HomeMy WebLinkAbout815 Crossway Road - Staff Report' �M�� ( y'�L, ,� . . •,� �
�� �' h�. ��A!��,;'•. ,,� • .� �. � . ti
, � � • , z ,. ;,,�,,,� � , s; ��. . ;.
.F�.�a�4 �.� M. , f�' '�1 ,
.; ,
�,; � "'�li�`��,� �� fi. r:.., � � '�I
� �•��
�' ~i �' � ' !/,►���r:�` y�•..' '• �
� � � •� �,�, �� 'M��! ,ty��`�"'I
�\ �� ,� �I•
�1 �� .°�,�v.i:
aC'•."k.���- .-
•� � ,. M' � N1 ' � �
n , �f . 4
� '
' /
�f:
; . � . �i
' r :�,�.,,�. ,
.1 . �� .♦ A�c•Ir' �• � , !
�.�l. ' �� ..
' � �..� • • . 'r
_ _. '.+'��� � , �
0
�
�� � - �� '� � r���;�� , �, �j�� R�
'...1 �
� ,a. I y� �C•� �s�-;� i'S"1�l a:.
, P1?;, irY.':_. i:,q,Ji' �j1�, „�j
L�.� � • �
� � �/r,� ; •:� � i ,7 ,i) t �'�� �� �' : . . '! i� � �
. � ,/ �. .
. �` `1 `' ,
. � , � . � �-'� � `�
_ _ , "`'�'`�fi:����
� �'.,"— • --
:
. .- ,. •''--
.. .:.:•u�
�
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permits
Address: 815 Crossway Road
Item No.
Consent Calendar
Meeting Date: April 14, 2008
Request: Design Review and Special Permits for an attached garage and declining height envelope for a first
and second story addition to a single family dwelling.
Applicant and Property Owner: Neil Yellin APN: 029-016-080
Architect: William Duff Lot Area: 6,875 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 Class 1(e) (2) of the CEQA guidelines, which states that
additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in
areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not
environmentally sensitive.
Project Description: The existing single-story house has no covered parking, contains 1,790.25 SF (0.26 FAR)
of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to build an attached garage on the left side of
the existing house, a trellis area at the rear of the house and to build a new 1,054 square foot second story.
W ith the proposed first and second story addition, the floor area will increase from 1,790 SF (0.26 FAR) to 3,242
SF (0.47 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 3,300 SF (0.48 FAR) (project is 58 SF below the
maximum allowed FAR).
With the addition, the number of bedrooms will increase from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of which
must be covered, are required on site. The applicant is proposing an attached one-car garage (10' x 20' clear
interior dimensions) to meet the covered parking requirement. The existing driveway will be widened to
accommodate one uncovered parking space (9' x 20'). All otherZoning Code requirements have been met. The
applicant is requesting the following applications:
Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010);
Special Permit for an attached garage (CS 25.28.035 a), and
■ Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope by 59 SF (CS
25.28.035 c).
815 Crossway Road
Lot Area: 6,875 SF Plans date stamped: February 11, 2008 and March 28, 2008
� EXISTING PROPOSED ' ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS
(2nd f/r):
(attached garage):
__ _ .
Side (left):
__
(right):
Rear (1st flr):
_
(2nd flr):
Front (1st f/r):
Lot Coverage:
23'-6"
none
none 45'-6"'
_ _ _ ; _ _ _ _ ._
4'-6" (to trellis) 5'-6"
6'-0" � 8'-6" (to trellis)
33'-5"
none
__ _ _ __
2,384 SF
35%
31'-0" (to deck)
39'-0"
_ _
2,363 SF
34%
_____. _ __ , _ _ __ _ _ __
no change ' 23'-2" (block average)
56'-0" ' 23'-2" (block average)
25'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
_ __
2,750 SF
40%
Design Review and Special Permits 815 Crossway Road
i EXISTING PROPOSED ' ALLOWED/REQUIRED
FAR: � 1,790 SF 3,242 SF �' 3,300 SF
' 0.26 FAR 0.47 FAR ! 0.48 FAR2
. .... _.
- — -- - - _._ __ � _..._ _._.
# of bedrooms ; 2 4
_ _ _ . -- _ _ _--
Parking: 0 covered � 1 covered ; 1 covered
' 1 uncovered � (10' x 20') � (10' x 20')
�
(8'-6" x 20') ' 1 uncovered i 1 uncovered
�
, � (9' x 20') (9' x 20')
---- _ _ 9 - ___. .......- ---....------ .... ......... __ _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ _
Hei ht: i_ 18'-4" 25'-9" _ 30'-0„
_ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ _� _ _ _ _ _
__ _ _
DH Envelope. ; complies ' 59.1 SF3 CS 25.28.075
' Special Permit for an attached garage (CS 25.28.035 a)
Z (0.32 x 6,875 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,300 SF (0.48 FAR)
' Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope by 59.1 SF (CS 25.28.035 c).
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer and NPDES
Coordinator.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on February 25,
2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding the massing along the garage wall
side elevation and the massing of the second story addition at the right side elevation; the Commission also
asked for clarification of details and materials and encouraged landscaping on the right side at the rear to soften
the appearance of the addition. The Commission voted to place this item on the Consent Calendar when the
plans had been revised as directed (February 25, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes). The designer
submitted a response letter, a revised roof plan, revised building elevations and a revised landscape plan on
March 28, 2008, to address the Commissions concerns and suggestions. A copy of the response letter and the
February 25, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes are included in the staff report.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's February 25,
2008, design review study meeting, that the proposal is consistent with the character of the existing residence
and it is very respectful of the existing design, that the addition and attached garage are set back from the street
and incorporate nice materials that are consistent with the neighborhood, the project is found to be compatible
with the requirements of the City's five Design Review guidelines.
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
-2-
Design Review and Special Permits
815 Crossway Road
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Special Permit Findings for Attached Garage: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the
Planning Commission's February 25, 2008, design review study hearing, that the garage addition complies with
all setback requirements, is consistent with the parking pattern in the neighborhood, is set back 45' from the
street and is bringing the property up to the current parking code requirements, the project is found to be
compatible with the Special Permit criteria listed above.
Special Permit Findings for Declining Height Envelope: Based on the findings stated in the attached
minutes of the Planning Commission February 25, 2008, design review study meeting, and that the proposed
encroachment into the declining height envelope adds interest to and enhances the design of the second story,
the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 11, 2008, sheets T0.1 through A2.2, and date stamped March 28, 2008, sheets A2.3 through
L0.1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building
shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 9, 2008 and February 13, 2008, memos, the
City Engineer's January 22, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's January 12, 2008, memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's January 14, 2008 memo shall be met;
3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
5. 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 Ciry 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;
6. 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
-3-
Design Review and Special Permits 815 Crossway Road
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
7. 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;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007
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:
9. 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;
10. 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 Department; and
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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.
Erica Strohmeier
Planner
c. Neil Yellin, applicant and property owner.
Attachments:'
Letter and photos from neighbor at 810 Acacia Drive, date stamped April 7, 2008
ApplicanYs Response to Commission's comments
Minutes from February 25, 2008, Design Review Study Meeting
Letter from neighbor at 819 Crossway Road, date stamped February 25, 2008
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Forms
Applicant's Letter of Explanation
Survey diagram
Photographs of streetscape
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed April 4, 2008
Aerial Photo
-4-
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
My name is Marc Losito. I live at 810 Acacia with �I�y wife and two children. I am
writing this letter in regards to the proposed construction ac 815 Crossway.
After reviewing the blue prints and speaking witll M►-.Yclliil I have realized that the
addition will not allow privacy for my family. The split lcvel 2"`� story addition, (with
windows on both sides of the rear of the house) will be lookin� down straight into our
backyard and our master bedroom. Please note that while I am NOT opposed to
Mr.Yellin's new construction, I am asking for consideration for changes to his plans to
help ensure my privacy.
Crossway is at a higher elevation than Acacia. In 2006, 1 had my property surveyed and I
was told that the height differential from my back fence liile to the side walk in front of
my home was Sft. Please understand that the proposed 2"'� story on Crossway will be
higher for us on Acacia because of this. I propose that Mr. Yellin build his addition
towards the front of the house, lower the proposed roof liiie at least 5 ft., and grow some
very aggressive (mature) trees and shrubs.
We have lived in Burlingame for nearly 10 years, and lo��e the charm and strong sense of
community it has provided us. I understand that our to�vil is growing and that many of
today's single story homes will have 2"`j story's addcd to them in thc very near future. I
feel that we need to take a serious look at each proposal to see the impact it will have on
the surrounding homes. Because of the height aild windo�v placement of tliis proposal, we
would feel a strong invasion of privacy if this addition «�as to take place.
Please take consideration to this matter.
Regards,
Marc Losito
_ _�....,t_ :_ .� _
AFR U `� 2��()
c�ry o� �����;_��,;�.������
PLAI`dNlNla l �?'r';'.
7 �
�' ,
� �. .
� �� �- .
����� �r ���
�, ,� . ,� � y � �.
�y�., ; :_�fK����� �
n h; + �
�- .
Mr+ ' ..� �
. �►�1ji �1*1 � 1` , �•
,.►�''�' �t, ��, �
����`�� �a�; i
��
:�
. . . � �� - , �i �
t � � .
�<� � �
P� �, � (�l .'.
^ � {�- a
p� � �" , "'�� � ��
a•� • J
�.:�~..� •_
��'
'�� � F 4$ F„�
.�. ;'�` e�
� � ..� �
� l
,"� r�� 't � "S� � ,� y
;:, .,��1►� i • �"
���„�`�°` � �� � � t ���� ' *� �+(
0 '���+�' ":�s �
��, � �
�. � ... � , � i ,.�d
�
. `� � {g
°*,.- .. n k.�
_ ¢.✓ .. ... � . _ - _
� �r�`� . . . ' ` <, '"r , .
� �° . �4. ♦ . �N - ,,. ` � . . f�, , . - ,. �� .'.x:' � ,�".�;
i' " �� ` f"i y�'y . r `
�•ir�.:: ,y�.».t . f Y� �. � � . � '�,
' '�` �� � ��.J` n,
,. ��; � � � � ` ,, , � a
. g;
Neil Yellin
815 Crossway Rd
March 28, 2008
Please note the followin� responses to the Comii�ission comments:
Massing of side elevation at garage:
A band has been added across the side of the garage that is even with, and mimics, both front &
rear trellis but extends only 5 1/2" total off the side of the house. Two surface mounted trellises
have been added, the tops of which mimic the vocabulary of the window's upper divided lights.
Trumpet vine or some other climbing plant will be trained on these trellises. These details have
been added to the North elevation.
Blank wall on the upper story of the other side of the house:
A window in this area in the closet would help break this wall up but we intentionally did not
include a window there to accommodate the neighbor at 819 who was concerned about too much
direct view into ller back yard. This has been left as originally drawn.
Clarifv eave cut back:
A note has becn a�ided to the Roof plan that the eaves are being cut back to remove dry rot at the
ends of the raftcrs and beams.
Roof material:
A note has been added to the Roof plan that the new roof material will match the existing
material whicl� is built up roofing.
Left side rear elevation:
The dark lincs at this area were a drawing error and have been removed.
Rear porch rail:
Details have bcen ii�cluded in tlle Rear elevation drawing for the porch rail, which now closely
matches the front rail.
Trellis in back:
The posts & beams for the back trellis have been increased to 6x material which has been noted
on the Rear elevation.
Garage door:
The �ara�e door will be a Carriage House type door, one of the stock styles from Wayne Dalton
or equivalent. This is a high quality door that mimics the look of a swinging door by minimizing
the horizontal lines between the roll up panels. Some detail notes are now included on the Front
elevation.
Negative space:
This is a Craftsman style house built in 1914 with a large front porch, a fairly typical detail for
this style of house. It is very difficult to carry this negative space through the remaining house as
the narrow lots make carrying porches through along the side impractical. That said there is
negative space created by the trellises which will be covered with vines and exist both in front
and in back of the house.
Public comment:
We have included somc aciditional details on thc Landscaping plan to better illustrate the existing
situation. There is an existing 7' high fence on our property that tern�inates near the existing trees
on that side and there is a tall fence on the opposite side of the driveway of 819 that is mostly 8'
high but in one section is 10' high. Inside that fence is a tall trellis, a reasonably sized tree and
some additional tall plants. The result of this is that Ms. Sliter does not have a view of the
existing house at all but looks out above her fence & plants at our existing roof. Additionally
there is an out building at the rear of her yard so her view is mostly to the side of the addition
with the view to the rear being at a rather acute angle. That view would not be, as stated by her, a
two story box but rather for tlie ►nost part, just the upper floor. Additional plants such as the
Japanese maples that we have along the side towards the front would do nothing to soften that
view, indeed I doubt it would evcn be seen from the adjacent yard. It would take a very tall tree
to 11ave any real effect, a solution which I would prefer to avoid. We have instead added some
window boxes at the upper windows which will be planted with a hanging ivy as shown on the
Rear elevation. This should soften the look of the rear by breaking up the expanse of shingle
between the upper windows and t11e top of the trellis.
The items noted in the minutes under Discussion of the Motion have all been addressed above.
Thank you for your consideration,
Neil Yellin
.� ,,,� � . -
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMM/SS/ON — Unapproved Minutes February 25, 2008
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 815 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NEIL YELLIN & JANET ZOLA, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WILLIAM DUFF, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated February 25, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director,
William Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Neil Yellin, 815 Crossway Road; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
• Complemented design. Nice materials, nicely drawn. Addition is very respectful of existing design.
• Massing of the side elevation at garage wall and area above is a rather large wall, there needs to be
some articulation to assist in breaking up the blank space, perhaps some windows into the garage.
■ Perhaps bring the trellis element along to the side, or some other design solution, to help break up
mass of the wall.
• On other side of house; there is a large, blank shingled space; look at that side to see if something
could be done on second floor addition to break up mass.
■ Clarify why the eaves are being cut back.
■ Note that roofing materials on the second floor will match the first floor roofing; specify the roofing
material.
■ Clarify details on left side of rear elevation. Correct drawing error of dark lines between first and
second story.
■ Clarify the design of the rear porch rail, and that it will be wood pickets and wood railing; consider
matching the railing on rear with the front porch railing.
• Trellis work in back seems lighter than what is in front (6 x 6); consider making rear trellis heavier in
construction.
■ Include notes clarifying the garage door construction.
■ Carry through the negative space reflected on the front porch elsewhere on the home.
Public comments:
Suzanne Sliter, 819 Crossway Road; provided overview of her concerns expressed in her letter to
Commission, dated February 25, 2008. Concerned that the mass of the addition is at the rear of the
structure, adjacent to her backyard. Also, the west elevation is not set in, creating a rear wall that
goes straight up and has a box look.
Additional Commission comments:
Asked if there is an opportunity for additional landscaping to soften the view of the rear of the
residence from the neighbor's property.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
12
CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Unapproved Minutes February 25, 2008
• There is an opportunity to beef-up the landscaping on the garage side to break-up wall, and along
other side to soften appearance.
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
■ Perhaps consider a belly-band to break up the massing of the side elevation, instead of a trellis
element; however, could also be some room for a trellis without need for a Variance.
• Would hesitate to bring the trellis feature all the way around the side; asymmetric fashion would be
nice.
• Windows may be sufficient to soffen the appearance of wide, side elevation.
■ The proposal is consistent with the character of the existing residence.
■ lnclude vines on trellis that would wrap around the side; windows on garage side will also break up
mass.
• North elevation is mislabeled.
■ Encouraged landscaping on the right side at the rear to soften appearance.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and nof appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
9. 73 MARTINEZ DRIV ZONED R-1 — APPLICA N FOR DESIGN REVIEW A D HILLSIDE A EA
C STRUCTION PER FOR MAIN AND LOW LEVEL ADDITION TO SINGLE FA Y
D LLING (MARWAN Z AN, APPLICANT AND OPERTY OWNER; AND D VID MIRAFLO
Referenc staff report dated Feb ry 25, 2008, with attachm ts. Zoning Technician Lisa hitman briefly
presented e project description. here were no questions o taff.
Chair Cauchi ened the public com nt period.
Marwan Zeidan, 73 Martinez Drive an avid Miraflor, P. O. Box 10174, Stockton; represe ed the
applicant.
I ili»I ��� [•].I•Z•r� iri il
• Commended the licant for adding to der floor space to increas oor area. \
■ Questioned the nee for all of the addition full baths.
■ ked why the existin shutters are being re oved; they add to the char ter of the home.
■ N d that the plans ar difficult to read. Diffi It to visualize how the prop ed house will look.
■ The oposed concrete lusters are too heav nd inappropriate for the de ' n of the structure;
consi something simila o the design on the nt of the structure, or look t other similar
homes i the area for ideas.
■ Noted inc sistencies in trim tails between Shee 4 and 6.
Drawings s uld show a cleare epresentation of the im package.
■ Noted neighb comments regar the Eucalyptus tre s on the site; suggested wor � g with the
neighbor to ad ss their concerns.
■ oted that the pr osed curved wind s are not consiste with the design of the rest of house.
■ P vide details of t designs of the fro door and garage r.
13
February 25, 2008
CO.tii.lt' ��,11Cri :' I U,ti .�1� C'EI i�E1i
IFTE!! PRF.f'ARlTION
OFST.lF!►REPORT
To: Burlingame Planning Commission � , _ • _ ..-,� : �� � f ��a�
Subject: Proposed Plans for 815 Crossway Road ��� �''�:�� •-^��S.C8 PC Mtg.
I live next door to 815 Crossway at 819 Crossway (on the right side) and have concerns
regarding the proposed plan for the second addition:
Although I don't feel the proposed structure fits with the character and style of the neighborhood,
my main concern is that the design is very unbalanced. It is heavily weighted to the back of the
house (as shown on the Plan slieels A3.1, A2.3 and A3.2) giving it a box like look. The back of
the second story (west elevation) is not set-in from the first floor as is the case on the right side
and front of the house. In the back, this creates a massive wall ranging from 18 to 21 feet from
the floor of the first story (see sheet A3.1 south elevation).
Both the second story right side of the house (listed as Southern Elevation) and the back of the
house (West elevation) will tower over my backyard and eliminate my privacy. I spend a great
deal of time in my backyard and i find this plan to be very imposing and unattractive. I would
like to see the second story balanced in the middle of the existing structure.
I feel that design consideration should not be limited to how the house looks from the street for
people dr-iving by, but it should also be concerned with how it impacts the neighbors who must
live with the structure next to them every day. I ask that the Commission take this into
consideration.
Thank you,
Suzanne Sliter
819 Crossway Road
�-i�V�:.i���
FEB 2 5 2008
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PIANNING DEPT.
February 25, 2008
To: Burlingame Planning Commission
Subject: Proposed Plans for 815 Crossway Road
I live next door to 815 Crossway at 819 Crossway (on the right side) and have concerns
regarding the proposed plan for the second addition:
Although I don't feel the proposed structure fits with the character and style of the neighborhood,
my main concern is that the design is very unbalanced. It is heavily weighted to the back of the
house (as shown on the Plan sheets A3.1, A2.3 and A3.2) giving it a box like look. The back of
the second story (west elevation) is not set-in from the first floor as is the casc on the ri�ht side
and front of the house. In the back, this creates a massive wall ranging from 18 to 21 feet from
the floor of the first story (see sheet A3.1 south elevation).
Both the second story right side of the house (listed as Southern Elevation) and the back of the
house (West elevation) will tower over my backyard and eliminate my privacy. I spend a great
deal of time in i1�y backyard and 1 find this plan to be very imposing and unattractive. I would
like to see the second story balanced in the middle of the existing structure.
I feel that design consideration should not be limited to how the house looks from the street for
people driving by, but it should also be concerned with how it impacts the neighbors who must
live with the structure next to them every day. I ask that the Commission take this into
consideration.
Thank you,
Suzanne Sliter
819 Crossway Road
�"i L l.� :.... i ,: �.. �,._-
FEB 2 � 2008
CITY OF BURLINGAME
p1�4NNING DEPT.
��-�rr�
��� �
BURLINGl1ME
�� J
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application: ^
❑ Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Other: 1 f O`�� v
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel Num e.
PROJECT ADDRESS: �/S C'iQ e.f'S 4/�ty /�� -
APPLICANT project contact person m'
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: NEic yEc ��.tJ
Address: F1 /s' C,le1r�✓�r+� /C.� •
City/State/Zip: a d,cci,✓��Jw� � I�o�o
Phone (w): y/.� B/G �f_ � i�
(Home): G ro .� Y4 //� C
�FaX>: Gfo �Y.� 3/�.�
PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: /Vs/� %E c�i�/ �- �nJ� i Zo `�1
Address: 8/.� C,i or'rs✓,rs ��
City/State/Zip: �r/ � �iNG,�.F Qf�oio
Phone (w):
(Home):
(Fax):
(E-mail): Nut y� ct..�/ •i� C�,N a,/.r j, i!/6T (E-mail):
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑
OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑
Name: iv/�ci�w� � v�j�-
Address: /O/ f�os✓�M b 1 i S� vi� t E
City/State/Zip: ,�,M/ ia<<,nic%(co. G! Sf�io�
Phone (w): �yi.� 3 7/ - o yo o � � �"' �' � � �' . ��
(Home)
(Fax): yi-T .��� 4 boo
JAN - 8 200�
rY OF BURLINGA�'
„� ��;!�IN!'� nro-r
Please mark one box
with �
to indicate
the contact person
for this project.
(E-mail):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �SMo�G c. /� � �- ,� .�' �i� y � ��i''��
AFFADAVITISIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief
ApplicanYs signature: � — Date: //P1/fJ
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: � �/C Date: //�/��
Date submitted:
S:\Handouts�PC Application 2007.handout
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Only
Project Description:
D� g i� � �- �.v � G�,.� �,. d S,,�c c��a ( Pf r rn �� -�- -�o r �--{-{ a c In.c. d
�► a�ra�.L. �r a-�� � s-� a., d Se � o,. d si-a �y a, �l�l -�-fi'v n,
Key:
Abbreviation Term
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DHE Declinin Hei ht Envelo e
DSR Desi n Review
E Existin
N New
SFD Sin le Famil Dwellin
SP Special Permit
�ECEIVED
FEB 1 1 2008
Special Permit Application for an attached gara�e
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.
Great care was taken to seamlessly blend the new addition into the existing structure. The design
of the new addition takes all of its cues from the architecture of the existing structure. The roof
slopes and eave overhangs match the existing as well as the finishes and trim sizes. The new
windows have been selected so that their proportion appears harmonious with the existing
windows and are sized in a manner that's consistent with the architectural style of the house.
The majority of the mass of the addition has been located towards the rear of the lot so that the
massing and scale of the front of the existing home remains intact. Furthermore, the facades and
roof lines step back in several locations to help break up the mass of the new addition and
trellises have been used in two locations to further break up the mass and help tie the new
elements to the existing.
The garage is located back of the front property line by approximately 65' & it's mass is broken
up by the existing trellis which remains in front of it. The design of the garage structure follows
all the cues noted above and the existing trellis and camphor tree help to soften it's appearance
and mitigate it's impact on the street. While attached garages are not the norm they certainly
exist on the block and many detached garages sit as close, or closer, to their front property lines.
This is true for the neighborhood as a whole.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior fioish materials and elevations of
the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and
neighborhood.
The roof lines of the addition are simple and follow the architectural direction of the existing
shed roof. Roof pitches, overhangs and exterior finish materials will all match those of the
existing structure. By locating the addition towards the rear of the property the front facade of
the house can remain intact thereby minimally altering its connection to the street and the
neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57).
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood
The houses in the neighborhood do not exhibit a consistency of style but one of the prevalent
vernaculars is Craftsman. The project is the renovation and addition of a California Craftsman
home and the design is developed to retain the Craftsman character of the existing home.
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood
The proposed project includes an attached garage and room for off-street parking. The
neighborhood includes several two-story attached garages (3 on the same block) and a number of
detached garages that are placed forward on the lot. The attached garage on the proposed project
is set well back from the street (65 feet) which helps to preserve the architecture of the existing
home and creates space for off-street parking reducing the need for parking on the street.
^JGAME
3. Architecturul style and consistency and muss and bulk of structures, including accessory
structures
The entire project is design to be architecturally consistent with the existing structure and to
appear when complete as if it were originally designed as one building.
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on �rdjrtcent properties
The proposed structure adheres to the prescribed setbacks and the mass of the addition is placed
towards the rear of the lot to maintain a consistency of scale with the original homes in the
neighborhood when viewed from the street.
S. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components
The existing landscaping will for the most part remain intact.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure
or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What
mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is
appropriate.
The current plan does not require the removal of any trees. General landscaping, especially at the
front and north side, will remain largely intact.
�CC � i�� �.'i`�
FEB 1 1 2008
CITY OF BI�RLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT
� ' i �OC���:
Special Permit Application for Declining Height Envelope
�^:�;^�.�r
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.
Great care was taken to seamlessly blend the new addition into the existing structure. The design
of the new addition takes all of its cues from the architecture of the existing structure. The roof
slopes and eave overhangs match the existing as well as the finishes and trim sizes. The new
windows have been selected so that their proportion appears harn�onious with the existing
windows and are sized in a manner that's consistent with the architectural style of the house.
The majority of the mass of the addition has been located towards the rear of the lot so that the
massing and scale of the front of the existing home remains intact. Furthermore, the facades and
roof lines step back in several locations to help break up the mass of the new addition and
trellises have been used in two locations to further break up the mass and help tie the new
elements to the existing.
The projection in to the DHE is a necessary adjunct of this process. By utilizing the attached
garage with second story we were able to keep the addition at the rear, leaving the look and
presentation of the facade intact and keeping the overall design consistent with the existing
structure. Additionally, this type of structure is not foreign to the street or neighborhood and
there are at least 3 examples of similar 2 story attached garages on the block.
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 roof lines of the addition are simple and follow the architectural direction of the existing
shed roof. Roof pitches, overhangs and exterior finish materials will all match those of the
existing structure. By locating the addition towards the rear of the property the front facade of
the house can remain intact thereby minimally altering its connection to the street and the
neighborhood.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57).
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing churacter of the neighborhood
The houses in the neighborhood do not exhibit a consistency of style but one of the prevalent
vernaculars is Craftsman. The project is the renovation and addition of a California Craftsman
home and the design is developed to retain the Craftsman character of the existing home.
2. Respect jor ti:e parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood
The proposed project includes an attached garage and room for off-street parking. The
neighborhood includes several two-story attached garages (3 on the same block) and a number of
detached garages that are placed forward on the lot. The attached garage on the proposed project
is set well back from the street (65 feet) which helps to preserve the architecture of the existing
home and creates space for off-street parking reducing the need for parking on the street.
3. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, inclucling accessory
structures
The entire project is designed to be architecturally consistent with the existing structure and to
appear when complete as if it were originally designed as one building.
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties
The proposed structure adheres to the prescribed setbacks and the mass of the addition is placed
towards the rear of the lot to maintain a consistency of scale with the original homes in the
neighborhood when viewed from the street. A necessary adjunct of this process is that part of the
left side projects into the DHE. This would have minimal or no impact to the adjacent property
as that structure has no windows and a tall fence in this area and the side set back of the proposed
structure exceeds reyuirements.
S. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components
The existing landscaping will for the most part remain intact.
4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure
or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What
mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is
appropriate.
The current plan does not require the removal of any trees. General landscaping, especially at the
front and north side, will remain largely intact.
��������
FEB 1 1 2008
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PIANNING DEPT.
Neil Yellin
815 Crossway Rd.
February 11, 208
In addition to the comments noted on the two Special Permit Applications we would like to add
the following:
We have designed an addition with an attached garage and a 2' projection into the DHE for the
following reasons:
1. It allows for a design that considerably lessens the impact of the addition on the street. Since
we are able to use the space above the new garage the new 2"`� story can be well back from the
front of the house thereby lessening the impact of the addition on the street and neighborhood
and keeping the facade of the house intact.
2. It does not require removing any trees
3. The existing trellis remains (in shortened form) which gives continuity to the overall design of
the house and softens the impact of the garage by breaking up the mass of the structure.
4. The garage is approximately 65' back from the front property line. This is far enough back so
that it reads as a rear situated structure and is as far back as many detached garages in the area.
5. The ability to capture space above the garage is key to keeping the design back off the front of
the house. While the area above the garage penetrates the DHE there is little or no impact to the
adjacent property.
Negatives of alternate plans with a detached garage are as follows:
1. Several trees would have to be removed.
2. An alternate plan (with detached garage) would likely require a smaller two story structure in
the location of the garage as planned, without the mitigation of the trellis and associated foliage
which would have to be removed. This would likely be more intrusive and less harmonious with
the existing structure and street than the current design.
3. Without the ability to capture usable space above the garage the second story addition would
need to be larger, pushing forward another 15' or so. This would have a very high and negative
impact on the mass of the facade and it's relationship to the street. This house is the oldest on
the block, is well known by residents in the area, and it is desirable to minimize the change in
facade so that it presents as being substantially the same after the remodel as it does today.
4. The trellis would have to be removed. The overall final look would actually be much starker
without the warmth of the trellis and climbing plants.
5. In order to avoid the camphor tree a detached garage would require a very long and winding
driveway which would be difficult to navigate and would add additional paved surface to the lot.
Thank you for your consideration,
Neil Yellin ��:� �� � � >�; ,�.,..�;
FEB 1 1 2008
CITY OF BL!RLINGAME
pIANNING DEP7.
�
Z
�
w
w
Z
�
Z
w
_
�
Q
Z
>
�
U
0
M
N
N
O
�
�
0
0
N
l!
�
�
0
�
m
Z
J
J
W
�
ti
v
�
0
Z
J
J
w
ti
v
ti
0
�
ti
0
�
a
�
�
a
E
0
U
1 r� _ � 0 I
� 15 �—.-I,
.
�� �
w, �,
.x �
�
�-
�
�I
�
�
0
S
�
�
o� �ti
�p ��.
; �' ��
4---- � 5' ----.I
�� o
�� �
�C
o�
�s
N 44° 51� 55" E 12�• 85'
cJ. �- 3° G�' � 2" v�/
1 31. 10'
�'\9
�
�,�- 3�`
��.
L.
i
NOTES:
1
2
K�
FIELD SURVEYING. Performed during October 2007.
REFERENCE ELEVATION. City of Burlingame Benchmark �118 at the corner of
Palm Dr. and Crossway Rd. EL 23.116.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Lot 23, Block 3"Burlingame Terrace No. 2" filed
January 3, 1911 in Book 7 of Maps at Page 38.
APN 029-016-080 AREA 6,760 SF 0.155 AC
LEGEND:
FF Finish Floor
GR Ground
MH Manhole
SSCO Sanitary Sewer Cleanout
TC Top of Curb
TP Top of Pavement
(E) Existing
� `" No. 20858 '' �
Exp. 9-30-09
*
C.� • �TE CIVIL\E���
o� cn� I I-%- D%
�',.�--- 15�
�
�
� �d�
�
. ; �I
,:�.' �
�� � �.
o', ,
�-�', �',
ti- �'
., .;
_o,.,
�; ; i
n,.,-�
� ' II
� , �i
� - , I��
� ,, �
,
O�
��
U
Q
�
�
3
�
�
V^/
�.L
v
� ._� �G �
. � z�� I
.�.�; �
, ,'�, �
.� '��
' � C C�' '� t, i .:
� �:
• .��
. �� B 1 ', k
��.
' • � .:�
.�r oF e�
�,_AN����,��. ��-
G'�
��
�R�
4 -- � 5' ---
E5 - 2107�-
� EX-�- U �Tt2EAM
SSMH
(ZIM 33•53
�� , , �
� � "- 3
�/S. 33.35 �� � �
MA'P #k 15 �C�
�t i , �� �2
�
���
�
�PfRox. 4 '� �s +��
__\
55co
�. �� z9, gt
Gt2 33.l7 GR �2,��
��t�,cF.- ,.., � ..:. ..-- - _g
qr � : '��r?7"?
. ,,�ti,�,� ..� '�
�- -- --
807 CROSSWAY ROAD
811 CR455WAY ROAD
��, y � �'
�� �� � ' � r� , _
n - �y������ ..
_}.,„ ,
� r '! �, ' �,�;�"" �, '�
��� �. � j � y :.
;�,�:.-� .�' *�.�.� . .��.�_: _..
81 S CROS�>WAY ROAD
PROJE�TSITE
-- -- �_;._,,
�� �'`'` � �.
�� b `• �
�`�r� '�`�
i
; .�s�• • � �
, �
�';, ,y �t,
819 CROSSWAY ROAD
� -.
�. � _ �� :.. .... "
� i, ; � �. �. � .
��`'` ��f-j �tiw
�
6- ._.._ __ _
823 CROSSINAY R4AD
���1.��.���t�
WILLIAM DUFF I ARCHITECTS
I
�
t: 415371.0900
f: 415371.0800
www.wdarch.com
701 Howard Street, Suite F., San Francisco, CA 94705
Job Title
YELLIN RESIDENCE
815 CROSSWAY ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Job No.
07032
Date
1 2.21 .07
Scale
NTS
JAN - 8 2008
'"�'f OF BI�RLWGAME
. , ... , r'r��'�}
Sheet Title
PHOTOS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
�'"_ �— �:sx',�r'�i�
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
January 8, 2008
d City Engineer
(650) 558- 7230
O Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Attached Garage
for a first and second story addition at 815 Crossway Road, zoned
R-1, APN: 029-016-080
Staff Review: January 14, 2008
1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the
City storm drain system.
2. The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway and other necessary
appurtenant work.
3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works —
Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information.
Reviewed by: V V
Date: 01/22/2008
� Project Comments
Date
To:
From
February 13, 2008 (Revised plans submitted February 11, 2008)
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arhorist
(650) 558- 7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage
and declining height envelope for a 1St and 2"d story addition at 815
Crossway Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-016-080
Staff Review: N/A
Project Comments
Date:
To:
January 8, 2008
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
X Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
❑ City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Attached Garage
for a first and second story addition at 815 Crossway Road, zoned
R-1, APN: 029-016-080
Staff Review: January 14, 2008
�.�On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC).
2) Provide fully dimensioned plans.
3) Provide existing and proposed elevations.
4) This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame
Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed
fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined
by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the
requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2007 California
Building Code for new structures.
5) 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.
6) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines
7) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new
walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit
is issued for the project.
8) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential / non-
residential buildings. Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details.
� Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that
complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress
windows on the elevation drawings. Note: The "Study" is a room that can be used for sleeping
purposed and, as such, must comply with the emergency escape and egress requirements.
10) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are
considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if
your project entails landings more than 30" in height.
11) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
12) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
�_��he fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building
within ten feet.. Sec. 2113.9
14) NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address
items 1, 9, and 13 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning
Commission action.
Reviewed b . Date:
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
January 8, 2008
❑ City Engineer
(650) 558- 7230
❑ Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
O City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7600
❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Attached Garage
for a first and second story addition at 815 Crossway Road, zoned
R-1, APN: 029-016-080
Staff Review: January 14, 2008
Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly —
Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building
Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split
between domestic and fire protection lines.
3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall
clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings
shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
Reviewed by: ---��� j `���!�� Date:��i'�....�_�, �u-
- �
Date:
To:
From:
Project Comments
January 8, 2008
� City Engineer
(650) 558-7230
� Chief Building Official
(650) 558-7260
� City Arborist
(650) 558-7254
� Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7271
� Fire Marshal _
(650) 558-7600 '
✓ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 342-3727
� City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Attached Garage
for a first and second story addition at 815 Crossway Road, zoned
R-1, APN: 029-016-080
�iarr r�eview: �anuary i�+, c��o
1) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not
limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases
of the construction project (including demolition). Include appropriate stormwater
BMPs as Project Notes. These BMPs include but are not limited to the following:
• Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly
to prevent contact and contamination of stormwater;
• Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including
pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals,
wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains
and watercourses;
• Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering
site and obtain all necessary permits;
• Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site except in a
designated area where wash water is contained and treated;
• Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction
impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes,
mulching, or other measures as appropriate;
• Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather;
• Limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted
runoff;
• Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points;
• Avoid tracking dirt or other materials off-site; clean off-site paved areas
and sidewalks using dry sweeping method;
• The Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and
subcontractors regarding the construction BMPs.
1 of 2
Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Attached Garage for a first
andsecond story addition at 815 Crossway Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-016-080
2) The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging
and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times.
3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls:
a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls
continuously until permanent erosion control have been established;
b. Address method(s) for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and
diverting off-site runoff arount the site;
c. Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site.
4) Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following:
a. Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control
measures, including inspection frequency;
b. Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of
vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material.
Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for
your review at the Community Development and Engineering departments. Distribute to
all project proponents.
For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727.
Reviewed by:
Date: 01/14/08
2of2
WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOU? SOIL EROSION?
Water and wind carry soil from our Bay Area land down into our
streams, lakes and the Bay. This soil carries with it pollu-
tants such as oiI and grease, chemicais, fertilizers, animal
wastes and bacteria, which threaten our water quality.
Such erosion also costs the home construction industry, Ioca1
government, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars
a year.
Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as
construction inaease the rate of erosion 200, even 2.000 times
that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that
hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water
and increase its chances of eroding.
The loss of soil from a construction site results in loss of topsoil.
minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in the
landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it clog
our culverts, fIood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys
wildlife and damages recreational areas such as lakes and re-
servoirs.
As an example, road and home building in the Oakland hills
above Lake Temescal filled the lake to such an extent that it had
to be dredged in 1979 at a pub[ic cost of $750,000.
NEED MORE INFORMATION?
ABAG has produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion
called "Money Down the Drain." It is available for showing
to any interested group. Call ABAG Public Affairs at (415)
841-9730.
ABAG has also published a"Manual of Standards for Sur-
face Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively
with designs and practices for erosion prevention, sedi-
ment control, and control of urban runoff. The manual
addresses problems and solutions as they apply to
California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from
ABAG and is available on reference at many local libraries
and in city and county public works and planning depart-
ments.
USDA Soil Conservation Service personnel are willlng to
provide more information on specific erosion problems.
This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of
Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park
District.
�� EAST BAY REGIONAL
PARK DISTRIC7
61o1e1�81ww�wM .}{�jg�{od.
B O
.(4�6}�9�+-9�30
(�lv�'4'G��-�IaC..7 �I(� ;;�'Z-�2���J
PROrEC�ING
YOUR
PROPER�Y
�ROM
EROSION
U . �. • / •
v
BROSION CON?ROL CAN PRO?EC?
YOUR PROPER?Y AND PRBVEN?
FU?URB HEADACHBS
/ Vegetatioa-atabilised Bare Slope: HeaQaches
(� ` 1� S1ope: Secnrfty aad Liability
f� cr % �i �;// • soil in place • mudslide danger
�IJ • minimum of • loss of topsoi]
�/� erosion • clogged storm `.k:
����j •fewerwinterclean- drains.flooding ,�••r
�� • up problems problems �rt�.
� • protection for • expensive
,�� house foun- deanup r�'��~'
' ,y dations • eroded or •
�1/ � buried house r'�:'�
�1% �'//' foundations �� �;'
!/` - (/� 1� �! , .
I� {� .'Y � il. '�'a
�'' �� '� .-�. � 'Y. ..
��/I ., , .: �:`+ `.:
��.:; �.;
i�/ � ' `��;�; '%' '` '.�. '+t`;_
o ..'; • - _ . '
. '�✓ .
%��1
��
1 �
"Wiaterize" your property by mid-September. Don't
wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need
wiater protectioa. Final landscaping can be done
later.
Inexpensive measures installed by fa11 wi11 give you
protection quickly that will Iast aIl during the wet
season.
TIPS FOR ?HE HOMEOWNE�
/ ' � .. �
.; �` a1
.::
..�' . .
,q �i
Seediag of bare slopes
• Hand broadcast or use a"breast seeder." A typical
yard can be done in less than an hour.
• Give seeds a boost with fertilizer.
• Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and Ieaves,
bark chips or straw.
• Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes.
• Check with your local nursery for advice.
.,-��
s,���
� �
Ia oae afternooa you caa:
• Dig trenches to drain surface runoff water away
from problem areas such as steep, bare slopes.
• Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking
the surface to Ioosen and roughen soil so it wi11
hold seeds.
Wiater alert
� Check before storms to see that drains and ditches
are not clogged by Ieaves and rubble.
� Check after major storms to be sure drains are clear
and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as
necessary.
� Spot seed any bare areas.
WHA? YOU CAN DO TO
CON?ROL EROSION
AND PROTECT
YOUR PROPERTY
Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of dol-
lars a year. We lose valuable topsoil. We have to pay for
damage to roads and property. And our tax money has to
be spent on cleaning out sediment from storm drains,
channels, lakes and the Bay.
You can protect your prop-
erty and prevent future
headaches by following
these guidelines:
�
G�
BEFORE AND
DURING � (-
CONS?RUC?ION
• Plan construction activities during spring and summer,
so that erosion control measures can be in place when
the rain comes.
• Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of
the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site
design will help you avoid expensive stabilization work.
Preserve existing vegeta-
tion as much as possible.
Limit grading and plant
removal to the areas
under current construc-
tion. (Vegetation will
naturally curb erosion,
improve the appearance
and the value of your
property, and reduce the
cost of landscaping later.)
• Use fencing to protect plants from fill material and traffic.
If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable as-
phalt or porous paving blocks. -
• Preserve the natural contours of the land and disturb the
earth as little as possible. Limit the time in which graded
areas are exposed.
• Minimize the length and
steepness of slopes by
�
benching, terracing, or
constructing diversion
- - structures. Landscape
� \` ~ ' benched areas to stabilize
. the slope and improve its
appearance.
• As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation
on all areas that are not to be paved or otherwise
covered.
• Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water,
restricting traffic to certain routes, and paving or gravel-
ing access roads and driveways.
?EMPORARY MBASURES TO
S?ABILIZE THB SOIL
1+� � .i���� � _ .
�f�1f ` �� r� -.
Grass provides the
cheapest and most ef-
fective short-term ero-
sion control. It grows
quickly and covers the
ground completely. To
frnd the best seed mix-
tvres and plants for
your area, check with
your local nursery, the
- U.S. Department of Ag-
' riculture Soil Conserva-
tion Service, or the
University of California
Cooperative Extension.
Malciies hold soil moisture and provide ground protection
from rain damage. They also provide a favorable envi-
ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy-to-obtain
mulches are grass clippings. Ieaves, sawdust, bark chips
and straw.
Straw mulch is nearly 100% effective when held in place by
spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber (tackifiers), by
punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tack-
ing a netting over it.
Commercial applications of
wood fibers combined with � "��
various seeds and fertilizers � ' ; %�
(hydraulic mulching) are effec- �' �� ` � � �
tive in stabilizing sloped areas.
Hydrauiic mulching with a ti,
tackifier should � l
be done in two � J
separate appli- � � �� :�-:= , , - �
cations: the first �
composed of seed fertilizer and half the mulch, the second
composed of the remaining muich and tackifier. Commer-
cial hydraulic mulch applicators — who also provide other
erosion control services — are listed under "landscaping" in
the phone book.
i
� ;,,,, ..�.
- - . ,:ed..e..�"r.%
Mats of excelsior, jute netting and piastic sheets can be ef-
fective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with
the soil and fastened securely to work effectively.
Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage con-
tainers or routed into lawns, planter boxes and gardens.
Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mos-
quitos, too. Excessive runoff should be directed away from
your house. Too much water can damage trees and make
foundations unstable.
S?RUC?URAL RUNOFF CON?ROLS
Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to
protect disturbed areas from rainfali until the plants have
time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent
ways to transport water across your property so that it
doesn't cause erosion.
To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dump-
ing it into nearby lots, streets, streams and channels, you
need ways to reduce its volvme and speed. Some exam-
ples of what you might use are:
• Riprap ( rock lining) — to
protect channel banks
from erosive water flow
• Sedimeat trap — to
stop runoff carrying
sediment and trap the
sediment
. �
--i
�'r`
l. P
Storm draia outlet
protectioa—to reduce
the speed of water flow-
ing from a pipe onto
open ground or into a
natural channel
• Diversion dike or perimeter d�lce — to divert excess
water to places where it can be disposed of properly
- �..
..=
�'�-�- � ._
�,� s� � _.�„�.,..,,,,�,,,�.,€
�' ; � � ,. .�sr � .
� 4 ;i
`., , � � ^ d'-- -� +�....,zA �
1 - • ' �(,y;.�� , —
_ .�, � ....� �
- .� .�: :�.. .�.�:��`' . �._
• Straw bale dtice — to stop and detain sediment from
sma11 unprotected areas
(a short-term measure) --
• Perimeter awale — to divert -
runoff from a disturbed area =__ -- --
or to contain runoff within �! ,
a disturbed area �:": �',�.� . • " ' ' '
• Grade stabilizatioa atracture — to carry concentrated
runoff down a slope
jute netting
VI �i1'YJ(�i .it�l I�'ll' �AIr � . .
r
plastic sheeting
perimeter dike
�
�
j
/
straw mulch
landscaping � /, ��y,��, � '
u
,�.,,';�-S �. . ,
sediment trap
� ..S'. , vi� �. �,
� , ���,,,,, �
� ; .,,, .
s k �.,
� \ .
� : -.� , '��,�, ,r: �
�'" � ri
��ti� d ��
\:\� x �
diversion ditch
�,�
F.
' . , . :�.,
•�
. . . _ _ k.;
.' • . ' ' �3��'
.� � ' . . .'.. '.- . . - �7.
� ,�... � :.. �
o. .. - .: : =
bench
. ... . . ' . . : > ' �� � J
. ✓ � <_I
011t�2i PCOI2Ci(O/'
�� Conservatree
Remember: The property owner and the contractor share ultimate responsibility for the activities that occur on a construction
site. You will be held responsible for any environmental damages and associated clean-up costs.
��,� San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Pro�ram �
.. :�': i::� �� M�� �.K,,..� �.,.�.
`:iJ� �si;,%• : 1'ollutim Prcvention Pro6nm
%•E:?;;
.Q.
a�
�:..
...�;>. -
::,:% -<-
.� �\ J
/ ^ h...�t _ �..� �
"�.' � r .
General . ���'�-'
Construction
& Site Supervision
AA�nr[ rl�w/n[ �Ie�enp ryfl�4w
iL►eL� eauwY� .Y �.JY�.eMlle Y JR
R�14* �nl�. Ta Idc� ni em�lw� �y e�rys-
�n' �4�b� w I� sYr emd� mnnb Y!w
r.ti eq:.
ILa+k e� p��ey r.ra 4�1�� in W wd�lt� o( h
J� w0lm� r fian�w�.n wvM�rVi'
/Gnnl Oe �r��1 �/ nMf �nsl� ry f4
�.,.. � ..:. _ s..:., ,, �;., ,., _ s ,,.,.
� a psr� �nYe� did�e r 6wrt wrr Uw
�d v 1r. R�Juv yw�r nMTNsYn Y�
� •�� a.a ee..►....i..
�IMT��
iTnr �w vwpM�eu .J �b�4�ew� ML
� r.a.� ..+e� ....,�... .e....w .ar
c�r��.nw �ie 1/vn �lswa+en Wr t4 �
rrvwr nq�Y�w�� rl ii r�1��tls
�k �+� R"�ladl a�4M� vs Iw �m
prrra.ai.�e rd.e►r, r...n.e 4.�.�+
rb�w�rc lY� Ju*Wiu.� iwN M wJl ��
r�«..p.. >.� a.r wia .r e....a rm
ar�. NJ� rJ� q�:n wfYt
I �+�err .r .r m rr. — w.�..�....rt
r.r..i�r...m. c..e.y�..ad..r
..a a�...e:r.cs n�.ray«
�n7 mA
ir�0 ��Y�Y MI �q�d ��\ta �I�u �tl e�
� �+� �uc��a! Or�b D vYlnrt�
G�c
�/�7 ^'R f'd �f�ee Y dti r�bm L�Yy
�Rd4 xsl�sk If1���+ �s41 M �ssr�.
•�p pN w�Mld�10 b M� �dlw� W
ee..��,se>
�d� Y �+�4 41r W M�s �Y Is41d� e
ti v w avmi�r a� s ywdwer x iaw
�..—�...+..,.� �,,..,,.�.�....a
wln�wr'a��y If�sotowr,wfa
•'�[� �^ M� M bn dww
iC�r r� �YI.Y ���Iet� Oad Ilqosl� ir
i� n.e�,..,.r. �..n.. 4.. w �
> W.k.�.�y.a.a.�...e r.+:+..rk
d�wr.. � M.:a f ..:+a....a.+rp....
�;� Mlipfy, rye�n �� �1 � �erb►�
\N1 Y iw� w I�r �eMN1n Ja
I��.k....� �...rk �+r..... �.rnw� r �
w�rY� Mrr Y� we ladq onp.p M �y was
� ^rrweb.�a�.ki.r,.�ry�
MreMd+,1+�w I+M/4 .
I��11ce ��rte nd�a1N� — �4Y�1Y w�Me ��e
Nw �rM ��tv►M. n�i aJy h�srl �w r�
M1�Y4ie}t
iUae n��aY1e w�ebb �4�va� pauple Awrs
r. r+a+r � �erk ...�.r..e . o.er.
oN�R s� wrl -..�.'..R Yp..sn. d..wa q-
'��t 11�. iaR. �n1+JNe �ri�euse�rsi6
vinmirl�nY .yµ�,My�
lw.v....r d vw...� �..�r.. �aw, e..�..y.
M�l eawnr werYb �N.re sM wryckd
���t �� �r-tidryYw.tilri tLY1
�nk� �n�i W �awvda �ee4 r�i <bd Rs�
iN 4�a�Y W EAr� ��v w� 4 �dd nw�
!e ti.w in r yy.T�e ywNl � r�c1 s�..
1r�Awa wa. l/e�tr wrJ .��K �Ya�Yh w la�e
\s b IA. M�M w�v � e�ee\ w�ba� �d.
V�iun ►vlicipnt AiMtoti Belnunl. Bri�Erie, Bvli�vrc. Colq D�17 GIy. Fri tdo Allo, Rslv Cily. Half Mwn B+r. Hi146awt11 Mrnb Mrk Miil6ne, P�ci&s, Torlol� VJkr.
Rcdwaa! C IX Sui B�vro, Y+n Cufoti S�n M��eo, 4aulA S�n Fnrci�co, Wood�ide, CouMr of S�n Mdeo_
Pollution Prevention It's Part of the Plan
It is your responsibility to do the job right!
Runoff from streets and otherpaved areas is a vaajor source of pollution in local creeks, San Fiancisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
Construction activities can directly affect the health of outwate� unless contractors and crews plan ahead to keep dict, debris, and other
construction waste away from storm drains and creeks. Following these guidelines will ensu[e your compliance with local stoimwater
ordinance requirements. Remember, ongoing monitoring and maintenance of installed controls is crucial to proper �plementation.
Heavy
Equipment
Operation
0
Earth-Moving
Activities
.�i.` T
,�x;
��
���'�.,�(:+_ �•��
a,J,�. �V �
D�riy Crer�ei�
/ R..o...dd� w�.riw..6•�e rsrry �m.
�r
Roadwork & Paving
I �...brw ���.�..eiwdr.s m.d p... �>
i^tivry�rtiYmr+�
�Sd�bYia�la�M�M1i�.Rf Nf�lr.
I crn.n y*.r rr wb.d �µ �.a4.yr�.n
I�F
I raf�..y...ra.eq �y.ra ue..rb /�w0
n�1 wY Ow� V a�a�iw �Iw.
/W�wn1Y�lYy�tileYqd�w� nalV
`r � MC bi�n�. � eTW�m��b/ uw wV
6s ab�� �is ud t1�3
i o... e a�..a ai � w�..>.i..�.p.� w
�
! �M� ar �l �....i...�.a rar...y.�.a
+►.r�.re.ei.
I r� od� �.,y e�. ev �.r... �
sir p.�.4 ..t p.w./wr .Yde �.I.ra...�. J a..A . dr ��� „v�.a. tir.e.� mr.i..
IDr�....W.r��w.�.rs.�...�- �..�a.m.e��e.wv..r.d/N•r,
tle+� w� v9 Res f�s�r r.w� �n4 W�0.
r.r..eYY�.�.r.t►�.rwF.r�.:� In.�..�+A4•b.r.p...ao.�.re...
.iNedq.�r Irws drJn�11�h7�.twMo74u.Ow�b,i�
i IY1r1� it+El� r �"� W� r v� A�u bY Il�m.
r.r�wF��i.��.-
a�«M`��� Iu,.�re...ut�eran.n�.r.Aeaa..
�, .a ad+.a.
/ hrlbrn uyr rrera 1�M}b4 u1 �Mkk wd
Yi�s� wYiit ff�IK
I urw.Aa s.l. ie �N=..s R r�ror �.t
v arr �rH. r+.c �. bp p.. r d.a' cbW .
em �tn �d Mit CMm �1 �ps� II�iW �ws Y
prrrerMr�rd �k�lwwpE6k.r
!1s al11i4 � YiJa...�c
/ b �a.a.fsd N r 46r:ae rds..pj.zu w
�
I �<rd.ae..��e.�.+�
qe. a M� �wrb �+a ►o MKr
� w...��.ea..'�m'a.�.r..i.o.�.»w.
a6m �:esn oel�►we TY�G Uv tr� tlsy sf-
Yk I�Mati� �wiR d IYr. rdbr r�) �Momi
'�waT4 If y� m v�r, a� }u m�� ts 1.1.
r ew e�.
D�� Guinelr
�c..�.�..��.r�.eai.a....M�.. `���rMryWWtie7Y.a�w�.r.�.lnwi
0� �L Y iraldu� �W p�as� �il h�e �w � o�
� c... r..i o�e re. w...re.a. .mHea
I �wN�i�de�irJe�s�irA�s� ��•��'��'f�.ee.
�� / Ur i�k J�. �M1Jar, w v� r dl..n �wrt rw�
vYtildi
♦ hT.M.�.nl�w...t.�� W res A..► J w....d .o �wiJ rms �qo�b �sreP. or
bMblm�w�ers�wip: �va�Yw11���wer���.r�r�bd�CJ-
i.e �I +�4. ey� e �n w
�C IrQp�e�OO�.Osoa�acie��r►bv16
Ge� tis fnak� Ndsvp�. hsn fe� daf 1{ W p�wr �f�M
Isew.i.m..r�W�.r.i.v`r..ti.v�a '�"�•"��•e�'•rvra.r.a
� C�i►!H 6em P+NII drbl� x�bw6�1 urr�l
/ h�6m T Ta� T�n �/ C.s dj! air. l<IeR �T. �t)I�mOv �Ye wEs m� I� ue.
! a��a,w.r �ari•K.i.r �.ro
�we.�.f��wb.a�.�y.a�..��r r"n'nwaW,tyA���w�..e�...�ro�t.
Oe�m�hSw�itwW��mqIsN�4e�d�o�A Wwl
ien ��n Nw. � Gle .d �rysY � rp�rYl� iq� Auvai
ru,Mr y�wlr rl
iwa...u�.ubras..tr.�.�.y.�.,�.'.�. !ti.'r...+r�+�b..�w�r.emrrwt
Fresh Concrete
& Mortar Application
fz-
�i
�� �r... nd�
I e.s Y�wr7.r�.od a. osrado. as.�..y. m�.
!e� y W w �r�YY �dr sR, Aaed ha�
nfsi� W ia�M[ �weM �h oaw.Yl
Painting & Application
of Solvents & Adhesives
� �
�
x..n� rr.r r..ae
� 1(eO Y�1� P�Y ►^��n� �d �ub mT In�
� Puv.1.Ql W M� 4W� l�i^b �Idr an
�.raare, w�.�e. �a�..m dvr� �da.�
Ls�ds� �ub d a M �q�.ad A�� lrrdo�
mtcees M!� (mnw �wr IaN v�omwrr
��1
� SmY� ly �f ms1 W M�w ya B� au r�
.►6aie....r.rn�+�.�ltn.e�.mw r.wwi.r..�
3'r. WiR�! tr[ i IVnv Aer ln��e w Aa� pYl e��lY�en rl� •
n.a�;.ne..r..� �....ae�
/y a..�s.a..ey.m�.a..ran..�
'�wr�rl.b.�.w�r.1� 6. rhmm I F«.NvJrd �Wft PYp wn tilr. e �6. me�
�sbrrdia4lmwtl�d�0/iW+sdu Ia�lUseMir�o�s��au)wVwP�d
�e�.wee.e..r�h�•.+►a+bnw4 a.w+.:�6..��.ietw.....�v��r.s..asiry.
bdlrM�Mne��l4�vY�we.fwaWlYr Nawpv�w�w��h�A
14 flretl. ��� r� �NVR �hYe. n ltreu� �
;.5'r;',a:i t'.
- �. � .
— � •.
•+, ,;:,_.•
,
°�.e�,,..o •
Questions?
Call the O�ce of
Envuorunental Compliance
(650)342-3727
Landscaping,
Gardening,
and Pool Maintenance
1"I ' I
� � 0001
� hasl sc4�s W �dnY^� wiJa f �id ud
ti� b� m'ry ILs� vdr �rp r�s�.l PI�Y� r.rf�
J m. r� V.. ral�eas, M..4..r.�el.:4nn .
b� AW vwsiy Wisl
/ xe.w. o.+e� .sa �.v.nw �.y:a r. y.�aa.
/ ta. rw�n d.a s�+., rw. r e�..�,.,.n�....�
r.m w. e�.:LL
I nw.n o.�.. a.��.�. �na W r4 e..s rre m.n
w sh YY� pw�o� raara
I F« N�WaI �Y�a �I � bal� ts O� ev pw � M4d•�1.� Y.� rvdk.� fr� •I s�i� a.��M 4.
D�A�fiwvaAiw WMWclrwf��Yer�eA+sYi�pqon�dr. u)t1c
IDm1�sw�llvmvear�aemdr)asi RbWr�uKw��dWwmDhpvuNma�
o���4y ipsi6ud�dlzelvdaa�nnc �Yw9C'�+rk�M./.rewu
I Iha T Irmdbs �d fs{ev 4d diamw ALv w-
I s ro.r e��.•n.e.,...*... r.y p.k M1/r rswY u1�A �G r�v u pN�n D1��r �! Ar!
o-y� Aa. � nun ap w�.� n.....rva.. y r� ..wr� w�k ew.
�� �r Yvtlt �V ��� M� cdiod i� P�ec
I�e..r��r�rrn..qraa..�.r� r.i.d.m,��s�.eray..► �o�n.rr�.er.:��,.n.e.ee....�
w�� 4a wY�in wt r� A.w M tiiw�+/' w ir.
O� m�a r 1v� r�i
I n�.r.�.�s..+ev.aK.+„�.mAune:.
ee....y.... � x....�....►.r. s.�
.�.M�`.K
/ Nw V/ Vlu ��V ra.'s mwrd� dswAep r
q..• �wr�n� ..,.. �.wi e.r�. t ��.
IS�m►T��dnMrl�bbaA�dy.Ne�er�. I�ir1 �Iu! Aqid�[wvv�fu��l �fw�bi
b�wrtirM�.r.�wx.cw e..� l� I•�1r_�--Irirj4s JAwYaain�maf�a�T�bdb Td�rros
d'7 rwirtL « JWr�rUq�►M�W.YmbM�TJWPKs
UrrYeL�r��Pi�lr�ea�N. I(RMMaodii��si�w4�b��rrM JANbskf,.�T�Yy�wtill�w���w.sJl ~+TWMA+�7
W i�reie RtiallYr Qo�yCaadl�rk
/CLn*;brMu.r4a4d��OWMwMf d�bWPYanfn�IK�� ��nkYrydwbNlratomo�tY�W111
A�poW�faWaidwN • U�aW��odiL�4��r�ds /4JeunbatsPmaAmu�mrl�ie4a�i�
�f�IwnWt
JRRen•�V�++�Yr�.�wp`rY�T1� • w�./.rMr��� I�wrnerb.rr.:Nm��tv�a�iy.3M..1 'r ~wJ.rr •fe�e.drymna�SC�
�pde�eYfjYsu�YdylwuAM . BmdMd,.dM1�bW u�aJvryhN++�ivr�efm�M
H�p11t+t w�.edlmia��....�4:..b8s '�`~� J Hws �uce rlv,id.u..r.ra:t
M 7sAw � T�l e� d� M�wri� �s�: I) DiJ / Nnn W b.� ��e e�1.r M u.de� in Vr 6�
111 er�[�rbsl �� �q�w� wi�r. t) CJI ^^T �+^k
o.c �.orvrE.�«ye..:mw.,k�
fae, (It� �A-lflO (Y� Mn}
Storm drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $25,000 per day!
/Cle�lulOWtMrIpIK�dA�Wd�sWi� �WIeIMr��dP��e�d�RM�L�KNes
6sn svbe Nials r I4b e�bYly Id M tl�1�1 I�eV6 C30 ifsssM'. rd aaqat
11� mW 4e tl�oed Nu lmdeu �i
I o. �w N.v n�a w..� � v..� i. a..�.�.:�u.k�
�me..yoy..d..,y���qma..+.rry.. �wrrr.a..o.�n.k.+�dbMw��.M
�� �w.►Vd � dnia MA ws ae � Bn wa� br IRM b MM�� aO r�ben Or. W
�o r! �rd� ired. Q, ehid wiw Ce led �wv+s r. Ird60 04 m�ss �+d wme
..Iri�t. lf.e..� M�m u. dl.n P+o er
"m..1�.a,.�e..ss.r..wrT..�.w...an Jo.v.�M......�.r...�.w.�wne.o-�.
tw. Le0`L e(0s �wvn9k ieqdm! b u!v Ort
R�nnwruswsYlyYmi��bdchle� �.WF..ti4.'I�vM./w��+nm
I� scr.�. c61�.re pm�> w••.e r..we�>
•qsb5s� 10Y+/'4+.Mwe.v M�YIa n.r.n M4
/ �fb •r wA+�f � wrea.d �W i y •
laa�sM V�ai� �atwllww fri'�. � u q.. / Nlcs r^MfM�. psd r wt 1n dbiee 6aA. b 5 e
��r��WfH.w�rM+s�.,d 14p.Tunsy�ktirMdeeiesitsbJbw�
s..r. �o�..e r.o a+...r w s�r .r. r. rd��M.� > r.�. �. �wi..:ra.... r...m
Eye Y� wivy W Ml Miw
JllrtikMw..FWa1o�tDlYa�fawfnM JObAi.eawunw.>l.utic�.sdr�Aea.�a.ry
.a.e4 �.., �o,�w..�. .....lrae�..a►r e. i.d.�..e.•am�.n+o..� b
ee�. Yv...alry.:r w..w ris cbn.v l�.o-
JSo�11Yr�n'{��bratlshslaiid5u4�u i�s
��lE�irner111eJ� Dirid� rtp6q ��
s �v��do .�s i�s�. / W�.� ve �TIKrJ.r�� .k.aeNn G�M �k�e w-h�
Aleies r wM Yvnri.a �e aqyvLnd rysl dsn:
IUqedsKpww.rb�Jkslsism�a� u4CTablv�hY��y��kllfcu�crWb�
PYI vswd�. bsf wtl �V R�w �5��� b 1�- ��w�41G1 rewwN Ir1 M r+�i� �m,we�� Ww�.
�' Mb'
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW
AND SPECIAL PERMITS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
Design Review and Special Permits for a first and second stoN addition and new attached
Qaraqe to an existinq sinqle familv dwelling at 815 Crosswav Road, zoned R-1, Neil Yellin,
propertv owner, APN: 029-016-080;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
April 14, 2008, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and
comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is
no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on
the environment, and categorical exemption Section 15301 Class 1(e) (2) of the CEQA
guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not
result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and
facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally
sensitive.
2. Said Design Review and Special Permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permits are
set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 14"' dav of April, 2008 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Special Permits.
815 Crossway Road
Effective April 24, 2008
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped February 11, 2008, sheets T0.1 through A2.2, and date stamped March
28, 2008, sheets A2.3 through L0.1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior
finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 9, 2008 and February 13,
2008, memos, the City Engineer's January 22, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's January
12, 2008, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's January 14, 2008 memo shall be met;
3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall
be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or
garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing
windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject
to Planning Commission review;
5. that prior to issuance of
construction plans shall
approval adopted by the
remain a part of all se
Compliance with all con
not be modified or chan
Council on appeal;
a building permit for construction of the project, the project
be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of
Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall
ts of approved plans throughout the construction process.
ditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall
ged without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2007 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:
9. 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
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Special Permits.
815 Crossway Road
Effective April 24, 2008
compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the
final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
10. 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
Department; and
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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.
�'.l CITY OF BURLINGAME
�� �'� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ��� • z
_ _�BURLINGAME, CA 94010 >�-� ...,:��.
' PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) d
www.burlingame.org �''� .�. y�
�;� �+ �
i.Y'p y" r��;� 2
�`r�,_„�,..� • r'• •
Site: 81 S CROSSWAY ROAD
Q16H16504325
$ �0 �� �
Mailedfrom 94G10
l!S P�STAGF
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces pUBLIC HEARING
the following public hearing on MONDAY, APRIL 14, NOTICE
2008 at 7:00 P.Mo in the City Hall Council Chambers,
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
Declining Height Envelope for a first and second story
addition to a single family dwelling at 815 CROSSWAY
ROAD zoned R-l. APN 029-016-080
Mailed: April 4, 2008
(Please re%r to other side)
Citv 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 othe� side)
�- ' % ' ,\ \,III�� � � P �� �4^ � gn y�� �, �'�
♦ p '
� ..�.
r
I ��� \ � ; � , ';
� �� "•�W+� , +�� � y�r e � ��'
t"�A��4A�.� ` � 4� � ��i
� ,�,.
�:�'�. � �-� � ��'�� ' g� � �;� �, 'n � � . `(�` � , . .
. �+£� r
�- � � �.s�t� ti . _ _' ��. � � -• �,,, � ,,x � � � r"
.a * r �."t � � "�d � �,�� �d �
� � � ��
� '� • " �' • � : ' '� - ` ��" � -�
�1 � t " .�,A'g�� x
'.# F� ��,�° � , : � `:� '' ;,
�„�, �,.�� � � �;.��'
� zr .. ,. ��� �'�,.w� �" � .,
s �, a�, �.� w -r.
, y�,. ,�
�
I > � r
F
,,;
, �
��.� � � �
4 �' �.
� k ` �'
•� �'�g~ '` '•$. .�Po,. �.5��� �� �
� . � .� .,
��� '-�� �� �.Mw'�'�° � �� .��la ,a. �/ y� �+�
�,�� »� � w:- , j � �'� �"; / ;
} a�Y .'.;a. r.,,/+ '` yr,w. �a F // ��, ��.
'���}f,� !,� � 1 ��// �'"�� 1
�,+ - f� � �i'jY� / {',.� �..
� y� .. �.y . t' � .: �:. .Ir � �� 'y :�
� Y ,�Ri. ? S ,
e ��a,p/,#� ... } : �'.. . . �
;�ff' 'J "J �7 'C"� sti�' � .r ,y r �" .
.. � I �� � ,p � �� � r� � � .r? � � �r� • �•, � � �sd.. ' ��h'
, .� r•�.�� � '� � �r,g f. � r �,*. .�'
`,�'„ ,�.` � �l ;�..' �"t, F w �' .
' �� �� • t��.��� � � ��„ `�' ���,'.c �
I \ �(,�p` , • � �� �' •.l.�Y'�� � <
� � .�T ,�,. �,�, � � � ''z
•
, s� !r �•� S �
�
t '� � �, bik`
d ' � • � } � *� �``i» � � ♦
..�.. � , . _ s
..: � `, � , �.
/� �•, j. ,f�
. » , � ,� •
. ,. � � �
��, �� �r �n �` �r4. ��\ ��
� +� ,,, �' '_ �:, l
y+� f' ,. ` 's ;�; �,.' f �'
♦ � �.
�� • !- ' y
� a�
► -
e
, >..
«
...;
�
� � � .�w , . "�:,� - 'k � �. t �
.
,
t �b�$ ;� � *�r� �. �`
� � < � `
,� � � �t� ,�r � y� ��%
<� , ;;� ' � 'd, r; .� If
� ' .y - ', t � . � �',. i � <,"
- . • Y. 'a;', - a-
� - s � �� r� w1
� � � ,
� w �
�,� r . ' '•. J� . ., .. :'�'� � .r +
.9 Ra'
_s.`'�e. �. �.t . � .��y � �rv.qr '� ��; � -p.
� : ; .
� . �, . j
y �, . *. . � ..
L
, � . ..
�.. ' �:1 �,� �
� �; •d x:
:k1 � � ..w �il� � � � / r � .
i' �� ��K.. ' � fYA,.. '` •�
•� �r , ♦� ,h�� 1= £. - , � r�
\. • � sj x� .� � �i � h� ,� t ' :�»
� .' ,
�' . . / y�
�\ ,b, a°�Y � 'tR!$f:. . � . Y- /f � .. �9"
`�l! '�Y. , �. a �
� ` � �� `� i � ' � �: � ?K � +,� i�
. ,,.
. .
.: . . . .
� �.
� �� _ � � _ ,�,
-
�
� " '�
. s . . �.
► i '�► f�s'° '` '4 ' , .
' � � � � �� t,. , ' � ,'� �� <
.
� � .
A ��:.+ , � � i
c t 4 r; � %<
� � „ u,� �� �� �� �
� + Y�; � � `: ,� z �'� ��` q �
r �, i� � � 1
�• w� +� • ��
/ P�� `� � � ���� `
� �� M ,�.�s'`� � � r c
� � i)t' � `�� • � � �. <t,`�
. ,
� � Y '� • � � � � � ���"�
� 4 Fd
�� • j
.
� � .. �. �#� �� '� •�r
i�
C/TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 14, 2008
III. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2a. 815 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS
FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NEIL YELLIN & JANET ZOLA, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WILLIAM DUFF, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Neil Yellin, 815 Crossway Road, project applicant, was available for questions.
Public Comments:
Robert Brisbee, 824 Acacia Drive and Mark Losito, 810 Acacia Drive; live behind property,
Crossway is primarily single story homes, these are very narrow lots, recognize have to be efficient
and everyone would like more floor area, but not fair to neighbors on either side or in back, destroy
privacy and nature of block with one-story homes, house was marketed as historic, is original,
should keep that the way it is, encourage you to deny permit. The elevation on Crossway is higher
than Acacia, there is 5 to 8 foot slope from curb to back of property, should move addition closer to
Crossway, or screen with shrubs, this addition will look down into my back yard.
Commission Comments:
■ Struggle with issue of privacy clear with small lots, can be no guarantee of privacy, people have right
to put in a second story.
■ This is a well designed addition, neighbors can plant trees to address privacy issues, need to have
light in bedroom and bathroom.
■ Understand issues of privacy, but agree that zoning ordinance allows for second stories, is a
slippery slope if we start to evaluate based on views into adjoining lots.
■ This is a well crafted jewel, addition is nice and complements the original design, addition toward the
front might have less impact on neighbors, but would impact the mass and bulk from the street.
• These lots are very deep, it would be worse if this were on a smaller lot, applicant is asking for and
increase from two bedrooms to four bedrooms, seems like a reasonable request.
Applicant Response:
Submitted letter with pictures taken from location of the proposed second story windows, most of
view to neighbor's yard is screened by existing landscaping, don't think can see the house from 824
Acacia.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
CommissionerAuran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
February 11, 2008, sheets T0.1 through A2.2, and date stamped March 28, 2008, sheets A2.3
through L0.1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of
the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
3
CITY OF BURL/NGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Unapproved Minutes April 14, 2008
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 9, 2008 and February 13, 2008, memos,
the City Engineer's January 22, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's January 12, 2008, memo, and the
NPDES Coordinator's January 14, 2008 memo shall be met;
3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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 orfull demolition of a structure, interiororexterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2007 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:
9. 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;
10. 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 Department; and
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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.
4
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Unapproved Minutes April 14, 2008
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The Motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures
advised. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m.
2c. 1348 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JENNY
NGO, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing
James Chu, 55 W. 43`d Avenue, San Mateo, represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
Generally a nice building, concern last time with the two-story stucco tower at the front, improvement
with current design, but concerned there is not enough articulation in front space, would suggest a
bay window in that space to provide more detail.
The drawings are wonderFul, but as more of these get built, the Commission has an obligation to
look closely at the finished product and how they can be improved, would like to see a bay window
added at the front to provide interest.
Caution that the project should not go to the max in floor area ratio, concern there could be glitches
during construction.
Applicant response:
Understood from comments that second floor element should be pushed back to reduce two-story
mass, but added a stone element and pushed the front porch back.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Brownrigg moved to continue the item and bring it back on the Consent Calendar when plans
have been modified as indicated.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. This action is not
appealable. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
3. 750 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR
CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING W ITH AN
ATTACHED GARAGE (JAJE DU AND FATALI RUSLI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND
A.S.I. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration.
5