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface; or if it is a restaurant, retail gasoline outlet, auto service facility, or parking lot project that
creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface.
3 See MRP Provision C.3.i.
4 See MRP Provision C.3.a.i.(6).
Approved December 4, 2012
Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects
C. Select appropriate source controls (Encouraged for all projects; may be required at municipal discretion. Consult municipal staff.5)
Are these
Features that
Is source control
features in
require source
Source control measures
measure included
project?
control
(Refer to Local Source Control List for detailed requirements)
in project plans?
measures
Plan
Yes I No
Yes No Sheet No.
❑
0
Storm Drain
❑ Mark on -site inlets with the words "No Dumping! Flows to Bay" or equivalent.
❑
❑
Floor Drains
❑ Plumb interior floor drains to sanitary sewer [or prohibit].
❑
ElParking
garage
❑ Plumb interior parking garage floor drains to sanitary sewer.6
❑
❑
Landscaping
ElRetain existing vegetation as practicable.
❑
❑ Select diverse species appropriate to the site. Include plants that are pest -
and/or disease -resistant, drought -tolerant, and/or attract beneficial insects.
❑ Minimize use of pesticides and quick -release fertilizers.
❑ Use efficient irrigation system; design to minimize runoff.
❑
Pool/Spa/Fountain
❑ Provide connection to the sanitary sewer to facilitate draining.6
❑
❑
Food Service
Provide sink or other area for equipment cleaning, which is:
❑
Equipment
❑ Connected to a grease interceptor prior to sanitary sewer discharge.6
(non-
❑ Large enough for the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned.
residential)
❑ Indoors or in an outdoor roofed area designed to prevent stormwater run-on
and run-off, and signed to require equipment washing in this area.
❑
Refuse Areas
❑ Provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters, recycling containers, etc.,
❑
designed to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff.
❑ Connect any drains in or beneath dumpsters, compactors and tallow bin
areas serving food service facilities to the sanitary sewer.
❑
Outdoor Process
11 Perform process activities either indoors or in roofed outdoor area, designed
❑
Activities 7
to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff, and to drain to the sanitary sewer.6
❑
Outdoor
❑ Cover the area or design to avoid pollutant contact with stormwater runoff.
❑
Equipment/
❑ Locate area only on paved and contained areas.
Materials
❑ Roof storage areas that will contain non -hazardous liquids, drain to sanitary
Storage
sewer6, and contain by berms or similar.
❑
Vehicle/
❑ Roofed, pave and berm wash area to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff,
❑
Equipment
plumb to the sanitary sewer6, and sign as a designated wash area.
CleaningEl
Commercial car wash facilities shall discharge to the sanitarysewer.6
❑
JN
Vehicle/
❑ Designate repair/maintenance area indoors, or an outdoors area designed to
❑
Equipment
prevent stormwater run-on and runoff and provide secondary containment. Do
Repair and
not install drains in the secondary containment areas.
Maintenance
❑ No floor drains unless pretreated prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. 6
❑ Connect containers or sinks used for parts cleaning to the sanitary sewer. 6
❑
Fuel
❑ Fueling areas shall have impermeable surface that is a) minimally graded to
❑
Dispensing
prevent ponding and b) separated from the rest of the site by a grade break.
Areas
❑ Canopy shall extend at least 10 ft in each direction from each pump and drain
away from fueling area.
❑
Loading Docks
❑ Cover and/or grade to minimize run-on to and runoff from the loading area.
❑
❑ Position downspouts to direct stormwater away from the loading area.
❑ Drain water from loading dock areas to the sanitary sewer.6
❑ Install door skirts between the trailers and the building.
❑
Fire Sprinklers
❑ Design for discharge of fire sprinkler test water to landscape or sanitary sewer6
❑
❑
Miscellaneous
❑ Drain condensate of air conditioning units to landscaping. Large air
❑
Drain or Wash
conditioning units may connect to the sanitary sewer.6
Water
❑ Roof drains shall drain to unpaved area where practicable.
Drain boiler drain lines, roof top equipment, all washwater to sanitary sewer6.
❑
Architectural
❑ Drain rinse water to landscaping, discharge to sanitary sewer6, or collect and
❑
Copper
dispose properly offsite. See flyer "Requirements for Architectural Copper."
5 See MRP Provision C.3.a.i(7).
6 Any connection to the sanitary sewer system is subject to sanitary district approval.
7 Businesses that may have outdoor process activities/equipment include machine shops, auto repair, industries with pretreatment facilities.
Approved December 4, 2012
Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects
D. Implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Required for all projects.)
D.1 Is the site a "High Priority Site"? (Municipal staff will make this determination; if the answer is yes, Yes ❑ Nox
the project will be referred to construction site inspection staff for monthly stormwater inspections
during the wet season, October 1 through April 30.)
❑ "High Priority Sites" are sites that require a grading permit, are adjacent to a creek, or are
otherwise high priority for stormwater protection during construction per MRP Provision C.6.e.ii(2).
D.2 All projects require appropriate stormwater BMPs during construction, indicate which BMPs are included in the project, below.
Best Management Practice
❑ Attach the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program's construction BMP plan sheet to
proiect plans and require contractor to implement the applicable BMPs on the plan sheet.
❑ Temporary erosion controls to stabilize all denuded areas until permanent erosion controls are established.
❑ Delineate with field markers clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones,
trees, and drainage courses.
❑ K'l Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following:
❑ Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls, include inspection frequency;
❑ Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of
excavated or cleared material;
❑ Specifications for vegetative cover & mulch, include methods and schedules for planting and fertilization;
❑ Provisions for temporary and/or permanent irrigation.
J4 ❑ Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather.
M ❑ Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering and obtain all necessary permits.
lg ❑ Protect all storm drain inlets in vicinity of site using sediment controls such as berms, fiber rolls, or filters.
❑ Trap sediment on -site, using BMPs such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences,
check dams, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stock piles etc.
❑ Divert on -site runoff around exposed areas; divert off -site runoff around the site (e.g., swales and dikes).
❑ Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips,
sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching or other measures as appropriate.
❑ Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points.
❑ No cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on -site, except in a designated area where washwater is
contained and treated.
❑ Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials/wastes properly to prevent contact with stormwater.
❑ Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees/subcontractors re: construction BMPs.
❑ Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints,
concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediments, rinse water from architectural copper, and
non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses.
Name of applicant completing the form: sbay A
Signature:XxtLI-✓ Date:
E. Comments (for municipal staff use only): �
1' J � � act ✓ c:.r S � r � n✓� W� <L j� fi `�.-r,_ _ � � �,b vt-. �l a n � clr. �� ,l_
D 2 Cw�ti.rrer..; .
cA-f 1Lt ` i. 111--J J
F. NOTES (for municipal staff use only):
Section A Notes:
Section B Notes:
Section C Notes:
Section D Notes:
Approved December 4, 2012
Project Comments
Date: September
To: 0 Engineering Division 0 Fire Division
(650) 558- 7230 (650) 558- 7600
U Building Division X Stormwater Division
(650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727
0 Parks Division U City Attorney
(650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Environmental Review and Design Review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1516
Howard Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-291-040
Staff Review: September 15, 2014
1) ormwater requirements are required to be implemented at stand-alone single family
ome projects that create and/or replace 2,500 sq.ft. or more of impervious surface.
These requirements are in addition to any City requirements. To determine if this project
is subject to those requirements complete, sign and return the attached "Stormwater
Checklist for Small Projects." For additional information about these requirements
please refer to the attached flyer "New Stormwater Control Requirements Effective
12/1/12" and by visiting the San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Program (SMCWPPP) website at:
http://flowstobay.org/newdevelopment
2) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City's
NPDES (stormwater) permit to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities.
Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement appropriate and effective
BMPs during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for
a building permit include a list of construction BMPs as project notes on a separate full
size plan sheet, preferably 2' x 3' or larger. Electronic file is available for download at-
http://flowstobay.org/construction
3) Best Management Practices (BMPs) requirements apply on any projects using
architectural copper. To learn what these requirements are, see attached flyer
"Requirements for Architectural Copper." Electronic file is available for download at-
http://flowstobay.org/newdevelopment
4) All surfaces must be labeled as to whether it is pervious or impervious. Details must
be provided for impervious surfaces such as driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.
For assistance please contact Eva J. at 650-342-3727.
Reviewed by: EJ Date: 9/4/2014
Stormwater Controls
Stormwater runoff from urbanized areas is a major source of pollution to local creeks and San Francisco Bay, To
comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), issued by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board in 2009, local agencies in San Mateo County require development
stormwater controls. These may include the following:
1. Site Design Measures are permanent features that reduce water
quality impacts by:
• - Reducing impervious surfaces- -
• Directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas
2, Source Controls prevent potential pollutant sources from contacting
rainfall and stormwater. Examples include:
• Roofed trash enclosures
• Pest -resistant landscaping
• Sanitary sewer drains for vehicle wash areas
3. Stormwater Treatment Measures are engineered systems
that remove pollutants from stormwater before it reaches a Low Impact Development (LID) techniques f
storm drain, creek, or the Bay. The treatment measures
selected must be Low Impact Development (LID) techniques site's predevelo ' ent hydrology: LID
(see box at right) except for certain types of projects. treatment options' include infiltration,
4. Hydromodification Management (HM) reduces erosive evapotianspiratiori,cnd ratwater ;
flows in creeks that can occur when amounts of impervious harvesting and use; and where ttrese are �;,
surface on a project site are increased;;
infeasible, biott"e�tnent ttia b sd.
S. Construction Site Controls required g uired during the construction, rl
phase of project include:
• - Control of erosion on slopes and/or areas of exposed soil:Sm
• Keeping sediment on site using perimeter barriers and storm drain inlet prpj,-,,
• Proper management of construction materials, chemicals, and wastes on JV �F
Projectsdtsturbtng one acre or more most comply with the State Construction General Pe �( err
k�.
the Constru�l�l General Permit, visa www.swrcb.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater cons rdctto "shttnl
19
Determining Project Requirements
To determine if Stormwater Control Requirements apply to your project and ider>t� f F`
municipality staff will ask you to fill out either:
• The Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects for single family homes, projem;
New. cx
replace between 2,500 and 10,000 sq t. of impervious surface, and speG�
w
page 2) that create and/or replace between z,§GiO and 5,000 sq, ft of imp
• The C.3 Regulated projects Checklist for pits that create and/or -rep
impervious surface, and "special land use projects "'(se e page 2) that cr` i
or more of impervious surface,A a
Current Stormwater Quality Control Requirements
di..}�-;�7:�i��Vwy?r��'t�':;�,i�"�'�`+i��������,'� A s � ..�y�� ��S�r Y, n�y✓�„v i k` �Sk �S'•� 2 a�n. �s 4��'tii tsr s's�S�i t��4�j's�� C�tr«�'+�`�y �„*;jt�t.,
• LID Requirements/Stormwater Treatment Measures apply to:
• Projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or Specealland•Use Categorle.3 are
more of impervious surface, and . Uncovered parking areas (stand
• "Special Land Use Category" projects that create and/or alone or part of another use)
replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. 0 Restaurants
If the stormwater treatment requirements apply, you will need to fill out the ' Auto service facilities'
feasibility screening portion of the C.3 Regulated Projects Checklist to 0 Retail gasoline outlets
determine whether it is feasible to treat the water quality volume of runoff
with infiltration, evapotranspiration, or rainwater harvesting and use.
Where infiltration, evapotranspiration, and rainwater harvesting and use are
infeasible, stormwater may be directed to an on -site biotreatment system, such
as a bioretention area or flow -through planter. Biotreatment systems contain a
specified biotreatment soil and have a surface area that is approximately 4% of
the contributing impervious area. Biotreatment systems should be designed to
maximize infiltration into native soil wherever possible. Vault -based treatment
systems may not be used as stand-alone treatment, except for limited use of
media filters in certain high density and transit -oriented projects.
Hydromodification Management (HM) requirements apply if a project creates and/or replaces 1 acre or
more of impervious surface, increases impervious surface over pre -project conditions AND is located in a
susceptible area.
For More Information:
• Contact the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program at
www.flowstobay.org (For the New Development webpage, click on
"Businesses", then "New Development". For a list of local contacts for new
development, click "local permitting agency".)
The Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects, the C.3 Checklist for Regulated
Projects, the C.3 Technical Guidance Manual, and other guidance
documents are provided on the New Development webpage.
'Auto service facilities include those described by the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes:
5013, 5014, 5541, 7532, 7533, 7534,7536, 7537, 7538, 7539.
Water Pollution
Prevention Program Requirements for Architectural Copper
Protect water quality during installation, cleaning, treating, and washing!
Copper from Buildings May Harm Aquatic Life
Copper can harm aquatic life in San Francisco Bay. Water that comes
into contact with architectural copper may contribute to impacts,
especially during installation, cleaning, treating, or washing. Patination
solutions that are used to obtain the desired shade of green or brown
typically contain acids. After treatment, when the copper is rinsed to
remove these acids, the rinse water is a source of pollutants.
Municipalities prohibit discharges to the storm drain of water used in the
installation, cleaning, treating and washing of architectural copper.
Building with copper flashing,
gutter and drainpipe.
Use Best Management Practices (BMPs)
The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be implemented to prevent prohibited
discharges to storm drains.
During Installation
• If possible, purchase copper materials that have been pre-patinated at the factory.
• If patination is done on -site, implement one or more of the following BMPs:
o Discharge the rinse water to landscaping. Ensure that the
rinse water does not flow to the street or storm drain.
Block off storm drain inlet if needed.
o Collect rinse water in a tank and pump to the sanitary
sewer. Contact your local sanitary sewer agency before
discharging to the sanitary sewer.
o Collect the rinse water in a tank and haul off -site for
proper disposal.
• Consider coating the copper materials with an impervious
coating that prevents further corrosion and runoff. This will
also maintain the desired color for a longer time, requiring
less maintenance.
Storm drain inlet is blocked to prevent
prohibited discharge. The water must be
pumped and disposed of properly.
During Maintenance
Implement the following BMPs during routine maintenance activities, such as power washing the roof,
re-patination or re -application of impervious coating:
• Block storm drain inlets as needed to prevent runoff from entering storm drains.
• Discharge the wash water to landscaping or to the sanitary sewer (with permission from the local
sanitary sewer agency). If this is not an option, haul the wash water off -site for proper disposal.
Protect the Bay/Ocean and yourself!
If you are responsible for a discharge to the storm drain of non-
stormwater generated by installing, cleaning, treating or washingr;ti
copper architectural features, you are in violation of the municipal
stormwater ordinance and may be subject to a fine.
Pholo r"redil Don Edwards National Wildlife Sanctuary
Contact Information
The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program lists municipal stormwater contacts at
www.flowstobaV.org (click on "Business", then "New Development', then "local permitting agency").
FINAL February 29, 2012
Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)
_.AEI M.d? E0 C b, P', ti _ Construction projects are required to implement the stormwater best management practices (BNIP) on this page, as
Water Pollution they apply to your project, all year long.
Prevention Program
Clean Water. S ealthgComnumitu
Materials & Waste Management Equipment Management & Earthmoving Paving/Asphalt Work Concrete, Grout & Mortar
Spill Control Application
-4f.
r ❑ Avoid paving and seal costing in wet ❑ Store concrete grout, and mortar sway
weather or when rain is [forecast, to tom storm drams or waterways, and on
Maintenance and Puking prevent materials that have not wed pallets under cove to protect than from
Non-Hesardous Mrdalals ❑ Designate an area, tittedwith appropriate BMPs, for ❑ Schedule grading and excavation work from contacting storm eater runoff. rain. runoff, and wind.
❑ Bermand coves stockpiles of said, vehicle and equipment parking and storage. dirt or other construction material during dry weather. ❑Cove stoma drain inlets and manholes ❑ Wash out concrete equipment/trucks
with tarps when rain is forecast or if nee actively being used within ❑ Perform major maintenance, repairjobs, and vehicle ❑ Stabilize all denuded areas, install and when applying seal mat, tack coat, a" offsite or in a designated washout
14 days, and equipment washing off site. maintain temporary arosion controls (such seal, fog Seel, etc. area, where the wale will flow into a
❑ Use (but don't ovemse) reclaimed water for dust control. ❑ If refueling or vehicle maintenance must be done as erosion control fabric or bonded fiber ❑ Collect and recycle or appropriately 1emporary waste pit, and in a manna
matte, work in a bermed area sway from storm drains menu) until vegetation is established. dispose of excess abrasive gravel or sand. that will prevent leaching into the
Hwardous Materials and ova a drip pan or drop cloths big enough to collect ❑Remove existing vegetation only when Do NOT sweep or wash it into gutters. underlying soil or onto surrounding areas.
fluids. Recycle or dispose of fluids as hazardous waft.Let concrete harden and dispose oyes
El Label all hazardous materials and hazardous wastes (such mabsolutely necessary, and sad or plant ❑ Do not use water to wash down ffeah
❑ If vehicle or equipment cleaning must be done onste. vegetation for erosion control on slopes asphalt concrete pavement. gage'
pesticides, Paints, thinners, solvents, thee, oil, and antifreeze) in clean with water only m a burned area that will not � � ❑ When washing exposed aggregate,
accordance with city, county, state and federal regulations. Y or whore construction is not immediately
allow rinse water to run into gutters, streets, storm lanned prevent weshwala $ore entering stone
❑ Store hazardous materials and wesiss m water tight containers, store P Sawmttlrg & AsphaR/Concrefa R®meet atairus, or surface waters. drains. Block any inlets and vacuum
inappropriate semndery containment, and coves them at Una end of ' ❑ Prevent sediment from migrating off""sift ❑protect nearby storm drain Wets when gutters, host weshwa[a onto din areas or
every work day or during welweatha or when rain is forecast. ❑ Do not clean vehicle or equipment onsite using soaps, and protect Anent drain inles, gutters, saw cutting. Use filta fabric catch basin drain min a burned surface to be ed
❑ Follow manufacturer's application instructions for hazardous solvents, degreasers, or Stearn clearing equipment. ditches, and drainage courses b Pump
Y installing inlet filters, or gravel bags to keep slurry and disposed of properly.
materials and be careful not to use more than necessary. Do not and maintaining appropriate BMPs, such out of the at= drain system.
apply chemicals outdoors what rain is forecast within 24 hours. Spill Prevention and Control as fiber rolls, silt fences, sediment basins, ❑ Shovd, abosorb, or vacuum saw -rut
❑ Arrange for appropriate disposal of all hazardous wastes. ❑ Keep spill cleanup materials (e.g., rags, absorbents and gravel bags, bums, etc. slurry and dispose of all wage as soon
net litter) available at the construction site at all times. ❑ Keep excavated soil on site and transfer it as you are finished in me lotion or at Landscaping
Waste Management
❑ Inspect vehicles and equipment frequently for and to damp truce on site, not in the streets. the end of each work day (whichever is
. .
❑ Cover waste disposal containers securely with imps at the aid of repair leaks promptly. Use drip pans to catch leeks souncrt). v}.
everywork day end durihhgwet wegha. until repairs ere made. Contaminated Sotis ❑ If sewml slurry enters a carp basin, clean
❑ Clem up spills or leaks immediately and dispose of ❑ if any of the following conditions are it up immediately.
❑ Check wage disposal containers frequently for leaks and to make
cleanup materiels properly.
observed lest for said
er
L t
sure they we not overfilled. Never hose down a dumpstm on the
❑ Do nee hose down surfaces where fluids have spilled.
al Wattain
Qua
contact the Regional Water Quality
✓-'
construction site.
Use dry cleanup methods (absorbent materials, cat
Control Board:
r . �,.
❑ Cean or replace portable toilets and inspect than fraryerdly for
litter, multur rap).
- Unusual wit conditions, discoloration,
leaks and spills.
❑ Dispose of all wastes and debris properly. Recycle materials and
❑ Sweep up spilled dry materials immediately. Do not
Icy to wash Ihem awaywith wan, or bury than.
or odor.
-Abandoned underground tanks.
❑Protect stockpiled landscaping materials
ckp wP 8
from wind and rain storm them under
watts that can be recycled (such as asphalt, concrete, aggregate base
materials, wood 8YP board pipe, etc.)
❑Clean up spills on dirt areas by digging upend
- Abandonel wells
. 8
tarps all yea -round.
❑ Dispose of liquid residues from paints, thinners, solvents glues, and
properly disposing of contaminated soil.
- Buried barrels, debris, or trash.
❑ Stack bagged material on pallets and
cleaning fluids as hazardous waste.
❑ Report significant spills immediately. You we required
under cover.
by law to report all significant. releases of hazardous
❑ Discontinue application of any erodible
oil. To report a ill: 1) Dial 911
materials, including eF s'
landscape material within 2 days before a
Construction FSntrances and Perimeter
or your local emergency response numbs, 2) Call the
Download e-file at
forecast rain even[ or during sod weather.
❑ Establish and maintain effective perimeter controls and stabilize all
Governor's office ofEmergency Service; Wanting
construction a&rances and exits to gdticiendy control erosion and
Center,(goo) 852asso(24 hours).
http://flowstohay.org/construction
ch sediment disarges farm site and tracking off site.
❑ Sweep or vaarmm any street tracking immediately and secure
sediment source to prevent fanha tracking. Ncva hose down streets
to clean up traddng.
Painting & Paint Removal
773
ri
Painting Cleanup and Removal
❑ Never clean brushes or rinse paint
containers into a street, gutter, dorm
drain, or stream.
❑ For water -based paints, paint out brushes
to the anent possible, and rinse into a
drain that goes to the sanitary sewer.
Neva pour paint down a storm drain.
❑ For oil -based paints, paint out brushes to
the cadent possible and clean with thinner
or solvent in a proper contains. Filter and
reuse thinners and solvents. Dispose of
excess liquids as hazardous waste.
❑ Paint chips and dust trom non -hazardous
dry stripping and sand blasting may be
swept up or collected in plastic drop
cloths and disposed of as trash.
❑ Chemical paint stripping residue and chips
and dust from marine paints or paints
containing Iced, mercury, or tributyltin
must be disposed of w hazardous waste.
Lead based paint removal requires a state -
certified contractor.
Dewatering
❑ Discharges of groundwater or r-purcd
runoff from dewataing operations most
be properly managed and disposed. When
possible said dewatuing discharge to
landscaped area or sanitary sewn. if
discharging to the sanitary sewa call yow
local wastewater treatment plant.
❑ Divert run-on water tram otfsite away
from all distorted areas.
❑ When dewetering, notify and obtain
approval from the local municipality
before discharging water to a street gutter
or gone drain. Filtration or diversion
duough a basin, tank or sediment trap
may be required.
❑ In areas of known or suspected
contamination, call your local agency to
determine whether the ground water must
be tested Pumped groundwata may need
to be collected and hauled off -site for
treahncnt and props disposal.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING
THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPROVAL OF A REQUEST
FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 1516 HOWARD AVENUE WILL HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as
follows:
Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and
reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that
there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on
the environment, and a Negative Declaration, per Negative Declaration ND-579-P, is hereby
approved.
Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in
the official records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
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 13th day of July, 2015 by
the following vote:
Secretary
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, APPROVING A
REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE AT 1516 HOWARD AVENUE, ON PROPERTY
SITUATED WITHIN THE R-1 ZONE
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that
WHEREAS, an application has been made for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height
envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling and new detached garage at 1516 Howard Avenue,
Zoned R-1, 1516 Howard Avenue LLC, 1499 Bayshore Highway #229 Burlingame CA 94010
Property owner, APN: 028-291-00;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 13,
2015, 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
Said Design Review and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permit are set forth
in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting.
2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Design Review and Special Permit
1516 Howard Avenue
Effective July 23, 2015
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped June 26, 2015, sheets 1 through 7, LO and L1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staff);
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
4. that the conditions of the Building Division's November 6, 2014, October 24, 2014 and
September 15, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's October 29, 2014 and September 18,
2014 memos, the Engineering Division's November 6, 2014 and October 29, 2014
memos, the Fire Division's September 15, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division's
October 27, 2014 and September 4, 2014 memos shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process.
Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects
to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Design Review and Special Permit
1516 Howard Avenue
Effective July 23, 2015
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification
by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved
floor area ratio for the property;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans;
this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential
designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an
architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design
which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as
shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing
compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the
final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division;
and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
1
PH: (650) 558-7250 0 FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1516 HOWARD AVENUE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
following public hearing on MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015 at
7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Negative Declaration, Design Review and
Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two-
story single family dwelling and detached garage at
1516 HOWARD AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 028-291-040
Mailed: July 2, 2015
(Please refer to other side)
City of Burlingame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)