HomeMy WebLinkAbout2711 Burlingview Drive - Staff ReportItem No. 8b
Regular Action Item
PROJECT LOCATION
2711 Burlingview Drive
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit,
Variances and Special Permit
Address: 2711 Burlingview Drive
Item No. 8b
Regular Action Item
Meeting Date: December 9, 2019
Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances for Front Setback, Side
Setback and Parking, and Special Permit for an addition to the main level of an existing single family
dwelling, to convert the existing garage to living space, and for a new lower level attached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design
Property Owners: Charles and Diana Williams
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 027-261-100
Lot Area: 10,822 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (2), which states that additions to existing structures
are exempt from environmental review, 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 site is located on a sloping lot, which slopes upward from front to rear by
approximately 28 feet and upward from left to right by 12 feet. The existing two-story house, consisting of a
main level and an attached garage below it, contains 2,531 SF of floor area and has three bedrooms. The
applicant is proposing an addition to the main level of the house, converting the existing attached garage to living
area and enlarging this level, and building a new attached garage in a new lower level under the existing garage.
With this application, the floor area would increase to 4,553 SF (0.42 FAR) where 4,563 SF (0.42 FAR) is the
maximum allowed.
The subject property is located in the Hillside Area and Code Section 25.61.020 of the Burlingame Municipal
Code states that no new structure or any addition to all or a portion of an existing structure shall be constructed
within the affected area without a Hillside Area Construction Permit. In addition, it states that review by the
Planning Commission shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of
nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a
dwelling unit. Story poles have been installed to reflect the proposed project; please see attached story pole
certification and story pole plan.
With this application, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to five. Three off-street parking spaces,
two of which must be covered, are required for this project. The proposed attached garage provides two
covered parking spaces (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9' x 18'-9'/2") is
provided in the driveway. An application for a Parking Variance is required for the uncovered parking space
length. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for additions to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2));
■ Hillside Area Construction Permit for additions to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.61.020);
■ Front Setback Variance to the main level, lower level and attached garage (22'-6'/z" and 15'-9'/z"
proposed to the main and lower levels, respectively, where 23'-7" (block average) is the minimum
required; 18'-9'/z" proposed to the new attached garage where 25'-0" is the minimum required for an
attached garage with two single-wide doors) (C.S. 25.26.072 (b)(1) and C.S. 25.26.072 (b)(2)(B));
■ Side Setback Variance (5'-1'/2" proposed to the main, lower and garage levels along the left side of the
house where 7'-0" is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c));
■ Parking Variance for uncovered parking space length (18'-9'h" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum
required) (C.S. 25.70.020 (b)); and
■ Special Permit for attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)).
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances and Special Permit 2711 Burlingview Drive
2711 Burlingview Drive
Lot Area: 10,822 SF Plans date stam ed: November 20, 2019
EXISTING PROPOSED ' ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
_ __ _ ......... _ _ _ _ _ ._ __.._.. ___
Front (main): 14'-7'/" ' 22'-6'/2" Z 23'-7" (block average)
(lower): n/a 15'-9'h" 2 23'-7" (block average)
(garage): 30'-7'/2° 18'-9'h" 2 i 25'-0" (two single doors)
__ _ ..__.... __ _ __ _ _ __ ;.. _
Side (left): 5'-1'/2" 5'-1'/z" (main level) 3 7'-0"
5'-1'/z" (lower level) 3
5'-1'/2" (garage level) 3 �
(right): 11'-2'/4" no change �,-�„ I
_ _ _..... _ _ _ __ _ _ ....... _.... _ __
Rear (main): ; 63'-5'/z" 44'-4'/z" 15'-0"
__ _... _ _ _ _ ___...... _._ _ _ __ . _ _ ..
Lot Coverage: ; 1958 SF 3048 SF 4329 SF
18% ' 28.1 % 40%
FAR: 2531 SF 4553 SF 4563 SF 4
0.23 FAR 0.42 FAR 0.42 FAR
_ __
___._
# of bedrooms: 3 5 --- �
___ _ _ _...._.. _; _ _ _ _
Off=Street Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
(20' x 20') (20' x 20') (20' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 18'-9'/z") 5 (9' x 20')
_ _ ; _ _ _ _ ; _... _ _ _ _
Building Height: 27'-1'/4" 27'-1'/4" to top of ridge 30'-0"
27'-7'/4" to top of skylight
DH Envelope: ; --- " complies CS 25.26.075
' Existing nonconforming setbacks.
2 Front Setback Variance required to the main level, lower level and attached garage (22'-6'/z" and 15'-9'/2"
proposed to the main and lower levels, respectively, where 23'-7" (block average) is the minimum required;
18'-9'/2" proposed to the new attached garage where 25'-0" is the minimum required for an attached garage
with two single-wide doors).
3 Side Setback Variance required (5'-1'/2" proposed to the main, lower and garage levels along the left side of
the house where 7'-0" is the minimum required).
4 (0.32 x 10,822 SF) + 1100 SF = 4,563 SF (0.42 FAR)
5 Parking Variance required for uncovered parking space length (18'-9'/2" proposed where 20'-0" is the
minimum required).
Staff Comments: Several letters and emails were submitted concerning the proposed project; they are attached
for review and are separated by correspondence submitted for the May 13th, November 12th and December gtn
meetings.
E
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances and Specia/ Permit 2711 Burlingview Drive
Design Review Study Meeting (November 12, 2019): On November 12, 2019, the Planning Commission held
a second design review study meeting to review the revisions to the proposed project, and voted to place this
item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning
Division (see attached November 12, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below is a summary of the
additional revisions made in response to the Commission's comments:
■ Width of exterior stairway along left side of house was reduced to 3'-0" (see revised sheets A1.1 and
A3.0).
■ Applicant clarified the height of existing crawl spaces to be 2'-0" and any new crawl spaces will be less
than 5'-0" in height (see notes and dimensions on revised sheets A2.0.1, A2.2, A2.3, A3.4 and A3.5).
■ Size of new skylight over center of house has been reduced from 9' x 9' to 6' x 6' (see revised sheets
A1.1, A2.1, and A3.0 through A3.5). In addition, the skylight will have translucent glass to reduce
ambient light at night. Condition of approval #2 has been added to ensure that the skylight contain
translucent glass.
■ Seven windows have been eliminated along the left side of house, reducing the number of windows
along this side of the house from 17 to 10 (see revised proposed floor plans and left (west) building
elevation.
Please refer to the applicanYs response letter (attached) and revised plans, dated November 20, 2019, for a full
response to the Planning Commission's comments/suggestions.
Design Review Study Meeting (May 13, 2019): On May 13, 2019, the Planning Commission held a design
review study meeting to review the proposed project. The Commission expressed concerns with view blockage
from the second story addition proposed above the main level of the house. Please refer to the attached May
13, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes for a complete list of comments and concerns expressed by the
Planning Commission and members of the public.
To address the Commission's concerns and direction given for the project, the designer submitted a response
letter dated September 25, 2019, and revised plans date stamped September 27, 2019. Please refer to the
applicanYs letter for a detailed discussion of the changes made to the project.
The previously proposed second floor addition above the main living level has been eliminated. Instead, the
project now consists of the following design approach:
■ Enlarging the main level of the house;
■ Converting the existing attached garage to living area and enlarging this level; and
■ Building a new lower level attached garage (below the existing garage).
Planning staff would note that with the revised project, previously requested Special Permits for building height
and declining height envelope are no longer required.
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.
3
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances and Specia/ Permit 2711 Burlingview Drive
Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition
(featuring a combination of hip and gable roofs, a front porch element, composition shingle roofing,
proportional plate heights, painted wood siding with mitered corners, stone veneer on portions of the house,
and fiberglass clad wood windows with wood trim) is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and
that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure
respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be
compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria.
Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by
the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby
properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling
unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060).
Suggested Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: That the site is located on a sloping lot,
which slopes upward from front to rear by approximately 28 feet and upward from left to right by 12 feet, with
the properties to the south and west located above the subject property, and therefore will not be impacted
by the proposed new construction; that the proposed addition is at the main and lower levels of the house;
and that roof ridge on the proposed addition matches the roof ridge height of the existing house. For these
reasons the project does not obstruct distant views from habitable areas with nearby dwelling units and
therefore the project may be found to be compatible with hillside area construction permit criteria.
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Findings for Variance: That in order to minimize view impacts from the addition on uphill residences, the
project was revised to include enlarging the main level of the house, converting the existing attached garage
to living area, and building a new lower level attached garage (below the existing garage). The proposed
additions are located towards the front and left side of the house to minimize view impacts, while locating the
addition at the front of the house behind the existing front setback, matching the existing left side setback,
and maintaining adequate area for an uncovered parking space. The requested Variances for Front
Setback, Side Setback and Parking for uncovered parking space length are necessary to place the addition
away from the uphill residence to eliminate view impacts. For these reasons the project may be found to be
compatible with the variance criteria.
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In orderto grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find
that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
4
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances and Specia/ Permit 2711 Burlingview Drive
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation forthe removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Special Permit Findings: That because the site slopes upward from front to rear by approximately 28 feet, a
detached garage cannot be located in there rear 30% of the lot; that the existing house contains an attached
garage; that the neighborhood primarily consists of single family dwellings with attached garages; and that the
features of the proposed attached garage, including having two single-wide garage doors with a wood trells
above the doors and being located on the lower level of the house, function to minimize the prominence of the
garage in relation to the main dwelling. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the
special permit criteria.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. 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
November 20, 2019, sheets A0.0 through A9.0 and L1.1;
2. that the new skylight shall contain translucent glass; specifications for the skylight shall be provided with
the building permit submittal;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer (s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon
the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 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;
6. 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;
7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flies 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;
8. 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;
5
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances and Special Permit 2711 Burlingview Drive
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in
effect at time of building permit submittal, 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:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates
that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
11. 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
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;
12. that prior to removing the existing roof, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the existing roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Planning and Building Divisions;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection of the new roof framing, a licensed surveyor shall shoot
the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Planning and Building Divisions;
and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been build according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
c. Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer
Charles and Diana Williams, property owners
Attachments:
November 12, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
ApplicanYs Response Letter, dated November 20, 2019
May 13, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Applicant's Response Letter, dated September 25, 2019
Story Pole Certification and Story Pole Plan, date stamped November 1, 2019
Application to the Planning Commission
Variance Applications
Special Permit Application
Correspondence Submitted for December 9, November 12, and May 13, 2019 Planning Commission
Meetings
Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 27, 2019
Area Map
�
�� ; ,� j
.
,. �
� , yco _ ,.. - 900
qPOR�♦
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:00 PM Council Chambers
a. 2711 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, Variances for Front Setback, Side Setback and Parking, and
Special Permit for an addition to the main level of an existing single family dwelling, to
convert the existing garage to living space, and for a new lower level attached garage .
(Robert Wehmeyer, Weymeyer Design, applicant and designer; Charles and Diana
Williams, property owners) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Attachments: 2711 Burlinqview Dr - Staff Report
2711 Burlinpview Dr - Attachments
2711 Burlinqview Dr - Plans
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Comaroto indicated she had spoken with the
architect. Commissioner Terrones indicated he had visited with the uphill neighbors so that he could view
the story poles.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no
questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Chimney will be removed but exisfing roofline will be retained? (Wehmeyer. Yes.)
> Stair is shown going out to the property line. Does the stair need to be so wide, or could it be brought
in from the property line? (Wehmeyer. Yes.)
> Are there other options for the skylight on the ridge? Could it be smaller, or translucent rather than
transparent? (Wehmeyer: Can look af it. The intent of the skylight is to bring light into the stairwell.
Something translucent could work.) Could also have automatic shades so it does not emit light af night.
> How is this lot different from others in the hillside a�ea? (Wehmeyer: Each home in the area is sited
differently. This lot has a very steep driveway. The shape of the lot and steepness of the lot limits
placement of the house, in particularly placing it forward.)
> Need to show dimensions of the crawl spaces.
Public Comments:
Richard W. Murphy: Over the course of living at 2625 Summit Drive for the past 26 years, as a result of
hillside erosion has had to replace steps, walkway, brick facade, fences, retaining walls, and back yard
pavers. Has installed drains and paving sysfems to drain off water that comes down. Underground rivers
coming down from Hillsborough, flooding properties. Last thing that should happen is to alter the hillside .
Should not bulldoze the hill for the property, should sfrictly enforce the 7-foot sefback. Currently a blank
wall faces the house, but would now have 15 windows.
City of BuAingame Page 1 Printed on 12/4/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 12, 2019
Mark Hudak. Concern with the skylight being added. Does not want elevations to change. Concern with
the precedent this approval would set, in particular that the three-story e/evation does not occur anywhere
in the neighborhood. Variance should be to allow what other neighbors have, but none of the neighboring
properties have three-story facades. There are other good ways to bring natural light into the stainvell other
than skylight, such as light tubes.
Vera Za'arour.� Will block the view if the roof goes over the height. Every inch counts. Requests not to
approve a skylight due to light impact concerns.
Mike Liberty: Represents the Murphys. Three-story facade would not be consistent with neighborhood.
Water flow is an important issue. Mud slides and mud in the road have been an issue on Summit Drive .
Should not be asking for three variances, indicating shouldering way into neighborhood and building
monstrous home that would be out of character. Privacy issues with at /east 15 windows looking into the
neighboring property.
Commission Question to applicant:
Could some of the windows on the side be removed? (Wehmeyer: Can look at the windows on the sides.)
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Hillside applications are difficult. Appreciates what the designer has done, but concerned with the
variance application. Needs to determine how the property is unique. Concerned with precedent. Does not
want to see more applications like this.
> Rare to give consideration to reducing fhe size of the garage.
> Uncomfortable making subjective decisions on erosion efc., there is a process through the building
permit and public works division to look at the soils reports and civil engineering. If the project were
approved, it would be backstopped by the building permit review process.
> Variances need to be made more closely, cannot make the findings here.
> Previous plans were unapprovable for view ordinance. Commission suggested looking at other
considerations relative to the property. Applicant has made an argument of where the property is buildable .
Is not aware of ordinances that would restrict a three-story facade, and it is not unusual in the hillside
given the sloping lots.
> Does not see view b/ockage as an issue, as it was in the previous submittal.
> Modifications can be made, such as the windows, skylight, and stairs on the left side. Unique
circumstances include the sloping of the lot, and fhat there are only certain areas where the project can be
built. Has approved other projects where reducing the parking dimensions are allowed, and the dimension
reduction is not significant.
> Hillside lots are all unique. Each lot has its own conditions. Could push the house further back into
the hillside but it would be irresponsible — most of the work is being done forward of the existing line of
construction. Seems like a highly responsible response to the site.
> Can move the skylight down the ridge so it is not visible. Can be easily addressed.
> Nice design for a site that is extremely difficult to work with.
> From the back its a one-story house; from the front it is three-story. Good solution to a tough
problem, pleased to see ridgeline staying where it is.
> Side setback is not doing anything that is not already there with the existing house, other than going
down an additional level.
> Should look at the skylight (potentially eliminate it), and the number of windows on the left side.
Handsome looking house.
> Nice job with a di�cult situation.
> Every house in this area is different from each ofher. Can support the variance. Should look at the
City of Burlingame page 2 Printed on 12/4/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 12, 2019
skylight and reduce windows.
> If skylight is retained should consult a light engineer to determine the true impact.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item
on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried
by the following vote:
Aye: 5- Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis
Absent: 2- Kelly, and Tse
City of Burlingame Page 3 Piinted on 12/4/2019
���������
NOV � � %� "`
L/ (.. .. . ..
-�°
� ��h
RCVV . �., �
RC Welimey�er � Design ' Btiild
1204 Burlingame Avenue Suite 9
Burlingame, CA 94010
November 20th, 2019
': Y OF B�i�t! �,"�;��::��.t,��°�=
�n.�y ^nrr.��i�.��.
Mr. Hurin, City of Burlingame Planning Division
RE: Williams Residence
Project Address
Description:
Date of Plans
Dear Rubin,
2711 Burlingview Drive
Addition to Main and Lower level and New Garage Level to Existing
two-story Single-family Dwelling
August 4th, 2019 Revised: November 20th, 2019
Please find below our written response to the comments from the Planning Commission
Meeting that occurred on Tuesday, November 12th, 2019 regarding the proposed addition to
main level, lower level and new garage level to a single-family dwelling at 2711 Burlingview
Drive.
The Planning Commission echoed concerns brought up by the neighbors when they
spoke before the Commission. We have addressed those concerns and some additional points
made by the Planning Commission.
The Commission voiced concerns about the stair along the left property line. We had
shown that the stair would be from the house to the property line with a width of approximately
5'-0". The Commission asked if that was required or if we were able to reduce the width of the
stair to 3'-0". We changed the proposed stair to now be 3'-0" wide. Ultimately, it will be up to
the engineer to determine what structure will be required along the left side of the property to
retain the hillside.
Additionally, the commission requested that we include dimensions for the crawl spaces
throughout the project. We have shown that the existing crawl space below the main level is
approximately 2'-0" and the crawl space below the new addition at the rear of the main level will
also be approximately 2'-0". We have also show that any additional crawl space area will be less
than 5'-0" in height but will ultimately be determined by the structure design and requirements.
The uphill neighbor at 2717 Burlingview, the Zaarour family, was primarily concerned
with the ridge skylight that we had added above the proposed stair in this iteration of the
project. The plans reviewed by the committee showed a 9 foot by 9 foot skylight. We have
reduced the size to a 6 foot by 6 foot skylight. This reduced the glazing area by over 50 percent.
Additional we have specified the skylight to be translucent glass to reduce any ambient light that
might escape at night.
RC Wehmeyer � l�esi�n �, �3uild
1204 Burlingame Avenue Suite 9
Burlingame, CA 94010
The downhill neighbor at 2625 Summit Drive, the Murphys were concerned about the
addition of windows along the left property line that might affect the privacy in their yard. We
have reduced the number of windows proposed along the left property line by seven, reducing
the number of proposed windows from seventeen to ten. We have removed all of the windows
that the Planning Commission suggested out of consideration for the downhill neighbor.
I believe this addresses all of the comments from the November 12th, 2019 Planning
Commission Meeting. Upon your review, feel free to contact me directly with any questions that
you may have or if there is anything additionally you may need please do not hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
��• /,.�
�
Robert C. Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD
Wehmeyer Design
..: ... �LTY
� �` ;�i;�i
�� �. � � �
_..-- i.�
��0 9 e
'>row ��
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, May 13, 2019 7:00 PM Council Chambers
c. 2711 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special Permits for building height and
declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family
dwelling. (Robert Wehmeyer, Weymeyer Design, applicant and designer; Charles and
Diana Williams, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Comaroto, Sargent, Terrones, and Tse
noted that they individually had met with the applicants and neighbors at 2717 Burlingview Drive.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer and Mark Haesloop, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
Mark Hudak, representing Peter and Ferial Zaarour, 2717 eurlingview Drive: Unlike some cities along the
Peninsula, Burlingame has a Hillside Ordinance that protects distant views and every view is unique .
Some years ago the Commission denied a second story addition because it had determined that a row of
Eucalyptus trees in the distance was worthy of protection. View enjoyed from fhe Zaarour residence is
spectacular, have views of the ai�port, San Bruno Mountain, Bay Bridge and top of San Francisco skyline;
is particularly beautiful at night. These are the views the Zaarours' are trying to protect. Don't agree that
the Hillside Ordinance is one that is based on compromise, balancing and mitigation. When you're going
to lose views, that is what the Hillside Ordinance is designed to protect. Had an architect use the plans
and superimpose two of the designs over the view from the windows in the Zaarour residence, which shows
that the view will be completely blocked, they'll lose it all together. Even if the roof height is dropped by a
foot or two or the addition slightly reconfigured, it won't make a difference because that view will be lost.
Requested Variance will have a significant impact on downhill neighbor because second floor addition
would be looming over them. This is a challenging lot, but don't think the proposed project could possibly
be approved under the Hilllside Ordinance and there just may not be a nght project for this lot, buf
certainly not a second story addition.
Vera Zaarour, daughter of Peter and Ferial Zaarour: Live part time in California only to visit family and in
Oregon; member of an architectural review committee in Oregon where we oversee 784 hillside homes, so
am aware of these situations. Provided photographs and described views from house. All options that
were shown on the plans would block views from the house, their roofline in any of the options would line
up with the bottom of our roof eave and therefore block our views. Parents spend all of their time in the
living areas, have three panoramic windows thaf provide long distant views. Houses are actually 12 feet
apart, nof 16 feet as shown on the building elevations. Hired architect to superimpose all three addition
options onto photographs, all show 100% view blockage. Second story addition just doesn't work here.
Parents have owned house for over 40 years.
Jeannie Zaarour, daughter of Peter and Ferial Zaarour. Grew up in house at 2717 Burlingview Drive, along
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 9/23/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019
with parents, three sisters and brother, moved to Burlingame from San Francisco over 41 years ago.
Parents chose Burlingame because they wanted a better life for their family and a wonderful community to
raise their children in. Chose this house because it was situated on a hill with breathtaking views .
Windows along east side of house bring in natural light and picturesque backdrop of nature and life into
kitchen, dining area and family �oom, rooms that we spend all of our time as a family. Views are part of
the home, parents enjoy views, spend most of their time in the family and living rooms and kitchen .
Anyone who visits house immediately compliments beautiful views. View never gets old, still enjoy views
every time I visit my parents. Provide family with peace, happiness and gratitude. Views bring serenity
and satisfaction to parents, would be a detriment to there health and well-being if views are blocked.
Parents are concerned that the home and atmosphere they've created for their family and generations to
come will disappear along with their view.
Richard Murphy, 2625 Summit Drive: Moved into house 26 years ago, moved to area for views and prrvacy.
Concerned with integrity of hillsides based on slides that have occurred in the past in the area; concerned
fhat project has grown from an addifional bedroom to a game room, second family room, office, bar and
bathroom on the second floor,� hillside is very fragile, any consfruction could result in a major problem.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
> Not seeing exceptional or extraordinary circumstances being asked to consider in the Variance
application. Justification in revised Variance application could include the fact that fhis lot, zoning code
most commonly contemplates, is subject to fhe Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance. Have at
times considered, because of the view issue, some variances in order to find an achievable project that
doesn't violate the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance. If moving forward with this design, should
revisit Variance application to include proper findings for what the exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances are for this project. Should also revisit findings in Special Permit application for declining
height envelope to rnclude exceptional or extraordinary circumstances based on lot slope and design that
doesn't violate the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance.
> Consider a single story floor plan to meet the program requirements. There may be an opportunity at
the front of the property to expand the garage and first floor fonvard and also incorporating the courtyard
into the house. Consider expanding on the lower levels to achieve space without adding a new upper floor.
> Single sfory addifion could be proposed in large level area in rear yard; useable yard could then be
moved to the front of the building above a depressed garage.
> Need to have story poles installed to analyze the project. Hard to imagine that there wouldn't be a
significant view blockage. Can't remember of an application where we approved a project that resulted in
the kind of view blockage that I would imagine story po/es would show us; can't see application moving
fonvard under the current program.
> Regardless of miscommunications that may have occurred and letter writing from neighbors, real story
will be told by the story po/es. Clear that story po/es are required for this project to move forward.
> Based on past interpretations by this Commission for projects of this sort, iYs not a question of
whether or not the view is blocked to a minor degree, if there is view blockage we've typically denied fhe
application and have required revisions. Applicant will need to decide once going through the story pole
process if they want to move forward with this particular application. They have the opportunity fo revise
the project and return for additional study and input.
> Encourage app/icant to coordinate with neighbors.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place this item on the
Regular Action Calendar and to require installation of story poles for the proposed design.
Discussion of Motion:
> If applicant returns with same program, then story poles would be required. But if significant
changes are made, not sure if story poles should be installed prior to the meeting.
Ciiy of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 9/23/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019
> If significant changes are made, project would likely need to come back to the Commission
for additional study because it would then be a different project.
> Find it hard to believe they can't determine without story poles that as currently proposed
there will be view impacts.
City Attorney Kane noted that the applicant can withdraw the current plans and submit revised
plans; applicant can then assess the question of installing story poles if the plans are
substantially different; project may return as a design review study item without having to install
story poles at that time.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7- Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis
Ciiy of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 9/23/2019
��
� ��h
RCVU , �.. �
RC Wehineyrer � Design � Build
1204 Burlingame Avenue Suite 7
Burlingame, CA 94010
September 25th, 2019
Mr. Hurin, City of Burlingame Planning Division
RE: Williams Residence
Project Address
Description:
Date of Plans
Dear Rubin,
.. . . 'L�
T 2 � 2019
Jr BUi�LINGAME
, .� „f.",1��,�� r1t\/
2711 Burlingview Drive
Addition to Main and Lower level and new garage level Existing
two-story Single-family Dwelling
August 4th, 2019 Revised: September 25th, 2019
Please find below our written response to the comments from the Planning Commission
Meeting that occurred on Monday, May 13, 2019 regarding the proposed addition to main level,
lower level and new garage level to a single-family dwelling at 2711 Burlingview Drive.
The Planning Commissioners were primarily concerned the impact of the addition on the
views of the uphill neighbor at 2717 Burlingview Drive, the Zaarour family because multiple
members of the family attended the meeting and voiced their objection to the proposed project.
This is a consideration also because the subject property is located in a Hillside Construction Area
which has additional considerations during Design Review to protect the existing views of homes
in the area.
The Planning Commission said that the project as we had proposed it would not be
approvable if we proceeded with the story poles it was found that there was an impact to the
neighbor's views. They urged us to try to find an alternate plan that would not impact the views
of the uphill neighbor. Several suggestions were made as to how we may be able to accomplish
this goal. They also mentioned that the Planning Commission in the past has approved Variances
and Special Permits if this allowed a project that did not compromise the established views in the
area.
We have considered the Planning Commission's suggestions in the redesign of this
project. It was suggested that we investigate other options for adding program requirements
that would not require adding a second story. We decided to use the area at the front of the
house at the existing floors and some additional area at the rear of the first floor at the existing
main level in order to accommodate the proposed addition. This would allow us to add the
square footage that the client requires without increasing the ridge height of the house.
Our proposal includes enlarging the existing lower level to accommodate a guest
bedroom, bathroom, laundry room, game room and living room. We have proposed excavation
at the front of the existing house to allow for a garage addition below the new lower level
RC Wehme��er � Design � f�uild
1204 Burlingame Avenue Suite 7
Burlingame, CA 94010
addition at the front of the house. This is possibie due to the extreme change in grade from the
street to the existing garage. The proposed garage level will still be above the existing lowest left
front property corner.
We are also asking for variances and special permits on the grounds that it would allow
us to move forward with a project that preserves the neighbor's existing views. The revised
project will require a side setback variance for the additions proposed along the left property line
at the main and lower levels and will also require a front setback variance to lower and garage
levels. Additionally, this project will require a Special Permit for an attached garage and a
variance for the depth of the uncovered parking space length. We have included with our
resubmittal revised applications for the variances and special permit which address the
exceptional circumstances of this lot and our desire to comply with the Hillside Area
Construction Permit Ordinance. We hope this will mitigate any concerns that the neighbor might
have about the design.
Additionally, we have also committed to erect story poles showing the location and
massing of the current proposed house. These will be certified prior to the Planning Commission
Meeting and will allow everyone involved to have a better understanding of the proposed
project. We are hoping this will allow the Planning Commission to make a judgement about the
project's design.
Also, during the Planning Commission Meeting, the downhill neighbor from 2625 Summit
Drive expressed concerns about the stability of the hillside and possible drainage problems that
might impact their property if our proposal was allowed. We have spoken with them to ensure
them that we will have soil testing done and have an engineer design the grading plan as well as
any retaining walls and drainage required on the site. We hope this alleviates their concerns
about the impact our project may have on the stability of the hillside.
I believe this addresses all of the comments from the May 13th, 2019 Planning
Commission Meeting. Upon your review, feel free to contact me directly with any questions that
you may have or if there is anything additionally you may need please do not hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
��. i_
�
Robert C. Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD
Wehmeyer Design
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CtTY OF BURLINGAME B„R�.``- ,�
Planning Division
City Hall — 501 Primrose Road �� w p�#: 650 55&7250
Burlingame, California 94010-3997 � �
FAX: (850} 69B-3790
Date:
av- � . Zaf `�
Project Address: 27/l $uRGi�G 1!d Et� 17R(J�
Assessor's Parcel No.: D27--' 2lod �/00
Owner's Name: Cffr4RLES .� Na �,,a o✓�h �it/; /l{��I'
This is to certify that on /y�v % 2�� �(date), the story poles located on the above-
referenced site were installed or inspected by the undersigned, and found to be in conformance
with the design, height, and focation shown on the plans, elevations, and the attached story pole
plan.
For additional informa#ion, please contact me at loSO 5`�3�-�j.�8o
ature
b/�/�( �� G.
Name (printed or typed;
�ivc��G Su/Lt��ylv
Title �
(phone no.)
�,�� 1,laN� SURG
v��\��G, Nja���F`�o�
o a
� No.5304 -�
���;�IO�EC�
NOV -1 2019
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
Register online for the City of Burlingame list serve at .. ,.; �; �:,,; �k ;,.
, .,. ..
.. .. ,
�/l�c_G�-o�
� STORY POLE
� +l- 4" I 12" I X GROUND STAKE
I �' ��� PLASTIC NETTING
I� 12'-1"
� � '� - ---�� +
ti i � `� -� - - - � �
N �I �
I
+10.27 �} � <;�
� _
� + I +l- 4" 112"
�
I _ 3'-01/2" 12'-11"
o �`—
�;
r-- +,�.�- I
� � ----
� �
� +l- 4" / 12" � +l- 4° 2" _ �T
CV I
N `- �
O +I
I `"' �, (E) ROOF RIDGE � �,
i � _ _ _ _ Y �LOCATION _ _ _ � _ _ I
_ � - - _ � - - - �
I ' +12.40 +12.40
�
14'-4" �
-- ----- 12'-41/4��
� � � i N -- -_
0
�o � � I � I
D QJ C i` � �
Z C I � � �
z � �+ �. =�
Z �, � v
� � o �
� � `� � � +l- 4" I 12" +/- 4" I 12" � + (E) HOUSE OUTLINE
m �� I - --
+ , 3 +12.31 + (
— — — I
� 14'-0" 14'-0" _ �
11'-0" +/- 4" / 12" +l- 4y " I
� �
��7l " j \
��
BURLINfiAM!
�;
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:
O Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcei #: � 2-7 f'�-�a� ' �� �
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: Z� �� ��/� NC1 �l'G(� �
APPLICANT
Name: Robert Wehmever
Address: 1204 Burlinqame Ave Suite No 7
City/State/Zip: Burlinqame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 340-1055
E-mail: rob .rcwehmeyer.com
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: C 4�v cK- -r Dt A�F3- c.v� t.c-1 �LS
Address: 2� �� �tJR-Ll �rt V L�J ��
City/State/Zip: ��2[.l�Cz�►'"��. Cf� �t� � �
Phone: (�40�'�� ��' �i8�
E-mail:
Name: Robert Wehmeyer/ Wehmeyer DesiQn
Address: 1204 Burlinqame Ave Suite No 7
City/State/Zip: Burlinqame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 340-1055
E-mail: rob(a�rcwehmever.com
�1�������
�-� �-: r - 7 2017
�3-�Y OF BURLINGAME
C�:D-Pl_A�NING DIV.
Burlingame Business License #: 29217
Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this
application on the City's website as part of t lanning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising out of or related to such action. � (Initials of Architect/Designer)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (�J'(�t'1d,�.� Q�EIvl.O'D� l� t lPrP'P l�C 1 C� �'`� 2� � ��-��
� � �-- ,�v � s �o+r-� � �c,c� � t� T o �-� �� sz r'��r 1 �
S'(.o�� ��s� �►��c�, .
AFFIDAVITlSIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and beli
Applicant's signature: �G �"-�G �' V�� Date: �' �7' ��
I am aware of the proposed application and hereb uthorize the above appficant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission.
Property owner's signature: ���— ��/ �L� �-- Date: l �
Date submitted: � I �'��7
5: �HANDOUTS�PC Application. doc
This Space for CDD
Staff Use Oniy
�
Project Description:
Kev:
Abbreviation Term
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DHE Declinin Hei ht Envelo
DSR Desi n Review
E Existin
N New
SFD Sin le Famil Dwellin
SP Sqecial Permit
�
BURLINGAME
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
2711 Burlingview Front Setback Variance
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
The subject property is on a steeply sloped property in the Hillside Construction Area. The house is located
in the center of the property and there is a steep slope up the house and behind the house as well. This
limits the area of the lot that can be developed. Additionally, the neighbors above this property have a view
over the roof of this house to the bay and do not want that to be affected. So we have proposed an addition
that will be below the existing residence but the location is also limited because of the steep slope from the
right to the left of the property.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
The request is necessary because the slopes on the existing property greatly limit the area that can be
developed. We are proposing an addition below the existing residence, where the existing garage is located
and a new garage below the addition. We need to maintain the existing retaining wall at the rear of the
garage because it maintains the stability of the hill and we want to build forward from that wall in order to
minimize the extent of the excavation. Denial of the application would result in limiting the clienYs ability to
expand their home in line with their neighbors to accommodate their growing family.
c.
r�
Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
We are building forward on the site in order to maintain the general welfare of both neighbors. An addition
below the existing residence minimizes the impact on the upper neighbor's views and the lower neighbor's
privacy. Also we are trying to minimize the impact of the addition on the street. We have kept the addition
behind the front setback of the existing first story of the house that we are maintaining.
We are actually trying to retain the integrity of the existing hillside and thus the neighboring properties by
building forward instead of additionally excavating into the hillside.
How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
The proposed project is a proposed addition below the existing residence. This will reduce the apparent
mass and bulk to both the neighbor up the hill and the neighbor below when compared to a possible second
floor addition which we are no longer proposing. Additionally this will keep the proposed project scope, scale,
and massing in line with the surrounding properties and their character. All of the homes area "cut into" the
hillside and the rather steep sloping grades.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
`�
BURLINGAME
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
2711 Burlingview Side Setback �,���2�+�,ti'c�
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
The subject property is on a steeply sloped property in the Hillside Construction Area. The house is located
in the center of the property and there is a steep slope up the house and behind the house as well. This
limits the area of the lot that can be developed. Additionally, the neighbors above this property have a view
over the roof of this house to the bay and do not want that to be affected. So we have proposed an addition
that will be below the existing residence but the location is also limited because of the steep�rom the right
to the left of the property. sc-op�
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
The request is necessary because the slopes on the existing property greatly limit the area that can be
developed. We are maintaining the existing left side wall location because there is already existing structure
maintaining the hillside in this area and we do not want to undermine it. Also, relocating this wall would
cause hardship to the client by limiting their ability to expand their home in line with their neighbors to
accommodate their growing family.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
We are proposing to maintain the existing non-compliant side setback and add to the rear and front of the
residence along this line. This would allow us to limit the imposition on the neighbor's view which preserve
their welfare. Also this allows us to develop below the house which will maintain the privacy for the
neighbor below the subject property.
Changing the side setback would also increase the disturbance to the existing hillside that will be required
by this project. We are planning to minimize this affect by locating the proposed project within the proposed
limits.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
characfer of fhe exisfing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
The proposed project is a proposed addition below the existing residence. This will reduce the apparent
mass and bulk to both the neighbor up the hill and the neighbor below when compared to a possible second
floor addition which we are no longer proposing. Additionally this will keep the proposed project scope,
scale, and massing in line with the surrounding properties and their character. All of the homes area "cut
into" the hillside and the rather steep sloping grades.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • SO1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
�
BURLINGAME
�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
S�r 3 ?.
�i-�� r.� -,� � .
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
2711 Burlingview Off-Street Parking Space Depth Variance
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
The subject property is on a steeply sloped property in the Hillside Construction Area. The house is located in
the center of the property and there is a steep slope up the house and behind the house as well. This limits
the area of the lot that can be developed. Additionally, the neighbors above this property have a view over the
roof of this house to the bay and do not want that to be affected. So we have proposed an addition that will be
below the existing residence but the location is also limited because of the steep slope from the right to the left
of the property.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
The request is necessary because the slopes on the existing property greatly limit the area that can be
developed. We are proposing an addition below the existing residence, where the existing garage is located
and a new garage below the addition. We need to maintain the existing retaining wall at the rear of the garage
because it maintains the stability of the hill and we want to build forward from that wall in order to minimize the
extent of the excavation. Denial of the application would result in limiting the clienYs abiliry to expand their
home in line with their neighbors to accommodate their growing family.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
We are building forward on the site in order to maintain the general welfare of both neighbors. An addition
below the existing residence minimizes the impact on the upper neighbor's views and the lower neighbor's
privacy. Also we are trying to minimize the impact of the addition on the street.
Reducing the depth of the existing off-street parking space has minimal effect on the neighborhood. While the
dimension from the property line to the garage is 18'-9 1/2", the driveway depth from the curb is still 26' +/-
because there is no sidewalk in this neighborhood. This is sufficient depth to allow for off-street parking on this
property and not affect public safety or convenience. In fact, existing driveway is so steep up to the garage
that it makes use of the driveway and garage very difficult. The proposed driveway will be much less steep
and would actually allow for greater use of the garage as well as off-street parking.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
The proposed project is a proposed addition below the existing residence. This will reduce the apparent mass
and bulk to both the neighbor up the hill and the neighbor below when compared to a possible second floor
addition which we are no longer proposing. Additionally this will keep the proposed project scope, scale, and
massing in line with the surrounding properties and their character. All of the homes area "cut into" the hillside
and the rather steep sloping grades.
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ae me.org
�� CITY �
< �
BURLINGAME
�� ooe
�,..
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
2711 Burlingview Special Permit for Attached Garage
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making
the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink.
Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, sca/e and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the
existing street and neighborhood.
The existing structure is a single-story residence over a garage that sits on a very sloped site.
This is very typical in the neighborhood of mostly two-story, split level houses with attached
garages. We are planning to locate the addition below the existing first floor, and where the
existing garage is located. We are also proposing to change the slope at the front of the
property to access a new two-car garage that will be located below the addition. The new
attached garage and addition configuration is similar to the existing condition, and due to the
slope, typical of the neighborhood.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior ftnish rrtaterials and elevations of
tlte proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street
and neighborhood.
We are proposing to maintain the existing roof ridge height and match the existing roof slope for
the addition. This would minimize the impact on the view of the neighbor to the right, and this
would minimize the impact to the privacy of the neighbor on the left. The addition would be below
the existing first floor and would also reduce the impact on the neighborhood.
Most of the homes in the neighborhood are suburban contemporary two-story or split-level homes
with attached garages that have been renovated in a variety of styles. Exterior materials include
siding and stone accents which we have proposed.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
The proposed project will maintain the existing plate heights and match the existing roof slopes.
This will maintain the "human" scale that is a consistent with the residential design guidelines.
We have also added articulation on the front facade with new bay windows, separate garage
doors and recessed, covered front porch entry in order to bring down the apparent mass of the
proposed addition. There will also be small scale detailing throughout with the fascia, corbels,
and trellises. These all bring down the apparent scale of the proposed addition.
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 remova! of any trees? Exp[ain why this mitigation is
appropriate.
The proposed project requires significant regrading of the front yard along the left side of the
property and will require the removal of one unprotected 4" tree. However, we intend to keep the
existing 24" and 7" trees along the right side of the front property. Additionally there are many large
trees in the back of the property that will also be maintained as part of the proposed project. sYFCPeRM.FRM
2711 Burlingview Drive
Correspondence Submitted for
December 9, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting
LAW OFFICES OF
MARK D. HUDAK
177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
San Mateo, CA 94402
December 4, 2019
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Hillside Construction Permit Application
2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Commissioners:
(6S0)638-2390
Mark@mhudaklaw.com
.� , �.; .��W �
�"� �'� � i �lr� � �
D�C - 4 2019
;I i Y C)�� BURL!�`JGAME
� ' .i.l���\`�!nil\: _,�`,i
My firm represents Peter and Ferial Zaarour and their family. The Zaarours own the home at
2717 Burlingview Drive. They appreciate the efforts made by their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs.
Williams, to revise the proposed additions to 2711 Burlingview. There are several outstanding
details that were raised at the November design review that need to be resolved before the project
can be approved.
Sk li ht. The Zaarours remain very concerned about the proposed skylight over the entryway
and the impact on their views. The skylight will be above the existing roof line by at least 6" and
will emit light that will interfere with their night views. At the November hearing, several
Commissioners suggested that the skylight needed to be eliminated or moved or that the light
pollution addressed in some fashion. .
Following the meeting, Rob Wehmeyer submitted a letter stating that the size of the skylight will
be reduced and will have "translucent glass" that will reduce but not eliminate glare and light
emissions. We requested that the Planning staff obtain a specification of the product to be
installed but have not received a response. We are skeptical that unidentified translucent glass
will be adequate mitigation for the effect on the Zaarours' night views. It should be noted that
none of the Commissioners at the November hearing suggested that reducing the size of the
skylight would be a good solution to the underlying issues.
We remain concerned about the height and impact of this skylight. It should either be removed
or a product specified that will eliminate light and glare. If the skylight is approved at all, it
should be constructed flush with the roof so that it will not exceed the existing roof height in
violation of the Hillside Construction Ordinance and the glass should be treated to eliminate any
passthrough of light from the interior.
Buildin�; Elevations. Any project approvals should include a condition that new construction
not exceed the existing roof elevation, including skylights or other features, and require
Planning Commission
December 4, 2019
independent verification of the elevations before during, and after construction. This condition
would be consistent with the requirements of the Hillside Construction Ordinance, BMC Chapter
25.61.
Although this may appear to be an unnecessary worry, I am currently involved in a situation in
which a contractor negligently framed one area of a new home approximately one foot above the
approved elevation, impacting a Bay view enjoyed by a neighbor. Preservrztion of this view had
been an important consideration during the design approval process. By the time the error was
discovered, it was not feasible to lower the roof height to the approved elevation without
completely demolishing the newly-constructed area, The neighbor has threatened litigation
against both the developer and the municipality.
In order to avoid a similax situation, we suggest the following:
"Prior to construction, the existing roof elevation shall be verified by a licensed surveyor. The
applicants shall provide documentation at the framing stage that new and replacement roofs
(with allowance for materials) will not exceed the existing elevation. Documentation shall be
verified by a licensed surveyor. Any deviations shall be corrected by the applicants before
applying shingles, tiles, or other roofing materials. The final roof heights shall be verified before
the permit is iinaled."
Inclusion of this or similar language as a condition of approval will help prevent a repeat of the
situation I described.
The Zaarours remain concerned that the Williams have not addressed the issue of towering trees
along the property line that have not been trimmed and now block views. In addition, it is
unclear whether the Williams intend to replace the fence between the properties, which is now
poor condition. The Williams' project will be very disruptive and burdensome to their
neighbors. In order to mitigate some of these impacts, the Williams should commit to correcting
these problems while their new home is under construction.
Thank you for your consideration of the Zaarours' concerns.
Very Truly Yours,
,/��71/�.
Mark D. Hudak
cc: Clients
Planning Department
2711 Burlingview Drive
Correspondence Submitted for
November 12, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting
LAW OFFICES OF
MARK D. HUDAK
177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
San Mateo, CA 94402
November 6, 2019
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Hillside Construction Permit Application
2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Commissioners:
(650)638-2390
Mark@mhudaklaw.com
,4R'����`iJ������
', �''' - 6 2059
= t3v�urvGArn�
�� �_:,'�lf,i��� � CI�.�
My .firm represents Peter and Ferial Zaarour and their family. The Zaarours own the home at
2717 Burlingview Drive. We have reviewed the revised design for additions proposed for 2711
Burlingview Drive, owned by Charles and Diana Williams. We have the following concerns
and questions.
Inconsistent Drawin�s. The principal concern of the Zaarour family is preservation of their
existing views. We have carefully reviewed the existing and proposed elevations shown of the
drawings dated September 6, 2019. There are several questions about the proposed design.
First, Sheet A1.0 indicates that an existing chimney in the Northwest corner near the Zaarours'
home will be demolished, but the note indicates that the existing roof over the living room,
dining room, and kitchen will remain. It is unclear whether the hole left by the chimney will be
patched or a new roof will be installed in this area. If there is to be a new roof in this area, the
conditions of approval should require that the height match the existing roof.
Second, there are several deviations between elevations shown on plans provided for our review
prior to submission (dated July 30, 2019) and the plans actually submitted, particularly with
respect to elevations. How can the neighbors be assured that the elevations shown on the current
plans are accurate?
Skvli�ht. The revised proposal includes a new — and unnecessary — skylight over the foyer. The
elevation of this skylight is not reflected on the proposed drawings.
The skylight will create significant interference with the Zaarours' views at night, when artificial
light will flood the clear night sky and obscure the distant views of the illuminated San Francisco
skyline and Bay Bridge.
The skylight element should be eliminated from the design.
Planning Commission
November 6, 2019
Neighborhood ConsistencX. The revised design calls for a substantial increase in the mass and
bulk of the left side of the residence. The home will be pushed closer to the street and will
present as a towering three-story edifice from the sidewalk. Based on the elevations shown on
Sheet 3.0, the full height of the left side of the house would be 31.29'. The proposed house
would not be consistent with the existing neighborhood, which features two-story homes set well
back from the street. The Zaarours are concerned that approval of this design would set a
precedent for the rest of the neighborhood and encourage three-story homes.
View Obstruction. The applicants have allowed trees on their property to grow to heights that
now block the Zaarours' views from several windows. Any project approvals should include a
provision that these trees be trimmed back to eliminate view interference.
The Zaarours appreciate the modifications to the original design that have removed the proposed
second-story additions that would have eliminated their views. However, they continue to have
concerns about the revised design and the impacts on their views if the project is not built
according to the approved plans.
Any project approvals should include a condition that new construction not exceed the existing
roof elevation of 124.40, including skylights or other features, and require independent
verification of the elevations at significant phases of construction. We suggest the following:
"(1) Prior to construction, the existing roof elevation shall be verified by a licensed surveyor. If
a new roof is installed in areas shown to remain, the applicants shall provide documentation at
the framing stage that the new roof (with allowance for materials) will not exceed the existing
elevation. Documentation shall be verified by a licensed surveyor. Any deviations shall be
corrected by the applicants.
(2) At the inspection for roofs on new construction, the applicant shall provide documentation
that the ridge heights do not exceed the existing roof height, verified by a licensed surveyor.
Any deviations shall be corrected by the applicant."
If any Commissioner wishes to view the story poles from the Zaarours' windows, please contact
me to arrange a time.
Thank you for your consideration of the Zaarour's concerns.
Very Truly Yours,
ii�� s" ` �/ / •�
Mark D. Hudak
cc: Clients
Planning Department
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. LIBERTY
�
1290 Howard Ave., Suite 303
Burlingame, California 94010
Telephone: (650) 685-8085
mdlaw ,pacbell.net
November 6, 2019
Planning Commission Department
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Hillside construction permit application
2711 Burlingview Drive
My Clients: Richard and Victoria Murphy
Dear Commissioners:
, : r, �a
}'�. � � �.�. ��
���? r� `� " ,..
_ ,� ,,;,�,:�
r� �_ ��. . _
;ITY O� BliRLINGAME
,�1D-!'!_ANNINC DIV.
This office represents Richard and Victoria Murphy, who reside at 2625 Summit Drive in
Burlingame. They are the downhill neighbors to the proposed project of 2711 Burlingview Drive.
The Burlingview house is owned by Charles and Diane Williams. The Williams have applied for
design review, hillside construction permit, variances for front setback, side setback and parking,
and special permit for an addition to the main level of the existing single family dwelling, to
convert the existing garage to living space, and for a new lower level attached garage. For the
reasons set forth in this letter, the Murphys object to the application. The Murphys are a retired
elderly couple who live in their house by themselves.
Over the years, the properties at issue — on a very steep slope -- have suffered from
landslides and flooding, as Mr. Murphy will tell you. The Murphys, being the downhill neighbors
to the proposed project, resultantly are in peril of damage to their property in the event of further
mudslides and erosion. We are concerned that the project, as designed, will present an
unnecessary risk to the Murphys' house. I attach for your review a photograph showing mud and
dirt from a recent landslide flowing down from the Murphys' house.
Planning Commission Department
November 5, 2019
Pg. 2
My review of the plans indicates that a proposed excavation for a new attached garage
will present an undue danger. Obviously, soils engineering will be required. Additiona(
calculations must be made, with an eye towards the building codes, which I trust will be strictly
enforced. At some point, the engineering division will need to make sure that the project meets
its requirements. In my experience, there is a need for a soils engineer and a civil engineer to
review carefully the application. I might also suggest that the Williams family provide an
insurance policy for any possible damage to the surroundings. I am unable to ascertain from the
current plans where the drainage issues are reflected.
Further, I am not sure that a three-story edifice is consistent with the neighborhood
pattern, clearly a planning issue. The Murphys have great concerns that, if this application is
approved, construction may take a year or more. While the Williams family may move out during
construction, the Murphys will be residing in their house, with the attendant construction issues
disrupting their lives.
My review of the plans reveals that the requested addition is not for bedrooms. The
Williams family wishes to build a guest room, a family room, and a garne room. Thus, family
necessity is not an issue. These are luxury rooms.
Mr. Murphy and I will be present at the November 12 hearing to further argue our point
of view. I understand that the uphill neighbors' attorney, Mark Hudak, will argue on behalf of his
clients. Clearly, the Williams family is facing strenuous opposition to their proposal. I look
forward to meeting with each of you on November 12 and will answer at that time any questions
which you may have.
Very truly yours,
ichael . ibe
---...� . z _ -
.�..�,_
_ - ..,�,,,�, � .
~ �'�'""+�:�'`"''`. . -
Navember 6, 2019
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
Planning Division
City of Burlingame
Dear Mr. Hurin:
I would like to request time to speak at the Planning Commission meeting on
November 12, 2019, on the subject of the plans for building at 2711 Burlingview
Drive.
My wife and I have owned the property at 2625 Summit Drive in Burlingame for
the last 26+ years. The property line between our house and 2711 Burlingview is 5
feet. By ordinance of Burlingame Rules, the distance between houses and the
property line should be 7 feet. This has not been a problem for us before because a
blank wall faces our house. The proposed new wall will have 15+ windows looking
at our property.
The more important question is the integrity of the hillside by the intended
bulldozing of the hill to have a three story house with an underground garage. My
attorney Michael Liberty and I would like to address the problems with this plan.
Sincerely yours,
2�,,� w. ►�
Richard W. Murphy
2625 Summit Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-344-2015
,K,. �.. �
����� ����
NOV - 6 ?p1g
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD-PLANNING DIV.
2711 Burlingview Drive
Correspondence Submitted for
May 13, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting
05.13.19 Meeting .
�,��r�_�� _-
Item 9c �r� iL'K PREP.4X.97�i�
2711 Burlingview Drive , ;r.� c1 �,.�r-� _� � � ° �
Page 1 of 2
RECEIVED
MAY 13 2019
C;ITY OF BURLINGAfJlF_
CDD - PLANNIf�C�� i�i\/
From: Rob Wehmeyer [mailto:rob@rcwehmeyer.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 9:58 AM
To: CD/PLG-Connie <C@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlingame.org>
Cc: charles.williams@gmail.com; Diana Williams <diana.l.williams78@gmail.com>; Haesloop,
Mark <mhaesloop@chsdg.com>
Subject: Fwd: Received Atters - 2711 Burlingview - 05.13.19 pc meeting
Good Morning Connie and Ruben,
Here is another email from the Williams in regards to never receiving a note from the Zarour's. I
just thought you should have a copy of everything that has been communicated by, and between,
both parties.
Best Regards,
'•�
Begin forwarded message:
From: C Williams <�harlcs.���illiaills��u�gnlail.com>
Date: May 10, 2019 at 4:18:29 PM PDT
To: Rob Wehmeyer <rob'�i�;rc��ehmeyer.com>
Cc: "Haesloop, Mark" <mhaesloo ��a'cllsd��.co�n>
Subject: Re: Received Afters - 2711 Burlingview - 0.5.13.19 pc meeting
That is not Diana's email. Was hacked and shut down so does not get it and we never received.
As you saw in my previous emails when I invited them over I asked them to send me that initial
email and they never did.
Continued on page 2 (over)
05.13.19 Meeting
Item 9c
2711 Burlingview Drive
Page 2 of 2
//
�
i'
On May 10, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Rob Wehmeyer <rob�,'�a,rcwehm��er.com> wrote:
Here are a few more...the invite from me on the Williams' behalf and one from the Zarour's...
Begin forwarded message:
From: CD/PLG-Connie <C'�c���burlin��ame.��r�>
Date: May 10, 2019 at 3:52:21 PM PDT
To: "rob���u�rc���clln����er.cu»1" <I•c�b��u rc���clulle�ei•.com>
Cc: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin'u°hurlin��aine.or�>
Subject: Received Afters - 2711 Burlingview - 05.13.19 pc meeting
From:
Connie Community Development Dept./Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,
CA 94010 650.558.7251 c(a�burlinqame.orq
Our hours:
Monday through Friday - open 8:00 to 5:00, closed each day from 12:00 to 1:00
Effective 06.01.15 - closed every Wednesday afternoon from 12:00 io 5:00
<2711 burlingview dr - 05.13.19 - recd after 1- rwehmeyer.pdf5
<2711 burlingview dr - 05.13.19 - recd after 2- dzaarour.pdf�
��
J
05.13.19 Meeting
Item 9c
2711 Burlingview Drive
Page 2 of 2
On May 10, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Rob Wehmeyer <rob(a�,rcwehmeyer.com> wrote:
Here are a few more...the invite from me on the Williams' behalf and one from the Zarour's...
Begin forwarded message:
From: CD/PLG-Connie <C�burlin ag me.org>
Date: May 10, 2019 at 3:52:21 PM PDT
To: "rob c rcwehmeyer.com" <rob.c .rcwehmeYer.com>
Cc: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin a,burlin�arrie.org>
Subject: Received Afters - 2711 Burlingview - 05.13.19 pc meeting
From:
Connie Community Development Dept./Planning Division ; 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,
CA 94010 ! 650.558.7251 ',: �burlinqame.orq
Our hours:
Monday through Friday - open 8:00 to 5:00, closed each day from 12:00 to 1:00
Elfective 06.01.15 - closed every Wednesday afternoon from 12:00 to 5:00
<2711 burlingview dr - 05.13.19 - recd after 1- rwehmeyer.pdfl
<2711 burlingview dr - 05.13.19 - recd after 2- dzaarour.pdfl
05.13.19 Meeting
Item 9c
2711 Burlingview Drive
Page 1 of 2
,
. . .�1, ._ , � .1!_
�� �l.'R YRF'PARA7�1,
., , . ,,, r ,
RECEIVED
MAY 10 2019
From: Rob Wehmeyer [mailto:rob@rcwehmever.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 11:40 AM CiTY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <Plannin�Commissioners@burlingame.or�
Cc: Charles Williams <charles.williams@�mail.com>; Diana Williams <diana.l.williams78@gmail.com>
Subject: Williams Residence - Proposed Addition & Remodel; 5.10.19
Good Morning Commissioners,
I am writing to you all on behalf of my Clients, Chuck & Diana
Williams, the Homeowners of 2711 Burlingview Drive. As I am
sure you are aware, this Proposed Second Floor Addition &
Remodeling Project is scheduled to be presented to the
Commission this coming Monday evening, May 13th. As such,
the Williams would like to provide you with their Contact
Information and would like to invite you to contact them directly
at your leisure to make arrangements to come by their Residence
to meet with them, in order take a look at and discuss the
Proposed Project, as well as to walk about the Property itself
prior to the Hearing next week.
Our collective belief is that this would give all involved a
chance to meet and to see firsthand what the design drawings
and various photos that have been submitted may, and may not
show, in a far clearer fashion. Further, having the opportunity to
speak with Williams directly should also provide insight on this
proposal from their perspective . I think you will find them both
quite happy to work with the City, the Commission, and the
neighbors as we begin the Application Process.
page 2 on reverse side
i
Please find detailed below the contact information r each of
the Applicants;
i
/
,
Chuck Williams
charles.williams cc,�mail.com i'
(650) 350-0115 � �
Diana Williams
diana.I.williams78 cr,�maiLcom ;
(650) 245-7786 �
,
Should any additional questions arise, please know that you can
also always feel free to contact myself directly at (650) 350-
2577.
Thank you all for your time and we look forward to seeing you
on Monday evening or before!
Best Regards,
I' � �
/
Rob «'ehme�•ei•
Principal, CSLB �969354
RC ���e�iie��er DesiQn � Btiilci
rc«•e�fneyer.com
650�340.1055 ��
��
�
, �. �
Please find detailed below the contact information for each of
the Applicants;
Chuck Williams
charles.williams�,�mail.com
(650) 350-0115
Diana Williams
diana.I.williams78(c�,gmail.com
(650) 245-7786
Should any additional questions arise, please know that you can
also always feel free to contact myself directly at (650) 350-
2577.
Thank you all for your time and we look forward to seeing you
on Monday evening or before!
Best Regards,
'•.
Rob «'eh�ne`•er
Principal, CSLB #969354
RC ��'e�uue}•er Desigii + Build
rc«•eiimeyer.com
650.340.1055 �
1h
��
. ,
05.13.19 Meeting
Item 9c
2711 Burlingview Drive
Page 1 of 1
From: Dina Zaarour [mailto:dina.zaarour@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 12:35 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlin�ame.or�>
Subject: Fwd: Meet
Hi Ruben,
y�
` l,'R PREPARAT I � �� `�,.
, r � ,,
_ ;
RECEIVED
MAY 10 2019
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD - PLANNING DIV.
We would like to add this thread of emails (below) to the report. As you can see, we reached out
to our neighbors when we found out about the plans on our own. We tried to speak with them
about their plans. These two emails were sent to the Williams with no response from them. I
spoke to you about this back in February 2018. We later wrote a letter (with photos) to you and
the Planning Commission in February 2018 which you included in the staff report.
Thank you.
Dina Zaarour
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dina Zaarour <dina.zaarour'u;�tnail.com>
Date: Monday, February 19, 2018
Subject: Meet
To: "diana 1 williams78�ci'��zhoc�.cc>m" <<�iana 1 willian1s78�ci�vahoo.com>
Hello Diana and Chuck,
I'm following up to my note below. Are you available today to talk about your plans to add an
addition?
Let us know what time works today.
Dina
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:59 PM, llina Zaarour <dina.zaarour�a%�7mail.com> wrote:
Hello Diana and Chuck,
I got your email from the neighbors group email thread. We would like to come by tomorrow
morning and talk with you. Thanks.
llina
�rnt fi•��m (3mai1 !�1��hi1��
Sent from Gmail Mobile
05.13.19 Meeting '! " ��1� '. � l �lt � ��. t� �'�. �
Item 9c l:'R PREPARA7�I�
2711 Burlingview Drive � ��7_11,�, ,r� �-��; �, °
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
MAY 10 2019
C17�Y OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
From: Alvin Chan [mailto:alvinolot@vahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:17 PM
To: Burlingame Planning Dept <qlannin�dept@burlin�ame.or�>
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Drive
To Mr. Hurin,
Thanks for speaking with me regarding 2711 Burlingview. I am sending this email a bit later than many of
my neighbors because I wanted a chance to review the plans and the staff report, which were just posted
yesterday afternoon, before sharing my thoughts on the proposed renovation.
IYs very encouraging that the owners of 2711 Burlingview want to invest significant time and capital to
renovate and expand their home. A newly renovated house will benefit the entire street.
The majority of the houses on Burlingview Drive were built in the 1950s. Despite the age of the houses,
home values have increased astronomically. New residents are paying millions for old houses, and much
of the value is tied to the potential to renovate and expand. We should be extremely careful that we do
not place overly burdensome restrictions on an owner's right to renovate and expand their home.
To afford these million dollar homes, many of the young families that move to Burlingame are dual income
households, where both the mother and father need to work. They rely much more on grandparents to
help with the children. Larger houses with a guest bedroom and home office are much more important
now than in 1950 when these houses were built.
The concern for preserving views is valid, especially from the owners of 2717 Burlingview. It does appear
that the architect has taken this into consideration and designed the 2nd story addition to be on the north
side of the lot, furthest from 2717 Burlingview. It also appears that the requested variance and special
permit are a result of putting the addition further away. The addition only adds another 8' 4" in height to
the existing structure, and it is extremely difFicult to judge the resulting impact on views without seeing
story poles that frame the addition from the 2717 Burlingview windows.
Thanks for your consideration,
Alvin Chan
2753 Burlingview Drive
� 05.13.19 Meeting
i � ' � ��� E� Item 9c
� 2711 Burlingview Dr
�. � t Page 1 of 1
1 1 , �✓� ► ��/ V P� �
� ' l� � t
� ���
� � � � � -��
' fti�1.�,f�'l'1 c,4 �1.-�' �� ..�
�� �
� 'ti�� �
` ��
c ���,���� �� �
�-�� � � �� C�;�,i�z � 1l-� ,
� , � �
.. ,� ��� l�� �,
��,; .�,�,'ti ��� -
� � �
F '�`' 1 � .����,C � ' �1
�� '��'
X,l,
� ���
�, ��
�i�_� � G�, � t�l ��'�' ��� 1
��
�C�� � � � �-'�� �
r ^- _, ti� (�����Z
; �/v� ��"� �r � �� � � �,�I,�
�'' (�� �� `` .
' � �,�.ti� �� �
.�� � � � . ., �
. , � � �L ��, ��. �,-�z ��. �..�
, � ��,����,���� . .
����.,�� � � �. l
. . � � ���� �,�,��.,��
C �• 1 r ���c.-�i"�.
� � -�� � ,
. �
a�� � . �
- .. �.�',�ti� �-�--�- f
, ��
' L`�-j,� ��i ��r1 � I �
. , , �, - � � � _ �'��'�
. ��l
, � �� �
� (,� ,
r � �
.
� � � �; ;
, ' W��% I � � �' ` r �
���. . _ � -f
����� ������� �
, ��e�. �, � r .. -� � _ _ _
� - �� �
�.�, � � `G�,�1,c.`7� 1 �
� ��� � �
- � �� �
. �,�,�,�� ��,� �,
�n , �
� � � � �����
� ��� ��
-��� � .
�� � �
��� � �.
, �--' ,v _
, �'���.
�.,.-�� . ��
.,_ �--�
i ; .' < _ � I I .� /� ,
� �, � ��� �U �
� .7j . �.n .
!y u7 �.; (
cu r" `� �, �� L.� l. ` V�
- ,�-� �: ; fl� 1 i�� �
� � ��> o �,� fC��(�-�� � �
� �;�
lrr;i �'l�Vv�V �f 1Yvl/���'
G� � I � �(.�I,C�
�
ti��
� �
��ti �� u�v� _
CO,N.YlC :V/C. tTlO:Y RECF_I�"ED
:1FTF_R PRF.PIR.ITIO:ti�
OF ST. I FF RF.PORT
Begin forwarded message:
From: C Williams <charles.�villiams'�1�r�mail.conl>
Date: May 7, 2019 at 1:15:15 PM PDT
To: Rob Wehmeyer <rob�u'-_rc�t�ehn����er.com>
Subject: Fwd: Remodel � 2711 Burlingview Drive
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: C Williams <cliarles.��illiams��mail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: Remodel � 2711 Burlingview Drive
To: Dina Zaarour <ciina.�aarour�i���mail.com>
Cc: <diana.l.williams78(u��inail.corn>, <rob(ci,!rcwehme�er.com>
���������
ti1AY - 7 2019
;;I i Y OF BURLINGAME
_ _;..j=�:._C��lfrtsii�f�'l `�'�'.�.
Ferial & Pete, just following up on this - we are more than happy to meet with the two of you to
discuss our plans and would look forward to it, but we are not willing to meet if you bring your
lawyer.
Our intention is for this meeting to be a neighbor to neighbor discussion. Let us know if the two
of you can meet.
Look forward to hearing back from you.
Best,
Chuck
On Aug 21, 2018, at 11:13 AM, C Williams <charles.williams��mail.com> wrote:
Thx. We don't think we ever received any of the emails as we checked. If you could kindly
forward them that would be great (re-copying Diana). Perhaps you had the wrong email?
As we mentioned earlier this year, we
were planning on having you over to walk through the plans. I don't think it is necessary to have
a lawyer there as we would prefer this to be a neighbor to neighbor interaction. I am cc'ing Rob
who is our architect and contractor who will join us. Will revert back to you once we are able to
confirm day and time and whether he is available.
Look forward to walking you through the project and design.
Best,
Chuck
On Aug 21, 2018, at 12:16 AM, Dina Zaarour <dina.zaarour�'�i;�:mail.com> wrote:
Hi Chuck and Diana,
Hope all is well.
We also value the neighbor relationship and had sent two emails to Diana's email
address back in February but never heard back from you. We are available to meet
next Wednesday 8/29 after 6pm. Does that work for you? We will be attending, along
with our children and our attorney.
Best,
Pete & Ferial Zaarour
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:58 PM, C Williams <charles.williams�`�i�;gmail.com> wrote:
Pete & Furiel,
Hope both of you are well.
I know earlier this year we indicated we were planning on doing a remodel and once we were
done adjusting the plans, we wanted to have you over to review them with you as we very much
value the neighbor relationship. We can have our contractor there as well to help answer
questions.
Let us know some days and times that might work for you. Looking forward to discussing.
Best,
Chuck and Diana Williams
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: C Williams <charles.williams�z��maiLcom>
Date: Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Follow up
To: <dina.zaarotu•'��i�mail.com>
Cc: <diana.l.williams78 c �mail.com>
Pete & Ferial,
i����../�� Q/ �V
i��^,,4Y - 7 2019
;:• � Y �;�= BURLiNGAPAE
',�.: , .. _
An individual who indicated you have engaged as your lawyer, Mark Hudak, contacted us on
Sunday August 27`�'. Given our neighbor relationship and given neither of us our lawyers, we
kindly request all communication come directly from you (not from your lawyer). In addition,
given we value the neighbor relationship and given you have not seen the plans yet, we think it is
premature to engage a lawyer and respectfully decline his invitation to join you at our house to
walk through the plans. However, we would be more than happy to host both of you (without
your lawyer) at our house to discuss the plans. Let us know if you are willing to meet - we very
much look forward to doing so.
Best,
Chuck & Diana
LAW OFFICES OF
MARK D. HUDAK
177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
San Mateo, CA 94402
April 18, 2019
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Hillside Construction Permit Application
2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Commissioners:
;?URLiNGA��I�
My firm represents Peter and Ferial Zaarour and their family members. The Zaarours own the
home at 2717 Burlingview Drive. They oppose the application submitted by Charles and Diana
Williams to add a story to their home at 2711 Burlingview Drive. They request review by the
Planning Commission pursuant to the Hillside Construction ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter
25.60.
The Zaarours purchased their home more than 40 years ago. They enjoy wonderful unobstructed
views from their living room, family room, kitchen and communal dining room. These distant
views include San Francisco Bay, San Bruno Mountain, the Bay Bridge, parts of the San
Francisco skyline, and the East Bay Hills. At night, the views become a delightful carpet of
lights extending in all directions. Pete and Ferial are retired and, not surprisingly, spend nearly
every waking hour in these rooms, enjoying the views and warm sunlight. Their entire family,
including grandchildren, live in the axea and are at their home three or four times a week. They
are a very close family and their activities are centered in these rooms with their special views.
Last year, their neighbors proposed a massive second-story addition to their existing home. They
submitted plans without having shown them to the Zaarours. Even a brief review of the plans
showed that the Zaarours' views would be eliminated. After being notified by the Planning
Department about the application, the Zaarours expressed their concerns about the taking of their
views. The Planning Department returned the plans for revisions and nothing was submitted for
a year. Now, Mr. and Mrs. Williams have submitted a new set of plans, with slight revisions
from the previous set. But the revised design has the same problem — it would eliminate the
existing views from the Zaarours' home almost entirely while giving new views to 2711
Burlingview.
(650)638-2390
Mark@mhudaklaw.com
. � , y,� � � ��u :�,_ �
-� � 2J�9
The current proposal for the second floor includes a game room, a wine bar, a second family
room, and an office. These bonus rooms do not justify the obliteration of the Zaarours' views.
Planning Commission
April 18, 2019
The current drawings include several alleged "views" from a window in 2717 Burlingview,
shown on Sheets A7.1, A7.2, and A7.3. Since the project designer has not been in the Zaarours'
home, the basis for these drawings is unclear. But they appear to be deliberate attempts to
mislead the Commission.
These renderings purport to show that the views from 2717 Burlingview would only be partially
blocked, with views remaining above the new roof line. But these drawings are not to scale.
They deliberately depict a smaller, more distant addition than the actual plans.
More important, the roof line of the proposed second story is well above the level of the
windows on the left side of 2717 Burlingview, as depicted on the Proposed Street Elevation on
Sheet A7.0. Consequently, views from the windows in 2717 Burlingview would look directly
into the wall and roof of the new addition, with no sight lines above. The existing distant views
will be lost entirely. The Commission should be deeply suspicious of a purported visual
representation that is not consistent with the actual plans.
Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.61 was enacted to protect existing distant views.
Section 25.61.060 provides that emphasis should be given to the obstruction of view from
habitable areas within nearby homes, such as those from the Zaarours' family room and living
room. Pete and Ferial are entitled to the protection of their views under this section.
Because the drawings from the Williams' designer are not reliable, we request that story poles be
erected and certified by an independent engineer. Then, we invite all Commissioners to visit the
Zaarours' home and see the degree of obstruction for themselves. The Zaarours' will hold their
house open for this purpose on May 11 from 9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. If any Commissioner is
unable to visit during that time, we would be happy to make arrangements at any convenient
time.
Mr. and Mrs. Williams knew they had no views when they purchased their home. They are well
aware of the views enjoyed by the Zaarours. Why should they be able to reverse the status quo
and deprive Pete and Ferial of their existing views?
It is unfortunate that Mr. and Mrs. Williams have decided to proceed with their application in the
face of known objections from the Zaarours and the restrictions in Chapter 25.60. We will attend
the hearing on May 13 to provide additional information and answer any questions. In the
meantime, we look forward to seeing you on May 11 or any other time you can visit the house.
Very Truly Yours,
, ����� '' _.
Mark D. Hudak
cc: Clients
Planning Department
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin � ��� - � � '� �'�� �� ��' ;""�
^n��
's L , i :�
From: Dina Zaarour <dina.zaarour@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 11:06 PM ��6�� OF BUR�INGAME
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin � >.��,,;��,�f.;;-��-
Subject: 2717 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame
Attachments: Zaarour - 2717 Burlingview Drive -1.JPG; Zaarour - 2717 Burlingview Drive -2 .JPG;
Zaarour - 2717 Burllingview Drive.JPG
To:
Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner, City of Burlingame
William Meeker, Director of Community Development, City of Burlingame
Planning Commission and Hillside Construction Review Commission, City of Burlingame
RE: Obstruction of view at 2717 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame
Dear Mr. Hurin,
As previously discussed and based on our dire concerns, we are writing this letter to request a full
review of the application pursuant to Chapter 25.61 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (sections:
25.61.050 and 25.61.060) for the proposed second floor addition at
2711 Burlingview Drive in Burlingame. We ask that you please forward this letter to the Director of
Community Development, Mr. Meeker, and the full Planning Commission and Hillside Construction
Review Commission. We understand that the plans for 2711 Burlingview Drive have not been
resubmitted yet, but would like to voice our concerns about our neighbor's application.
We are the property owners of 2717 Burlingview Drive in Burlingame, the upper next door neighbors
to 2711 Burlingview Drive. We purchased our house 40 years ago back in 1978 largely and most
importantly because of the spectacular views from our habitual living spaces: kitchen, dining area
and family room. A meaningful part of the value in our home is the view of the landmarks: the
valley, lower Burlingame, San Francisco International Airport, San Bruno mountains, East Bay, the
Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco.
Just recently, we found out that our next door neighbors at 2711 Burlingview Drive are planning to
expand their home by building a second story addition, adding a completely new view to their
property, while obstructing our view of 40 years. Their proposed second floor addition would not
only obstruct the view from our home, it would have a great impact on the market value of our
property. The neighbor's new second story addition would increase the value of their property while
decreasing the value of our property.
We attempted to speak with our neighbors at 2711 Burlingview Drive by reaching out via email to ask
if we can meet to discuss our concerns; however they have not responded to our emails.
The proposed new second story addition would destroy our lifestyle as we are finally retired and
spend most of our time in these living spaces enjoying the view, the sunlight and our privacy. The
views have been and are part of our daily life and wellness for many, many years and we share this
lifestyle with our children and grandchildren. We never plan on selling this home as our family has
truly enjoyed living and being a part of the Burlingame community for 40 years and we intend for our
children and our grandchildren to continue enjoying and living the same.
We would like to meet with you and invite you to our home to see how our views will be impacted
and greatly afFected by this new second story addition. We have attached several photos from our
family room, kitchen and dining area for your review.
We appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Zaarour Family
2717 Burlingview Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
t. 650.245.1171
:; �t,� � -� ; �
_�_ r��
_ �
��' ,
.
. t ,_r� �_ . { _
� ;,. �� + �i ` � . .
��. _ � .�r" ": �
�i
�:�
�.
;
� ,--�
,
i
i
�,.: ..
a_':
' '':SI
'•'�l;`,•
�
View from 2717 Burlingview Drive
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Sandra Feder <svfeder@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 823 AM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Ruben,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed addition of a second story to the home at
2711 Burlingview Drive. We understand that the proposed addition would block the views of longtime
residents on the street, the neighbors at 2717 Burlingview. As you might guess from the name of our
street, the views we have from our properties are important to all of us and affect our property values.
While I understand that city ordinances do allow for second-story additions, they do not allow for new
construction to block views. Thus, I would imagine you would not approve the current plans.
We had a good back-and-forth with the Planning Commission when our across-the-street neighbors
were converting a smaller home to a bigger one.The final designs were much improved in terms of
the character of the neighborhood than the original plans.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sandra Feder
2760 Burlingview Drive
May 5, 2019
To: Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
City of Burlingame
From: Richard and Victoria Murphy
Homeowners at 2625 Summit Drive
Re: Proposed addition at 2711 Burlingview Drive
The following are our concerns:
a �. �-, �/ �. � ;,�' �.,o. �
°,'� ' ' 2019
- �,,
;,_:_." � ; - ;�� ;?1_iPJGAME
_ - , �.
��.,, _
1) History of home at 2711 Burlingview Drive
A) House was built by original developer with no windows on left side (solid
wall for a reason)
B) House has had serious cracks in basement (garage floor was replaced before
selling)
C) Trees have come down and fallen on 2625 Summit (with subsequent damage)
2) History of home at 2625 Summit Drive
A) Mudslides and flooding have occurred a number of times over the
years
B) Mudslides mixed with concrete resulted in Summit Drive being blocked a few
years ago
C) Considerable repairs have been made (at great expense) to shore up the
foundation of the house
3) Integrity of hillside is major concern (slides have resulted in major damages
to neighbors homes (2652 Summit and 2620 Summit.)
4) Original plans called for addition of a bedroom. This has now grown to the
addition of a"game room," second family room, an office, a"bar" and a
bathroom.
In conclusion, our concerns that an addition of this size to an already "fragile hill" could
result in a major problem. We will be attending the meeting on May 13, 2019 and will be
happy to explain all of the above in more detail.
Sincerely, ,
�!�.��� . � , ►�1��t,
�?�a, r�'�;�..e ��� _�l � u�,��+-�--
Richard and Victoria Murphy
2625 Summit Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Omar Zaarour <ozaarour@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, May 8, 2019 12:17 AM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Loss of view at 2717 Burlingview
Please add my letter below to the file for opposition of the ?711 Burl
Thank you,
Dear Mr Hurin and Planning Commission:
��ie�� Dr. construction proposal.
My name is Omar Zaarour, son of Peter & Ferial Zaarour, who live at 2717 Burlingview Drive. I'm writing to
the Planning Commission in support of my parents right to keep thc beautiful view from their home of 41 years,
and in strong opposition to the proposed second floor addition at 2711 Burlingview that would completely
eliminate it.
My parent's purchased 2717 Burlingview in 1978 to raise their 5 children in the great community of
Burlingame, and because they fell in love with this home's expansive view of SFO, the bay, downtown San
Francisco and the Bay bridge. Now in their 80's, they are at home much more, spending all their time in the
living room/ kitchen, and the view is more important to them now than it was 41 years ago. The idea that my
parents may lose their view has made them extremely upset and depressed. It will have such a very negative
impact on their quality of life. Significantly decreasing the value of the home, their lifestyle in the house with
the view, and has had negative effects on their health as well at their advanced age. The lives of our entire
family have revolved around this house and the beauty of the view from these rooms. We are a close family
gathering at least weekly all together with my sisters, their kids, and my wife and children. The
living/kitchen/dining rooms of this house is where we spend all holidays and family occasions. My children ask
us every day to go to their grandparents house where they play in those rooms.
The loss of the view would change the dynamic of our home completely, and turn a beautiful expansive view
into an eye sore in front of three massive windows.
My parents have known and been very friendly with many of the neighbors on Burlingview throughout the
years, and as you can see by all the letters of support, they are well liked, respected, and have been good
neighbors to all including the family at 2711.
My wife, children and I ask that you deny this proposal.
Thank you,
Omar Zaarour and Family
415-225-0560
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: CATHY PAYNE <frog1325@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:06 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin; GRP-Planning Commissioners
Subject: re: 2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Mr. Hurin:
Since we will not be able to attend the upcoming hearing on the proposed project at 2711 Burlingview
Drive, we are sending this message to express our concerns about the project.
As neighbors and long time Burlingame Hills residents, we are concerned about the lack of
enforcement of the zoning code regarding additions or modifications of residences in hill side areas
(Ord. 1388 of 1989). From our understanding of the drawings, it is evident the next door neighbor at
2717 Burlingview Dr. would virtually lose most if not all of their current magnificent view. In its place
would be a view of the side of a home approximately 11 or 12 feet away. It is obvious to us that this
project would greatly impact the pleasure and enjoyment of the neighbor as well as the value of their
property. While this does not impact our view, as hillside residents we must all be mindful of the
potential our views could also be taken if the zoning ordinance is not taken seriously.
We ask that the commission reject to proposed plan and enforce to code which was enacted for this
very situation.
Gary and Catherine Payne
2754 Burlingview Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-347-1994
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: wai chow <wcchow@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 10:07 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subjett: 2711 Burlingview Dr
Dear Ruben,
I am sending this message to you in regards to the proposed project on 2711 Burlingview Dr.
I am adamantly opposed to this project because:
1) it would set a precedent that it is ok to block existing views and that would not be fair to long-term
owners.
2) the project (large scale 2nd floor addition) would drastically change the character of the
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Ben Pang and Wai Ching Chow
2711 Summit Dr,
Burlingame Ca 94010
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Melissa Germaine <msmelg@comcast.net>
Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:30 PM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
APN 027.261.100 - Feedback on Public Hearing Notice
We are writing this email in response to the proposed remodel at 2711 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame CA. We
live at 2723 Burlingview Drive, two houses up from this property. While we support our neighbors' desire to
remodel and add square footage to their existing home, we are troubled by the scale of the proposed design
and most importantly, how it will block the views of our next door neighbor's existing home at 2717
Burlingview Drive. From the drawings, it looks like the proposed second story will totally block the light and
the views of their main living space as the roof line of the remodel will be above or at the same level as the
existing home. This would set a precedent for losing views throughout the neighborhood for anyone not
adding a second story to their home. We plan to attend the public meeting on 5/13/19 but also wanted to
send in this email to voice our concerns.
Please let us know if you have any questions or need further elaboration on this matter. Thank you for your
consideration.
Best, Melissa Germaine & David Klein
2723 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame CA 94010
415-269-7712
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: RENDA ZA'AROUR <rendaz@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 1121 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: Re: 2711 Burlingview Dr. / 2nd Story Addition/ View Obstruction
Hi Ruben,
Sorry- correction to last paragraph- "views are to be protected *from* obstruction"
Thank you,
Renda Za'arour
From: RENDA ZA'AROUR
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:14 PM
To: RHurin@burlingame.org
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Dr. / 2nd Story Addition/ View Obstruction
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
My name is Renda Za'arour. I am the third daughter of Pete and Ferial Za'arour, of 2717 Burlingview Drive.
I am writing to you today to request your attention to the details of the proposed second story addition of our
neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Williams, of 2711 Burlingview Drive. I am also asking that you consider my family's
deep concerns regarding our family home.
Mr. and Mrs. Williams have submitted revised plans for a second story addition that would completely eclipse
the light and eliminate the views from my parents' home. Also, the drawings submitted display vast
differences in visual scale to actual measurements. I implore you to see for yourself firsthand. What the
drawings depict versus what you will see, standing in our home, are strikingly different. I would like to give the
builder the benefit of the doubt, hoping that these are oversights or mistakes.
Our home of forty-one years has been the happy place where we all gather 2-3 times per week for Sunday
dinners, celebrations, and just visiting. We have shared all of our joys and sadnesses here together, as a
family.
All of these occasions have taken place in the east side of our home, which exhibits breath-taking views of
SFO, the bay, East bay, San Francisco, San Bruno Mountain, and the Burlingame Canyon. From my
grandmothers down to my two year old nephew, and plenty of friends and relatives in between, these views
have been enjoyed by four generations and counting. Our home and it's views will be loved by every
generation that wants it from here forward. It would be catastrophic for us to lose the views and light that are
so much part of our lives here. The view absorbs our thoughts when we are troubled, and gives us a feeling of
hope and happiness the rest of the days. It's truly something to behold.
I own a home (17 years) and a business (20 years) here in Burlingame just to be close to my family, and of
course because I love Burlingame so much. We are very much a Burlingame family and we are here to stay.
I believe that everyone should be able to enjoy the original features of the home they purchase. Per the
Hillside Ordinance under title 25, Zoning, section 25.61.060 the views are to be protected with obstruction to
any habitable areas. This beautiful view is irreplaceable, and is the main feature of our home.
To be clear, I am vehemently opposed to the construction of a second story addition at 2711 Burlingview
Drive.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Renda Za'arour
.������
May 6, 2019
�
-- s � �� ; `)
Dear Planning Commissioners,
--- �,�,��„,-
My name is Vera Zaarour and I am one of the 5 children of Pete &t Ferial Zaarour who
live at 2717 Burlingview Dr. I am also a Burlingame homeowner at 1035 Morrell Ave.
This letter is in reference to the application for a second story addition to their next-
door nei�hbors at 2711 Burlingview Dr. I am writin� to express my strong opposition
to the proposed addition and to ask the commission to deny this application for the
reasons outlined below.
1. This addition would completely block my parent's views from 3 main windows of SF
bay, SFO, San Bruno hills �t downtown SF in the distance and drasticallv impact the
quality of their lives and well bein�. The orientation of my parent's home is such
that all of the key living areas; kitchen, dining room, and family room are on the
downhill side of the house (on purpose) to take in the expansive views that would
be obstructed by the proposed addition.
2. Burlingview Drive is listed as a street protected by the Hillside Ordinance. In so,
my parents home should be included and protected by this ordinance.
3. Not only would the views from my parent's home be blocked, but because the
neighbor's home is approximately 11'-12' feet away at the front corners, this addition
would significantly block the natural light coming into all of the main living areas of
their home.
4. My professional background is in interior design and architecture and I have
thorou�hly reviewed the drawings submitted. Their perspective drawings of my
parent's views on pages A7.1, A7.2, and A7.3 are incorrect and misleading as to the
view obstruction and further, the drawings on pages A7.0 and A7.1 show street
elevations and house separation distances that are incorrect. In actuality, the NE
corner of my parent's home is only 11+ feet from the neighboring house at 2711.
These erroneous depictions are drastically misleading.
5. Pages 8 and 9 of the Burlingame Design Guidelines clearty state that "additions
should be consistent with the neighborhood fabric and existing architecture, which
are both critical components of neighborhood compatibility. Further, new additions
should harmonize with existing houses and there should be only subtle evidence that
an addition was done." This proposed addition fails in all these areas and would
instead create a lar�e visual mass and have the layer cake appearance that the
guidelines strongly seek to avoid. The proposed addition also exceeds the 30-foot
height limitation set forth in the Burlingame R-1 District Regulations (chapter
25.26.060).
6. The priceless value of my parent's home is to a great de�ree, based on the
commanding views they enjoy all day and night from the key habitable spaces in their
home. These are their peaceful and serene spaces. To block the view would result in
a significant devaluation of their property and more importantly to their well being
and enjoyment of the space with their children and grandchildren. This is exactly
why the design guidelines and regulations were created. If projects like this were
allowed to proceed, the value of all Burlingame homes and long time owners would
come under assault.
In summary, my parents have been a part of the Burlingame community and lived in
this home for over 40 years. This home is where they raised their 5 children and
where we still all gather 4 to 5 times a week for dinners and family events that now
includes our spouses and grandchildren.
One of the most important characteristics of a community and of our community
leaders is always strive to do the right thing because that is what defines our
individual and collective character. In this case, it seems quite clear what the right
thing is and that this proposed addition shoutd be denied.
I greatly appreciate your consideration.
Very Best Regards,
Vera Zaarour
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Hurin,
jojt1 mca@aol.com
Monday, May 6, 2019 6:49 PM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Proposed Modification to Williams Residence at 2711 Burlingview Dr.
I'm writing you regarding the proposed second floor addition to the Williams' residence at 2711 Burlingview Dr and
the impact that such construction would have on the Zaarours family who reside at the neighboring house at 2717
Burlingview Dr.
I have never met the Williams family and met the Zaarours just recently when they contacted me about the proposed
construction. While my house is not in the immediate area of the 2711 address (iYs six doors away), I have previously
contested proposed construction next to my house and I remain concerned about preserving our neighborhood identity.
As you know better than I, the first bullet point under the Neighborhood Design Guidebook, Component 3: Impact on
Neighbors reads as follows:
"Compatibility is achieved by minimizing the impact and use and occupation on the neighboring properties by doing the
following:
—Respect the neighbors existing conditions and utilization. Design and orient additions to maintain existing qualities."
In addition to the Design Guidelines, the City of Burlingame has established review criteria for construction in hillside
areas under Title 25, Zoning , section 25.61.060 that states, in part:
"Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit."
At the Zaarours invitation, I visited their house last Saturday to see how the construction at the 2711 address would
impact them.Based on that visit and reading the design guidelines, I would just like to make the following comments:
� First, the Zaarours residence is listed as an address within the Hillside Construction Permit Area. So the provisions of
Title 25, section 25.61.060 apply to them.
— Second, the Zaarours currently have " existing distant views". The views from Zaarours house are impressive. Through
their large windows on the eastside of their house you can see San Francisco Bay; SF Airport; downtown San Francisco
and the east bay hills. (My thought when I saw this vista was, if this were a public viewing area instead of a private home,
the operators would install coin operated telescopes because the distant views are so intriguing!)
� Third, based on the Zaarours comments as well as the layout of the eastside of their home, the major theme of the
design of their house was to create a'habitable area' where they could spend significant hours of the day enjoying their
views. (The Zaarours can speak to this better than I).
I'm assuming that the reason for the City having Hiliside Construction Area rules on the books is to preserve existing
views for the current beneficiary of the views. While there were no 'story poles' installed to outline the proposed
construction when i visited the Zaarours home, the design plans seem to indicate that the proposed construction
would erase the Zaarours views. In looking at staff reports for other construction applications in Burlingame, it seems to
me the second story construction at 2711 Burlingview Dr can be allowed only if: "the granting of the application will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity..."
In my opinion, the granting of a construction permit for a second floor on the 2711 residence would be both detrimental
(reduced quality of life due to loss of a forty year view) and injurious ( presumably there would be some dimunition in the
value of the house) to the Zaarours. In addition, the granting of the permit in question would erode a benefit anyone with a
view living in our neighborhood assumes he has.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that approval not be given for a second story addition to the residence at 2711
Burlingview Dr.
Sincerely,
Terry McAloon
2759 Burlingview Dr.
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Lowell Stacy <lowell.stacy2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 5:57 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Cc: Dina Zaarour
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Drive
Mr. Hurin,
I inaccurately referred to 2712 in my previous email referring to - impact in a negative way t{:e current view on
2712 Burlingview. In fact I was referring to 2717 Burlingview Dr. This email serves as a correction. Please
attach to the file.
Correction as follows:
I am the owner oi�2712 Burlingview Dr, which is across the street from 2711 Burlingview Dr., the property
seeking approval for new construction. After reviewing the construction drawings and after an actual visit to the
property at 2717 Burlingview Drive, I see no reason that this project as currently defined should be approved.
Approval by the City of Burlingame would dramatically impact in a negative way the current scenic view at
2717 Burlingview Dr. I am confident that the owner(s) of 2711 Burlingview Dr. can work with their architect to
achieve a solution to their requirements while not negatively impacting other nearby home owners.
Thank you,
Lowell Stacy
Owner
2712 Burlingview Dr,
Burlingame, CA 94010
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Dr. Dennis Ngai <drdennisngai8.8.8@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 3:45 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin; dina.zaarour@gmail.com
Subject: 2711 and 2717 burlingview , burlingame ca 94010
HI Ruben
My name is Dennis Ngai
I live at
2755 Summit Dr, Hillsborough, CA 94010
If you approve the plans, the view will be blocked. That would be a shock to existing neighbors.
When my mom bought our house in 1999. For an income/ rental property, We approved our neighbor to extend
their house, not knowing that it blocked our property. We regret this decision.
Mr. Ruben If somebody, blocked your view how would you feel? �
Also I have a neighbor, thats finish building his monster house, but I had to live with 2 years of noisy
construction.. And I have to sleep on the week days , since I work at nights at times.
Please if you approve the construction, make them due it in a due time, so noise levels are minimal. and also if
views are blocked most minimal. I know construction will make the neighborhood more valuable, but still try to
make it affordable for us old timers.
Dina also told me her parents are 80 years old. How would you like your mom, or grandma to listen to
construction for 2 years.
If so, I would propose you, tell clients to put Dina and family into another home, during this construction
Sincerely Dennis Ngai
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ruben Hurin,
Aaron Ho <aaron630ho@yahoo.com>
Monday, May 6, 2019 9:35 PM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Burlingview Drive Planning Commission Hearing
After looking inside the Zaarour family's property, it was evident that the plan being proposed by her
next-door neighbor would completely obstruct her view and block sunlight from entering her main
living room. As a resident of this neighborhood, I've visited several of our neighbor's houses and
every one of their houses has at least one view of the bay area and SFO. I believe that preserving
this for everyone in our neighborhood is imperative so that everyone can enjoy an undisturbed view of
our beautiful bordering cities. Allowing our neighbor to build upwards especially in the location being
planned would be unfair to her and her family because it would not only obstruct their view, but also
probably lower their property value as a direct result of them increasing theirs. I appreciate you
taking the time to read over our concerns.
Thank you,
Aaron Ho
2729 Burlingview Drive
Burlingame, CA, 94010
(415)438-0064
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: P K <petjamkor@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2019 629 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: Fwd: View obstruction at 2717 Burlingview Dr.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: View obstruction at 2717 Burlingview Dr.
Hello Ruben.
Very recently, I have had the opportunity to observe the property at 2717 Burlingview
Drive. These Burlingame Hills neighbors have been at this residence 40+ years. Their next door
neighbor below them at 2711 Burlingview want to build a second story addition which will
negatively affect the beautiful view at the 2717 residence.
We are completely opposcd to tl�is 2nd story addition. Kesidents, my family included, moved to
Burlingame many years ago (60 years ago, my family), to live their lives, raise families and
retire and live out their senior years in their beautiful view homes.
It is sad that the residents at 2717 are experiencing this issue in their senior years.
This situation is of concern to me personally, for several reasons.
My family moved to Burlingame in 1959.
I grew up on Mariposa Dr. In 1988, the next door neighbor below us built a second story
addition. This took away half of my parcnts panoramic view. Today, in her mid- 90's, still
residing at her Mariposa Dr home, my mother sadly thinks back on the days that she had a
panoramic view of the SF Bay.
Again in the 1990's, while I have continued to live on Summit Dr., there was another plan to
build up a second story addition at 2700 Summit Dr. The resident at 2705 opposed the build and
won. No addition was built. This is one block from Burlingview.
The street was named Burlingview for a reason. Beautiful views!
We are opposed to the 2nd story construction addition at 2711 Burlingview Dr.
Kindest regards,
Chrisie Koras Kuno
Peter Koras
Sent from my iPhone
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Hurin:
carol vollen <vollen.carol@gmail.com>
Sunday, May 5, 2019 5:37 PM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Properties at 2711 and 2717 Burlingview Dr. in Burlingame
My name is Carol Vollen and I live at 2741 Burlingview Dr. in Burlingame. I have become aware of a concern by my
neighbors at 2717 Burlingview Dr. about the proposed construction of a 2nd story on the property at 2711. The concern
is due to the obstruction of their view. I went to see their house and their view and the plans for the proposed
construction. There is no doubt that their view would be grievously affected. We who live on Burlingview Dr. are very
attached to our views of the bay and the airport. And the Zaarours (residents of 2717) have spectacular views. I know
there is an ordinance protecting the views of hill residents, so there is no justification for impinging on their views. It
affects all of us. If this were allowed to go through, the ordinance would become meaningless, and our protections
would disappear. And, in addition to the loss of view, there would be a corresponding decrease in the value of the
property.
I implore you to turn down this proposed construction.
Carol Vollen
2741 Burlingview Dr.
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-242-1650
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn
Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances for Front Setback Side Setback and Parkinq and
Special Permit for an attached qaraqe for an addition to the main level of an existinq sinqle familv
dwellinq, to convert the existinq qaraqe to livinq space, and for a new lower level attached qaraqe at
2711 Burlinpview Drive, Zoned R-1, Charles and Diana Williams, qropertv owners APN: 027-261-100;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
December 9, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial
evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and
categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states
that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, 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, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances and Special Permit are
approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances and Special Permit are set forth in
the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 9th dav of December, 2019, by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit, Variances and Special Permit
2711 Burlingview Drive
Effective December 19, 2019
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped November 20, 2019, sheets A0.0 through A9.0 and L1.1;
2. that the new skylight shall contain translucent glass; specifications for the skylight shall
be provided with the building permit submittal;
3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features,
roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to
Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined
by Planning staf�;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer (s), shall require an amendment to this
permit;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project
shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community
Development Director; 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;
6. 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;
7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flies 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;
8. 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;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of
Burlingame;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit, Variances and Special Permit
2711 Burlingview Drive
Effective December 19, 2019
Page 2
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification
by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved
floor area ratio for the property;
11. 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 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;
12. that prior to removing the existing roof, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
existing roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Planning and Building
Divisions;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection of the new roof framing, a licensed
surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to
the Planning and Building Divisions; and
14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been build according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
. CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� ° BURLINGAME, CA 94010
��. ;r . PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following puhlic hearing on MONDAY, DECEMBER 9,
2019 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chamhers, 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction
Permit, Variances for Front Setback, Side Setback and
Parking, and Special Permit for un addition to the main
level of an existing single family dwelling, to convert the
existing garage to living space, and for a new lower level
attached garage at 2711 BURIINGVIEW DRIVE zoned
R-l. APN 021.261.100
Mailed: November 27, 2019
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
City of Burlina_, ame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meefing at the Community Develc�pment 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 sorneone 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 far informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
2711 Burlingview Drive
300' noticing
APN #: 027.261.100
e "'
� �9��4 f
� �
.
��,•j !
� +
�
r�� � 1
#
� ��� I
.`�,., ',,,��
.�
.-. � �� .
i ���
.�� '�►
r:� �
I
� �. �
�.`� �;,C '��� r� ��
i� � �
fl �
r� � a
fi .r���4'• � 6
n �►� '�� ��tJ G�j �
�• i -.�-. � �
� �' �, �J �:: 1
r.�`. .�� � �� �
� �
.
.
!� r
� ,�� ����""�.,, �a
f
I, i•
I _ , '
—-_ .-..�.'
�.
��� � .
�"
�
�
�
M
9 �
�
4 �
•
w��� �
�
�
� � •,.
�� � �I
fi� �I
`W� � ,��
� ���
c`� � /
''��♦
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
PROJECT LOCATION
2711 Burlingview Drive
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit,
Variances and Special Permit
Address: 2711 Burlingview Drive
Item No. 9a
Design Review Study
Meeting Date: November 12, 2019
Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances for Front Setback, Side
Setback and Parking, and Special Permit for an addition to the main level of an existing single family
dwelling, to convert the existing garage to living space, and for a new lower level attached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design
Property Owners: Charles and Diana Williams
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 027-261-100
Lot Area: 10,822 SF
Zoning: R-1
Design Review Study Meeting (May 13, 2019): On May 13, 2019, the Planning Commission held a design
review study meeting to review the proposed project. The Commission expressed concerns with view blockage
from the second story addition proposed above the main level of the house. Please refer to the attached May
13, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes for a complete list of comments and concerns expressed by the
Planning Commission and members of the public.
To address the Commission's concerns and direction given for the project, the designer submitted a response
letter dated September 25, 2019, and revised plans date stamped September 27, 2019. Please refer to the
applicanYs letter for a detailed discussion of the changes made to the project.
The previously proposed second floor addition above the main living level has been eliminated. Instead, the
project now consists of the following design approach:
■ Enlarging the main level of the house;
■ Converting the existing attached garage to living area and enlarging this level; and
■ Building a new lower level attached garage (below the existing garage).
Planning staff would note that with the revised project, previously requested Special Permits for building height
and declining height envelope are no longer required. This application is being brought back as a design review
study item due to the significant changes made to the project.
Project Description: The site is located on a sloping lot, which slopes upward from front to rear by
approximately 28 feet and upward from left to right by 12 feet. The existing two-story house, consisting of a
main level and an attached garage below it, contains 2,531 SF of floor area and has three bedrooms. The
applicant is proposing an addition to the main level of the house, converting the existing attached garage to living
area and enlarging this level, and building a new attached garage in a new lower level under the existing garage.
With this application, the floor area would increase to 4,553 SF (0.42 FAR) where 4,563 SF (0.42 FAR) is the
maximum allowed.
The subject property is located in the Hillside Area and Code Section 25.61.020 of the Burlingame Municipal
Code states that no new structure or any addition to all or a portion of an existing structure shall be constructed
within the affected area without a Hillside Area Construction Permit. In addition, it states that review by the
Planning Commission shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of
nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a
dwelling unit. Story poles have been installed to reflect the proposed project; please see attached story pole
certification and story pole plan.
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances and Special Permit 2711 Burlingview Drive
With this application, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to five. Three off-street parking spaces,
two of which must be covered, are required for this project. The proposed attached garage provides two
covered parking spaces (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9' x 18'-9'/z") is
provided in the driveway. An application for a Parking Variance is required for the uncovered parking space
length. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
• Design Review for additions to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2));
■ Hillside Area Construction Permit for additions to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.61.020);
■ Front Setback Variance to the main level, lower level and attached garage (22'-6'h" and 15'-9'/z"
proposed to the main and lower levels, respectively, where 23'-7" (block average) is the minimum
required; 1 S'-9'/" proposed to the new attached garage where 25'-0" is the minimum required for an
attached garage with two single-wide doors) (C.S. 25.26.072 (b)(1) and C.S. 25.26.072 (b)(2)(B));
■ Side Setback Variance (5'-1'/2" proposed to the main, lower and garage levels along the left side of the
house where 7'-0" is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c));
■ Parking Variance for uncovered parking space length (18'-9'h" proposed where 20'-0" is the minimum
required) (C.S. 25.70.020 (b)); and
• Special Permit for attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)).
2711 Burlingview Drive
Lot Area: 10,822 SF
SETBACKS
_ ___..... _..__.. _.....
Front (main):
(lower):
(garage): ;
_ ......... _...... _ ......__
Side (left): i
(right);
_... _......... _......... _
Rear (main):
_..........__ _ ...........___ _ _...........__ _
Lot Coverage: ;
__ _ .._ _ _._... _
FAR: '
EXISTING
14'-7'/2" '
n/a
30'-7%2"
5'-1'/"'
11 '-2 %4„
_ __ _..__._ .
63'-5'/2"
_........__. . _......_........ ...
1958 SF
18%
__ _
2531 SF
0.23 FAR
Plans date stamped: September 2, 2019
PROPOSED , ALLOWED/REQ'D
__. . . _ __ ... _ ... . . ........ :
22'-6,/" 2
15'-9'/2" 2
18'-9'/2" Z
_ __.... _........ __ _ _.___
5'-1'/z" (main level) 3
5'-1'/2" (lower level)'
5'-1'/z" (garage level) 3
no change
_.
44'-4'/2"
3048 S F
28.1 %
_
4553 SF
0.42 FAR
23'-7" (block average)
23'-7" (block average)
25'-0" (two single doors)
_..........._ _....._ __......__........ . _.......__....._ _._........
7'-0"
...... _
7'-0"
_ _. __. . ......_._
15'-0"
4329 SF
40%
4563 SF 4
0.42 FAR
' Existing nonconforming setbacks.
2 Front Setback Variance required to the main level, lower level and attached garage (22'-6'/2" and 15'-9'/z"
proposed to the main and lower levels, respectively, where 23'-7" (block average) is the minimum required;
18'-9'/2" proposed to the new attached garage where 25'-0" is the minimum required for an attached garage
with two single-wide doors).
3 Side Setback Variance required (5'-1'/2" proposed to the main, lower and garage levels along the left side of
the house where 7'-0" is the minimum required).
4 (0.32 x 10,822 SF) + 1100 SF = 4,563 SF (0.42 FAR)
2
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances and Specia/ Permit 2711 Burlingview Drive
2711 Burlingview Drive
Lot Area: 10,822 SF
# of bedrooms: '
_ _ ._....... __. _...:..
Off-Sfreet Parking:
EXISTING
3
__ _ _ __ ..._. ........
2 covered
(20' x 20')
; 1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
_ _...._ _._.. _
Building Height: ; 27'-1'/4"
_. _ _ _ _......_ _.... _........
DH Envelope: ; ---
Plans date stamped: September 27, 2019
PROPOSED
5
_.._._ _ _.._. __ __ _ _ __.._ _ _.
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 18'-9'/z") 5
_ _ . __....
27'-1 %4" to top of ridge
27'-7%4" to top of skylight
ALLOWED/REQ'D
:. _ _ _ . _.._._.......
2 covered
(20' x 20')
1 uncovered
(9' x 20')
:......... _ _ _...._ _ .. _..__......
30'-0"
complies
CS 25.26.075
5 Parking Variance required for uncovered parking space length (18'-9'/2" proposed where 20'-0" is the
minimum required).
Staff Comments: Several letters and emails have been submitted concerning the proposed project; they are
attached for review and are separated by correspondence submitted for the May 13th and November 12tn
Planning Commission meetings.
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
2
3
4
5
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by
the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby
properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling
unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060).
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
�
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variances and Specia/ Permit 2711 Burlingview Drive
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In orderto grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission mustfind
that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
c. Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer
Charles and Diana Williams, property owners
Attachments:
May 13, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
ApplicanYs Response Letter, dated September 25, 2019
Story Pole Certification and Story Pole Plan, date stamped November 1, 2019
Application to the Planning Commission
Variance Applications
Special Permit Application
Correspondence Submitted for November 12, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting
Correspondence Submitted for May 13, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 1, 2019
Area Map
C!
C l7'�
,�,� � , - ,�
., � f
�`� �i n�;�
a
•ti o�'.�, � y�
9vown�e
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, May 13, 2019
7:00 PM
Council Chambers
c. 2711 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special Permits for building height and
declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family
dwelling. (Robert Wehmeyer, Weymeyer Design, applicant and designer; Charles and
Diana Williams, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Comaroto, Sargent, Terrones, and Tse
noted that they individually had mef with the applicants and neighbo�s at 2717 Burlingview Drive.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff repoR.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer and Mark Haesloop, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
Mark Hudak, representing Pete� and Ferial Zaarour, 2717 Burlingview Drive: Unlike some cities along the
Peninsula, Burlingame has a Hillsrde Ordinance that protects distant views and every view is unique .
Some years ago the Commission denied a second story addition because it had determined that a row of
Eucalyptus trees in the distance was worthy of protection. View enjoyed from the Zaarour residence is
spectacular, have views of the airport, San B�uno Mountain, Bay Bridge and top of San Francisco skyline;
is particularly beautiful at night. These are fhe views the Zaarours' are trying to protect. Don't agree that
the Hillside Ordinance is one that is based on compromise, balancing and mitigation. When you're gorng
to lose views, that is whaf the Hillsrde Ordinance is designed to protect. Had an architect use the plans
and superimpose two of the designs over the view from the windows in the Zaa�our residence, which shows
that the view will be completely blocked, they'll lose it all together. Even if the roof height is dropped by a
foot or two or the addition slightly reconfigured, it won't make a difference because that view will be lost.
Requested Variance will have a significant impact on downhill neighbor because second floor addition
would be looming over them. This is a challenging lot, but don't think the proposed project could possibly
be approved under the Hilllside Ordinance and there just may not be a right project for this lot, but
certainly not a second story addition.
Vera Zaarour, daughter of Peter and Ferial Zaarour. Live part time in California only to visit family and in
Oregon; member of an architectural review committee in Oregon where we oversee 784 hillside homes, so
am aware of these situations. Provided photographs and described views from house. AI! options that
were shown on the plans would block views from the house, iheir roofline in any of the options would line
up with the bottom of our roof eave and fherefore block our views. Parents spend all of their time in the
living areas, have three panoramic windows that provide long drstant views. Houses are actually 12 feet
apart, not 16 feet as shown on the building elevations. Hired architect to superimpose all three addition
options onto photographs, all show 100% view b/ockage. Second story addition just doesn't work here.
Parents have owned house for over 40 years.
Jeannie Zaarour, daughter of Peter and Ferial Zaarour: Grew up in house at 2717 Burlingview Drive, along
City of BuAingame Page 1 Prinfed on 9/23/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019
with parents, three sisters and brother,� moved to Burlingame from San Francisco over 41 years ago.
Parents chose Burlingame because they wanted a better life for their family and a wonderful community to
raise their child�en in. Chose this house because it was situated on a hil! with breathtaking views.
Wndows along east side of house bring in natural light and picturesque backdrop of nature and life into
kitchen, dining area and family room, rooms that we spend all of our fime as a family. Views are part of
the home, parents enjoy views, spend most of their time in the family and living rooms and kitchen .
Anyone who visifs house immediately compliments beautiful views. View never gets old, stil! enjoy views
every time I visit my parenfs. Provide family with peace, happiness and gratitude. Views bring serenity
and satisfaction to parents, would be a detriment to there health and well-being if vrews are blocked.
Parents are concemed that the home and atmosphere they've created for their family and generatrons to
come will disappear along with their view.
Richard Murphy, 2625 Summit Drive: Moved into house 26 years ago, moved to area for views and privacy.
Concerned with integrity of hillsides based on slides that have occurred in the past in the area; concerned
that project has grown from an additional bedroom to a game room, second family room, office, bar and
bathroom on the second floor,� hillside is very fragile, any construction could result in a major problem.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
> Not seeing exceptional or extraordinary circumstances being asked to consider in the Variance
application. Justificafion in revised Variance application could include the fact that this lot, zoning code
most commonly contemplafes, is subject to the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance. Have at
times considered, because of the view issue, some variances in order to find an achievable project that
doesn't violate the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance. If moving forward with this design, should
revisit Variance application to include proper findings for what the exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances are for this project. Should also revisit findings in Special Permit application for declining
height envelope to include exceptional or extraordinary circumstances based on lot s/ope and design thaf
doesn't violate the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance.
> Consider a single story floor plan to meef the program requi�ements. Tirere may be an opportunity at
the front of the property to expand the garage and first floor fonvard and also incorporating the courtyard
info the house. Consrder expanding on the lower levels to achieve space without adding a new upper floor.
> Single story addition could be proposed in large level area in rear yard; useable yard could then be
moved to the front of the building above a depressed garage.
> Need to have story poles installed to analyze the project. Hard to imagine that there wouldn't be a
significant view blockage. Can't remember of an application where we approved a project that resulted in
the kind of view blockage that I would imagine story poles would show us; can't see application moving
forward under the current program.
> Regard/ess of miscommunications that may have occurred and lefter writing from neighbors, real story
will be told by the story poles. Clear that story poles are required for fhis project to move forward.
> Based on past interpretations by this Commission for projects of this sort, it's not a question of
whether or not the view is 6locked to a minor degree, if there is view blockage we've typically denied the
application and have required revisrons. Applicant will need to decide once going through the story pole
process if they want to move forwa�d with this particular application. They have the opportunity to revise
the project and return for additional study and input.
> Encourage applicant fo coordinate with neighbors.
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place this item on the
Regular Action Calendar and to require installation of story poles for the proposed design.
Discussion of Motion:
> If applicant returns with same program, then story poles would be required. But if significant
changes are made, not sure if story poles should be installed prior to the meeting.
City of 8urlingame Page 2 Printed on 9/2J/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 13, 2019
> If significant changes are made, project would likely need to come back to the Commission
for additional study because it would then be a different project.
> Find it hard to believe they can't determine without story poles that as currently proposed
there will be view impacts.
City Attorney Kane noted that the applicant can withdraw the current plans and submit revised
plans; applicant can then assess the question of installing story poles if the plans are
substantially different; project may return as a design review study item without having to install
story poles at that time.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7- Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis
City of Burlingame Page 9 Piinted on 9/23/2019
� ��h
RCVU . �. �
RC Wehmeyer � Design � Build
1204 Burlingame Avenue Suite 7
Burlingame, CA 94010
September 25th, 2019
Mr. Hurin, City of Burlingame Planning Division
RE: Williams Residence
Project Address
Description:
Date of Plans
Dear Rubin,
i'/ j ,+ �
�. _ .. . �p�r.
.a. .s. � ._.. �j�a 1
M
r f � :�
� : �,�: . � lJ � �J i �
-, 0= ��.���,Ll^.�r�„�,�=
-, •.,,..,,>.,; _; ^'`!.
2711 Burlingview Drive �
Addition to Main and Lower level and new garage level Existing
two-story Single-family Dwelling
August 4th, 2019 Revised: September 25th, 2019
Please find below our written response to the comments from the Planning Commission
Meeting that occurred on Monday, May 13, 2019 regarding the proposed addition to main level,
lower levei and new garage level to a single-family dwelling at 2711 Burlingview Drive.
The Planning Commissioners were primarily concerned the impact of the addition on the
views of the uphill neighbor at 2717 Burlingview Drive, the Zaarour family because multiple
members of the family attended the meeting and voiced their objection to the proposed project.
This is a consideration also because the subject property is located in a Hillside Construction Area
which has additional considerations during Design Review to protect the existing views of homes
in the area.
The Planning Commission said that the project as we had proposed it would not be
approvable if we proceeded with the story poles it was found that there was an impact to the
neighbor's views. They urged us to try to find an alternate plan that would not impact the views
of the uphill neighbor. Several suggestions were made as to how we may be able to accomplish
this goal. They also mentioned that the Planning Commission in the past has approved Variances
and Special Permits if this allowed a project that did not compromise the established views in the
area.
We have considered the Planning Commission's suggestions in the redesign of this
project. It was suggested that we investigate other options for adding program requirements
that would not require adding a second story. We decided to use the area at the front of the
house at the existing floors and some additional area at the rear of the first floor at the existing
main level in order to accommodate the proposed addition. This would allow us to add the
square footage that the client requires without increasing the ridge height of the house.
Our proposal includes enlarging the existing lower level to accommodate a guest
bedroom, bathroom, laundry room, game room and living room. We have proposed excavation
at the front of the existing house to allow for a garage addition below the new lower level
RC Wehmeyer � Design � Build
1204 Burlingame Avenue Suite 7
Burlingame, CA 94010
addition at the front of the house. This is possible due to the extreme change in grade from the
street to the existing garage. The proposed garage level will still be above the existing lowest left
front property corner.
We are also asking for variances and special permits on the grounds that it would allow
us to move forward with a project that preserves the neighbor's existing views. The revised
project will require a side setback variance for the additions proposed along the left property line
at the main and lower levels and will also require a front setback variance to lower and garage
levels. Additionally, this project will require a Special Permit for an attached garage and a
variance for the depth of the uncovered parking space length. We have included with our
resubmittal revised applications for the variances and special permit which address the
exceptional circumstances of this lot and our desire to comply with the Hillside Area
Construction Permit Ordinance. We hope this will mitigate any concerns that the neighbor might
have about the design.
Additionally, we have also cornmitted to erect story poles showing the location and
massing of the current proposed house. These wili be certified prior to the Planning Commission
Meeting and will allow everyone involved to have a better understanding of the proposed
project. We are hoping this will allow the Planning Commission to make a judgement about the
project's design.
Also, during the Planning Commission Meeting, the downhill neighbor from 2625 Summit
Drive expressed concerns about the stability of the hillside and possible drainage problems that
might impact their property if our proposal was allowed. We have spoken with them to ensure
them that we will have soil testing done and have an engineer design the grading plan as well as
any retaining walls and drainage required on the site. We hope this alleviates their concerns
about the impact our project may have on the stability of the hillside.
I believe this addresses all of the comments from the May 13ih, 2019 Planning
Commission Meeting. Upon your review, feel free to contact me directly with any questions that
you may have or if there is anything additionally you may need please do not hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
(��• �--
Robert C. Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD
Wehmeyer Design
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DHPARTMENT
CtTY OF BURLINGAME BURL�E
City Hall — 501 Primrose Road
Planning Division
Burlingame, California 9401d-3997 - + PH: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
Date;
av- l , Za� 9
. -
Praject Address: Z7/l $uRLi�G 1!<EW �7R�dE
Assessor's Parcel No.: 02?— 2Gd —/00
Owner's Name: C��4R�ES .� Nn ��.a� o✓�- (�l/i /lf�-�f
This is to certify that on �✓ov, / Zvr �(date), the story poles located on the above-
referenced site were installed or inspected by the undersigned, and found to be in conformance
with the design, height, and location shown on the plans, elevations, and the attached story pole
plan.
For additional information, please contact me at �OSo 5�.� fj.�8� (phone no.)
re
��.�r �� �. ,
Name (printed or typed)
�G�-o�
/NC. ' -� S���U
Title
��Q �1�10 SU��
��� �\�� G' MQc(F•o�'G'� ,
0 0 �'
� No.5304 �-
��������
rd0�f� —1 2019
C1T`,' OF BURLINGAl�,9E
CDD-PLANNING DI`l.
Regisier online far the City of Burlingame list serve at _,:;.�.;,,�; ,;
Y7'-0" I 7'-0"
- - - O STORY POLE
I +/- 4" / 12" I X GROUND STAKE
I I �' �-aR- PLASTIC NETTING
� 12'-1"
I � ' +
� - � �
� �.----� - -- -
0
" I I
� I+� 0.27 =} � M
_�_� _ �� -
I + I +l- 4" I 12"
I _ � 3'-0112" 12'-11"
-
0
� � I
� � +�2 4� �
I � — — — —
� I
� +1,4" l 12" ' +l_4" I 12" �
-� ` I
N
N � �
� O '
t
I `�' �, (E) ROOF RIDGE � �,
I � _ _ _ _ �LOCATION �
__ _I_ ._- - - T _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - N - - -
� M M
I +� 2.4�
� -14'-4" -
� � � � } --- - ,�-
� -� � I N
-n d �`_ ; �n
� �
�� � _� N co
� c � (�
z� - �— `_
� ,�' _ _ -
� z o '� �
p � � �� �� +
12'-4114"
� z �� +/- 4 I 12 +(- 4'y'� � (E) HOUSE OUTLINE
m �� I - — —
+ — +12. 1 = �l+ I
— — _ Y
v � 14'-0" - �, 14'-0" - -- —
��
I—i
t�
1'-0" -I +l- 4" I 12" +l- 4" I 12" I
� �
,�.n.-
_�_."�
BV RLINGAME ,
� `�*�,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application:
� Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: � 2—] ��l.al — 6O (�
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: Z� �� ��/�� N C�1 �/,�(,(I �
APPLICANT
Name: Robert Wehmever
Address: 1204 Buriinqame Ave Suite No 7
City/State/Zip: Burlinqame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 340-1055
E-mail: rob(a�rcwehmever.com
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: Robert Wehmeyer/ Wehmeyer Desiqn
Address: 1204 Burlinqame Ave Suite No 7
City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 340-1055
E-mail: rob(cr�.rcwehmever.com
Burlingame Business License #: 29217
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: C t�V C1L -r Dl A�h�i4 c.L�� L�- I�'%ULS
Address: 27 J1 �(LL.( �rt V L�t.�-� ��
City/State/Zip: ��.C,(r�Cz�4iM�, Cf� �� � �
Phone: (,(�'a� ��' �ZB�
E-mail:
i"1 � � � �`�� � ?:�
_ ,. ..�e �
-,� — ! !.U;,
�J�`�;,+r� _^.��!�
�i-j ; :J� � -� .
C��—�!.`'•"�`1� >�"^ �,it;`
Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this
application on the City's website as part of t lanning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising out of or related to such action. � (Initials of Architect/Designer)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (�J'(�42.1,�� Q�E-PVI,OD�Ir -� G'�pp l Z 1 C� }'`J �� �� �Z,j�
� � �— �-�( � s �o� � �c.,� � � �c o �-� �� sz r1/�i 1 �
S'(.o �`f ►� �� nE►�c� -
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information qiven herein is true and correct to tne
best of my knowledge and beli
Applicant's signature: �L �"-�lG �' �7�(D Date: 7' �7' (�
I am aware of the proposed application and hereb uthorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission.
Property owner's signature: G�G--��Ci ��l � Date: l �
Date submitted: �' t �� ��7
S: �HaNCOUTS'�,NCApplication.doc
��
BURLINGAME
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
2711 Burlingview Front Setback Variance
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
The subject property is on a steeply sloped property in the Hillside Construction Area. The house is located
in the center of the property and there is a steep slope up the house and behind the house as well. This
limits the area of the lot that can be developed. Additionally, the neighbors above this property have a view
over the roof of this house to the bay and do not want that to be affected. So we have proposed an addition
that will be below the existing residence but the location is also limited because of the steep slope from the
right to the left of the property.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
The request is necessary because the slopes on the existing property greatly limit the area that can be
developed. We are proposing an addition below the existing residence, where the existing garage is located
and a new garage below the addition. We need to maintain the existing retaining wall at the rear of the
garage because it maintains the stability of the hill and we want to build forward from that wall in order to
minimize the extent of the excavation. Denial of the application would result in limiting the client's ability to
expand their home in line with their neighbors to accommodate their growing family.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
We are building forward on the site in order to maintain the genera� welfare of both neighbors. An addition
below the existing residence minimizes the impact on the upper neighbor's views and the lower neighbor's
privacy. Also we are trying to minimize the impact of the addition on the street. We have kept the addition
behind the front setback of the existing first story of the house that we are maintaining.
We are actually trying to retain the integriry of the existing hillside and thus the neighboring properties by
building forward instead of additionally excavating into the hillside.
d. How will the proposed project be compatib/e with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potentia/ uses on adjoining properties in the genera!
vicinity?
The proposed project is a proposed addition below the existing residence. This will reduce the apparent
mass and bulk to both the neighbor up the hill and the neighbor below when compared to a possible second
floor addition which we are no longer proposing. Additionally this will keep the proposed project scope, scale,
and massing in line with the surrounding properties and their character. All of the homes area "cut into" the
hillside and the rather steep sloping grades.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
�
BURLINGAME
�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
2711 Burlingview Side Setback v��c�NCF
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area,
The subject property is on a steeply sloped property in the Hillside Construction Area. The house is located
in the center of the property and there is a steep slope up the house and behind the house as well. This
limits the area of the lot that can be developed. Additionally, the neighbors above this property have a view
over the roof of this house to the bay and do not want that to be affected. So we have proposed an addition
that will be below the existing residence but the location is also limited because of the steep�rom the right
to the left of the property. �P�
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the app/ication.
The request is necessary because the slopes on the existing property greatly limit the area that can be
developed. We are maintaining the existing left side wall location because there is already existing structure
maintaining the hillside in this area and we do not want to undermine it. Also, relocating this wall would
cause hardship to the client by limiting their ability to expand their home in line with their neighbors to
accommodate their growing family.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public hea/th, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
We are proposing to maintain the existing non-compliant side setback and add to the rear and front of the
residence along this line. This would allow us to limit the imposition on the neighbor's view which preserve
their welfare. Also this allows us to develop below the house which will maintain the privacy for the
neighbor below the subject property.
Changing the side setback would also increase the disturbance to the existing hillside that will be required
by this project. We are planning to minimize this affect by locating the proposed project within the proposed
limits.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bu/k and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinify?
The proposed project is a proposed addition below the existing residence. This will reduce the apparent
mass and bulk to both the neighbor up the hill and the neighbor below when compared to a possible second
floor addition which we are no longer proposing. Additionally this will keep the proposed project scope,
scale, and massing in line with the surrounding properties and their character. All of the homes area "cut
into" the hillside and the rather steep sloping grades.
Handouts\Variance Application2008
�
BURLINGAME
�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
_..' ..�„ _, - . _ ;
�. -
�"" - ,� �:; ..
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
_ I".' � _ . t' ._ . . . . ... ll
2711 Burlingview Off-Street Parking Space Depth Variance
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe fhe exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
The subject property is on a steeply sloped property in the Hillside Construction Area. The house is located in
the center of the property and there is a steep slope up the house and behind the house as well. This limits
the area of the lot that can be developed. Additionally, the neighbors above this property have a view over the
roof of this house to the bay and do not want that to be affected. So we have proposed an addition that will be
below the existing residence but the location is also limited because of the steep slope from the right to the left
of the property.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantia/ property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denia/ of fihe application.
The request is necessary because the slopes on the existing property greatly limit the area that can be
developed. We are proposing an addition below the existing residence, where the existing garage is located
and a new garage below the addition. We need to maintain the existing retaining wall at the rear of the garage
because it maintains the stability of the hill and we want to build forward from that wall in order to minimize the
extent of the excavation. Denial of the application would result in limiting the clienYs ability to expand their
home in line with their neighbors to accommodate their growing family.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public hea/th, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
We are building forward on the site in order to maintain the general welfare of both neighbors. An addition
below the existing residence minimizes the impact on the upper neighbor's views and the lower neighbor's
privacy. Also we are trying to minimize the impact of the addition on the street.
Reducing the depth of the existing off-street parking space has minimal effect on the neighborhood. While the
dimension from the property line to the garage is 18'-9 1/2", the driveway depth from the curb is still 26' +/-
because there is no sidewalk in this neighborhood. This is sufficient depth to allow for off-street parking on this
property and not affect public safety or convenience. In fact, existing driveway is so steep up to the garage
that it makes use of the driveway and garage very difficult. The proposed driveway will be much less steep
and would actually allow for greater use of the garage as well as off-street parking.
d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
The proposed project is a proposed addition below the existing residence. This will reduce the apparent mass
and bulk to both the neighbor up the hill and the neighbor below when compared to a possible second floor
addition which we are no longer proposing. Additionally this will keep the proposed project scope, scale, and
massing in line with the surrounding properties and their character. All of the homes area "cut into" the hillside
and the rather steep sloping grades.
Handouts\Variance Application.2008
City of Burlin�ame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 �vww.burlin a� me.or�
�,�-ciTY o
< �
euRUHcaMe
o �' �..
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
2711 Burlingview Special Permit for Attached Garage
The Planning Commission is required by la�v to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making
the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink.
Refer to the back of this form for assistance �vith these questions.
1. E.rplain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics ojthe new
construction or addition are consistent witk the existing strt�cture's design and witli the
e.risting street and neighborl:ood.
The existing structure is a single-story residence over a garage that sits on a very sloped site.
This is very typical in the neighborhood of mostly two-story, split level houses with attached
garages. We are planning to locate the addition below the existing first floor, and where the
existing garage is located. We are also proposing to change the slope at the front of the
property to access a new two-car garage that will be located below the addition. The new
attached garage and addition configuration is similar to the existing condition, and due to the
slope, typical of the neighborhood.
2. E_rplain f:ow t/te variety of roof line, facade, e.rterior finislr materia/s and elevat�ons of
the proposed new structcrre or addition are consistent wit{r the existing structure, street
and neigl:borl:ood
We are proposing to maintain the existing roof ridge height and match the existing roof slope for
the addition. This would minimize the impact on the view of the neighbor to the right, and this
would minimize the impact to the privacy of the neighbor on the left. The addition would be below
the existing first floor and would also reduce the impact on the neighborhood.
Most of the homes in the neighborhood are suburban contemporary two-story or split-level homes
with attached garages that have been renovated in a variery of sryles. Exterior materials include
siding and stone accents which we have proposed.
3. How wi!! t/te proposed project be co�:siste�tt fvith tllL' YC'S1l�L'i1t1[II CIL'S1�K giridelines
adopted by the city� (C.S. 25.57)?
The proposed project will maintain the existing plate heights and match the existing roof slopes.
This will maintain the "human" scale that is a consistent with the residential design guidelines.
We have also added articulation on the front facade with new bay windows, separate garage
doors and recessed, covered front porch entry in order to bring down the apparent mass of the
proposed addition. There will also be small scale detailing throughout with the fascia, corbels,
and trellises. These all bring down the apparent scale of the proposed addition.
4. E_rplain {tow the ren:oval of any� trees located witlun the jootprint of t�ny new structure or
addition is necessary� n�td is consistent wit/i the city�'s reforestation requireme�tts. l�ltat
m�tisatiofi is proposed for t{re remov�rl of n�il� trees? E_rplai�i w{�y tlais rnitigation is
appropriate.
The proposed project requires significant regrading of the front yard along the left side of the
property and will require the removal of one unprotected 4" tree. However, we intend to keep the
existing 24" and 7" trees along the right side of the front property. Additionally there are many large
trees in the back of the property that will also be maintained as part of the proposed project. s�'E:c�E:R�t.Ftztit
2711 Burlingview Drive
Correspondence Submitted for
November 12, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting
LAW OFFICES OF
MARK D. HUDAK
177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
San Mateo, CA 94402
November 6, 2019
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Hillside Construction Permit Application
2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Commissioners:
(650)638-2390
Mark@mhudaklaw.com
�l��V�����
NO'v - 6 2059
CITY OF BL1�tLINGf1�,?E
CD�-�LAi�i�!!N'ta CiV.
My .firm represents Peter and Ferial Zaarour and their family. The Zaarours own the home at
2717 Burlingview Drive. We have reviewed the revised design for additions proposed for 2711
Burlingview Drive, owned by Charles and Diana Williams. We have the following concerns
and questions.
Inconsistent Drawin�s. The principal concern of the Zaarour family is preservation of their
existing views. We have carefully reviewed the existing and proposed elevations shown of the
drawings dated September 6, 2019. There are several questions about the proposed design.
First, Sheet A1.0 indicates that an existing chimney in the Northwest corner near the Zaarours'
home will be demolished, but the note indicates that the existing roof over the living room,
dining room, and kitchen will remain. It is unclear whether the hole left by the chimney will be
patched or a new roof will be installed in this area. If there is to be a new roof in this area, the
conditions of approval should require that the height match the existing roof.
Second, there are several deviations between elevations shown on plans provided for our review
prior to submission (dated July 30, 2Q19) and the plans actually submitted, particularly with
respect to elevations. How can the neighbors be assured that the elevations shown on the current
plans are accurate?
Sk lv i�ht. The revised proposal includes a new — and unnecessary — skylight over the foyer. The
elevation of this skylight is not reflected on the proposed drawings.
The skylight will create significant interference with the Zaarours' views at night, when artificial
light will flood the clear night sky and obscure the distant views of the illuminated San Francisco
skyline and Bay Bridge.
The skylight element should be eliminated from the design.
Planning Commission
November 6, 2019
Neighborhood ConsistencX. The revised design calls for a substantial increase in the mass and
bulk of the left side of the residence. The home will be pushed closer to the street and will
present as a towering three-story edifice from the sidewalk. Based on the elevations shown on
Sheet 3.0, the full height of the left side of the house would be 31.29'. The proposed house
would not be consistent with the existing neighborhood, which features two-story homes set well
back from the street. The Zaarours are concerned that approval of this design would set a
precedent for the rest of the neighborhood and encourage three-story homes.
View Obstruction. The applicants have allowed trees on their property to grow to heights that
now block the Zaarours' views from several windows. Any project approvals should include a
provision that these trees be trimmed back to eliminate view interference.
The Zaarours appreciate the modifications to the original design that have removed the proposed
second-story additions that woutd have eliminated their views. However, they continue to have
concerns about the revised design and the impacts on their views if the project is not built
according to the approved plans.
Any project approvals should include a condition that new construction not exceed the existing
roof elevation of 124.40, including skylights or other features, and require independent
verification of the elevations at significant phases of construction. We suggest the following:
"(1) Prior to construction, the existing roof elevation shall be verified by a licensed surveyor. If
a new roof is installed in areas shown to remain, the applicants shall provide documentation at
the framing stage that the ne�v roof (with allowance for materials) will not exceed the existing
elevation. Documentation shall be verified by a licensed surveyor. Any deviations shalt be
corrected by the applicants.
(2) At the inspection for roofs on new construction, the applicant shall provide documentation
that the ridge heights do not exceed the e:cisting roof height, verified by a licensed surveyor.
Any deviations shall be corrected by the applicant."
If any Commissioner wishes to view the story poles from the Zaarours' windows, please contact
me to arrange a time.
Thank you for your consideration of the Zaarour's concerns.
Very Truly Yours,
ii�� ��'/ �/./.
Mark D. Hudak
cc: Clients
Planning Department
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. LIBERTY
�,`
1290 Howazd Ave., Suite 303
Burlingame, California 94010
Telephone: (650) 685-8085
mdlaw ,pacbell.net
November 6, 2019
Planning Commission Department
CITY OF BURLINGAME
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Hillside construction permit application
2711 Burlingview Drive
My Clients: Richard and Victoria Murphy
Deaz Commissioners:
�������1J
r�ov - s zo��
CITY OF B��RLiNGAI�,"E
"D�-°L4NNING DIV.
This office represents Richard and Victoria Murphy, who reside at 2625 Summit Drive in
Burlingame. They are the downhill neighbors to the proposed project of 2711 Burlingview Drive.
The Burlingview house is owned by Charles and Diane Williams. The Williams have applied for
design review, hillside construction permit, variances for front setback, side setback and parking,
and special permit for an addition to the main level of the existing single family dwelling, to
convert the existing garage to living space, and for a new lower level attached garage. For the
reasons set forth in this letter, the Murphys object to the application. The Murphys are a retired
elderly couple who live in their house by themselves.
Over the years, the properties at issue — on a very steep slope -- have suffered from
landslides and flooding, as Mr. Murphy will tell you. The Murphys, being the downhill neighbors
to the proposed project, resultantly are in peril of damage to their property in the event of further
mudslides and erosion. We are concerned that the project, as designed, will present an
unnecessary risk to the Murphys' house. I attach for your review a photograph showing mud and
dirt from a recent landslide flowing down from the Murphys' house.
Planning Commission Department
November 5, 2019
Pg. 2
My review of the plans indicates that a proposed excavation for a new attached garage
will present an undue danger. Obviously, soils engineering will be required. Additional
calculations must be made, with an eye towards the building codes, which I trust will be stricfly
enforced. At some point, the engineering division will need to make sure that the project meets
its requirements. In my experience, there is a need for a soils engineer and a civil engineer to
review carefully the application. I might also suggest that the Williams family provide an
insurance policy for any possible damage to the surroundings. I am unable to ascertain from the
current plans where the drainage issues are reflected.
Further, I am not sure that a three-story edifice is consistent with the neighborhood
pattern, clearly a planning issue. The Murphys have great concerns that, if this application is
approved, construction may take a year or more. While the Williams family may move out during
construction, the Murphys will be residing in their house, with the attendant construction issues
disrupting their lives.
My review of the plans reveals that the requested addition is not for bedrooms. The
Williams family wishes to build a guest room, a family room, and a game room. Thus, family
necessity is not an issue. These are luxury rooms.
Mr. Murphy and I will be present at the November 12 hearing to further argue our point
of view. I understand that the uphill neighbors' attorney, Mark Hudak, will argue on behalf of his
clients. Clearly, the Williams family is facing strenuous opposition to their proposal. I look
forward to meeting with each of you on November 12 and will answer at that time any questions
which you may have.
Very truly yours,
ichael . iberty
�
1
. �
i�
�..
�
,.
�
.
r.
,
�
November 6, 2019
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
Planning Division
City of Burlingame
Dear Mr. Hurin:
I would like to request time to speak at the Planning Commission meeting on
November 12, 2019, on the subject of the plans for building at 2711 Burlingview
D rive.
My wife and I have owned the property at 2625 Summit Drive in Burlingame for
the last 26+ years. The property line between our house and 2711 Burlingview is 5
feet. By ordinance of Burlingame Rules, the distance between houses and the
property line should be 7 feet. This has not been a problem for us before because a
blank wall faces our house. The proposed new wall will have 15+ windows looking
at our property.
The more important question is the integrity of the hillside by the intended
bulldozing of the hill to have a three story house with an underground garage. My
attorney Michael Liberty and I would like to address the problems with this plan.
Sincerely yours,
2 �;�, ,�„�Q w. ►M
Richard W. Murphy '
2625 Summit Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-344-2015
���������
�dn', — {; ��,�;;
CITY OF BURLINGA�,1t
:�i�D-�LA!�►Uin�G DIV.
2711 Burlingview Drive
Correspondence Submitted for
May 13, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting
05.13.19 Meeting C'(�.111��1U.�'I('ATIO.�' RECEIG�ED
Item 9c .�FTF.R PREPAR�iTIO.I'
2711 Burlingview Drive OFSTAFFREPORT
Page 1 of 2
RECEIVED
MAY 13 2019
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD - PLANNING DIV.
From: Rob Wehmeyer [mailto:rob@rcwehmeyer.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 9:58 AM
To: CD/PLG-Connie <C@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <�urin(c�burlingame.org>
Cc: charles.williams�gmaiLcom; Diana Williams <diana.l.williams78@gmail.com>; Haesloop,
Mark <mhaesloopnchsdg.com>
Subject: Fwd: Received Afters - 2711 Burlingview - 0�.13.19 pc meeting
Good Morning Connie and Ruben,
Here is another email from the Williams in regards to never receiving a note from the Zarour's. I
just thought you should have a copy of everything that has been communicated by, and between,
both parties.
Best Regards,
'..
Begin forwarded message:
From: C Williams <charles.willi�uns'�i,��mail.com>
Date: May 10, 2019 at 4:18:29 PM PDT
To: Rob Wehmever <rob«rc��ehme��er.com>
Cc: "Haesloop, Mark" <mhaesloop� z chsd��.com>
Subject: Re: Received Afters - 2711 Burlingvie�v - 0�.13.19 pc meeting
That is not Diana's email. Was hacked and shut dow�n so does not get it and we never received.
As you saw in my previous emails when I in�•ited them over I asked them to send me that initial
email and they never did.
Continued on page 2 (over)
05.13.19 Meeting
Item 9c
2711 Buriingview Drive
Page 2 of 2
On May 10, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Rob Wehmeyer <rob�.cc�rc�vehme,yer.com> wrote:
Here are a fe�v more...the invite from me on the `Villiams' behalf and one from the Zarour's...
Begin forwarded messa�e:
From: CD/PLG-Connie <C cr.burlinQame.orQ>
Date: May 10, 2019 at 3:52:21 PM PDT
To: "rob c ,rc�vehme��er.com" <rob a�rc�r�ehmever.com>
Cc: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin(c�b«rlinQame.or�>
Subject: Received Afters - 2711 Burlinb iew - 0�.13.19 pc meeting
From:
Connie ; Community Development Dept./Planning Division !. 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,
CA 94010 i, 650.558.7251 ;' c(�a.burlinqame.orq
our nours:
hlonday through friday - open 6:00 to 5:00, closed each day from 12:00 to 1:00
Effective 06.01.15 - c/osed every Wednesday atternoon from 12:00 to 5:00
<2711 burlingvie�r� dr - 0�.13.19 - recd after 1- r�vehmeyer.pd�
<2711 burling��ie�v dr - 0�.13.19 - recd after 2- dzaarour.pdfl
05.13.19 Meeting
Item 9c
2711 Burlingview Drive
Page 1 of 2
C'O.bllt�fU147CAT10:V RECEIti ED
AFTER PREP�R�ITIO.�'
OF ST.AFF REP(�RT
RECEIVED
From: Rob Wehmeyer [mailto:rob@rcwehmever.com] MAY 10 2019
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 11:40 AM CDD — PLANNING DIV.
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <Plannin�Commissioners(c�burlin�ame.or�
Cc: Charles Williams <charles.williams@�mail.com>; Diana Williams <diana.l.williams78@�mail.com>
Subject: Williams Residence - Proposed Addition & Remodel; 5.10.19
Good Morning Commissioners,
I am writing to you all on behalf of my Clients, Chuck & Diana
Williams, the Homeowners of 2711 Burlingview Drive. As I am
sure you are aware, this Proposed Second Floor Addition &
Remodeling Project is scheduled to be presented to the
Commission this coming Monday evening, May 13th. As such,
the Williams would like to provide you with their Contact
Information and would like to invite you to contact them directly
at your leisure to make arrangements to come by their Residence
to meet with them, in order take a look at and discuss the
Proposed Project, as well as to walk about the Property itself
prior to the Hearing next week.
Our collective belief is that this would give all involved a
chance to meet and to see firsthand what the design drawings
and various photos that have been submitted may, and may not
show, in a far clearer fashion. Further, having the opportunity to
speak with Williams directly should also provide insight on this
proposal from their perspective . I think you will find them both
quite happy to work with the City, the Commission, and the
neighbors as we begin the Application Process.
page 2 on reverse side
Please find detailed below the contact information for each of
the Applicants;
Chuck Williams
charles.wil liams� �mail.com
�_
(650) 350-0115
Diana Williams
diana.I.williams78�,gmail.com
(650) 245-7786
Should any additional questions arise, please know that you can
also always feel free to contact myself directly at (650) 350-
2577.
Thank you all for your time and we look for�vard to seeing you
on Monday evening or before!
Best Regards,
' •.
Rob R�ehine�•ei•
Principal, CSLB r9693�-�
RC �Veluueti-er Desi�1= Build
rc�ti•ehmeyer.com �
650.3=�0.10�5 ^��
� ��
�
� �
, ,
05.13.19 Meeting
Item 9c
2711 Burlingview Drive
Page 1 of 1
From: Dina Zaarour [mailto:dina.zaarour@Rmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 12:35 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlin�ame.or�>
Subject: Fwd: Meet
Hi Ruben,
CO��INIU�'�"ICf1 TIO��' RECEI i� ED
AFTF.R PREPARATIU.`'
UF STAFF REPORT
RECEIVED
MAY 10 2019
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
We would like to add this thread of emails (below) to the report. As you can see, we reached out
to our neighbors when we found out about the plans on our own. We tried to speak with them
about their plans. These two emails were sent to the Williams with no response from them. I
spoke to you about this back in February 2018. We later wrote a letter (with photos) to you and
the Planning Commission in February 2018 which you included in the staff report.
Thank you.
Dina Zaarour
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dina Zaarour <dina.zaarour�a ��mail.com>
Date: Monday, February 19, 2018
Subject: Meet
To: "diana 1 ��-illiams78!a;vahoo.com" <diana 1 williams78 i�.vahoo.com>
Hello Diana and Chuck,
I'm following up to my note belo�v. Are you available today to talk about your plans to add an
addition?
Let us know what time works today.
Dina
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Dina Zaarour <dina.zaarour:c gmail.com> ��mote:
Hello Diana and Chuck,
I got y�our email from the neiQhbors group email thread. We �vould like to come by tomorro�v
morning and talk ��-ith you. Thanks.
�i II1L1
��11t ti•am Cri,»i] '��Ic�hile
Sent from Gmail Mobile
05.13.19 Meeting (�'O.l�I.�tU1�'IC�ITIC),�'RECF.I��ED
Item 9c ,�FTER PRF.PARATIO.�'
2711 Burlingview Drive OFST.�IFFRF_P(�RT
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
MAY 10 2019
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
From: Alvin Chan [mailto:alvinolot@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:17 PM
To: Burlingame Planning Dept <plannin�dept@burlin�ame.or�>
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Drive
To Mr. Hurin,
Thanks for speaking with me regarding 2711 Burlingview. I am sending this email a bit later than many of
my neighbors because I wanted a chance to review the plans and the staff report, which were just posted
yesterday afternoon, before sharing my thoughts on the proposed renovation.
It's very encouraging that the owners of 2711 Burlingview want to invest significant time and capital to
renovate and expand their home. A newly renovated house will benefit the entire street.
The majority of the houses on Burlingview Drive were built in the 1950s. Despite the age of the houses,
home values have increased astronomically. New residents are paying millions for old houses, and much
of the value is tied to the potential to renovate and expand. We should be extremely careful that we do
not place overly burdensome restrictions on an owner's right to renovate and expand their home.
To afford these million dollar homes, many of the young families that move to Burlingame are dual income
households, where both the mother and father need to work. They rely much more on grandparents to
help with the children. Larger houses with a guest bedroom and home office are much more important
now than in 1950 when these houses were built.
The concern for preserving views is valid, especially from the owners of 2717 Burlingview. It does appear
that the architect has taken this into consideration and designed the 2nd story addition to be on the north
side of the lot, furthest from 2717 Burlingview. It also appears that the requested variance and special
permit are a resuit of putting the addition further away. The addition only adds another 8' 4" in height to
the existing structure, and it is extremely difficult to judge the resulting impact on views without seeing
story poles that frame the addition from the 2717 Burlingview windows.
Thanks for your consideration,
Alvin Chan
2753 Burlingview Drive
�� 05.13.19 Meeting
� � .%��/ E� Item 9c
��
} 2711 Burl�ngv�ew Dr
Page 1 of 1
� 1Cu, �'�C��;��-� � `
.
�,�, ��� � l � ,
� '� � ..,�
��,��,1�.1,' ,
. � ; , ; ; �1,
�, �, . �- �,l �. �!l t,4
�� , � .
� , � �-f1,G���l� �� ,
� �,� � (, C�,�"� C�.,r,t�Z- � ,� .
`' � - � � �C,�,�1�1 ���-�� �t
l-{�! v� �-
� , �; ; 1��� ��>> ; ��;� � �
�� ��� � � � j %
�� , , ; ; � ,�(�,�� 1�-� C �c� L � ,
� ��,�� � �� �,� -�tc �
� X�, � "� `
''�`('� � � ! _ �►(,�f-lC��`�
�/J,'/ � ����
`/ V ��V, C N
�W /��;
< < ��� �:
t ; ; . � � �`�,� � �'�� , .
. �1 � � �� ti � �� , � �
�� l � � � �� ��Z-L� �
� c�,� �,
..\ r �• � ��
•i I
i �i� � �' v ' r ` P ��I .
` ' � , - /� , ���� �L�ck���,�
C r � ,�/` � 'i � � ' � _ r ♦ � .�_
j�{ / �i�✓" `�`� ��� � �
L� �� �� � �., � �
` .�'� � � ���,�,��� l � � �' ' � �
f c,� � e�,�, � �;
L � - �' /� f ����.,t..� '-��.�
i \ �� r/ � �1 V �!'..� `�'
r � � �l
�� �Ci \/� t r ` ,
� � ` , �_
_ ✓! l.N ��,, C � �
i �+ ; j��%,%�� � �\..� r � � �
�� 1 // ,
, �,_ 1.L/�/ V � f .�y/
� . �� � 1111/.
� � � 1 �, M � � \ 1 - V
��L ���
f��? � ��1��� � ISL����' ,
�,`��, \ ` � -� �(, �`�,�, t ` ,
��� � � �� � ��-�
r � �, ��ti�'L
� ���,, �
� ; ; .� ,� �,�,�`�� 1 IZt,
t� C ���� '�' � ` �
' �t, i� `�1�. �`-� ���
. I ' � ^�� �
' � G��'��� ��-�-�� -� � � - �
�� � .
� �L��t� �,
; � �����c• .
�� �t ���� ��
�� .
� \ � � /' A
�ti�� �� o ��
. � , ' CcG��� ��,�.�u����� �
. �n��� �:�� � --�� _ .
C) � , :: , � , ,� < <
c' -� ?: rn ;-j � /� �
� c� C7 �l/ � �-�
_o �, � .
y � o �Tl
��� � C
?�c�- m
- r -
Z z �;�
(7 �-� 0
�� z.
�� m
���� ���` � `�
� V ��-��r 'V " y � `� v �
r,�-�.til� � C C�l C-� �'�, �'�
Gi�- � � � �UCIV
CO.�LtiIL'ti'IC.-ITIO:�' RECEIY'ED
:1 FTER PREP. I R. I TIO:��
OF ST.1 FF REPORT
Begin forwarded message:
From: C Williams <charles.�r�illiams�,c�mail.com>
Date: May 7, 2019 at 1:15:15 PM PDT
To: Rob Wehmeyer <rob arc�i�ehme��er.com>
Subject: Fwd: Remodel � 2711 Burlingview Drive
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: C `Villiams <charles.�cilliams'a��maiLcom>
Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: Remodel � 2711 Burlingview Drive
To: Dina Zaarour <dina.zaarour r.�mail.com>
Cc: <diana.l.williams78 ci�-�mail.com>, <rob'a`re��-ehmever.com>
��������
ry �n
1��; �{ �' — � � u I J
CIiY GF SUR� lPaer,�,��
c��-F�'����:���r, �,��.
Ferial & Pete, just follo�ving up on this - we are more than happy to meet with the two of you to
discuss our plans and would look forw-ard to it, but we are not willing to meet if you bring your
lawyer.
Our intention is for this meeting to be a neighbor to neighbor discussion. Let us know if the two
of you can meet.
Look forward to hearing back from you.
Best,
Chuck
On Aug 21, 2018, at 11:13 A1�1, C Williams <charles.williams�c �<�mail.com> wrote:
Tl��. `Ve don't think we ever received any of the emails as we checked. If you could kindly
for���ard them that would be great (re-copying Diana). Perhaps you had the �vrong email?
As w•e mentioned earlier this year, w�e
were planning on having you over to ���alk through the plans. I don't think it is necessary to have
a lawyer there as we �r�ould prefer this to be a neighbor to neighbor interaction. I am cc'ing Rob
who is our architect and contractor who �y�ill join us. Will revert back to you once we are able to
confirm day and time and �vhether he is available.
Look for�r�ard to walking you throu�h the project and design.
Best,
Chuck
On Au� 21. 2018, at 12:16 AM, Dina Zaarour <aina.zaarour'�i <`mail.com> wrote:
Hi Chuck and Diana,
Hope all is well.
We also value the neighbor relationship and had sent two emails to Diana's email
address back in February but never heard back from you. We are available to meet
next Wednesday 8/29 after 6pm. Does that work for you? We will be attending, along
with our children and our attorney.
Best,
Pete & Ferial Zaarour
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:58 PM, C Williams <charles.w�illiams c;�mail.com> wrote:
Pete & Furiel,
Hope both of you are well.
I know earlier this year we indicated w�e were planning on doing a remodel and once we were
done adjusting the plans, we wanted to have you over to review them with you as we very much
value the neighbor relationship. We can have our contractor there as well to help answer
questions.
Let us kno�v some days and times that might work for you. Looking forward to discussing.
Best,
Chuck and Diana Williams
-- Forwarded message ---
From: C Williams <charles.williams��.�mail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Follow up
To: <dina.zaarour!a�gmail.com>
Cc: <diana.l.williams78�a �mail.com>
Pete & Ferial,
����i���
���;;�y - i 2019
C!�` G� BUR�l��1G,��,i�
�':� ����'��ln._ ��.^ n!t/
� ..r'i .i � �.7 � ,.
An individual w•ho indicated you have engaged as your lawyer, Mark Hudak, contacted us on
Sunday August 27`h. Given our neighbor relationship and given neither of us our lawyers, we
kindly request all communication come directly from you (not from your lawyer). In addition,
given w�e value the neighbor relationship and given you have not seen the plans yet, we think it is
premature to engage a lawyer and respectfully decline his invitation to join you at our house to
�valk through the plans. However, we would be more than happy to host both of you (�vithout
your lawyer) at our house to discuss the plans. Let us know if you are willing to meet - we very
much look forward to doing so.
Best,
Chuck & Diana
LAW OFFICES OF
MARK D. HUDAK
177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
San Mateo, CA 94402
April 18, 2019
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Hillside Construction Permit Application
2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Commissioners:
(650)638-2390
Mark(a�mhudaklaw. com
�������,����
; .,
�, -,•� � ^r;; �
.� i S �•.;.,
,i ...r
.,:-�-•,''^� Ri,:��_i,.r��-°.'.. _
My firm represents Peter and Ferial Zaazour and their family members. The Zaarours own the
home at 2717 Burlingview Drive. They oppose the application submitted by Charles and Diana
Williams to add a story to their home at 2711 Burlingview Drive. They request review by the
Planning Commission pursuant to the Hillside Construction ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter
25.60.
The Zaarours purchased their home more than 40 years ago. They enjoy wonderful unobstructed
views from their living room, family room, kitchen and communal dining room. These distant
views include San Francisco Bay, San Bruno Mountain, the Bay Bridge, parts of the San
Francisco skyline, and the East Bay Hills. At night, the views become a delightful carpet of
lights extending in all directions. Pete and Ferial are retired and, not surprisingly, spend nearly
every waking hour in these rooms, enjoying the views and warm sunlight. Their entire family,
including grandchildren, live in the area and are at their home three or four times a week. They
are a very close family and their activities are centered in these rooms with their special views.
Last year, their neighbors proposed a massive second-story addition to their existing home. They
submitted plans without having shown them to the Zaarours. Even a brief review of the plans
showed that the Zaarours' views would be eliminated. After being notified by the Planning
Department about the application, the Zaarours expressed their concerns about the taking of their
views. The Planning Departtnent returned the plans for revisions and nothing was submitted for
a year. Now, Mr. and Mrs. Williams have submitted a new set of plans, with slight revisions
from the previous set. But the revised design has the same problem — it would eliminate the
existing views from the Zaarours' home almost entirely while giving new views to 2711
Burlingview.
The current proposal for the second floor includes a game room, a wine bar, a second family
room, and an office. These bonus rooms do not justify the obliteration of the Zaarours' views.
Planning Commission
April 18, 2019
The current drawings include several alleged "views" from a window in 2717 Burlingview,
shown on Sheets A7.1, A7.2, and A7.3. Since the project designer has not been in the Zaarours'
home, the basis for these drawings is unclear. But they appear to be deliberate attempts to
mislead the Commission.
These renderings purport to show that the views from 2717 Burlingview would only be partially
blocked, with views remaining above the new roof line. But these drawings are not to scale.
They deliberately depict a smaller, more distant addition than the actual plans.
More important, the roof Iine of the proposed second story is well above the level of the
windows on the left side of 2717 Burlingview, as depicted on the Proposed Street Elevation on
Sheet A7.0. Consequently, views from the windows in 2717 Burlingview would look directly
into the wall and roof of the new addition, with no sight lines above. The existing distant views
will be lost entirely. The Commission should be deeply suspicious of a purported visual
representation that is not consistent with the actual plans.
Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.61 was enacted to protect existing distant views.
Section 25.61.060 provides that emphasis should be given to the obstruction of view from
habitable areas within nearby homes, such as those from the Zaarours' family room and living
room. Pete and Ferial are entitled to the protection of their views under this section.
Because the drawings from the Williams' designer are not reliable, we request that story poles be
erected and certified by an independent engineer. Then, we invite all Commissioners to visit the
Zaarours' home and see the degree of obstruction for themselves. The Zaarours' will hold their
house open for this purpose on May 11 from 9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. If any Commissioner is
unable to visit during that time, we would be happy to make arrangements at any convenient
time.
Mr. and Mrs. Williams knew they had no views when they purchased their home. They are well
aware of the views enjoyed by the Zaarours. Why should they be able to reverse the status quo
and deprive Pete and Ferial of their existing views?
It is unfortunate that Mr. and Mrs. Williams have decided to proceed with their application in the
face of known objections from the Zaarours and the restrictions in Chapter 25.60. We will attend
the hearing on May 13 to provide additional information and answer any questions. In the
meantime, we look forward to seeing you on May 11 or any other time you can visit the house.
Very Truly Yours,
, ,- .`���� .:. -'
Mark D. Hudak
cc: Clients
Planning Department
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
��������
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Fc� 2 5 2�i8
Dina Zaarour <dina.zaarour@gmail.com>
Sunday, February 25, 2018 11:06 PM CITY OF Bl;r�! INGAME
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin CDD-Pi_A�lti4NG DIV.
2717 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame
Zaarour - 2717 Burlingview Drive -1.JPG; Zaarour - 2717 Burlingview Drive -2 .JPG;
Zaarour - 2717 Burllingview Drive.JPG
To:
Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner, City of Burlingame
William Meeker, Director of Community Development, City of Burlingame
Planning Commission and Hillside Construction Review Commission, City of Burlingame
RE: Obstruction of view at 2717 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame
Dear Mr. Hurin,
As previously discussed and based on our dire concerns, we are writing this letter to request a full
review of the application pursuant to Chapter 25.61 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (sections:
25.61.050 and 25.61.060) for the proposed second floor addition at
2711 Burlingview Drive in Burlingame. We ask that you please forward this letter to the Director of
Community Development, Mr. Meeker, and the full Planning Commission and Hillside Construction
Review Commission. We understand that the plans for 2711 Burlingview Drive have not been
resubmitted yet, but would like to voice our concerns about our neighbor's application.
We are the property owners of 2717 Burlingview Drive in Burlingame, the upper next door neighbors
to 2711 Burlingview Drive. We purchased our house 40 years ago back in 1978 largely and most
importantly because of the spectacular views from our habitual living spaces: kitchen, dining area
and family room. A meaningful part of the value in our home is the view of the landmarks: the
valley, lower Burlingame, San Francisco International Airport, San Bruno mountains, East Bay, the
Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco.
Just recently, we found out that our next door neighbors at 2711 Burlingview Drive are planning to
expand their home by building a second story addition, adding a completely new view to their
property, while obstructing our view of 40 years. Their proposed second floor addition would not
only obstruct the view from our home, it would have a great impact on the market value of our
property. The neighbor's new second story addition would increase the value of their property while
decreasing the value of our property.
We attempted to speak with our neighbors at 2711 Burlingview Drive by reaching out via email to ask
if we can meet to discuss our concerns; however they have not responded to our emails.
The proposed new second story addition would destroy our lifestyle as we are finally retired and
spend most of our time in these living spaces enjoying the view, the sunlight and our privacy. The
views have been and are part of our daily life and wellness for many, many years and we share this
lifestyle with our children and grandchildren. We never plan on selling this home as our family has
tru�y enjoyed living and being a part of the Burlingame community for 40 years and we intend for our
children and our grandchildren to continue enjoying and living the same.
We would like to meet with you and invite you to our home to see how our views will be impacted
and greatly afFected by this new second story addition. We have attached several photos from our
family room, kitchen and dining area for your review.
We appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Zaarour Family
2717 Burlingview Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
t. 650.245.1171
2
.. . , ;.;� � : r:�r�.
�
� �,,�'�" y_� -'1�, `'4'�
��:.�:.r,.�
' .�t.
- �. �` _ L �' -
`tr-=.��
- '� -
�'" � �",�
�`_ _� '' .�
� —"S �
.
b ;
�+r �. z .
,� : �i' •
A
». �'-�.
� i,:. ji — _--
A i f '�;' , —
���/-. __
�f:,� /�%
f`� ;r.i��' ,
� f • il e
F �f��< J� F� �
FF��i�i•frFl�:� ` � �
i[l� ;��
� .
I I
I �
I�
View from 2717 Burlingview Drive
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Sandra Feder <svfeder@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 823 AM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Ruben,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed addition of a second story to the home at
2711 Burlingview Drive. We understand that the proposed addition would block the views of longtime
residents on the street, the neighbors at 2717 Burlingview. As you might guess from the name of our
street, the views we have from our properties are important to all of us and affect our property values.
While I understand that city ordinances do allow for second-story additions, they do not allow for new
construction to block views. Thus, I would imagine you would not approve the current plans.
We had a good back-and-forth with the Planning Commission when our across-the-street neighbors
were converting a smaller home to a bigger one.The final designs were much improved in terms of
the character of the neighborhood than the original plans.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sandra Feder
2760 Burlingview Drive
May 5, 2019
To: Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
City of Burlingame
From: Richard and Victoria Murphy
Homeowners at 2625 Summit Drive
Re: Proposed addition at 2711 Burlingview Drive
The following are our concerns:
������� ���
�'�'`1 � � � '-;
`,+�;Y - �3 [�i3
c� � Y or ����� !rac;;.u�
r'�n� ^y,. •�"�.i*u���-; ..
_•'✓.��1 ,�..� .. e . . -_ 'J!: ..
1) History of home at 2711 Burlingview Drive
A) House was built by original developer with no windows on left side (solid
wall for a reason)
B) House has had serious cracks in basement (garage floor was replaced before
selling)
C) Trees have come down and fallen on 2625 Summit (with subsequent damage)
2) History of home at 2625 Summit Drive
A) Mudslides and flooding have occuned a number of times over the
years
B) Mudslides mixed with concrete resulted in Summit Drive being blocked a few
years ago
C) Considerable repairs have been made (at great expense) to shore up the
foundation of the house
3) Integrity of hillside is major concern (slides have resulted in major damages
to neighbors homes (2652 Summit and 2620 Summit.)
4) Original plans called for addition of a bedroom. This has no�v gro�vn to the
addition of a"game room," second family room, an office, a"bar" and a
bathroom.
In conclusion, our concerns that an addition of this size to an already "fragile hill" could
result in a major problem. We will be attending the meeting on May 13, 2019 and will be
happy to explain all of the above in more detail.
Sincerely, , ,
�:_���.� _ �-, c�1�-�-,�,
-?��,���...��.�(�,r.���� �--
Richard and Victoria Murphy
2625 Summit Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Omar Zaarour <ozaarour@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, May 8, 2019 12:17 AM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Loss of view at 2717 Burlingview
Please add my letter below to the file for opposition of the 2711 Burli
Thank you,
Dear Mr Hurin and Planning Commission:
ew Dr. construction proposal.
My name is Omar Zaarour, son of Peter & Ferial Zaarour, w�ho live at 2717 Burlingview Drive. I'm writing to
the Planning Commission in support of my parents right to keep the beautiful view from their home of 41 years,
and in strona opposition to the proposed second floor addition at 2711 Burlingview that would completely
eliminate it.
My parent's purchased 2717 Burlingview- in 1978 to raise their 5 children in the great community of
Burlingame, and because they fell in love with this home's expansive view of SFO, the bay, downtow-n San
Francisco and the Bay bridge. Now in their 80's, they are at home much more, spending all their time in the
living room/ kitchen, and the view is more important to them now than it was 41 years ago. The idea that my
parents may (ose their view has made them extremely upset and depressed. It will have such a very negative
impact on their quality of life. Significantly decreasing the value of the home, their lifestyle in the house with
the view, and has had negative effects on their health as well at their advanced age. The lives of our entire
family have revolved around this house and the beauty of the view from these rooms. We are a close family
gathering at least weekly all together with my sisters, their kids, and my wife and children. The
livingJkitchen/dining rooms of this house is where we spend all holidays and family occasions. My children ask
us every day to go to their grandparents house �vhere they play in those rooms.
The loss of the vie�v would change the dynamic of our home completely, and turn a beautiful expansi�-e view
into an eye sore in front of three massive windows.
My parents have kno�tin and been very friendly �vith many of the neighbors on Burlingview• throughout the
years, and as you can see by all the letters of support, they are well liked, respected, and have been good
neighbors to all including the family at 2711.
My ���ife, children and I ask that you deny this proposal.
Thanl: you,
Omar Zaarour and Family�
415-22�-0�60
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: CATHY PAYNE <frog1325@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:06 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin; GRP-Planning Commissioners
Subject: re: 2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Mr. Hurin:
Since we will not be able to attend the upcoming hearing on the proposed project at 2711 Burlingview
Drive, we are sending this message to express our concerns about the project.
As neighbors and long time Burlingame Hills residents, we are concerned about the lack of
enforcement of the zoning code regarding additions or modifications of residences in hill side areas
(Ord. 1388 of 1989). From our understanding of the drawings, it is evident the next door neighbor at
2717 Burlingview Dr. would virtually lose most if not all of their current magnificent view. In its place
would be a view of the side of a home approximately 11 or 12 feet away. It is obvious to us that this
project would greatly impact the pleasure and enjoyment of the neighbor as well as the value of their
property. While this does not impact our view, as hillside residents we must all be mindful of the
potential our views could also be taken if the zoning ordinance is not taken seriously.
We ask that the commission reject to proposed plan and enforce to code which was enacted for this
very situation.
Gary and Catherine Payne
2754 Burlingview Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-347-1994
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: wai chow <wcchow@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 10:07 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Dr
Dear Ruben,
I am sending this message to you in regards to the proposed project on 2711 Burlingview Dr.
I am adamantly opposed to this project because:
1) it would set a precedent that it is ok to block existing views and that would not be fair to long-term
owners.
2) the project (large scale 2nd floor addition) would drastically change the character of the
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Ben Pang and Wai Ching Chow
2711 Summit Dr,
Burlingame Ca 94010
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Melissa Germaine <msmelg@comcast.net>
Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:30 PM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
APN 027.261.100 - Feedback on Public Hearing Notice
We are writing this email in response to the proposed remodel at 2711 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame CA. We
live at 2723 Burlingview Drive, two houses up from this property. While we support our neighbors' desire to
remodel and add square footage to their existing home, we are troubled by the scale of the proposed design
and most importantly, how it will block the views of our next door neighbor's existing home at 2717
Burlingview Drive. From the drawings, it looks like the proposed second story will totally block the light and
the views of their main living space as the roof line of the remodel will be above or at the same level as the
existing home. This would set a precedent for losing views throughout the neighborhood for anyone not
adding a second story to their home. We plan to attend the public meeting on 5/13/19 but also wanted to
send in this email to voice our concerns.
Please let us know if you have any questions or need further elaboration on this matter. Thank you for your
consideration.
Best, Melissa Germaine & David Klein
2723 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame CA 94010
415-269-7712
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: RENDA ZA'AROUR <rendaz@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 1121 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: Re: 2711 Burlingview Dr. / 2nd Story Addition/ View Obstruction
Hi Ruben,
Sorry- correction to last paragraph- "views are to be protected *from* obstruction"
Thank you,
Renda Za'arour
From: RENDA ZA'AROUR
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:14 PM
To: RHurin@burlingame.org
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Dr. / 2nd Story Addition/ View Obstruction
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
My name is Renda Za'arour. I am the third daughter of Pete and Ferial Za'arour, of 2717 Burlingview Drive.
I am writing to you today to request your attention to the details of the proposed second story addition of our
neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Williams, of 2711 Burlingview Drive. I am also asking that you consider my family's
deep concerns regarding our family home.
Mr. and Mrs. Williams have submitted revised plans for a second story addition that would completely eclipse
the light and eliminate the views from my parents' home. Also, the drawings submitted display vast
differences in visual scale to actual measurements. I implore you to see for yourself firsthand. What the
drawings depict versus what you will see, standing in our home, are strikingly different. I would like to give the
builder the benefit of the doubt, hoping that these are oversights or mistakes.
Our home of forty-one years has been the happy place where we all gather 2-3 times per week for Sunday
dinners, celebrations, and just visiting. We have shared all of our joys and sadnesses here together, as a
family.
All of these occasions have taken place in the east side of our home, which exhibits breath-taking views of
SFO, the bay, East bay, San Francisco, San Bruno Mountain, and the Burlingame Canyon. From my
grandmothers down to my two year old nephew, and plenty of friends and relatives in between, these views
have been enjoyed by four generations and counting. Our home and it's views will be loved by every
generation that wants it from here forward. It would be catastrophic for us to lose the views and light that are
so much part of our lives here. The view absorbs our thoughts when we are troubled, and gives us a feeling of
hope and happiness the rest of the days. It's truly something to behold.
I own a home (17 years) and a business (20 years) here in Burlingame just to be close to my family, and of
course because I love Burlingame so much. We are very much a Burlingame family and we are here to stay.
I believe that everyone should be able to enjoy the original features of the home they purchase. Per the
Hillside Ordinance under title 25, Zoning, section 25.61.060 the views are to be protected with obstruction to
any habitable areas. This beautiful view is irreplaceable, and is the main feature of our home.
To be clear, I am vehemently opposed to the construction of a second story addition at 2711 Burlingview
Drive.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Renda Za'arour
���������
May 6, 2019
�,�' - i � �;'��
Dear Planning Commissioners, ;; T„ �,,,M1 ^, ; ; �; ,n �',r_
_ _ .,, .. ,..., _ , _
,, �„ ., �,, � ; . -, ,- �„
My name is Vera Zaarour and I am one of the 5 children of Pete �&t Fe'ri'al� Z�aa'rour who
live at 2717 Burlingview Dr. I am also a Burlingame homeowner at 1035 Morrell Ave.
This letter is in reference to the apptication for a second story addition to their next-
door neighbors at 2711 Burlingview Dr. I am writin� to express my strong opposition
to the proposed addition and to ask the commission to deny this application for the
reasons outlined below.
1. This addition would completely block my parent'S views from 3 main windows of SF
bay, SFO, San Bruno hills � downtown SF in the distance and drasticallv impact the
quality of their lives and well being. The orientation of my parent's home is such
that all of the key living areas; kitchen, dinin� room, and family room are on the
downhill side of the house (on purpose) to take in the expansive views that would
be obstructed by the proposed addition.
2. Burlingview Drive is listed as a street protected by the Hillside Ordinance. In so,
my parents home should be included and protected by this ordinance.
3. Not only would the views from my parent's home be blocked, but because the
neighbor's home is approximately 11'-12' feet away at the front corners, this addition
would significantly block the naturat light coming into all of the main living areas of
their home.
4. My professional background is in interior desi�n and architecture and I have
thoroughly reviewed the drawings submitted. Their perspective drawings of my
parent's views on pages A7.1, A7.2, and A7.3 are incorrect and misleadin� as to the
view obstruction and further, the drawings on pages A7.0 and A7.1 show street
elevations and house separation distances that are incorrect. In actuality, the NE
corner of my parent's home is only 11+ feet from the neighboring house at 2711.
These erroneous depictions are drastically misleadin�.
5. Pages 8 and 9 of the Burlin�ame Design Guidetines clearly state that "additions
should be consistent with the neighborhood fabric and existing architecture, which
are both critical components of neighborhood compatibility. Further, new additions
should harmonize with existing houses and there should be only subtle evidence that
an addition was done." This proposed addition fails in all these areas and would
instead create a large visual mass and have the layer cake appearance that the
guidelines strongly seek to avoid. The proposed addition also exceeds the 30-foot
height limitation set forth in the Burlingame R-1 District Regulations (chapter
25.26.060).
6. The priceless value of my parent's home is to a great degree, based on the
commanding views they enjoy all day and night from the key habitable spaces in their
home. These are their peaceful and serene spaces. To block the view would result in
a significant devaluation of their property and more importantly to their well being
and enjoyment of the space with their children and �randchildren. This is exactly
why the design guidelines and re�ulations were created. If projects like this were
allowed to proceed, the value of all Burlingame homes and long time owners would
come under assault.
In summary, my parents have been a part of the Burlin�ame community and lived in
this home for over 40 years. This home is where they raised their 5 children and
where we still all gather 4 to 5 times a week for dinners and family events that now
includes our spouses and grandchildren.
One of the most important characteristics of a community and of our community
leaders is always strive to do the right thing because that is what defines our
individual and collective character. In this case, it seems quite clear what the right
thing is and that this proposed addition should be denied.
I greatty appreciate your consideration.
Very Best Regards,
Vera Zaarour
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: jojt1 mca@aol.com
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 6:49 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: : Proposed Modification to Williams Residence at 2711 Burlingview Dr.
Dear Mr. Hurin,
I'm writing you regarding the proposed second floor addition to the Williams' residence at 2711 Burlingview Dr and
the impact that such construction would have on the Zaarours family who reside at the neighboring house at 2717
Burlingview Dr.
I have never met the Williams family and met the Zaarours just recently when they contacted me about the proposed
construction. While my house is not in the immediate area of the 2711 address (it's six doors away), I have previously
contested proposed construction next to my house and I remain concerned about preserving our neighborhood identity.
As you know better than I, the first bullet point under the Neighborhood Design Guidebook, Component 3: Impact on
Neighbors reads as follows:
"Compatibility is achieved by minimizing the impact and use and occupation on the neighboring properties by doing the
following:
�Respect the neighbors existing conditions and utilization. Design and orient additions to maintain existing qualities."
In addition to the Design Guidelines, the City of Burlingame has established review criteria for construction in hillside
areas under Title 25, Zoning , section 25.61.060 that states, in part:
"Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit."
At the Zaarours invitation, I visited their house last Saturday to see how the construction at the 2711 address would
impact them.Based on that visit and reading the design guidelines, I would just like to make the following comments:
— First, the Zaarours residence is listed as an address within the Hillside Construction Permit Area. So the provisions of
Title 25, section 25.61.060 apply to them.
� Second, the Zaarours currently have " existing distant views". The views from Zaarours house are impressive. Through
their large windows on the eastside of their house you can see San Francisco Bay; SF Airport; downtown San Francisco
and the east bay hills. (My thought when I saw this vista was, if this were a public viewing area instead of a private home,
the operators would install coin operated telescopes because the distant views are so intriguing!)
— Third, based on the Zaarours comments as well as the layout of the eastside of their home, the major theme of the
design of their house was to create a'habitable area' where they could spend significant hours of the day enjoying their
views. (The Zaarours can speak to this better than I).
I'm assuming that the reason for the City having Hillside Construction Area rules on the books is to preserve existing
views for the current beneficiary of the views. While there were no 'story poles' installed to outline the proposed
construction when i visited the Zaarours home, the design plans seem to indicate that the proposed construction
would erase the Zaarours views. In looking at staff reports for other construction applications in Burlingame, it seems to
me the second story construction at 2711 Burlingview Dr can be allowed only if: "the granting of the application will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity..."
In my opinion, the granting of a construction permit for a second floor on the 2711 residence would be both detrimental
(reduced quality of life due to loss of a forty year view) and iniurious ( presumably there would be some dimunition in the
value of the house) to the Zaarours. In addition, the granting of the permit in question would erode a benefit anyone with a
view living in our neighborhood assumes he has.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that approval not be given for a second story addition to the residence at 2711
Burlingview Dr.
Sincerely,
Terry McAloon
2759 Burlingview Dr.
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Lowell Stacy <lowell.stacy2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 5:57 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Cc: Dina Zaarour
Subject: Z711 Burlingview Drive
Mr. Hurin,
I inaccurately referred to 2712 in my previous email referring to - impact in a negative way the current view on
2712 Burlingview. In fact I was referring to 2717 Burlingview Dr. This email serves as a correction. Please
attach to the file.
Correction as follows:
I am the owner of 2712 Burlingview Dr, which is across the street from 2711 Burlingview Dr., the property
seeking approval for new� construction. After reviewing the construction drawings and after an actual visit to the
property at 2717 Burlingview Drive, I see no reason that this project as currently defined should be approved.
Approval by the City of Burlingame would dramatically impact in a negative way the current scenic view at
2717 Burlingvie�v Dr. I am confident that the o��ner(s) of 2711 Burlingview Dr. can work with their architect to
achieve a solution to their requirements while not negatively impacting other nearby home owners.
Thank you,
Lowell Stacy
Owner
2712 Burlingview Dr,
Burlingame, CA 94010
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Dr. Dennis Ngai <drdennisngai8.8.8@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 3:45 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin; dina.zaarour@gmail.com
Subject: 2711 and 2717 burlingview , burlingame ca 94010
HI Ruben
My name is Dennis Ngai
I live at
27�5 Summit Dr, Hillsborough, CA 94010
If you approve the plans, the view will be blocked. That would be a shock to existinb neighbors.
When my mom bought our house in 1999. For an income/ rental property, We approved our neighbor to extend
their house, not knowing that it blocked our property. We regret this decision.
Mr. Ruben If somebody, blocked your view how would you feel?
Also I have a neighbor, thats tinish building his monster house, but I had to live with 2 years of noisy
construction.. And I have to sleep on the week days , since I work at nights at times.
Please if you approve the construction, make them due it in a due time, so noise levels are minimal. and also if
views are blocked most minimal. I kno��� construction will make the neighborhood more valuable, but still try to
make it affordable for us old timers.
Dina also told me her parents are 80 years old. Ho��- would you like your mom, or grandma to listen to
construction for 2 years.
If so, I would propose you, tell clients to put Dina and family into another home, during this construction
Sincerely Dennis Ngai
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ruben Hurin,
Aaron Ho <aaron630ho@yahoo.com>
Monday, May 6, 2019 9:35 PM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Burlingview Drive Planning Commission Hearing
After looking inside the Zaarour family's property, it was evident that the plan being proposed by her
next-door neighbor would completely obstruct her view and block sunlight from entering her main
living room. As a resident of this neighborhood, I've visited several of our neighbor's houses and
every one of their houses has at least one view of the bay area and SFO. I believe that preserving
this for everyone in our neighborhood is imperative so that everyone can enjoy an undisturbed view of
our beautiful bordering cities. Allowing our neighbor to build upwards especially in the location being
planned would be unfair to her and her family because it would not only obstruct their view, but also
probably lower their property value as a direct result of them increasing theirs. I appreciate you
taking the time to read over our concerns.
Thank you,
Aaron Ho
2729 Burlingview Drive
Burlingame, CA, 94010
(415)438-0064
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
P K <petjamkor@yahoo.com>
Sunday, May 5, 2019 629 PM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Fwd: View obstruction at 2717 Burlingview Dr.
Subject: View obstruction at 2717 Burlinwiew Dr.
Hello Ruben.
Very recently, I have had the opportunity to observe the property at 2717 Burling��iew
Drive. These Burlingame Hills neighbors have been at this residence 40+ years. Their next door
neighbor below them at 2711 Burlingview want to build a second story addition �vhich will
negatively affect the beautiful view at the 2717 residence.
We are completely opposed to this 2nd story addition. Residents, my family included, moved to
Burlingame many years ago (60 years ago, my family), to live their lives, raise families and
retire and live out their senior years in their beautiful view homes.
It is sad that the residents at 2717 are eYperiencing this issue in their senior years.
This situation is of concern to me personally, for several reasons.
My family� moved to Burlingame in 1959.
I grew up on Mariposa Dr. In 1938, the next door nei�hbor below us built a second story
addition. This took a�vay half of my parents panoramic view-. Today, in her mid- 90's, still
residing at her Mariposa Dr home, my mother sadly thinks back on the days that she had a
panoramic vie�v of the SF Bay.
AQain in the 1990's, �vhile I have continued to live on Summit Dr., there was another plan to
build up a second story addition at 2700 Summit Dr. The resident at 2705 opposed the build and
w�on. No addition �vas built. This is one block from Burlinavie�v.
The street �vas named Burlin�view for a reason. Beautifiil views!
We are opposed to the 2nd story construction addition at 2711 Burlingview Dr.
Kindest regards,
Chrisie Koras Kuno
Peter Koras
Sent from my iPhone
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: carol vollen <vollen.carol@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2019 5:37 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: Properties at 2711 and 2717 Burlingview Dr. in Burlingame
Dear Mr. Hurin:
My name is Carol Vollen and I live at 2741 Burlingview Dr. in Burlingame. I have become aware of a concern by my
neighbors at 2717 Burlingview Dr. about the proposed construction of a 2nd story on the property at 2711. The concern
is due to the obstruction of their view. I went to see their house and their view and the plans for the proposed
construction. There is no doubt that their view would be grievously affected. We who live on Burlingview Dr. are very
attached to our views of the bay and the airport. And the Zaarours (residents of 2717) have spectacular views. I know
there is an ordinance protecting the views of hill residents, so there is no justification for impinging on their views. It
affects all of us. If this were allowed to go through, the ordinance would become meaningless, and our protections
would disappear. And, in addition to the loss of view, there would be a corresponding decrease in the value of the
property.
I implore you to turn down this proposed construction.
Carol Vollen
2741 Burlingview Dr.
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-242-1650
. CITY OF BURLINGAME
' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
���� BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�;�
'�� PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE
The City of Burlingame Planning fammission annaunces the fallowing
public hearing on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2019 at 7:00 P.M.
in the (ity Nall Council Cham6ers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, [A:
Application for Design Review, Hiilside Area Construction Permit,
Variances for Front Setback, Side Sethack and Parking, and Special
Permit for an addition to the main level of an existing single family
dwelling, to convert the existing garage to living space, and for a new
lower level attnched garage at
2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 017.261.100
Mailed: November 1, 2019
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
City of Burlin.c�ame
A copy of the application and plans for #his project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject applicativn(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only thos� 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.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director
PUBL1� HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
2711 Burlingview Drive
300' noticing
APN #: 027.261.100
., J v L r
. .a
.��4A'-
:
:'' ,� � +�
% %
� � �:1 j
-.. i �
.
: ••, 1` �`1�Q p �-� �� j
. -
`�, +i � � n Lt
� , [�, c:� � 4 � i'
�
' , c-� s. Q N '
••.. % , � c; ; �- i
� �'' �. i
, c.`� i?r, ���,.. �.��, �� � � li a
_,,, � ,�,•t �,,, C�, � � '
� � �' ��, C�
� p a �� � � '�
,� ,`
�.,•%� p�� �, I •,, ,
�17 � A` •�•.�or�i��
_ - � - t---_ _ i
� � _
�' , i �
e• ti�7�Ei ` u� C.�.1 . I � � �� ! = ' .
♦ ��� �" I I r .
�_ �f �aF9 / �G, f e�� � _
/' , ; �
.�' f -_ � .,' r `' �'� � �i
r � �
+ �'rY. �� .. � p
�� � ���C! ` �a�i . � �I- g• i � . �
P��� � � �C� � ; �
' r,,� �^J ` �� y r
►� �1 1 ��F/� fJ �p� � �: ' , � � - ----
� d� ` � � cL - � ti � �- r
: �
� � ♦ �, � . ,` �' �, d
.�'•i• � � . ��J�
� �." . y'D�� ^ I�
, � `��47 . � ,, ��¢� ,, a ' a --- � ���
v�- l�j .. �j r. �f�� 9
d �"� ... � " � i �: ^� .. . I ".
�S c� �� (5�1 ;�` r�,r% *~ , i _
� �} �� ;1:�' �p �� ! � . _ _ ` ..
� �.:. � • 4�
'�•♦ ' � :, � u, ,
� = � c''�Jav i ,„: � � •7.
� � ��. � + ;
• .i � � •
� �. p� �'♦ � ♦ � � a �
� � �I� � � � q
� y+-�� � ,�I • I M
� ! r`,� `�� �•�' �O �
d► 1 '`''1 I � � ��
eb c,� � I'
� �' ,
. ,
Item No. 9c
Design Review Study
PROJECT LOCATION
2711 Burlingview Drive
City of Burlingame
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit,
Side Setback Variance and Special Permits
Address: 2711 Burlingview Drive
Item No. 9c
Design Review Study
Meeting Date: May 13, 2019
Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special
Permits for building height and declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an
existing single family dwelling.
Applicant and Designer: Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design
Property Owners: Charles and Diana Williams
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 027-261-100
Lot Area: 10,822 SF
Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The site is located on a sloping lot, which slopes upward from front to rear by
approximately 28 feet and upward from left to right by 12 feet. The existing two-story house, consisting of a
main level and an attached garage below it, contains 2,531 SF of floor area and has three bedrooms. The
applicant is proposing an addition to the main dwelling and a second floor addition above it, which would
increase the total floor area to 4,099 SF (0.38 FAR) where 4,563 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The
project is 464 SF below the maximum allowable floor area.
The subject property is located in the Hillside Area and Code Section 25.61.020 of the Burlingame Municipal
Code states that no new structure or any addition to all or a portion of an existing structure shall be constructed
within the affected area without a Hillside Area Construction Permit. In addition, it states that review by the
Planning Commission shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of
nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a
dwelling unit.
With this application, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to five. Three off-street parking spaces,
two of which must be covered, are required for this project. The existing attached garage provides two covered
parking spaces (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions provided where 18'-0" x 18'-0" is the minimum required for an
existing garage) and one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code
requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010
(a) (2));
■ Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.61.020);
■ Side Setback Variance (5'-1'/2" proposed on the first and second floors along the left side of the house
where 7'-0" is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c));
■ Special Permit for building height between 30' and 36' (35'-5" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum
allowed) (C.S. 25.26.060 (a) (1)); and
• Special Permit for declining height envelope (85 SF (2'-7' x 33'-0") extends beyond the declining height
envelope along the left side of the house) (C.S. 25.26.075 (a)).
This space intentionally left blank.
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit,
Side Setback Variance and Special Permits
2711 Burlingview Drive
2711 Burlingview Drive
Lot Area: 10,822 SF Plans date stam ed: March 29, 2019
i � �
; EXISTING ; PROPOSED ; ALLOWED/REQ'D
i I
SETBACKS � �
�
... ...... ........ . _ .---_.. .._. + _.._. _. _ _ . .._ ...._ _ ... . . _.
-- -._ ._ .._...._....._ _..._.. .�. . ..._._—....__ _ . ----- - - -- - - _
Fronf (1st flr): � 14'-7'/2"' : 27'-1'/2° to porch column � 15'-6" (block average)
(2nd flr): � n/a ; 34'-1'/2" 20'-0"
_..__._.-------_..----- ---.._._._..__..__..__.._......._....;...._._._...._..._..._...._._....---- '
}----_ ----.._......_._. __...---........__._.._...._1 ______........_......._........---..__._._ ................_._.__...._....._.._.._....._....._.
Side (left): � 5'-1'/"' ; 5'-1'/2" to 1St 8� 2"d floors 2' 7'-0"
r� ht 11'-2%4° ' 43'-33/" i 7'-0"
( 9 )� '
i ;
_.....-----.._......_....._...._._......._..........._.._..._.._._.._._.........__._...._.....__.._.._...._._......_.._...._....._.__......_.__.....__..._._ .....................:...._.___....................._.............__..._............__...._._..--------------._.........._........_...._.._...--- -
�---. .__...---- ___._.._......_..._ ............._
Rear (1sf flr): � 63'-5'/2" 45'-7" ; 15'-0"
(2nd flr): I n/a 49'-6'/2° � 20'-0"
_.....-- ---------------.:_.—_..__._.._.......__
,
_--_..._...._...__._...._.....__...,.. _............_ .
_ ...._......_.__...._....__ .................._._.._.._..._...__._....._._........_._.__.................._..---...._.._..._............----...... _..__..._....................._..................--
Lot Coverage: � 1958 SF 2705 SF � . 4329 SF
� 18% 24.9% ! 40%
_.__..__.. _ ._ t ....._._ __._. _ _ _.. . _...__.. _..._._ __-------___..._.._..._._._.........---.._............_..._..__..._........._
� _. _.._.._.._ .__ ,
FAR: i 2531 SF 4099 SF ; 4563 SF'
1 0.23 FAR 0.38 FAR 0.42 FAR
_...._....._.._.----._..__.._..---..-------.._._ _ _. ! ;
-�-- ----. ..._......___._..__._.._.._............___.. ._ .. .. .. ..... : .. __. ......._........ _. _ _ . _.
_....-------_..__..__..__..........__.....___.....__. . ........ .........._.._ .._.. _...._ .._._._._....._ _ . __
# of bedrooms: i 3 5 ---
�
___----._..........__----___---.._.__._.—.._.........i.._....._............_...._....._...._......__._...---...�._..._._.....--__�.._.._----_....._...._...._...-----.....------__.._..-----.._....._...---- ----_..__..._.._...---._....._ ........................._......__.._._
,
Off-Street Parking: � 2 covered no change ' 2 covered
(20' x 20') ; � (20' x 20')
1 uncovered ; 1 uncovered
i (9' x 20') i (9' x 20')
_.......__ ........ ......................._....._..._....._. _......._._._..... .............;...---._..._.....---__......_._..--------------._._..._..:_...__..._-----....----...----.._._.____..._:................._................___._......_.._._....._......_..._..._.__...._..__.............................
Building Height: ; 27'-1" ' 35'-5" 4 ! 30'-0"
i �
� �
_ ..........................._.._..-------......_..._.._..-----.._..-,---- --------- -�.--...—.._.._.__._.._.__._...._.._.....____...._............._....._..........---t.....__------�._.................__...._..._..__._................._._..._......._..__.......
DH Envelope: ` --- i special permit required 5 � CS 25.26.075
' Existing nonconforming setbacks.
2 Side Setback Variance (5'-1'/2" proposed on the first and second floors along the left side of the house where
7'-0" is the minimum required).
' (0.32 x 10,822 SF) + 1100 SF = 4,563 SF (0.42 FAR)
4 Special Permit for building height between 30' and 36' (35'-5" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum
allowed).
5 Special Permit for declining height envelope (85 SF (2'-7" x 33'-0") extends beyond the declining height
envelope along the left side of the house).
Staff Comments: The applicant submitted email exchanges with the adjacent neighbors at 2717 Burlingview
Drive regarding discussing the proposed project. Several letters and emails were submitted expressing
concerns with view blockage from the proposed project. These documents are attached for review.
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:
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;
2
Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, 2711 Burlingview Drive
Side Seiback Variance and Special Permits
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by
the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby
properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling
unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060).
Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find
that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are
consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is
consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is
appropriate.
Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager
c. Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer
Charles and Diana Williams, property owners
Attachments�
Application to the Planning Commission
Variance Application
Special Permit Application
Email Exchanges Submitted by Applicant
Letters and Email Submitted Expressing Concerns with Proposed Project
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 3, 2019
Area Map
3
yy`IC-1l i",�;!
r_•�\
BURI.INGAME �
ZC� ,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of appiication:
0 Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #:___ _(� 2� �'�Ca� ' � ��
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other:
PROJ ECT ADDRESS: Z� �� ��/� N C1 �%l�' (,(� �
APPLICANT
Name: Robert Wehmever
Address: 1204 Burlingame Ave Suite No 7
City/State/Zip: Burlinqame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 340-1055
E-mail: robCc�rcwehmever.com
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: C H-V cK- -t �t A�14 c.�)� t� I�-s�-�LS
Address: �7�� RcJR-Ll�� Vl�t�-� ��
C ity/State/Zi p: ��,72LL �% Cz I�Wt �, CA- �I �-�0 ��
Phone: (,GoS'a� ��' 7Z�
E-mail:
Name: Robert Wehmeyer/ Wehmeyer DesiQn
Address: 1204 Burlinqame Ave Suite No 7
City/State/Zip: Burlinqame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 340-1055
E-mail: rob(c�rcwehmeyer.com
���������
�;� F - 7 20i7
CI�fY O� B!JF��it�GAME
CDD-rl_��,h�Nl��G C)IV.
Burlingame Business License #: 29217
Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this
application on the City's website as part of t lanning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising out of or related to such action. c (Initials of Architect/Designer)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ( N"(��-1.��R Q�E�I.OD�I� -� tPrP� l^L / C� �'`, Z d � � �Z.�'�
'� l� �— g-�l'l7 S�'o(� D �Lc7 � Q.� Zo f�-� �� SZ i�% l`l�
S1.o�2�f t��=.�� DE►�C� .
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and beli
ApplicanYs signature: G �' �� Date:_ 7' ��i' (�
I am aware of the proposed application and hereb uthorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning
Commission.
Property owner's signature:__ ���—��/ ��l — Date: l �
Date submitted: � I ��! �7
5:1 HANDOUTS�PC Application. doc
IT
�� ll
i �..:�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
�'����'
����r�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATION
� � 9 2019
;IT( - �U?L(^':GAM�
�`r'1 iU ;: p r, i+�. ?�'
Cu�.,-, I_r,,�1i�,::�1t� �.`
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
your property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
The existing home is in a neighborhood full of residences that are sited on lots with steep
grades not common throughout Burlingame.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property /oss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denia/ of the application.
The request is necessary in order to help maintain both the neighbors "views" as well as
the privacy of all involved. Denial of the application will result in a hardship to the
applicant as the various grades and scopes on their property gravely limit their ability to
expand their home in line with their neighbors and to accommodate their growing family.
c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
As the variance request is limited to the northwest side of the property in a
neighborhood full of like structures. There is nothing that causes a detriment to the
general welfare of the community. Rather, by granting the request, it preserves the
existing hillside and grades that support the surrounding residences.
.�
How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
The proposed project scope, scale, and massing is in line with the surrounding
properties and their character. All of the homes area "cut into" the hillside and the
rather steep sloping grades. We have taken great care, at the owners demand to set
the addition back and tucked away to minimize any and all impact o the neighboring
property.
HandoutslVariance Application.2008
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlineame•or�
�.,.�,:��
�
i��!�' ����
CITY OF BURLINGAME � � �'
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION N�
�������
2 9 2019
CITY OF BUR�4NGAME
CD�-?l_� �!t�Sii��lG �E��.
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making
the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink.
Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why t{:e blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of tlte new
construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the
existing street and neighborhooct.
The new addition is consistent with the variety of two level and split level homes
throughout the neighborhood. The current structure sits on a steeper portion of the
street and consists of a garage below a single story home.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exteriorfinish materials and elevations of
the proposed ne►v structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street
and neigliborlroo�l
In lieu of the existing stucco facade, the proposed remodel includes new exterior
finishes all around both the new and existing areas. These details including cedar
shingles, new exterior trims, windows and trellises which assist in minimizing the
massing that exists and allows the house to blend into the natural setting.
3. How wi!! the proposed project be consistent witli tlie residential design guide/ines
adopted by tlre city (C.S. 25.57)?
The proposed project is consistent in size, scale and character with all of the homes
in not only the immediate neighborhood but also with those in "lower" Burlingame
as well.
4. Explain how the remova! of any trees located within tlte footprint of any �tew structure or
addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. Wliat
mitigation is proposed for tlte removal of any trees? E.rplain w1:y this mitigation is
appropriate.
We will not remove any existing trees as part of this application.
SPECPF.RM.FRM
Begin forwarded message:
From: C Williams <charles.williams�z�gmail.com>
Date: May 7, 2019 at 1:15:15 PM PDT
To: Rob Wehmeyer <rob(n,rcwehmeyer.com>
Subject: Fwd: Remodel � 2711 Burlingview Drive
---- Forwarded message ---------
From: C Williams <charles.williams ,na,,�mail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: Remodel � 2711 Burlingview Drive
To: Dina Zaarour <dina.zaarour r.nr �mail.com>
Cc: <diana.l.williams78�gmail.com>, <rob c ,rcwehmever.com>
��'������
�,1AY - 7 20 i9
cirr o� �uR�;r��r,M�
CDv-F:%�,��1`ti�'�iG ��`!.
Ferial & Pete, just following up on this - we are more than happy to meet with the two of you to
discuss our plans and would look forward to it, but we are not willing to meet if you bring your
lawyer.
Our intention is for this meeting to be a neighbor to neighbor discussion. I,et us know if the two
of you can meet.
Look forward to hearing back from you.
Best,
Chuck
On Aug 21, 2018, at 11:13 AM, C Williams <charles.williams c amail.com> wrote:
Thx. We don't think we ever received any of the emails as we checked. If you could kindly
forward them that would be great (re-copying Diana). Perhaps you had the wrong email?
As we mentioned earlier this year, we
were planning on having you over to walk through the plans. I don't think it is necessary to have
a lawyer there as we would prefer this to be a neighbor to neighbor interaction. I am cc'ing Rob
who is our architect and contractor who will join us. Will revert back to you once we are able to
confirm day and time and whether he is available.
Look forward to walking you through the project and design.
Best,
Chuck
On Aug 21, 2018, at 12:16 AM, Dina Zaarour <dina.zaarour���mail.com> wrote:
Hi Chuck and Diana,
Hope all is well.
We also value the neighbor relationship and had sent two emails to Diana's email
address back in February but never heard back from you. We are available to meet
next Wednesday 8/29 after 6pm. Does that work for you? We will be attending, along
with our children and our attorney.
Best,
Pete & Ferial Zaarour
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:58 PM, C Williams <charles.williams(a��mail.com> wrote:
Pete & Furiel,
Hope both of you are well.
I know earlier this year we indicated we were planning on doing a remodel and once we were
done adjusting the plans, we wanted to have you over to review them with you as we very much
value the neighbor relationship. We can have our contractor there as well to help answer
questions.
Let us know some days and times that might work for you. Looking forward to discussing.
Best,
Chuck and Diana Williams
-- Fonvarded message ---------
From: C Williams <charles.��-illiams a��mail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:01 PM�
Subject: Follow up
To: <dina.zaarourn�mail.com>
Cc: <diana.l.williams78�a��mail.com>
Pete & Ferial,
�-�i���l���
MAY - 7 2019
CITY Or BURLINGt�i�,4E
CDD-r! i:^7Pvl�lG nIV.
An individual who indicated you have engaged as your lawyer, Mark Hudak, contacted us on
Sunday August 27th. Given our neighbor relationship and given neither of us our lawyers, we
kindly request all communication come directly from you (not from your lawyer). In addition,
given we value the neighbor relationship and given you have not seen the plans yet, we think it is
premature to engage a lawyer and respectfully decline his invitation to join you at our house to
walk through the plans. However, we would be more than happy to host both of you (without
your lawyer) at our house to discuss the plans. Let us know if you are willing to meet - we very
much look forward to doing so.
Best,
Chuck & Diana
2711 Buriingview Drive
=z
Letters & Emails of Concern Submitted by Neighbors
LAW OFFICES OF
MARK D. HUDAK
177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
San Mateo, CA 94402
April 18, 2019
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650)638-2390
Mark@mhudaklaw.com
��f� ��r� ���
� �'� � :n.- � �?.� =�-
..;,
�. t' � i � L � � ��
Re: Hillside Construction Permit Application
2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Commissioners:
• --
C;-:Y Ct= �?fJr��i^�_l�;^.'����-
C.; -,.�.; ;,,�a - �
_,_ ..._.,. _ .
My firm represents Peter and Ferial Zaarour and their family members. The Zaarours own the
home at 2717 Burlingview Drive. They oppose the application submitted by Charles and Diana
Williams to add a story to their home at 2711 Burlingview Drive. They request review by the
Planning Commission pursuant to the Hillside Construction ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter
25.60.
The Zaarours purchased their home more than 40 years ago. They enjoy wonderful unobstructed
views from their living room, family room, kitchen and communal dining room. These distant
views include San Francisco Bay, San Bruno Mountain, the Bay Bridge, parts of the San
Francisco skyline, and the East Bay Hills. At night, the views become a delightful carpet of
lights extending in all directions. Pete and Ferial are retired and, not surprisingly, spend nearly
every waking hour in these rooms, enjoying the views and warm sunlight. Their entire family,
including grandchildren, live in the area and are at their home three or four times a week. They
are a very close family and their activities are centered in these rooms with their special views.
Last year, their neighbors proposed a massive second-story addition to their existing home. They
submitted plans without having shown them to the Zaarours. Even a brief review of the plans
showed that the Zaarours' views would be eliminated. After being notified by the Planning
Department about the application, the Zaarours expressed their concerns about the taking of their
views. The Planning Department returned the plans for revisions and nothing was submitted for
a year. Now, Mr. and Mrs. Williams have submitted a new set of plans, with slight revisions
from the previous set. But the revised design has the same problem — it would eliminate the
existing views from the Zaarours' home almost entirely while giving new views to 2711
Burlingview,
The current proposal for the second floor includes a game room, a wine bar, a second family
room, and an offce. These bonus rooms do not justify the obliteration of the Zaarours' views.
Planning Commission
April 18, 2019
T'he current drawings include several alleged "views" from a window in 2717 Burlingview,
shown on Sheets A7.1, A7.2, and A7.3. Since the project designer has not been in the Zaarours'
home, the basis for these drawings is unclear. But they appear to be deliberate attempts to
mislead the Commission.
These renderings purport to show that the views from 2717 Burlingview would only be partially
blocked, with views remaining above the new roof line. But these drawings are not to scale.
They deliberately depict a smaller, more distant addition than the actual plans.
More important, the roof line of the proposed second story is well above the level of the
windows on the left side of 2717 Burlingview, as depicted on the Proposed Street Elevation on
Sheet A7.0. Consequently, views from the windows in 2717 Burlingview would look directly
into the wall and roof of the new addition, with no sight lines �bove. The existing distant views
will be lost entirely. The Commission should be deeply suspicious of a purported visual
representation that is not consistent with the actual plans.
Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.61 was enacted to protect existing distant views.
Section 25.61.060 provides that emphasis should be given to the obstruction of view from
habitable areas within nearby homes, such as those from the Zaarours' family room and Iiving
room. Pete and Ferial are entitled to the protection of their views under this section.
Because the drawings from the Williams' designer aze not reliable, we request that story poles be
erected and certified by an independent engineer. Then, we invite all Commissioners to visit the
Zaarours' home and see the degree of obstruction for themselves. The Zaarours' will hold their
house open for this purpose on May 11 from 9:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. If any Commissioner is
unable to visit during that time, we would be happy to make arrangements at any convenient
time.
Mr. and Mrs. Williams knew they had no views when they purchased their home. They are well
aware of the views enjoyed by the Zaarours. Why should they be able to reverse the status quo
and deprive Pete and Ferial of their existing views?
It is unfortunate that Mr. and Mrs. Williams have decided to proceed with their application in the
face of known objections from the Zaarours and the restrictions in Chapter 25.60. We will attend
the hearing on May 13 to provide additional information and answer any questions. In the
meantime, we look forward to seeing you on May 11 or any other time you can visit the house.
Very Truly Yours,
:-��J ' � ...
,� � -
Mark D. Hudak
cc: Clients
Planning Department
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin � �� � � "$� �
FEB 2 5 20 i8
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dina Zaarour <dina.zaarour@gmail.com>
Sunday, February 25, 2018 11:06 PM CITY OF BUr�! INGAME
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin CDD-PIAt�lN1NG DI\�.
2717 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame
Zaarour - 2717 Burlingview Drive -1.JPG; Zaarour - 2717 Burlingview Drive -2 .1PG;
Zaarour - 2717 Burllingview Drive.JPG
To:
Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner, City of Burlingame
William Meeker, Director of Community Development, City of Burlingame
Planning Commission and Hillside Construction Review Commission, City of Burlingame
RE: Obstruction of view at 2717 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame
Dear Mr. Hurin,
As previously discussed and based on our dire concerns, we are writing this letter to request a full
review of the application pursuant to Chapter 25.61 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (sections:
25.61.050 and 25.61.060) for the proposed second floor addition at
2711 Burlingview Drive in Burlingame. We ask that you please forward this letter to the Director of
Community Development, Mr. Meeker, and the full Planning Commission and Hillside Construction
Review Commission. We understand that the plans for 2711 Burlingview Drive have not been
resubmitted yet, but would like to voice our concerns about our neighbor's application.
We are the property owners of 2717 Burlingview Drive in Burlingame, the upper next door neighbors
to 2711 Burlingview Drive. We purchased our house 40 years ago back in 1978 largely and most
importantly because of the spectacular views from our habitual living spaces: kitchen, dining area
and family room. A meaningful part of the value in our home is the view of the landmarks: the
valley, lower Burlingame, San Francisco International Airport, San Bruno mountains, East Bay, the
Bay Bridge and downtown San Francisco.
Just recently, we found out that our next door neighbors at 2711 Burlingview Drive are planning to
expand their home by building a second story addition, adding a completely new view to their
property, while obstructing our view of 40 years. Their proposed second floor addition would not
only obstruct the view from our home, it would have a great impact on the market value of our
property. The neighbor's new second story addition would increase the value of their property while
decreasing the value of our property.
We attempted to speak with our neighbors at 2711 Burlingview Drive by reaching out via email to ask
if we can meet to discuss our concerns; however they have not responded to our emails.
The proposed new second story addition would destroy our lifestyle as we are finally retired and
spend most of our time in these living spaces enjoying the view, the sunlight and our privacy. The
views have been and are part of our daily life and wellness for many, many years and we share this
lifestyle with our children and grandchildren. We never plan on selling this home as our family has
truly enjoyed living and being a part of the Burlingame community for 40 years and we intend for our
children and our grandchildren to continue enjoying and living the same.
We would like to meet with you and invite you to our home to see how our views will be impacted
and greatly affected by this new second story addition. We have attached several photos from our
family room, kitchen and dining area for your review.
We appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Zaarour Family
2717 Burlingview Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
t. 650.245.1171
View from 2717 Burlingview Drive
View from 2717 Burlingview Drive
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
P K <petjamkor@yahoo.com>
Sunday, May 5, 2019 629 PM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Fwd: View obstruction at 2717 Burlingview Dr.
Subject: View obstruction at 2717 Burlingview Dr.
Hello Ruben.
Very recently, I have had the opportunity to observe the property at 2717 Burlingview
Drive. These Burlingame Hills neighbors have been at this residence 40+ years. Their next door
neighbor below them at 2711 Burlingview want to build a second story addition which will
negatively affect the beautiful view at the 2717 residence.
We are completely opposed to this 2nd story addition. Residents, my family included, moved to
Burlingame many years ago (60 years ago, my family), to live their lives, raise families and
retire and live out their senior years in their beautiful view homes.
It is sad that the residents at 2717 are experiencing this issue in their senior years.
This situation is of concern to me personally, for several reasons.
My family moved to Burlingame in 1959.
I grew up on Mariposa Dr. In 1988, the next door neighbor below us built a second story
addition. This took a�vay half of my parents panoramic view. Today, in her mid- 90's, still
residing at her Mariposa Dr home, my mother sadly thinks back on the days that she had a
panoramic view of the SF Bay.
Again in the 1990's, while I have continued to live on Summit Dr., there was another plan to
build up a second story addition at 2700 Summit Dr. Thc resident at 2705 opposed the build and
won. No addition was built. This is one block from Burlingview.
The street was named Burlingview for a reason. Beautiful views!
We are opposed to the 2nd story construction addition at 2711 Burlingview Dr.
Kindest regards,
Chrisie Koras Kuno
Peter Koras
Sent from my iPhone
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Hurin:
carol vollen <vollen.carol@gmail.com>
Sunday, May 5, 2019 5:37 PM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Properties at 2711 and 2717 Burlingview Dr. in Burlingame
My name is Carol Vollen and I live at 2741 Burlingview Dr. in Burlingame. I have become aware of a concern by my
neighbors at 2717 Burlingview Dr. about the proposed construction of a 2nd story on the property at 2711. The concern
is due to the obstruction of their view. I went to see their house and their view and the nlans for the nr000sed
construction. There is no doubt that their view would be grievously affected. We who live on Burlingview Dr. are very
attached to our views of the bay and the airport. And the Zaarours (residents of 2717) have spectacular views. I know
there is an ordinance protecting the views of hill residents, so there is no justification for impinging on their views. It
affects all of us. If this were allowed to go through, the ordinance would become meaningless, and our protections
would disappear. And, in addition to the loss of view, there would be a corresponding decrease in the value of the
property.
I implore you to turn down this proposed construction.
Carol Vollen
2741 Burlingview Dr.
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-242-1650
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ruben Hurin,
Aaron Ho <aaron630ho@yahoo.com>
Monday, May 6, 2019 9:35 PM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Burlingview Drive Planning Commission Hearing
After looking inside the Zaarour family's property, it was evident that the plan being proposed by her
next-door neighbor would completely obstruct her view and block sunlight from entering her main
living room. As a resident of this neighborhood, I've visited several of our neighbor's houses and
every one of their houses has at least one view of the bay area and SFO. I believe that preserving
this for everyone in our neighborhood is imperative so that everyone can enjoy an undisturbed view of
our beautiful bordering cities. Allowing our neighbor to build upwards especially in the location being
planned would be unfair to her and her family because it would not only obstruct their view, but also
probably lower their property value as a direct result of them increasing theirs. I appreciate you
taking the time to read over our concerns.
Thank you,
Aaron Ho
2729 Burlingview Drive
Burlingame, CA, 94010
(415)438-0064
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Dr. Dennis Ngai <drdennisngai8.8.8@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 3:45 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin; dina.zaarour@gmail.com
Subject: 2711 and 2717 burlingview , burlingame ca 94010
HI Ruben
My name is Dennis Ngai
I 1 ive at
2755 Summit Dr, Hillsborough, CA 94010
If you approve the plans, the view will be blocked. That would be a shock to existing neighbors.
When my mom bought our house in 1999. For an income/ rental property, We approved our neighbor to extend
their house, not knowing that it blocked our property. We regret this decision.
Mr. Ruben If somebody, blocked your view how would you feel?
Also I have a neighbor, thats finish building his monster house, but I had to live with 2 years of noisy
construction.. And I have to sleep on the week days , since I work at nights at times.
Please if you approve the construction, make them due it in a due time, so noise levels are minimal. and also if
views are blocked most minimal. I know construction will make the neighborhood more valuable, but still try to
make it affordable for us old timers.
Dina also told me her parents are 80 years old. How would you like your mom, or grandma to listen to
construction for 2 years.
If so, I would propose you, tell clients to put Dina and family into another home, during this construction
Sincerely Dennis Ngai
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Lowell Stacy <lowell.stacy2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 5:57 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Cc: Dina Zaarour
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Drive
Mr. Hurin,
I inaccurately referred to 2712 in my previous email referring to - impact in a negative way the current view on
2712 Burlingview. In fact I was referring to 2717 Burlingview Dr. This email serves as a correction. Please
attach to the file.
Correction as follows:
I am the owner of 2712 Burlingview Dr, which is across the street from 2711 Burlingview Dr., the property
seeking approval for new construction. After reviewing the construction drawings and after an actual visit to the
pro,perty at 2717 Burlingview� Drive, I see no reason that this project as cunently defined should be approved.
Approval by the City of Burlingame would dramatically impact in a negative way the current scenic view at
2717 Burlingview Dr. I am confident that the owner(s) of 2711 Burlingview Dr. can work with their architect to
achieve a solution to their requirements while not negatively impacting other nearby home owners.
Thank you,
Lowell Stacy
Owner
2712 Burlingview Dr,
Burlingame, CA 94010
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jojt1 mca@aol.com
Monday, May 6, 2019 6:49 PM
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Proposed Modification to Williams Residence at 2711 Burlingview Dr.
Dear Mr. Hurin,
I'm writing you regarding the proposed second floor addition to the Williams' residence at 2711 Burlingview Dr and
the impact that such construction would have on the Zaarours family who reside at the neighboring house at 2717
Burlingview Dr.
I have never met the Williams family and met the Zaarours just recently when they contacted me about the proposed
construction. While my house is not in the immediate area of the 2711 address (iYs six doors away), I have previously
contested proposed construction next to my house and I remain concerned about preserving our neighborhood identity.
As you know better than I, the first bullet point under the Neighborhood Design Guidebook, Component 3: Impact on
Neighbors reads as follows:
"Compatibility is achieved by minimizing the impact and use and occupation on the neighboring properties by doing the
following:
�Respect the neighbors existing conditions and utilization. Design and orient additions to maintain existing qualities."
In addition to the Design Guidelines, the City of Burlingame has established review criteria for construction in hillside
areas under Title 25, Zoning , section 25.61.060 that states, in part:
"Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit."
At the Zaarours invitation, I visited their house last Saturday to see how the construction at the 2711 address would
impact them.Based on that visit and reading the design guidelines, I would just like to make the following comments:
-- First, the Zaarours residence is listed as an address within the Hillside Construction Permit Area. So the provisions of
Title 25, section 25.61.060 apply to them.
— Second, the Zaarours currently have " existing distant views". The views from Zaarours house are impressive. Through
their large windows on the eastside of their house you can see San Francisco Bay; SF Airport; downtown San Francisco
and the east bay hills. (My thought when I saw this vista was, if this were a public viewing area instead of a private home,
the operators would install coin operated telescopes because the distant views are so intriguing!)
� Third, based on the Zaarours comments as well as the layout of the eastside of their home, the major theme of the
design of their house was to create a'habitable area' where they could spend significant hours of the day enjoying their
views. (The Zaarours can speak to this better than I).
I'm assuming that the reason for the City having Hillside Construction Area rules on the books is to preserve existing
views for the current beneficiary of the views. While there were no 'story poles' installed to outline the proposed
construction when i visited the Zaarours home, the design plans seem to indicate that the proposed construction
would erase the Zaarours views. In looking at staff reports for other construction applications in Burlingame, it seems to
me the second story construction at 2711 Burlingview Dr can be allowed only if: "the granting of the application will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity..."
In my opinion, the granting of a construction permit for a second floor on the 2711 residence would be both detrimental
(reduced quality of life due to loss of a forty year view) and injurious ( presumably there would be some dimunition in the
value of the house) to the Zaarours. In addition, the granting of the permit in question would erode a benefit anyone with a
view living in our neighborhood assumes he has.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that approval not be given for a second story addition to the residence at 2711
Burlingview Dr.
Sincerely,
Terry McAloon
2759 Burlingview Dr.
���������
May 6, 2019
i,�,Y � i �'�;`)
Dear Plannin� Commissioners,
� ��' {; �•���.,
.; I,i �� i.�J� .,..��`!'.:E,h.,�:;F
'��:1'1_�J; ":,��!'..�'��.�'� i-�tt
My name is Vera Zaarour and I am one of the 5 children of Pete � Fe'ri'al 7�aa'r�6ur who
live at 2717 Burlingview Dr. I am also a Burlingame homeowner at 1035 Morrell Ave.
This letter is in reference to the application for a second story addition to their next-
door neighbors at 2711 Burlin�view Dr. I am writing to express my strong opposition
to the proposed addition and to ask the commission to deny this application for the
reasons outlined below.
1. This addition would completely block my parent's views from 3 main windows of SF
bay, SFO, San Bruno hills &t downtown SF in the distance and drasticallv impact the
quality of their lives and well being. The orientation of my parent's home is such
that all of the key living areas; kitchen, dinin� room, and family room are on the
downhill side of the house (on purpose) to take in the expansive views that would
be obstructed by the proposed addition.
2. Burlingview Drive is listed as a street protected by the Hillside Ordinance. In so,
my parents home should be included and protected by this ordinance.
3. Not only would the views from my parent's home be blocked, but because the
neighbor's home is approximately 11'-12' feet away at the front corners, this addition
would significantly block the naturat light coming into all of the main living areas of
their home.
4. My professional background is in interior design and architecture and I have
thoroughly reviewed the drawings submitted. Their perspective drawings of my
parent's views on pages A7.1, A7.2, and A7.3 are incorrect and misleading as to the
view obstruction and further, the drawings on pages A7.0 and A7.1 show street
elevations and house separation distances that are incorrect. In actuality, the NE
corner of my parent's home is only 11+ feet from the neighboring house at 2711.
These erroneous depictions are drastically misleading.
5. Pages 8 and 9 of the Burlingame Design Guidelines clearly state that "additions
should be consistent with the neighborhood fabric and existing architecture, which
are both critical components of neighborhood compatibility. Further, new additions
should harmonize with existing houses and there should be only subtle evidence that
an addition was done." This proposed addition fails in all these areas and would
instead create a lar�e visual mass and have the layer cake appearance that the
guidelines strongly seek to avoid. The proposed addition also exceeds the 30-foot
height limitation set forth in the Burlingame R-1 District Regulations (chapter
25.26.060).
6. The priceless value of my parent's home is to a great degree, based on the
commanding views they enjoy all day and night from the key habitable spaces in their
home. These are their peaceful and serene spaces. To block the view would result in
a significant devaluation of their property and more importantly to their well being
and enjoyment of the space with their children and grandchildren. This is exactly
why the design �uidelines and regulations were created. If projects like this were
allowed to proceed, the value of all Burlingame homes and long time owners would
come under assault.
In summary, my parents have been a part of the Burlingame community and lived in
this home for over 40 years. This home is where they raised their 5 children and
where we still all gather 4 to 5 times a week for dinners and family events that now
includes our spouses and grandchildren.
One of the most important characteristics of a community and of our community
leaders is always strive to do the right thing because that is what defines our
individual and collective character. In this case, it seems quite clear what the right
thing is and that this proposed addition should be denied.
I greatly appreciate your consideration.
Very Best Regards,
Vera Zaarour
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: RENDA ZA'AROUR <rendaz@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 1121 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: Re: 2711 Burlingview Dr. / 2nd Story Addition/ View Obstruction
Hi Ruben,
Sorry- correction to last paragraph- "views are to be protected *from* obstruction"
Thank you,
Renda Za'arour
From: RENDA ZA'AROUR
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 11:14 PM
To: RHurin@burlingame.org
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Dr. / 2nd Story Addition/ View Obstruction
Dear Burlingame Planning Commission,
My name is Renda Za'arour. I am the third daughter of Pete and Ferial Za'arour, of 2717 Burlingview Drive.
I am writing to you today to request your attention to the details of the proposed second story addition of our
neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Williams, of 2711 Burlingview Drive. I am also asking that you consider my family's
deep concerns regarding our family home.
Mr. and Mrs. Williams have submitted revised plans for a second story addition that would completely eclipse
the light and eliminate the views from my parents' home. Also, the drawings submitted display vast
differences in visual scale to actual measurements. I implore you to see for yourself firsthand. What the
drawings depict versus what you will see, standing in our home, are strikingly different. I would like to give the
builder the benefit of the doubt, hoping that these are oversights or mistakes.
Our home of forty-one years has been the happy place where we all gather 2-3 times per week for Sunday
dinners, celebrations, and just visiting. We have shared all of our joys and sadnesses here together, as a
family.
All of these occasions have taken place in the east side of our home, which exhibits breath-taking views of
SFO, the bay, East bay, San Francisco, San Bruno Mountain, and the Burlingame Canyon. From my
grandmothers down to my two year old nephew, and plenty of friends and relatives in between, these views
have been enjoyed by four generations and counting. Our home and it's views will be loved by every
generation that wants it from here forward. It would be catastrophic for us to lose the views and light that are
so much part of our lives here. The view absorbs our thoughts when we are troubled, and gives us a feeling of
hope and happiness the rest of the days. It's truly something to behold.
I own a home (17 years) and a business (20 years) here in Burlingame just to be close to my family, and of
course because I love Burlingame so much. We are very much a Burlingame family and we are here to stay.
I believe that everyone should be able to enjoy the original features of the home they purchase. Per the
Hillside Ordinance under title 25, Zoning, section 25.61.060 the views are to be protected with obstruction to
any habitable areas. This beautiful view is irreplaceable, and is the main feature of our home.
To be clear, I am vehemently opposed to the construction of a second story addition at 2711 Burlingview
Drive.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Renda Za'arour
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Omar Zaarour <ozaarour@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 12:17 AM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: Loss of view at 2717 Burlingview
Please add my letter below to the file for opposition of the 2711 Burlin�view Dr. construction proposal.
Thank you,
Dear Mr Hurin and Planning Commission:
My name is Omar Zaarour, son of Peter & Ferial Zaarour, who live at 2717 Burlingview Drive. I'm writing to
the Planning Commission in support of my parents right to keep the beautiful view from their home of 41 years,
and in strong opposition to the proposed second floor addition at 2711 Burlingview that would completely
eliminate it.
My parent's purchased 2717 Burlingview in 1978 to raise their 5 children in the great community of
Burlingame, and because they fell in love with this home's expansive view of SFO, the bay, downtown San
Francisco and the Bay bridge. Now in their 80's, they are at home much more, spending all their time in the
living room/ kitchen, and the view is more important to them now than it was 41 years ago. The idea that my
parents may lose their view has made them extremely upset and depressed. It will have such a very negative
impact on their quality of life. Significantly decreasing the value of the home, their lifestyle in the house with
the view, and has had negative effects on their health as well at their advanced age. The lives of our entire
family have revolved around this house and the beauty of the view from these rooms. We are a close family
gathering at least weekly all together with my sisters, their kids, and my wife and children. The
living/kitchen/dining rooms of this house is where we spend all holidays and family occasions. My children ask
us every day to go to their grandparents house where they play in those rooms.
The loss of the view would change the dynamic of our home completely, and turn a beautiful expansive view
into an eye sore in front of three massive windows.
My parents have known and been very friendly with many of the neighbors on Burlingview throughout the
years, and as you can see by all the letters of support, they are well liked, respected, and have been good
neighbors to all including the family at 2711.
My wife, children and I ask that you deny this proposal.
Thank you,
Omar Zaarour and Family
415-225-0560
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: wai chow <wcchow@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 10:07 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Dr
Dear Ruben,
I am sending this message to you in regards to the proposed project on 2711 Burlingview Dr.
I am adamantly opposed to this project because:
1) it would set a precedent that it is ok to block existing views and that would not be fair to long-term
owners.
2) the project (large scale 2nd floor addition) would drastically change the character of the
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Ben Pang and Wai Ching Chow
2711 Summit Dr,
Burlingame Ca 94010
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Melissa Germaine <msmeig@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:30 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: APN 027.261.100 - Feedback on Public Hearing Notice
We are writing this email in response to the proposed remodel at 2711 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame CA. We
live at 2723 Burlingview Drive, two houses up from this property. While we support our neighbors' desire to
remodel and add square footage to their existing home, we are troubled by the scale of the proposed design
and most importantly, how it will block the views of our next door neighbor's existing home at 2717
Burlingview Drive. From the drawings, it looks like the proposed second story will totally block the light and
the views of their main living space as the roof line of the remodel will be above or at the same level as the
existing home. This would set a precedent for losing views throughout the neighborhood for anyone not
adding a second story to their home. We plan to attend the public meeting on 5/13/19 but also wanted to
send in this email to voice our concerns.
Please let us know if you have any questions or need further elaboration on this matter. Thank you for your
consideration.
Best, Melissa Germaine & David Klein
2723 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame CA 94010
415-269-7712
May 5, 2019
To: Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
City of Burlingame
From: Richard and Victoria Murphy
Homeowners at 2625 Summit Drive
Re: Proposed addition at 2711 Burlingview Drive
The following are our concerns:
����m9� ��
� � ���� � �
���AY - � ��i9
ci � Y o� 6��� �r�c;���
C!7i�-i='!._A�,in.,{\�'1 ��i':f.
1) History of home at 2711 Burlingview Drive
A) House was built by original developer with no windows on left side (solid
wall for a reason)
B) House has had serious cracks in basement (garage floor was replaced before
selling)
C) Trees have come down and fallen on 2625 Summit (with subsequent damage)
2) History of home at 2625 Summit Drive
A) Mudslides and flooding have occurred a number of times over the
years
B) Mudslides mixed with concrete resulted in Summit Drive being blocked a few
years ago
C) Considerable repairs have been made (at great expense) to shore up the
foundation of the house
3) Integrity of hillside is major concern (slides have resulted in major damages
to neighbors homes (2652 Summit and 2620 Summit.)
4) Original plans called for addition of a bedroom. This has now grown to the
addition of a"game room," second family room, an office, a"bar" and a
bathroom.
In conclusion, our concerns that an addition of this size to an already "fragile hill" could
result in a major problem. We will be attending the meeting on May 13, 2019 and will be
happy to explain all of the above in more detail.
Sincerely,
!��,� _ u':. �.t���t,
�?��,��P��...r�.�f.�,�.�����---
Richard and Victoria Murphy
2625 Summit Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: CATHY PAYNE <frog1325@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:06 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin; GRP-Planning Commissioners
Subject: re: 2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Mr. Hurin:
Since we will not be able to attend the upcoming hearing on the proposed project at 2711 Burlingview
Drive, we are sending this message to express our concerns about the project.
As neighbors and long time Burlingame Hills residents, we are concerned about the lack of
enforcement of the zoning code regarding additions or modifications of residences in hill side areas
(Ord. 1388 of 1989). From our understanding of the drawings, it is evident the next door neighbor at
2717 Burlingview Dr. would virtually lose most if not all of their current magnificent view. In its place
would be a view of the side of a home approximately 11 or 12 feet away. It is obvious to us that this
project would greatly impact the pleasure and enjoyment of the neighbor as well as the value of their
property. While this does not impact our view, as hillside residents we must all be mindful of the
potential our views could also be taken if the zoning ordinance is not taken seriously.
We ask that the commission reject to proposed plan and enforce to code which was enacted for this
very situation.
Gary and Catherine Payne
2754 Burlingview Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-347-1994
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Sandra Feder <svfeder@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 823 AM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
Subject: 2711 Burlingview Drive
Dear Ruben,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed addition of a second story to the home at
2711 Burlingview Drive. We understand that the proposed addition would block the views of longtime
residents on the street, the neighbors at 2717 Burlingview. As you might guess from the name of our
street, the views we have from our properties are important to all of us and affect our property values.
While I understand that city ordinances do allow for second-story additions, they do not allow for new
construction to block views. Thus, I would imagine you would not approve the current plans.
We had a good back-and-forth with the Planning Commission when our across-the-street neighbors
were converting a smaller home to a bigger one.The final designs were much improved in terms of
the character of the neighborhood than the original plans.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sandra Feder
2760 Burlingview Drive
. CITY OF BURLINGAME
� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
; ��� - BURLINGAME, CA 94010
' �g� � - PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, MAY 13, 2019 at
7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Cham6ers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Canstruction
Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special Permits for 6uilding
height and declining height envelope far a first and setond
floor addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2711
Burlingview Drive, zoned R-l. APN 021.261.100
Mailed: May 3, 2019
(Please refer fo ofher side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 940i0
City of Burlin_qame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be revie4ved 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 calf (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director
(Please refer to.other side)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
2711 Burlingview Drive
300' Radius
APN #027.261.100
'� !' �
♦
!'� e- aJ
I �
� p p �4��
I
4
I Fi �: � 53e1`� �p, �Q
.� �'��
,� P ���0 44Ja
� � q
d O
p Y�``, aa P �;'
Qqy3`� �� , �
q�Q rvtla� QCqO
� ���.�•�'"'� Q9/51fl
� ��
-0 q �, �� s:i� G no.
n �, W � _ w aaII�
0 7 ,,•-� j, ---- -__ �► G4�'
- + Q
i•�
� �1'' . ~� i ��Q� �j�� .
�%Cl � T,� +i'�� ! 1 9�'
J
c�
a
Q 44ti/
a"
ci l
Q
�o a
�� /
;�- � c�, :
C:. „
� .'
�
� �
♦ ♦ �
' , •��`._ � £'D€fl . �' ' q,
I, � ��p,�� ,,8� ,,`, a � ' _ �� _ �
i a •� ,. W r ""-�..
/ •1 Q p L'? ' y,
---_.� `�D� r�,,,�, � �b��. /
�, a..,,� �
d
� �D�Q �� Da J q
� U(� f
_i 3�ac� Q �� �4a� :,�
{ � ,�i �t7 G
1 �4�t1 .' �,� � n �, �
' 1. � I � d ;�r' ��
j �,�•�� i , � .i�' c`�J �U ♦
���� y � � `,'..- O .I,
�` rg I
� � ���
� '� I�
i s � � `� ,. .
� � � � � c� I'
�� � � . � �'
� �,.
- . r ;, ,,
i Y � .•� ��
, 60 . �..'���� �1��, , s
��
0
r� .
f,i�
;� J Cl �'� _ �
_ I 1���� 1 � ��
_ � +, •
� - ,� _ " �I
D j
� � a
� c!o 4 • i� � ` �.-
�;: Q � I � �� j� aK
�r ,,.�.�.�. ! i « _- --
� --- � -
�•��'' ,��. ��d p � � '
�• � r� c-� � � so
%�•�� ♦ c � 1 �.~
� �r ! ., �'�• . ,-, 7►` „ ,F . � ,
� � �T__' p � � �,tiy�
� ao � i i
�� � � i � �A� 1 ��
��,ro �-�____ _�� '�� � ,� ��
,
,,�� � � + 4 i ``� 1 i
� .� II '� +I � ,� ± r, .4 tit—J '` �1,
, , r� ` 1��: _
� +� °�'m --- _ ' ~ ' . � � -`
c7 - �� f' � i � � i
�, -,'a
��y�, � : �
��fl� ��
IT
`�
` �b��� . . �� �y.
T� Lb
��' ��
b
.o
J � �
�
�
m�
, �
r�
s
��
�e
�`�-�i • A� r
� ._ +� q % + r�
--- ;f _ ;� ����-� ;'�' �
--_`_ _--� 1:a �'� ! �'
6 � 7i— i? r,r' ,,• i Jr l
BELLA VISiP. f�R � �'•. I 1►
----� -_._-- . `����`�. ' �`�_ = M
� I �
M p
� I M
I
_ ��
l�T4 -_ +- _
1!d!
' '---
`t�`__� � -
1
�� �
� +
M `
i +
s
I p I p
I P I
i i