HomeMy WebLinkAbout1209 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff ReportItem No. 8b
Regular Action Item
.�' � ��
..� ;
; ' � ';� i
� � � :�
� �� �- ��
.� .� .,
.:; - ��' .1G
. � �
♦ �. �y � • -
+ �. �-,��r`" l
��-. ��� ,� ,�!:�
���°'� � �� ! � ■
;� ; � �; � � +� `�:
�' 4 y I ��
.,� . , ��, ;�.., � _
��"� ��"`.
�� ��� ' __ � `"
�� . _ � ;�'
� � /` . `�
� �:�' `1 :,. ".
r�r� w � �?�� �:
��4 �� � .,_ �• " +�
,
�.
� ��
� ��
��'``�� ,'�
��'��'� - '�
•.
f�A�U ... 4 1
`�
�v�
k.' F;A.',� ,' .
. �`
�. . .' � � Ys
i � : � p4��
w..
� . : �:��
-,. _ ''1 � 'A'
, . , - ��
��_. . - - `1�r!''
. - _ - _,,�: :� .
- �•� , �i�
PROJECT LOCATION
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Special Permit
Address: 1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Item No. 8b
Regular Action Item
Meeting Date: July 12, 2021
Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two-story single
family dwelling and attached garage.
Applicant and Architect: Patrick Donato, Levy Art & Architecture
Property Owners: Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 026-171-130
Lot Area: 6,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of
new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential
zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe
constructed or converted under this exemption.
History: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at
1209 Cabrillo Avenue was denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission on January 11, 2021. Please
refer to the attached Study and Regular Action meeting minutes for more detailed information and reasons the
project was denied without prejudice (January 11, 2021 and November 23, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes
attached).
The applicant has resubmitted the proposed project to address the concerns and suggestions previously
expressed by the Commission. Because substantial changes were made both to the design and siting of the
buildings, the application was brought to the Commission as a Design Review study item on May 10, 2021.
Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing
two-story single family dwelling and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and
attached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 3,019 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,020 SF (0.50
FAR) is the maximum allowed.
The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms (office on second floor does not qualify as a bedroom
since the only access to it is through another bedroom). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are
required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the attached garage (11'-3" x 20'-2" clear interior
dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in
compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met.
An arborist report, dated November 5, 2020, was prepared by Mayne Tree. The report notes that there are no
protected-sized trees on the subject property. However, there is a protected-sized Liquidamber street tree (26.8-
inch diameter) in the planting strip and a Flowering Pear tree (18-inch diameter) in the adjacent neighbor's rear
yard. The arborist report outlines tree protection measures for these trees.
Accessory Dwelling Unit
This project includes building a new 484 SF detached ADU at the rear of the lot. Review of the ADU application
is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the ADU
complies with the ADU regulations.
The applicant is requesting the following applications:
■ Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1));
and
■ Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)).
Design Review and Special Permit
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Lot Area: 6.000 SF
PROPOSED
SETBACKS
_ _..__ _ _ . ...........
Front (1st flr): 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 20'-0"
(attached garage: 25'-0"
_ _ _ ._
Side (left): 5'-0"
(righf): 4'-0"
_
Rear (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
Lof Coverage:
FAR:
_ __ _.
# of bedrooms:
Off-Street Parking:
_ _ _ _ _ _. _....
Building Height:
__ _ _ __....
DH Envelope:
37'-10"
50'-1"
1,984 SF
33.1 %
__
3,019 SF
0.50 FAR
_ .. . ....
ALLOWED/REQUIRED
_ __ _ __.... _
15'-0" (block average)
20'-0"
25'-0"
_ ..._ _.. _.. _ ... _
4'-0"
4'-0"
_ _ .. _...._._ _
15'-0"
20'-0"
__ ___. .__ __ _ _ ___ _ .
2,400 SF
40%
__ __ . .._..
3,020 SF'
0.50 FAR
_.... : . ._.... .... __ _ _ _
4 ---
_ . __ _ _ _ __ __ _.
1 covered 1 covered
(11'-3" x 20'-2" clear interior) (10' x 20' clear interior)
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
__ __ _ ; _ _ _ __
26'-10" 30'-0"
___ __ __ _ : _ _._ _.._
complies C.S. 25.26.075
' (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF= 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR)
Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:
• Windows: aluminum casement, aluminum awning, wood window trim
• Doors: translucent glass, wood clad
• Siding: wood rainscreen, stucco
• Roof: solar shingle roof
• Other: wood arbor, steel guardrail
Staff Comments: None.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on May 10, 2021,
the Commission noted concerns about the 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 May 10, 2021
Planning Commission Minutes).
Summary of the Commission's concerns and comments:
• Assurance that proposed architectural elements will be able to be built;
• Overarticulation, simplify design;
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Plans date stamped: June 30, 2021
2
Design Review and Special Permit 1209 Cabrillo Avenue
• Compatibility of architectural style with rest of neighborhood;
• Good scale and massing;
• Likes organization of site plan.
The applicant submitted a response letter (see attachments) and revised plans date stamped June 30, 2021
to address the Planning Commission's comments.
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.
Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed structure
(featuring gable roofs, proportional plate heights, solar shingle roofing, aluminum windows with wood trim, wood
clad doors, wood and stucco siding) are 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. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the
requirements of the City's five design review criteria.
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.
Design Review and Special Permit Findings (Attached Garage): That the proposed attached garage is
consistent with the garage pattern in the neighborhood which has a mix of both detached and attached garages
and that the proposed design of the garage is integrated well into the proposed structure and meets the required
setbacks. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the design review and special
permit criteria listed above.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application,
and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific
findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning
Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the
following conditions should be considered:
3
Design Review and Special Permit
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
that the project shali be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
June 30, 2021, sheets A0.1 through A4.8, D.1, and L1.1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or
pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. 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;
5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
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 flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
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;
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. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,
set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation
at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting
framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final
framing inspection shall be scheduled;
4
Design Review and Special Permit
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
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 built according to the
approved Planning and Building plans.
`Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Associate Planner
c. Patrick Donato, Levy Art & Architecture, applicant and architect
Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker, property owners
Attachments:
May 10, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant's Response Letter to the Planning Commission, received June 23, 2021
Letters of Support, dated July 8, 2021, July 5, 2021, and June 12, 2021
January 11, 2021 and November 23, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission
Special Permit Application
Arborist Report, prepared by Mayne Tree, dated November 5, 2020
Letter from Neighbor, dated May 6, 2021
Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed July 2, 2021
Area Map
E
�y ��
�� ��
BURLINGAME
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME. CA 94010
Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 PM Online
c. 1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
an attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage.
(Patrick Donato, Levy Art & Architecture, applicant and architect; Sohan and Sandhya
Talwalker, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Attachments: 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Reqort
1209 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments
1209 Cabrillo Ave - Plans
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul had a discussion with the neighbor
at 1225 Cabrillo Avenue
Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff.
> There were no questions of staff
Chair Schmid opened the public hearing.
Ross Levy and Patrick Donato, Levy Art & Architecture, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> As you've developed the design, do you have design sketches on the side to show how the pieces are
going to come together? There's a number of elements that come fogether in a single line format on the
elevations. For example, there's a number of windows shown with a single line and there's not a frame, and
the sliding doors have two simple lines and there's not a sash indicated. Have you looked at it in a
secondary layer offline to know this is going to work and come together as planned? (Levy: We have some
pretty clear ideas about how we're detailing this. Rain screen is the operative word, we see it as trim. I'm
aware of trim and casing as a phenomenon. These are things that can be introduced if it feels like there's
an element that is missing.)
> I'm not looking to add trim and I get the clean lines of what you appear to be going for in terms of the
modern look. I'm looking more on the internal of trims like the frame of a window and sash. For example,
on the north elevation, you've got the combination clerestory and window light which is folded glazing that
comes across that eave. IYs shown with a srngle line at the roof where it intersects with the roof and a
single line where it bends and single lines so it almost makes it look like a frameless glazing. (Levy.
That's the intention.)
> Somehow what you're calling the reveal at the roof line comes in horizontally and meets that glazing
on that elevation. If there's a reveal there, there's a pocket or a void thaYs going to gef stuffed with
something. So that single line of that folded glazing is going to abut on its jam side to that reveal in just a
single line? (Levy: I think that this frameless glass detail is doable. It would have to sit in the plane of the
reveal. There's a deeper intention. We can talk about representation and what might actually happen here,
but from my stand-point, one thing I wanted to do was give light into the stairwell. We talked about this in
the past with an observation about large windows on the sides of buildings. So we took ours and migrated
it uphill so there's no longer privacy issues, but there's still natural light coming into the stair. You are
City of Burlingame Pege 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 10, 2021
correct about detailing, we can talk about that separately.)
> There is the clerestory window at the stairwell and the glazing comes up to the underside of the roof. I
appreciate the axonometrics you provided but I look at the glazing and there's no header or the header is
in the back of the glazing, at that point of which the roof comes down and the glazing hits to the underside
of that roof? (Donato: 1 feel pretty confident that we can execute these details to achieve the spirit of what
we have done on the drawings. At this point, I just said it's schematic. I would consider it that it may divert
slightly, but we're going to do everything we can to make it achieve the diagram we're trying to achieve .)
(Levy: I will say that the particular ceiling above that particular set of stairs, we've talked about wanting it
to feel elevated so there's an intention to bring the glass as far up as we can and to bring fhe structure
inward. We've done this before.)
> Can you tell me more about the roof materials? (Levy: We're still calling it a standing seam roof
because our clients prefer to have a certain amount of durability and fire resistance. We're interested in a
so/ar roof. There will be the solar aspect to this house and there are some integrated systems now and
solar tiles that we're compelled by. There's the performance aspect and there's this Planning Commission
aspect of it and I don't know how this commission feels about that. Either this house is intended to be a
net zero or a better house and the reason for the one-car garage is because the client anticipates one car
with all electric and a more contemporary lifestyle and we're trying to make a great yard space.)
> Maybe the next version of this addresses those questions of the solar. Because when I look at
houses like this, I'm looking for the drainage, how is the water getting off things and how are we doing
things that traditional houses still have to do? Once you start putting in the integrated drainage, where is it
going? Particularly, as I look at the arbor frellis towards the back, I'm wondering, where's the water going?
It's going to hit on the roof down be/ow probably, but then where does it go from there? Those are some
things that could be discussed the next time around.
> I appreciate what you have done on the siding. lt has been a game-changer for me in looking at this. I
appreciate where you're going and my questions are more about how to make it go forward.
> The front arbor, I understand, but the back arbor looks like it is floating. How does that end up
getting strucfurally held up?(Levy: There will be cantilever beams that is supported on the in-board side
and those will exist at the band of the outward ridge line about a foot from the bottom to stabilize those
tails as well.) (Donato: There's a suggestion of that in the drawing if you look closely.)
> From the schematics, and just from my perception in viewing the schematics, 1 feel the house is
encroaching on the sidewalk or lite�ately right on the sidewalk. When you walk that neighborhood, you
notice that all the houses have a little bit of a front yard. I feel that's going to stick out and the
neighborhood is going to lose character, so 1'm wondering if that's just a perceptual thing I'm imagining by
looking at this schematic because it /ooks like it's on the sidewalk. (Donato: It is. However, it's a
distortion due to the rendering ability, but if you look at the plans, you can see the setback is
commensurate with the neighbors.)
> The back floating arbor says wood gable arbor. The front calls out no material. Is that meant to be
the same thing? Is it meant to be wood gable? I worry that it looks like it could be tube sfeel, but since
the other one is wood, 1'm trying to figure out whether these two are related? (Levy: They are re/ated and
theyre meant to be the same.)
> Have you had a chance to see the letter from fhe neighbors on the left-hand side with some of their
current thoughts? (Levy: I had a conference call with them on Friday morning and I believe that letter was
the basis of that call.) When this comes back to Action, if you can have a response to their comments or
concerns like the pool equipment, screening hedge and things like that. Sounds like they're appreciative
of the locafion of the poo! which is great. (Levy: We gave them a shading study and they were asking the
low roof adjacent to their roof so we gave them a shading study last Friday.)
Public Comments:
> Comments from Steve and Jane: We're the neighbor in the small old Spanish revival house to the
east and we wrote the letter. They were very kind to meet with us and go over everything and we appreciate
that and the Talwalkers have been excellent neighbors and we're very pleased that they've been willing to
work with us. We had four areas that we were concerned about, the privacy hedge, ! think they agreed to
that. The equipment area norse, l don't know if they're going to move that or if there's another way to make
sure thaCs not excessive. We've heard some of the pool equipment in the neighbor's yard and it's in the
City of Burlingame Page 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 10, 2021
garage. So we know there are noise issues with that. We also have a shade tree in our backyard, but now
that they have moved the ADU and the pool, it will probably be fine. We want assurances on that. There's
this roof overhang, we're very blessed right now to have a dnveway be(ween us and their two-story house.
Now there's this artificial roof overhang which is covering where the garbage cans are. They sent us a
study of sun and shade because we were concerned about it impacting our living room area. We're still
concerned. I guess we're spoiled because we've had nothing there for 30 years that we've lived here. And I
don't know if there's a way to make that opaque roof or something less intrusive. IYs really more decorative
than functional because iYs not part of the garage per se from what we can read in the schematic plans .
Also want to note that the off-street uncovered parking doesn't look like rt lines up in terms of where tl�e
doors are for the garage. 1 fhink it's going to need to be adjacent to the arbor at the front. But that's a
detail that can probably be worked out later. So thank you for letting us speak and we're very excited that
the Talwalkers are going to stay in our neighborhood and we look forward to having them as continuing
neighbors.
Chair Schmid closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> 1 really appreciate that you went back and re-thought it. My first impression is iYs not as nearly as
aggressively incompatible with the neighborhood as it was the first time. Maybe incompatible around the
fringes and 1'll come back to that. The site plan is much improved. Disengaging the ADU and spinning the
pool helped a lot and it means you don't have the 101 foot long wall for one thing. WhaYs really helpful for
me is to look at the axonometric because it gives you a sense that fhe sides of the building are pretty
articulated and they live in the same family as the buildings around it. They're doing the same things and
it's much improved than it was.
> I'm uncomfortable about the design review crrteria and making the findings for compatibility of the
architecture sfyle with that of the existing character of the neighborhood. I think rt has improved a lot, but
I'm uneasy about this because of that finding. It depends on how you interpret the word "style. " On the
face of it, style brings to mind Tudor or Craitsman or those things. lt's hard to say whether we consider
this compatible or not. The average person walking down the street will turn to us in a few years and say,
"what were you guys thinking?" This feels like we're about to unleash something on fhe neighborhoods of
Burlingame thaf we will regret enormously. Wth that said, iPs a good project. I wish this weren'f such a
tight neighborhood. If fhis were somewhere where the lots were a lot wider than this, then it's a lot easier to
see this stuff fitting. But the houses are chopped down the block and they're all pretty tight.
> It took me a little while to warm up to this. Architecturally, if stands pretty wefl, but in some ways, it
reminds me of a house that would fit well in the Eichfer Highlands in San Mateo. When 1 walked the block
today, the problem that I had with it fitting in the neighborhood is that most of that block has been rebuilt
in traditional style homes. IYs one thing rf we had a few that we knew were going to get torn down and it
was a transifion block, but that block is almost done. Almost every house has been rebuilt. So, I'm
struggling with this house fitting in. I like modern architecture. Compositionally, I think the house is pretty
good. 1 wish we heard more from some of the neighbors about the style of it. But that didn't come about.
I'm not 100% comfortable with approving this project or having it go forward with fhis style of design.
> The project has vastly improved and the site plan is a big improvement. In terms of the style, 1'm
comfortable with the contemporary or modern style. As I've said before, if something has good residential
scale and a good residential fee/ to it, then modern or contemporary can work. This doesn't look like a
chapel anymore or a commercial building. It looks like a house. We're not approving it tonight, so it can
go through some reiteration or refinement. I want to be comfortable with the detailing to make sure rYs
going to work and it sounds like the architect can do that to make it work. 1 would ask they revisit the
drawings to make sure the lines are representing whaYs really going to happen in terms of zero line or
single line abutments of materials, et cefera.
> The project is trying really hard and forcing some things that are almost an over articulation. The pop
up of the stairwell on the right-hand side is creating a complexity that could be simplified. I under-stand
that they're frying to get light in there, but fhere are other ways to do that. The ironic thing for me is when I
look at the ADU, we're not commenting on the character or in ferms of its entitlement, but it has a quiet
City of Burlingame Page 3
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 10, 2021
and understated elegance to it. The house has a little bit of over complication. So, with that said, it could
be made to work wrth another pass at some of the issues that we have talked about.
> I'd like to see more of a response with a little bit more detail to the neighbors. In looking at that roof
overhang on the left-hand side as a particular item, iYs a single story item. IYs an eave line. IYs four feet
from the property line, so it would be hard for us to make them do away with that and eliminate the cover
over the utility area, which would be a good thing.
> !f iYs going to be a standing metal seam roof, it's going to add character to the roof we're not seeing
yet. 1'm comfortable with this moving forward to action. I'm okay with the style because this has good
scale and good massing. What they're asking for are basic entitlements of design review and the special
permit for the attached garage.
> I'm having a really hard time with this style of home in this particular area. I'm nof against
contemporary homes. l feel that iYs a lot better than it was, but it doesn't quite fit the neighborhood
especially that particular block. I'm not worried so much about the attached garage. 1 can see approving
fhe attached garage so that doesn't bother me so much. The backyard is lovely. 1 think that fits fine .
There needs to be another pass on this house and we need fo have some more detail especially the type
of roof and some of the other features that have been raised.
> 1 want to thank the applicant for really listening to us over the course of these meetings and in working
with us in trying to improve upon the original design of the home and to try to fit into the neighborhood. I
see the elements that they've adapted to the design. The angled roof lines, some of the locations of the
windows and all this artrculation around the various roof forms.
> As has been raised, there is some complication with the roof that can still be simplified and still
achieve the objecfive of letting in daylight along the front. IPs making sense as we move towards the
back. 1'm not certain about that high sloping deep eave thaYs stretchrng up high to the sky. I feel that
wants to calm down a little bit and settle in with the backyard more and relate itself more to the ADU. It's
the closest form to the ADU which is more dimrnutive in size and sca/e, maybe take a look at that.
> I really appreciate the rearrangement of the backyard. Initially I voiced my concern about the
swimming pool being along the left side of the property, and this makes much more sense to have the
ADU structure along the backside and the swrmming pool in between the home and ADU, effectively
removing that really long, deep wall that we saw on the right-hand side.
> There have been many improvements. I can see this style of home here on this street. Not ideally, but
this can work in how iPs developing and how it's starting to relate more to the neighborhood while also
holding true to its modern forms. Looking at sheet A4.4 which is the rear yard perspective as seen through
the ADU, it looks like a very spacious neighborhood, lots of sky and open air and such. I don't know if we
necessarily have such a big open view back in that part of the property. It looks idealized here and very
attractive, but 1 would just suggest that maybe the architect look a little bit more at how these forms are
relating overall to the neighbors side to side and overall to the neighborhood. But otherwise, I do
appreciate all the effort and this is coming along nicely.
> I appreciate all the effort. 1 do think it's much better than it was on the site the way iYs organized. The
forms look more residential than they did before. But fhere's a lot to be said in the details. As this goes
into this next step, it's going to take a lot more detail to figure out what is affordable for the clienf and
being able to execute at this high level of design. Making it work so later down the stream, the approved
design is going to align with where we end up.
> The materials are important, particularly the standing seam metal roof. The color on the roof is going
to be important because we're going to see a lot of it. So bringing the materials forth and adding that
richness to the drawings is going to help us in this next round.
> We want to make projects successful and moving fonvard. We don't want to obstruct them, so I hope
our advice and guidance will help in that process rn being able to make this project go forward.
> I would hope that the design team would go back and try to calm things down a little bit. The points
that have been made that there's a whole lot going on and things can be simpler are good.
Commissioner Ter�ones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place on the
item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion
carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7- Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios
C/ty of Burlingame page 4
/...� -��
�I \,' LEVY
\ �\ ART i ARCHITECTI;R=
\\ i
��' i
RE: REPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISION COMMENTS FROM HEARING ON 05I10/21
Project address: 1209 Cabrillo ave Burlingame, CA
Main concernslcomments:
Assurance that proposetl architectural elements will be able to be built.
.� ���" , , ,,,. .., , ..
the top edge of the rainscreen. Details have been
proviaed to assure The i,ommission ihat we propose a finely crafted nome that can be built simply.
See manufacturer's details providetl.
A detail of the gutter system is provided.
A detail of the skvlipht at the roof line reveal is arovided.
Front arbor — note proposed material.
Rear arbor — floating, how is it being supportetl?
Over-articulation
. .
.r;i�,i.,.. ��� ..,. _., :y „V �,i;t:�U�N I.;t,'i �„ �, ., b.all G����l uuU�liy tavCJ �lV ���1,c�11; u iliU�C �dia��huaC.
�e windows at the street face on the secontl floor have been changetl to have a more consistent
proportion, and residential appearance. Operable shutters were atlded to these windows for privacy and light control. They are
_ -� .., , +H ,. �. �.�., �4... �+ : ..-,_: . . .;. _ � � �
Compatibility of architectural style with rest of neighborhood
�:���at are typ�caf ot traditior�al, resiaer�i��al architecture that nelp
_ , �.. _, ,,_.,. � . .. ..,: ..�,� .,,, ._ �., � :> ,.� :. .,j ,nassing in general, cascading gabled roofs, and the addition of
recognizable details: eaves, shutters and a front porch. The material palate of wootl and stucco is typical to the neighborhood.
It is a very simple house, with enough fine detail to belong. It fits the street while maintaining a cohesive design of its own.
Provide response to Steve and Jane's concerns.
i he i aiwa'�ker s have agreec� to provide the reyuested piantinys to bufter sound between the two yards. We provided a shadow
study on 05.07.21 to demonstrate that the roof in question does not throw shadows on to Steve and Jane's windows. Since the
solar study we revised the design antl moved the garage roof 1 ft additional away from the property line facing Steve and
Jane's house providing further relief from the property line.
Good scale and massing
Likes organization of site plan
Notes:
Terrones — a lot going on; detailing — have you had design sketches doing on sitle how pieces are coming together
there are number of elements that come together in a single line; have you looked at it to see how it wilt develop as
built (aware of trim and casing and can be introtluced if element is missing) not looking to atld trim, get clean lines of
modern look — internal to trim the frame and sash, an example — north elevation combination clerestory wintlow light
foldetl glazing across that eave as single line makes it look like frameless glazing (that's the intention) reveal at roof
line comes in horizontally — there's a pocket or voitl there (it's doable and will have to sit in plane of reveal; give light
into stairwell, migrate windows uphill to resolve privacy issues but still get light into stairwell) I just want to know that
you can make this work. (yes we have built this in the past, the wishful thinking more has to tlo with value
engineering)
�ee ���aiiuiactu�ers tletails providetl.
A detail of the gutter system is provided.
A detail of the skvliQht at thP roof lir�e reveal is provided.
Terrones — clerestory window at stairwell, look at glazing there's no header or is heatler in the back of the glazing?
(we can execute these details; that particularly ceiling there is an intention to bring the glass as far up, we have tlone
this)
,i iiic udS,yii J� ilic SKj�il(�i�t iiUfl� �iie Uf'��c5ie(� UUii- �iaZCU S�Cj/�i(�ii[ iU d SUIaIiUlll Siyle Srij�ii(�Cll
,�� bV Rp�,���itA Spe m�n��fact� �re�'S details nr0�/i�ied
Schmid — roof material (standing seam interestetl in so�ar roof; aim for net zero home) where's the drainage? Trellis
towards back where is the water going and going to hit roof down below antl then where tloes it go from there?
Appreciate siding, game changer for me. Front arbor understand don't know what it is hitting to in the ground; one in
the back looks floating how is that going to be supported (cantilevered; suggestion noted on drawing)
vvIUEU LU
Larios — page 2 house is encroaching on sidewalk, all houses in neighborhood have a front yard and this will stick
out (its distortetl on rentlering but there is a front setback).
Loftis — rear floating arbor, says wood gable arbor; is front arbor wood gable also? (yes they are the same)
Terrones — have you seen letter from neighbor on left side (yes) take a look at that and have a response to their
comments (gave them a shatling study on Friday)
,� filC Ivu� sVi ;�Ue�iiOdl i70�5 fuui �II�UW Stl�ilO�NS �i� iu �i�'Je �ii;:
., � _ _ � ., _ _ . ,, : _ ,_ �� . , .: _• ,;;� and moved the garage roof 1 ft adtlitional away from the property
line facing Steve and Jane's house providing further relief from the property line.
Steve and Jane (neighbors on left) — pleased willing to work with us; have four areas concernetl about — privacy
hedge, equipment area noise, shade tree in backyard moving pool and ADU want assurance, artificial roof overhang
covering on left side, worried about it impacting their living room area — make an opaque roof something less
intrusive because its more decorative than functional; uncoveretl parking does not look like it aligns with garage.
, ii:, - i,,, :�a:. :,�i:,c., �i, f;i�: .:a a N ica.., i,�i.�t. �,i:, �iv:i� cyu;Ni�i�:;i1i uiaJ :3���ii iliUvc;u ;.; i;u:i v�iic, �iu'� .il �iiC
property away from Steve & Jane's property. Assurances have been made to have a licensed arborist inspect and
evaluate the tree roots on the subject property during construction to avoid damaging the tree on the neighbor's
property. The solar studies demonstrate that the roof overhang on the left sitle does not impact the neighbor's living
room, and the roof has been pulled back from the property line an additional 1 ft. The uncovered parking is now
-,i, , � +, as-
Loftis — site plan is much improved, detaching ADU and turning pool has helped; both edges of building are
articulated and live in the same family as builtlings around it; much improved; compatibility of architectural style with
existing character of neighborhood — hard to say if compatible; good project but with this was not such a tight
neighborhood; like changes made but don't know where to go with this.
traaiisunai resiuerual arcl�iieciure if��at i�aip �t t�t ii� to tne ��eignuorhooa witnout appearing inauthentic. i he materiai pa�ate of
wood and stucco is also typical to the neighborhood. This design honors the neighborhood character through sensitive touches
��thP,f ?h�l!l O�VIOUS i�Tll+�tl0n.
Gaul — architecturally it stands well, most of the block has been rebuilt in traditional styles, almost every house has
been rebuilt; struggling with this fitting in, likes house compositionally is gootl; wish had heard more from neighbors
about style; not comfortable with project going forwartl with this design or style.
Terrones — project vastly improvetl like site plan; comfortable with modern contemporary style, something with gootl
scale, want to be comfortable with detailing to make sure iYs going to work; revisit drawings that lines are
representing what's really going to happen, zero line or single line; trying really hard and forcing some things like
over articulation; ADU understatetl elegance, house has a little bit over complication; would like to see in more tletail
to neighbors — roof overhang it's a single story element will be hard pressed with them to tlo away with that; missing
articulation on drawings — standing seam metal roof; gootl scale and massing, asking for basic elements of design
review
,
.;,.. ..,�.. . _�..,.�.:,..�. . . , ... ...�_. . . �.��. �.,-. . . . ._...�J _...... _.. v....:J ...� ._....�'_. _ >. .J .Jl.iw� ��� �.i...i ,..._.i _
V II
�tters. The skylight design has been revised and details added to demonstrate technical feasibility. The
Comaroto — agree with Gaul, hard time with this style of home in this area; not against contemporary homes, a lot
better than it was but doesn't fit neighborhood; not worried about approving attached garage and backyard is lovely;
needs to be another pass have more detail — type of roof, etc.
....,.,..._..,....�.s �... . _,.�.:...._ �...�„';,.i... ..,, ..I..__. ..�..�. .:�.'; . ���...�.I ,�.;..� ,J�.., :..-� ��:,-�,:",.�� _.�,u.. ..._., ,..,...� 1... .�...._. _..i ii..i _ .....� i...
neighbors without necessarily repeating their style or detail. The neighborhood is made up of a variety of architectural styles,
gothic, Spanish, Mediterranean, craftsman, are all visibie from our front yard. This house is contemporary, but humble, meant
to sit back, not stand out, it will complement its neighbors and be a welcome addition to the neighborhood (see letters of
support).
Tse — thank applicant for listening to us; angled roof lines and locations of windows and articulation around various
roof forms, some complication with roof that could still be simplifietl and still let in tlaylight; not certain about the high
sloping tleep eave — relate more to ADU that is more diminutive; appreciate rearrangement of backyartl; can see this
style home on this street, think it can work; A4.4 rear yartl perspective looks like spacious neighborhood, looks
idealist, suggest look more how it relates overall to neighborhootl.
�, ,_.� , ,. ����� , . _ ` _:;:; _ . . .
..,_.._.��� �_i��. � � �� .._ �� �+. ._ � �hlGL' �C�Id� �J I�I�viC IV4 JudIC "Vll��l U�IC IU� �I��U J�IMI{UUIkI�II�I�.J.
A seaciaus livinq experience is maintained in a more appropriately scaled room.
Schmid — appreciate all the effort, fits better on the site antl how its organized, forms look a lot more residential;
details — take a lot more; standing seam metal roof color; bring forth materials in drawings will help us.
Motion — bring back on Action
Loftis — design team calm things down more, whole lot going on and things could be a lot simpler ssss
From: Venkatadri Bobba [mailto:venkatadri.bobba@ventureast.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 9:41 AM
To: CD/PLG-Amelia Kolokihakaufisi <ameliak@burlingame.org>
Subject: plans for approval of proposed renovation of 1209 Cabrillo Ave.
Dear Amelia,
We are residents of 1204 Cabrillo Ave, Burlingame since June 2003.Talwalker's has been our
neighbors for over 5 years. They have 2 young daughters and one of their parents live part of
the time with them. They have been great neighbors, very friendly, helpful and good citizens of
our community.
They have exhibited their strong desire to live by the rules and part of our community by
incorporating all suggestions from the planning board and revised their plans. I had reviewed
the plans and find that it blends nicely with the neighboring homes and I particularly like the fact
that they are going solar to reduce emissions and an ADU.
Over the years I gained lot of respect for the management of our town. As a Rotarian, I have
the privilege of working with Emily Beach and Donna Colson and totally understand the need for
certain regulations in order to make Burlingame a better community for all.
Having known Talwalkar's for over 5 years and gone through the final version of the plans for
their proposed renovation, I humbly request that their plans may please be approved with
conditions that they are in compliance with our heritage and standards.
Pleased to inform you that our home 1204 Cabrillo Ave. won "2021 All Electric Emerging
leader" award given by Peninsula Clean Energy and we take great pride in enhancing our
neighborhood so that it becomes the most livable city in USA.
Appreciate your kind consideration.
Bobba
Bobba Venkatadri
Director
Ventureast
E-Mail: venkatadri.bobba(a�ventureast.net
Phones: +1-650-548-9342
Mobile: +91-98666 56971 +1-510-432-5492
101, Aditya Trade Center, 1204 Cabrillo Ave
Ameerpet, Hyderabad — 500 038 Burlingame, CA, 94010, USA
From: Rizvan Dhalla [mailto:rizvandhalla@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 5, 2021 3:27 PM
To: CD/PLG-Amelia Kolokihakaufisi <ameliak@burlingame.org>
Cc: Rima Khalil <rkhali12000@gmail.com>; talwalke@yaho.com
Subject: 1209 Cabrillo
Hi Amelia
We live at 1213 Cabrillo. We have reviewed our neighbors revised plans. We believe that revised plans
illustrate a house that would fit well with the other houses on the neighborhood. We appreciate the
effort that our neighbors Sohan and Sandhya have taken to revise their plans. We feel very comfortable
with them proceeding with this construction. Please let us know if you have any questions
Rima Khalil and Rizvan Dhalla
1213 Cabrillo Avenue
646 413 4544
From: Benjamin Shapiro <henjsha��i;�maiLcom>
Date: .Iun 12, 2021, 9:28 AM -0700
To: sohan talwalker <talv��alke �i���ahoo.a�m>
Subject: Re: Revised Letter to the Commissioner
Burlingame Planning Commission --
I own the home two doors down from the Talwalker family (1217 Cabrillo).
I can attest that the Talkwalkers are considerate people and good neighbors. They provide our
community with a unique and diverse perspective.
The Talwalkers have make significant accommodations to modify their original designs to make
their them more palatable by the rest of our neighborhoods. I believe their current designs both
meet the stated building guidelines and would be a positive addition to our neighborhood.
Moreover, I can attest how hard it can be for a young family to deal with the uncertainty of the
planning process. As you decide how to handle the Talwalker's designs, I would urge you to be
as keep in mind that these are good members of our community who deserve clarity and specific
feedback, not subjective and vague comments.
Please allow our neighbors to build the home that they want.
Best,
�
Benjamin Shapiro
http:;';'����c�� .bcnjshap.con�benjsha�,�ci��maiLcom
����
����
BURLHNGAME
\�' p,��r�+141. : �
Monday, January 11, 2021
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Online
e. 1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story
single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303
(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Patrick Donato, Levy Art + Architecture, applicant and
architect; Sandhya and Sohan Talwalker, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact:
'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Arrachments: 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report
1209 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments
1209 Cabrillo Ave - Plans
All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent noted that he was not present at
the Design Study meeting but did watch the meeting video.
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff.•
> There were no questions of staff.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Ross Levi and Patrick Donato, Levi Design, represented the applicant with property owners Sohan and
Sandhya Talwalker.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> In regards to the engagement with your neighbor at 1205 Cabrillo Avenue, it sounds like you've had
some meetings with them to discuss their concerns. Based on the revisions that you've agreed to make,
is it your opinion that those issues if not resolved, are on their way to be resolved with the revisions to your
landscaping and site planning? (Talwalker: Yes. We spoke with them and we had a Zoom call with our
architect the day after. We believe we have addressed their concerns. We have told them in writing and
also verbally that we're committed to making the changes that they've requested because we
fundamentally believe that their privacy is as important as ours and fhere's a few other points as well. We
agreed to that fundamentally and if they have an issue, they can raise their voice right now.)
> Looking af that front elevation, the changes in the form are a nice addition and do add to the context
of tire project. Saw the standing seam metal in renderings but not seeing where the drainage is going to
come into play and how that will detail out, whether you're considering a hidden drain at the top of the wall
or how will those things play out? (Levy: The wooden portions of the building are meant to be rain
screened, meaning the siding rsn't attached direcfly to fhe wall therefore we can hide gutters and
downspouts in fhat cavity.) The main p/ace where the standing seam is doesn't look like it has the rain
screen on it? (Donato: Yes, the lower gable does not have the wood rain screen and it is stucco. We do
plan on doing a concealed gutter system in which the gutters for that section could be embedded into the
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 5/6/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 11, 2021
wall and we can thicken the wall as needed to do thai.) Actually, fhis particular detail being shown now
would be a fine way to sofve that problem.
> Is there a plan for screening the heat pumps on the low ADU roof in the back because thaYs a fairly
flat roof with no ability to hide anything? (Donato: We're not showing any screening, but we'd be amenab/e
to screening fhem appropriately.) In some of your 3D renderings it would be worthwhile to put a heat pump
up the�e to see what thaYs going to be like, because thaYs going to be directly visible to the neighbor to
the north. (Donato: We assumed we would be screening fhem in some way. We just didn't do that in this
proposal.) (Levy.� There are other locations that the machinery itself may exist in and it may be that's not
the place for it at all.J IYs just such a very flat form. You don't have any parapet to hide behind. So iYs just
going to be really exposed. You have a great opportunify on the flat roof, on the two story wood area. It's a
small parapet, but if you're going to get your solar panels in there, you might be careful how much depth
you have so that's not popping up and you get to look at the object instead of the solar panels.
> Have a similar concern on that same neighbor's side. So much of the focus of this has been from
across the pool looking at the house, which is shaping up nicely. But there was something that was odd
about it to me. Realized yesterday while looking at this that you have a wall thaYs over one hundred feet
long. IYs a/most 12 feet tall facing that neighbor four feet off the property line. Have you looked at the
plans with that neighbor and do they know what they would be looking at? Have you spoken to them about
that? (Talwalker: Yes, I have spoken with them. They've written a letter of support which is included in the
materials. They were supportive of fhe initial design as well. 1 don't think fhat element has changed in the
revisions.)
> On the landscape plan, there is some shrubbery, is that just a low shrub inside the fence or is that
something thaf would screen that length of wall? lYs not the side with the swimming pool. If's the side with
the long wall. (Levy: There's an existing 15 foot tall planting which would be part of fhe answer to your
question about fhe wall on the first floor. The plant material there thaYs between the two houses is pretty
mature and tall.) So you're intending for that all to stay? (Levy: Yes. The upper section of the wall fhat
borders that property line, there's a different material and physical modulation in fhat wall to provide relief
to the western neighbor, exactly for the reasons you're pointing out on the first floor, but we thought in
everyone's interest that we should do it on the second floor which we've done. 1'm sure we're open to
comments about the first floor, but we think it's more or /ess invisible to the neighbor here.) Potentially it
would be. Was assuming the lot would be complefely cleared and the hedge wouldn't be remaining. The
second floor looks better. But the first floor, looking at the plan and I saw 101 feet, that was a little
concerning. It might be beneficial to break it up a little bit on the first floor.
> The wall of the house that faces the garage also seems to be a little flaf. Have you thought about
working on some angulations on that wall? Especially like your street view when you did that one. (Levy: 1
do recall ou� conversation last time. The modulation on that wall was previously a cantilever and you called
into question and rightly so. We've removed that and that wall is lacking modulation at this moment, but
we can bring some there.) Saw it in your rendering, but when you did your street rendering, it looks flat.
Wondering if you can do something on that wall? (Levy: Internally, we're having debafes about material
consisfency and what's the best way to have a clear application of materials, but bringing in more finer
materials and playing with the wood and the stucco in conjunction there. ThaYs a fine comment.)
> In the front elevation, don't see it in the rendering, there's a grid pattern to the window to the right of
the front door. It has an interesting intersection of the grid. (Donato: That's just a mistake, it shouldn't be
there.) Is it going to be one fixed plane of glass? (Donato: Plain glass, yes.)
> In addressing the comments from the neighbor to the left, you're looking at a new location for the
6arbecue, has that location been decided? (Levy: No, it hasn't. We had that conversation on Friday, and I
haven't spoken to Sohan and Sandya since then. We know now, as if's common when you chat with your
neighbors, you find out what's on their side of the fence, literately. Now we know they have bedrooms
there, so 1 won't expect iYs going to be near the property line at all.)
> The fountain is still showing in the plans, but that would be deleted from the plans you would be
resubmitting? (Levy: Correct.) 1 wanted to thank you for your very thorough comments and response to our
comments.
Public Comments:
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 5/6/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 11, 2021
> Jane Gomery, 1205 Cabrillo Avenue: We wanted to thank the Talwalkers and the architects for
quickly hearing our concerns and meeting with us. We would like to have our comments in the condifions
of approval primarily because the contractor needs to be made aware of the decisions fhat were made. A
lot of times that gets lost by fhe time the building permit gets issued so we wanted to be sure and have
those included in the final plans. If the pool is approved by fhe Planning Commission, we did get
comments back from the architect and he had some suggestions during construction about how to take
care of any settlement or displacement that may occur because of all the pool shoring and they weren't
sure on fhe depfhs yet, so we were hopeful his comments as well could be included and done as part of
the conditions of approval for the contractor during demolition to profect our house as well as constn�ction
and afterward. He talked about putting markers on the house or tarps to keep fhe dust and debris out of
our house which we just recently painted.
> Steve Pade, 1205 Cabrillo Avenue: I had an additional comment on our discussion. We are kind of
concerned about the 50 feet approval that is 8 feet from our old 9921 foundation. There was a discussion
with the architect about marking our house before and after, so we know if our house shifts or not. It was
a good idea, we want to make sure that really happens. That would be our recommendation on five. We
agree with the whole letter entirely, but that was talked about, but it doesn't say they're going to do it, so
we would like for that to be included as a requirement. (Chair Tse: Is that item F in your letter, about the
pool and the shoring?) Yes. (Chair Tse: Item F which is the sixth bullef point in fhe response letter.) Yes.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direcfion:
> 1 appreciate the presentation and the revisions thaf have been presented. As mentioned in fhe study
meeting, 1 had some concerns about the character of the house relative to the neighborhood. Looking
closely at the front elevations in sheet A3.1, as previously submitted and what was submitted now, it has
better residential character than it did before. Like the way iYs presenting itself much better in the current
iteration. There are some conditions and qualifiers that could come back as an FYI. Based on what's
fhere now and the potential for this design, am a little excited to see something like this in the
neighborhood because it does feel residential. It's somewhat reminiscent of the house they showed at
1529 Bernal Avenue. It can fit in the neighborhood the way iYs presented now. The revisions to the sife
planning, the barbecue and the landscaping, the heat pump locations, the arficulation on that wall of the
house facing the garage and the other conditions of the neighbors for monitoring the construction, those
could come back as an FYI if this moves forward. Could find support of the project now the way iYs
presented.
> Uneasy about this project, especially because we just approved a much more traditional modern
project just earlier, but there's a major difference between this project and that project. That project is
what we might call a classic modernism. lt grew out of architecture values and it led that project to nestle
to the site in a comfortable way. IYs well sca/ed. This project feels cartoonish in a post modernist way just
like the work that Venturi did in Philadelphia, Franklin Court and the so-called ghost houses which are
tubular steel frames in the shape of a house. Very uncomfortable with this house for those reasons. It's
an idea rather than a house. In part, it may be the way it's presented. Some of what 1 see recall some of
the worst of the 70s modernism which makes me uneasy and we have a few of those homes around town,
they sfick out like sore thumbs in my view. 1 cannot support the project because of my uneasiness. What
makes me also uneasy is I have this running debate with a close friend who is a pretty prominent architect
who complains to me all the fime that planning commissions have no business. As long as the applicanYs
design meets the letter of the law and is within the by right letter of the law and the math all works, that we
have no business saying what fits and what doesn't. I can't go there with him because thaYs what we're
charged with, in part, by the community. So we have to make that judgment call whether the math works
or not. Whether it can be proven fhat it fits or whether it can be proven that it doesn't fit. This project, for
me, just doesn't fit. ThaYs an impossible term to define, but it doesn't feel like a house. /t feels like an
idea, a sculpture. With that said, the image that the architect showed the detailing of that wall which
looked like a wood rain screen wall looks pretty nice. Maybe this will turn out to be a nice house but we're
letting this project off the hook in a way we would never let another project off the hook. We almost never
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 5/6/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 11, 2021
let any project off the hook. These two sidewalls are abominable. We fuss over adding a tiny little detail
here and add a window there and why is that wall so blank and we're letting fhis project off the hook in that
regard, especially on the 101-foot long wall. ThaYs just not right in my view. It may be okay with the
neighbor that's there now, but some neighbor in the future is going to say what were they thinking? What's
going on here? You can't let people do that, build a 101-foot long 12 foot high wall with a couple of
windows. It's four, six windows and a couple of notches cut info it. That's just not right for any future owner
of that property to that side. I won't support the project for these reasons. 1'm uneasy because we've just
approved a modernist house, but that house worked and this one does not.
> 1 wasn't at the last hearing, but !'ve studied the plans and watched through the whole hearing. So 1 feel
like I got a good sense of what happened there, but I can't support the project as it is now either. They
have made great improvements to the articulation in the front. It has come a long way towards fitting better
in the neighborhood, but its neighborhood compatibility is a real issue here. Particularly, the massing in
terms of the height. When you look at it in comparison to the house on the left and on the right, iYs a
much bigger, taller mass. The design guidelines speak of trying to minimize mass and this feels like it
celebrates it. Agree completely about the comment regarding the left side wall and the right side wall. The
presentations were ieally helpful and really greaf. 1 have real confidence in the ability of the architect, but
three of the four houses that were used as examples of how this one was compatible with the
neighborhood weren't subject to design review. The one fhat was, which is the one on Bernal Avenue, has
many modern elements such as the standing steam roof and the metal windows without any grid patterns .
That's just massed in a much more traditional way and articulated in a way that this house is not. The one
example that actually we reviewed isn't a good example for why this house shoufd be approved. 1
understand that there's not a special permit for the ga�age anymore. A detached garage at the front wifh a
blank rain screen wall doesn'f feel like iYs within the pattern of the neighborhood either. So 1 can't support
the projecf as it's currenfly drawn either.
> The design was helped along, but it still has a very industrial feel. Expect to see this in a warehouse
district as a building that was redone. The elements of the building really don't hang together that well for
me. It seems like it's tryrng to put together a few different buildings. Wasn't sure what was really striking
me about it. We talked last time about how this would work well out on a 50-acre parcel on top of a hill in
Napa Valley, buf fhe thing that really got me is that 101-foot long wall. Like what my fellow commissioner
said, we beat people up for 20 feet of wall with nothing on it, and this is 101 feet with a few elements in it
that, granted iPs screened by that hedge. In the overall scheme there's a better way to mass this house
and the driveway wall, obviously, needs a lot of help. The cantilever was taken away because that doesn't
fit the code as written, buf something could or should be done there. Not sure if this project is headed in
the right direction. I'm not going to be supporting it either.
> It has come a long way since the previous iteration. The shapes in the front work better, but listening
to my fellow commissioners and looking at the plans, 1 too am a little nervous about some of the big
walls. Appreciate the cantilever over the garage is not there, but that has left a sizable hvo -story wall fhat
we don't really like to have. It's challenging with the modern sfyle in that you are trying to go more
minimalist, but because it doesn't have any relief to it or anything else to go with it, it does become a very
blank wall other than the punched windows. There's some room to work on with it and it could get better.
The big walls do make it challenging for us to support that and would like to see a bit more work on it.
> Definitely appreciate all of the efforts that have been puf info tonighYs presentation and a lot of
thought into it. What looks like a lot of focus on the massing of the front of the house and then
subsequently what happens wifh the floor plan on the inside. The focus on the fronf and then IeYs rollout
the effective change on the second story throughout the back of the house. Agree with some of my fellow
commissioners on the need to work on that left wall as you approach the house from the left side. Also
that long side wall on the right has been bothering me. We know fhe ADU is attached to the house and
that is oufside of our purview. It doesn't help that it is just a confinuous run from the house. Thinking
about current neighbors who want to be supportive of their friends and neighbors, but what if someone
were to move and there's a new neighbor that moves in at some point along the line and what they have to
experience.
> I'm going to repeat that the pool is in a location fhat is troublesome for the neighbor on the left. There
could be a better location, shape or size of the pool on the lot.
> I would like to suggest thaf the choices appear at this point, based on what we're hearing from
City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 5/6/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 11, 2021
commissioners, is either continuing or deny it.
> Gardiner: Denial without prejudice is an option which allows the project to resubmit at a future date. It
acts very similar to a continuance and the difference is it has an appeal function should the applicant
decide that they're ready to have a decision set. If there were to be a denial based on whaf we heard
tonight, just clarify whether it's a flat out denial or denial without prejudice. If without prejudice, they could
come back in the next meeting with these changes and no harm, no foul. But it would also allow them to
consider whether to take an appeal to the City Council.
> Just to clarify, if it was with prejudice, then an all together new submission would have to be made?
(Gardiner: Yes. If fhe desire is to have something completely different and not resembling what was
submitted. What I'm hearing rs there are commissioners that feel strongly, but others feel like there are
details that can be worked out. Without prejudice, would allow those details to be worked out and a
straight up denial would have them go back to the drawing board.)
> Spansai/: Madame Chair, you can reopen the public hearing to get input from the homeowner.
Something at your disposal.
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
> Levy.• We're listening. 1 believe that we can address the comments that have been made. Short of
Commissioner Loftis' comments which are more deeply conceptual and kind of philosophical, I would be
more fhan happy to have a conversation about that. I understand the points of reference he's making. As
far as our project sponsors go, I'll let them speak for themselves, but I suspect they would like us to have
the opportunity to respond to the comments that the commrssion is making and hopefully convince you
that we are making somefhing thaYs appropriate and somefhing you can approve. So a continuance would
be a more direct line from our point of view.
> Talwalker: We're certainly disappointed with fhe views expressed here and confounded as well. But we
understand you have the views you have. We would like to have the opportunify to revise and work toward
meeting your requirements. If ! may be upfront, how do you all think about an ADU? Is that desired? It's a
framework sef by the state, just so 1 understand if it's something we should be including or nof because
we have a Irmited footprint of six thousand square feet of the lot and so the decision to aftach the ADU to
the home, which has subsequently led to this very long wall which everybody is focused on, iYs because of
that, right? In an ideal world, we would have a bigger lot and the ADU would be separate. If you look at the
main home it is not any longer than our home thaYs adjacent to us which is a two-story home at 1293
Cabrillo Avenue. I want to better understand what is the view on the ADUs and is it desired or not desired?
1 don't have a clear sense for it. lYs a new concept that came forth at the beginning of 2020.
> Spansail: 1'm sorry, sir. I'm going to interject because the ADU is somefhing thaYs ministerial by
state law. The Planning Commission is not actually allowed to comment on it. It's something that can be
seen in the context of the project because iYs definitely going to affect the landscape of the property, but
iYs not something they can comment on about whether iYs preferred or not preferred. I apologize. I know
thaYs frustrating, but thaYs something that they're not allowed to comment on. This is a brand new law,
complefely understand.
> Talwalker: That's fine. I'm learning more as we go forward. For that reason, we don't have a lot of data
points to understand. There's the law, but cerfainly we didn't have examples available to us.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
> There's a number of ofher choices, but seeing them as my fellow commissioner �rst laid them out.
There are two choices, continuance or deny without prejudice. The disfinction is between, if we were to
continue it, we would be saying that minor changes could lead to an approval. If we were to deny it without
prejudice, the commission would say there's more fundamental changes required and it's not making a few
minor changes. The City Attorney can correct me if I'm wrong here, but repeating what he said which is the
ADU is not in our purview at all. But what it does, it affects the rest of the project and the available square
footage of it on fhe lot and iYs a relatively small lot. When you add the ADU and the pool, you push a lot of
requirements on fhat lot in terms of massing and where the garage can go and how if affects the resf of
the neighborhood, so if feels like there's too much trying to happen on this project. That's driving some of
City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 5/6/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 11, 2021
the other concerns that have been expressed and in terms of massing and the large walls, the large two
story wall and the position of the garage.
> The opportunity for making some fundamental changes might gef this project fhere, and minor
changes won't do it. In past discussions where there was an aftached ADU, it's out of our purview except it
affects the overall design of the project. We have looked at an ADU in the past couple of years that was
attached to a project and with respect to what it did to the project as a whole, we were allowed to comment
on it. The decision to attach has driven a lot of the subsequent decisions and probably caused some oi
the comments coming back. Part of what makes the project feel cartoonish to me is that front facade is
like what a kid would design, would draw if they wanted to represent a house. IYs a rectangle with a gable
on it. That's also whaYs causing the over scale of that house relative to the adjacencies. IYs decidedly not
what happens on the Bemal Avenue project, it was nof a face print issue. This is a face print problem, if it
were not flat or a rectangle on top, it wouldn't look cartoonish. To be more articulate about what it was,
didn'f realize it until after my fellow commissioner followed up and said that one image makes the building
look so much bigger than it otherwise might relative to its adjacent neighbors.
> To reiterate and crystallize what my fellow commissioners were saying in regards to the ADU and as
our City Attorney would remind us, iPs not an issue of preference at all relative to the ADU. The issue
comes back to the applicant and their architecf working through what you want to do with your lot, what
you want to do with the massing and what you want to do with the parts and pieces you want fo accomplish
with your project? And how you want to allocate those to find something that is achievable. IYs a matter of
what are the effects of those various different parts and pieces of your project as you apply them to the
site and how that manifests in the actual application that you put before us. So iYs entirely up to you guys
fo consider those things and with the sincerity that you're approaching the project and skills and talent of
your architects, 1'm hopeful you can find a solution with those pieces that you want to achieve.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the
application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5- Sargent, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid
Nay: 1 - Terrones
Absent: 1 - Comaroto
City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 5/6/2021
��g�`��
BURLINGAME
I �
���r„
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, November 23, 2020 7:00 PM Online
Historic Preservation Commission Meeting followed by Planning Commission Meeting
c. 1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story
single family dwelling and detached garage. (Patrick Donato, Levy Art + Architecture,
applicant and architect; Sandhya and Sohan Talwalker, property owners) (112 noticed)
Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Attachments: 1209 CabrilEo Ave - Staff Report
1209 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments
1209 Cabrillo Ave - Plans
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff�
> The garage location is in the middle to front half of the property versus what we've considerably looked
for in a variance in this neighborhood for an attached garage fhaYs in this same spot. ( Gardiner: In this
case, it's physically detached. Normally the detached garage is found at the rear corner of most sites. In
this case, this is a different approach. So that's something the Planning Commission can look at as part
of the design revrew in terms of neighborhood compatibility, pattern and relationship to the st�eet, but it's
detached and there's a breezeway that goes through there. In this rendering, it looks connected because
you can see the plane projecting from the house on the upper floor, but it is physically detached.)
> Is it just a building front setback of 15 feet that the detached garage needs to meet? (Gardiner: !f
there's going to be a parkrng space in front of it you would need an additional space in the driveway. Most
houses require one covered space. If it's a four bedroom house or fewer, you need one covered spot and
one uncovered, and you would need at least 20 feef between the garage door and the property line in order
to accommodate a second parking spot.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Ross Levy and Patrick Donato, Levy Art + Architecture, represented the applicant with property owner
Sandhya and Sohan Talwalker.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> (Levy.� To the question that was posed earlier, the garage is setback 25 feet which is the code as we
understand it. It is detached and then we're showing you images of the front and back to show you the
whole architecture, a consistent architecture.)
> What are the plate heights on the first and second floors? (Donato: Ten foot plate height. The house
stacks, so you go up to a leve! that's 1'-6" above grade. Then part of the rest of the house on the first floor
steps down to grade level after that. The plate heighf at the stepped up area is 10'-2" at the lower level,
and the upper floor plate height is 10' 2-3/4" as measured from the level thaYs 1'-6" above the grade. You
can see this information on sheet A3.1.)
> Looking at the staff report, specifically at the design review criteria, can you explain how you see this
architectural style compatible with that of the existing character of the neighborhood? (Levy: We see it as
compatible in its mass, in its deference to its neighbors and materials which is wood and plaster and in
City of Burlingame page 1 Printed on 1/6/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
some of the vernacular in its front porch, in its overhangs that cover the fronf porch and the notion of a
front stoop. In all those ways, we see it being fairly compatible. I know it's not fhe norm.
We heard your earlier comments on a different project in fhe agenda regarding windows and stair-wells on
the side, property lines. This house includes one of those as well. That window only exist from the second
floor up so it does create a lot of privacy on the lower levels, but we're open to your comments about that.
We understand the notion.)
> Did you get a chance to talk with the neighbor to the left or show them the landscape plan and the
location of the swimming poo! and how it relates to them? (Talwalker: We have spoken to our neighbors fo
the left and the right and the three across. We had a lengthy discussion with the neighbor to the left. They
are aware there's going to be a swimming pool. So one of the things that we did is we addressed the tree
on their property with an arborist report to make sure the tree is supported appropriately as we put a pole
in place. They're aware of the project and we have known them for the last five years.)
> Is the front guest room at slab level? So if you come into the entrance a few steps up do you then go
down to that bedroom? (Levy: No. That is 1'-8" above grade, so you step up about four steps to come in.
That room, the bathroom that serves it and the stair landing that go upstairs are all on that plane. Then
you step back down and you reach the kitchen and dining area.) ThaYs what is shown on the plan. So
there may be a drafting error on the front elevation. That front window comes below the floor level?
(Donato: It does not. That front window is a bay window, so it projects from the facade.) It looks like it's
below the floor level. (Donato: ThaYs just a detailing thing that we could provide, but the intent is fhat the
glass hides the thickness of the walls and floor. So you're mostly right, you would see the shadow of the
floor thickness behind the glass.)
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> Will start by saying that 1'm a modernist architect. The images that you showed of the abstract
barn-like structures standing in the landscape resonated with me, perhaps they're in a wine country and
couldn't tell exactly where they are, they're very nice. But this is a much different situation. Unlike the
designing of barn-like structure where you create your own context and this dialogue with nature, this rs a
small town residential street. Don't find this project to be very compatible with the street, and thaf's why
the question about compatible ability with architecture style was asked. Understand the conceptual
response and iPs true that the massing and some of the geometry is similar, but would be hard -pressed
as an architect to see that this project fits in this neighborhood. If this were standing in the landscape in
wine country, yes could see that. It's not quite aggressively incompatible like some stuff we have seen
recently — it appears to be trying to be compatible, but iYs so conceptual in its compatibility thaf finding it
hard to believe that anyone walking down the street who has not been trained as a modernist architect
could look at this and say yeah, that fits. Having problems with this project as much as I like the things
that 1'm seeing.
> Have no issues with modern architecture in the Easton Addition in general. We have seen some
projects that have been somewhat successful in that regard. But here can't make four out of the five
basic findrngs for the design review criteria. Don't see this as being compafible with the archifecture sfyle
of the exisfing neighborhood. For the parking, a rough count along that side of the block shows there were
maybe three houses that had garages towards the front of fhe property. Still see it as a fronf forward
garage even if it is detached. It's not addressing the design review criteria that we typically encourage
particularly on blocks like this.
> Can't make the finding for the architectural style, mass, structure and bulk within this contexf and the
interface of the proposed sfructure on adjacent properties iYs entirely out of character. Don't have a
problem with a design style having a different character, but it has to fit within the given context. Can find
support in terms of the landscape and its proportion to the mass and bulk. It seems nicely landscaped
and the landscaping is articulating itself relative to the design of the structure. Can't make the other
Ciiy of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 1/8/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
findings at this point, having an issue with this project of this style and character moving forward .
> Appreciate your presentation, the work and the craft that has gone into this. Appreciate the schematic
design that went into trying to figure out a solution with fhe pool and all of the space and the back area will
be a really nice place to be. But also struggling with the compatibility aspect. Can squint and can see the
roof lines similar to other roof lines in the area, but iPs a big stretch for that neighborhood. Also can
accept a den in that front room with a big picture window on the street, but a guest bedroom is not so
good unless you have a window treatment as well. It's a lot of exposure out on the street. Agree seeing the
photos of the other examples out in nature, in a larger lot or out in the country, those are excellent places
and it works for the context. But here in our neighborhood, iYs a rough one to see that this design is
compatible.
> Will echo a lot of the comments that have been made. This is a really big house. IYs kind of a long
stretched out rambling house and if's screaming for about three or four more acres around it with rolling
hills as was previously indicated. The garage may technically be detached, but if not mistaken, the code
says something about a four foot separation and assuming that's not just horizontal separation, but
vertica! separation as well. Staff and applicant might want to look closely into it. Not seerng this fit in and
not sure which direction to send it.
> Agree with fellow commissioners. The architects have great ability to look at what we're saying and
possibly come back with a new rendition of this home. Initially thinking we might need to send it to desrgn
review, but not sure fhaYs the direction we need for this project. But would like to hear from my fellow
commissioners and see what they think about that.
> 1 feel some sympathy for the left and the right neighbors though. From the righf side, that large plane
of glass on the second floor, realized you mentioned earlier that you may address that in a future
submission, but certainly that wall of g/ass for such a close proximity to a neighbor on the right looking
into their home wouldn't be very welcoming and neighborly. As well as on top of those windows, all the
skylights that are immediately below those in the standing seam roof. Would ask you to take a/ook at
that and a little bit more consideration for the proximity to the neighbor to the left and right.
> A larger lot would help out a lot, but we're not in that situation. Feel for fhe neighbor on the left even
though the homeowner may have spoken to that neighbor and fhey're aware of the project. Not sold that
iYs acceptable to have a swimming pool a few feef away from one's bedroom and all that activity at the
back of the property is all oriented around that left side. Don't see this being compatible with the
neighborhood.
> On the one hand, don't know if iYs entirely fair to the design consultant to put this much on them, but
on the other hand, can see some potential benefit to some advice from the design review consultant just
in terms of the design criteria and fhe knowledge of thaf criteria.
> Wasn't planning to go to design consultant because we've got very capable designers. Don't think that
sending this project to design review is going to get us there because if these designers chose to design a
house as opposed to a fully conceived object, which was the term that was used at the beginning of the
presentation which implies a sort of a sculptura! quality to the project, if you thought of it less of a
sculpfure and more as a house, this could get there. But it's such a highly conceptual project that what's
happening in design review, there wil! be a philosophical argument about this house. We don't want a
sculptural object in this neighborhood of houses. We want a house in this neighborhood of houses so
don't think design review personally is the right thing.
> Was a little bit skeptical of the figure ground presentation. lYs a long rambling house, but as a figure
ground, it worked. What doesn't work rs the translation from the figure ground to the sculptural object that
wants to be a house instead of a sculptural object.
> Given the product in front of us, they seem like capable architects and would trust they have to have
that conversation with the client and come up with what that vision is going to look like. Don't think ri's
going to come back as simply as it has to fit in Burlingame and they're going to copy some of the other
styles and houses that we've done. A design review consultant is available should they desire that help,
but don't know if it's something we need to dictate in the same way that we've had others where iYs crystal
clear that iheir design team is not understanding what it is going to take to get through. The drawings are
great, and everything is very thought through. IYs just the context that we're struggling with and that's
something that they're very capable of solving.
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 1/8/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
> (Levy: Thank you commissioners for your comments and of course, we're not really surprised. We're
aware of the design guidelines. Appropriate is a subjective word and there's the wear of time and the
growth of landscape and things that make things fit in, but I'm not surprised that you find this challenging
as an image. ! believe that we can dral it back and make it to be more appropriate in the context of
Burlingame, how everyone perceives Burlingame and what is right for Burlingame which you know more
than we will. This test run was an opportunity for us to get feedback from you, to listen to you, not only
what you say, but what you don't say about what is appropriate in this suburban neighborhood that has
always been a suburban neighborhood and what is going too far. We believe in a design that's consistent
and relevant on all four sides and not pasting something on the front to please the commission and
leaving things otherwise unchanged. We'll come back to you with another well-considered entire scheme
that is more subdued. With that said, the comments about figure ground or ground figure and in
particularly in regards to the location of the garage and the general scheme, those are very important
comments and if this next feels that it ignores the pattern into dramatic way, then that is a more profound
piece of information for us to digest.)
> Apprecrate fhat the applicants came back. Personally like modem architecfure. As originally intended,
we can leave it up to you to make the decision whether to engage with the design review consultant.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
> Because of the comment that the applicant made a minute ago about the figure ground and that was
useful information, it generally worked. Not sure what my fellow commissioners think about the location of
the garage. Got the sense from the earlier discussion that it felt like the right location for an attached
garage, but not for a detached garage. Wasn't thinking that when commenting about the figure ground
work. Just thought that the ever widening space in the back worked as a figure ground for a rambling
house on a lot in Burlingame. Despite the use of the terms, not seeing Burlingame as a suburban
environment. Grew up in a small town in the middle of nowhere of 500 people and this is a small town. IYs
wise to think of it as a small town as opposed to a suburban area.
> There are a few examples on that street where the garages are attached and forward. In most cases
when we review those, there's a variance involved and it usually goes through when there are examples in
the area and it doesn't do any harm. Don't know this is the wrong place for the garage and especially for
what fhey're frying to use the lot for as a whole. They need to be considerate of what that overhanging
mass is doing and whether they're going to get the separation they need for the building code and for fire
and all of that being that iYs a garage. It's not the forwardness of the garage that is bothersome, just never
seen a detached garage this far forward. It is a little odd though that it's a completely blind wall.
> Raised the issue of the neighborhood pattern and a rough count of how many properties have garage
forward. Can be swayed by the idea that the benefit that the community is gaining is fhe ADU that's in the
rear and so that causes the figure ground diagram to have to be evaluated especially relative to the
swimming pool fhaYs desired, et cetera. Can understand the idea of having thaf as garage. IYs a small
one-car garage. But to then say that it's acting as fence, then we have the equivalent of an eight or nine
foot fence along that front and the whole house plasters itself across the whole front. If it's going to be a
garage, make it a garage and have it look and be scaled like other elements so it feels residential.
> You can make the argument for having an attached garage brought forward, but the concern really is
it being counted as a detached garage? It doesn't count towards the floor area ratio of the house because
you get that as addrtional square footage if it's a detached garage. There needs to be a four foot
separatron whether iYs horizontal or vertrcal. There needs to be enough separation that it's a detached
garage by definition and not trying to skirt around some of the floor area calculations.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item
on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as instructed. The motion carried
by the following vote:
Aye: 6- Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid
City o/ Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 1/8/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
Absent: 1 - Sargent
City of Burlingame Page 5 Piinted on 1/B/2021
-- — �
' PLANNING APPLICATION
OURun�cw� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT—PLANNING DIVISION
.: FR.It�R��SE �cQAQ. 2VC ��': w� ��'R_�Fd�A;�E G.K 9401C-3�?
TEL 55Q558 ?25� � FAx 6S� 696 37�G � E-'��AIL PLANNINGDEPT�BURIINUf,ME OR�
_ . - ---� .. . . _ . __ ___..._. __._�__ .
� ��o`! i`i.bc;lb AV�Mt,Q��c,�.,•,c C� ��e.►io C31.6 �.%' w_ +''-�'—
PROJECT A08RES5 ASSESSOA'S PAItCE{._ t�APNj
z
O
►-
Q
�
�
0
u�.
2
�
c�
w
�
O
�
a
�t 2n , � � �,(� 30
�ING
o�aEcs oEscaiPnoN
E�trf►o�ih;�rl � un c'�S�ic11 F II,ic �T.�Ktt�� �1CX*'f�, an� c:�nb{�'wctipf�_� �`_._ -__- --------
t��� b�n�1� �rn�l� nom� .�nC�+�cltrr�, �Jsi'#�c���a a�r.►��1 �� Qnl ssair��inz �ml _
. ---��—�. --�--�---v
� - -- - -
PROVERTY Cr11MER liAM1E � ADA�lCA�tT7 ApDRESS
_5�4�.R T�tw�.�ke � � Sw��a�. ��..�.lKer
O pHOMlE —�— E�I�,L
Q �S� o) � �� —t o 23
�
a ARCN�cT �+�sir�ER �'�vP�►rrra
Z :�t..� � � �Ci1�,j�0.t'P� ��iC.
ADDRESS
� pH��E ���s��6Hti -��Zo _q�Ob7(�E-,�L
a
U BURLI�iGAME BVSINE55 LK:ENSE t
J. -- - --- —
d.
� �o `t C�.,���l�c� __F�cnu� , l��R�^�e �F� '}k010�
talw�.lt(� �t,hov, t� I
�SOI ��i�r�k ��C�-J_$�,r, F�i'anc3s[o CR 9►ttJO
Q�4��CJ t.cvyr,a • {c�m
Q 'FOR PRO.lECT REFUNaS' ?e-35e Dt�'�Oe dn dtld'es51� �r �:� (: Y r�'�r-0 �EL'�5 �Yv ,� rra,l2d't:
<�O�u1 �o�uar�,C,[( _ I �a
�y� ApDR€SS
- -. _....�._� � - -
�i.` � i� � o r�vc,'nuC : � 1� n�y.�C � Ig %' f O� O
�
� �ER�BY C�RTIF!` UFlDE►Z �'EhALTY Of PERJURY THAi iHE INFL�R1u4ATl�?N GIYEN HEREIN `S TRUf AND �ORRECT :p 7HE 8ES'+ OF MY
� � �,�i1'LE�7G� AN� BE��EF
�
w
z
� Aa� ic�_NT'S SIGN�TURE 1� DIFFERENT FR4f� �OPERTY OWIV�ER} QAT�
O
�
Q kM AYYqR� :�F TNE PR0���5tC APPLIGATIOW AND HEREBY hUTkORlZE THF ABQvE APf'LICJ1kT T(? SUBMIT THiS APPLICAT1pN TQ TNE
> �=lrNNtNv C �SS `.i�1�'�'� ` J
LL 3 � r`.' �''� _. _ lf ZO
� �� ��j� AT
AUTHQRIZATION TO REPR0�IUCE PLANS
; MEf�a•+ G�AN- ;+�c 4''�r ��F BURLI�t';�+11�4E THE nllT�iOr�PrY T� REpRGCU��E UPON RE�tJEST .ANDK)R PUST PLrINS Sl,°BA�IITTED W'ITh4 THIS
APPLICATION ON THE CI7YS '�A'EaS�T� A5 PA,RT'Jf TF4E �lr.�iN Nv AF�RG:�1 �k��ESS ANp WA�VE ANY �LAIMS AG�'.INST THE CiTY ARISJNG
pUT Of OR REUTED TO SUCH �CTION �` (M�qT1ALS QF AR���CT�DES�GNER1
._. __ ._____ - _......�..,-
�,,,...,,.�.�., ,4 . . .._...,.�..__ -
�p i n w rra
ACCESSrJRr D�c1tNG U'lrlT tAD�.�;
C^,n�tNz4C�A� uSE PERf.I�r ICU�t
�CESaGN REv�fw �SR;�
[] H�StOEAREACON5IRU�':Orv�t�?}��T
p �a,n�oR �►c�TK»�;
� '�J�4� ��i:T �$F'P
�
J
Z
0
W
�
�
�
�
f-
�
��.�,.���,�, RECEiVED
Q""�� MAR 1 1 20��
❑ �Ehr,� ExCfPTiOnt
� ?' ��F� - — W - �� C�TY OF BURLINGAME
����p „.�p_p�_ANNING DN
�
T
�
c
N
m
O
Z
r
�
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural
characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the
existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood.
The existing street is a mix of early twentieth-century romantic styles and newer homes,
craftsman or cottage inspired. Adjacent our site, we have a one story, flat-roofed
Spanish style to our east, and two-story, neo-Tudor to the west. We have designed the
mass of our structure as a bridge between these two neighbors. The primary forms, a
series of cascading gable roofs are simple and consistent with the mass, form and
general feel of the overall streetscape. Detail, natural wood and stucco, are integrated
to create a unique, finely crafted appearance, humble and aware of its surroundings,
well made, but not a self-important as is the case for the bulk of the houses on the
street.
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and
elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with
the existing structure, street and neighborhood.
Our front elevation shows four distinct roof lines, cascading gables. This is done to;
minimize apparent mass, to create a sense of form and rhythm that is appropriate for,
and consistent with, the neighborhood. This is an expression of architectural integrity, a
design that has an internal logic that is informed by its context. It is a form that fits, it is
intentionally low, meeting the one-story neighbor, preserving and enhancing the
daylight plane for our neighbors on both sides. The surfaces on all four sides of the
structure are considered, variety in form and material is employed in consideration of
the overall architecture, our neighbors and Burlingame in general. Using vernacular
forms and borrowing material choices from the immediate environment, stucco from
our east neighbor, wood from the west, makes this proposal "sit" well in both form and
texture.
3. How will the proposed project be consisfent with the residential design
guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the
neighborhood; Our proposal is a simple, craftsman/mid-century inspired set of forms designed
to be as low profile as practically possible, stepping down to meet the scale of the street,
honoring the history of place and the mass of the neighbors. The forms speak to the mass and
material of both of the adjacents, and to the neighborhood as a whole, simple and
recognizable. The ridge line is well below the height limit, gable forms improving the daylight
plane for our neighbors.
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; to improve the indoor-
outdoor relationship of this house to the outdoors and to include an ADU, our plan employs an
attached, single car garage set-back twenty-five feet from the front property line. We believe
that this is the best plan for this site and program and accept the "square footage penalty" that
comes with an attached garage. We take all this on, realizing that the pattern of the street, the
location of driveways and garages is one of the defining aspects of the neighborhood. Not only
is the garage set back and integrated into the overall form, but the door is to be clad in siding to
match the surface above, making it appear even more as a part of the house. Driveway location
remains where it is preserving street pattern. Pavers and plantings will further soften these
features.
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; This proposal is proportioned to fit into its
site. The cascading gable roofs provide variety, depth and scale that is appropriate for the
neighborhood. Careful attention to detail will give the structure a presence, equal to its
neighbors and their respective period styles.
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; The layout of
this proposal, in plan and in section, takes its neighbors into account. The taller portion is
nearer to the west property (itself two stories), but care has been taken to vary the surfaces, to
address privacy concerns and to preserve-improve the daylight plane, while protecting existing
vegetation that further adds to privacy. To the east, our one-story stucco and wood garage is a
response to the one story-flat roofed Spanish style house there. The yard space and setbacks
create an additional buffer along this property line.
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structura/ components. The defining
piece of landscape in the front of this property is a large American Sweetgum tree. This will
continue as the focal point with lower growing, simple native garden to replacing the lawn. A
couple of smaller, specimen type trees are included to complement the entry but defer to the
scale of the home. IN back, the pool is oriented across the lot, from east to west, to internalize
the pool within the site and minimize any disturbance to neighbors.
4. Explain how the removal of any frees located within the footprint
of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent
wifh the city's reforesfation requirements. What mitigation is
proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this
mitigation is appropriate.
Five, small fruit trees are to be removed in the interest of the proposed ADU. These will be
relocated/ replaced with a variety of plantings in a larger yard space. This will include a
vegetable garden, additional fruit trees and decorative plantings. Note that the attached
garage site planning eliminates significant areas of paving, allowing for more on-site vegetation
while reducing impervious surface on the lot.
Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
ESTABLISFiED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793
CERTIFIED FORESTER • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPERATORS
RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON
PRESiDENT
JEROMEY INGALLS
CONSULTANT/ESTIMATOR
November 5, 2020
535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A
SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6311
T'ELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400
FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443
F.MAIL: info@maynetree.com
Mr. Sohan Talwalker
1209 Cabrillo Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Talwalker,
On November 5, 2020, we met to inspect trees to determine heritage tree status. The
existing lot is to be torn down and a new house, pool, and ADU will be built using 4-foot
setbacks.
All onsite trees are not heritage trees; see tree survey. Each tree was assigned a number,
measured, and given a condition rating; see site plan. Most of these trees are to be
removed, but some may be retained.
Heritage trees retained must be protected from construction. There are two heritage trees.
Tree #1 is a liquidambar befinreen the sidewalk and the street. Tree #7 is the south
neighbor's flowering pear.
Tree protective fencing must be chain link on steel poles and erected prior to any work being
done. Tree #1 can be fenced along the sidewalk and the curb and out north and south to 15
feet minimum; see site plan.
The second tree, tree #7, is about 5 feet from the property line and about 6 feet from the
existing garage wall. The proposed pool will be 4 feet from the property line with over
excavation being 3 feet from the property line.
Pool excavation will be about 8 feet from the neighbor's pear. The tree overhangs the lot by
15 plus feet. Generally, roots go out to their driplines, but the garage floor could have
reduced root growth, therefore reducing potential root/tree impacts.
I recommend, when the garage is removed, having the area inspected for roots that may
need removal. At this time, mitigating measure5 can be stated. At this time, tree fencing can
be installed at the fence line. Other fencing can also be inspected as erected; see site plan.
To reduce potential root damage, soil must be pulled away from the tree not across the root
zone. Routine inspections are needed to monitor tree health.
I think this report and opinions are accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and
practices. ;;� � � � � �� � �'"�
�► L
NOV I 0 2020
CITY OF BURLIP•f�;AME
CDD-PLANNIN� DIV.
1209 Cabriilo Ave., Burlingame 2 November 5, 2020
Tree Survey
Each tree has been given a condition rating that is a combination of general health and
structure. The following table helps explain these ratings:
Condition Ratinq
0 - 29 Very Poor
30 — 49 Poor
50 - 69 Fair
70 - 89 Good
90 - 100 Excellent
,'�1������L.�
�� �; �� � li ?_0?_0
t;l �`� Of= k3l:�iLl�f.:aAME
,� �r;-��s_�,Pi�llNf; DIV.
The Comments column gives individual tree characteristics that help explain the condition
rating; it also has general tree protection, mitigating treatments, the presence of insects or
diseases, injuries, broken limbs, trunk damage, past pruning, root damage, etc.
Tree Survey
Tree 3pecies Diameter Condition Comments
# Common (inches) (percent}
1 Liquidambar 26.85 60 Sidewalk curved out around tree.
Fence off along curb and sidewalk.
—____....._._._._ .............._._.__�_.............-----._......_.__..............___..------...__.____- --._...._..._...__ ____...._.__......_---------...._.........._...._..........._...._.�.---..
2 Privet 6.0, 5.6 55 Two trunks growing together-to be
removed.
3 Plum
------ -----_._.�...__.._...�_.
4 Peach
_..,___._..__....._....._ ......... .... ... .......
5 Pear
--._ ._...__.._.......-----
6 Japanese
Maple
._ ___ __----_...
7 Flowering
Pear
8.4, 4.0,
3.9
6.0
_ ................ _ _ ..
2.9, 2.8
4
(est.)
......_ .._
18
(est.)
Sincerely,
� ��
Richard L. Huntington
Certified Arborist WE #0119A
Ce�tified Forester #1925
40 Has trunk decay and bark cankers;
tree is over mature; to be removed.
---. _ __.. .._._..._.._._ -------- _ .. _..____.._...-- ....._..._ __.
60 Could be saved.
55 Some fire blight; not well estabtished ;
to be removed.
-----..._ ..- ---._....-------._._._............__._.._._..... -----.._.,...___-_____..._�.___ --
40 Tree is only a bush as canopy is
comprised of sprouts; to be removed.
- -----...._.._.__.._......._.._._ .._. __..........---___._...._....-----------_._......._....__.�.....�..._.
6 Five feet from fence; has some fire
blights; overhangs proposed pool;
pruning needed to keep pool clean;
tree is mature.
Sp�IETY OF
����,��-�'� � HUNT�y���9��
� � Z �
Z No. WE-0119A ?
*
FJ
RLH:Ig �F�F'E� ��5'�
d...._�,.
� � 1� � �
� �
�T9 '♦ .
�.�/,c��o F�R�rSle'
1209 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 3 November 5, 2020
.���� " - —�-� I{„ ._...`._.�„r��.,...� _y. _: �
�t $ .��'Q �� v,'� op.x._,�, �C �"�, ��y,�� �'� �.�' � �'..
`_ _ ".'�°.�,,.-.�..� _�'" ��' �� a ' � _ _ :.
^1�, _ `'� vL'r ` - `.. i� _ - ` ". °' < � —�•�w+._�N��- 'ti ,,,,.,,, . �4
.-�� � � � � , ;
; r
.,C�' � ,* �'.� � � q 4'.� f' i� �� �
` R „ti� , ; �
r
s � "� C=
�, ��
+ ' � � t� '� 1. � A, t.�. �_ e.t-��� �`"-'r�!'� � C
� , � �r a.o. ��•'w � "�� "'
i �' �
��� �, x
{O / �///,/f� '' �` .r� #
4� . .f'.:r //f �.^rT;F ,/I'l��tl� < < �
� r �� ` �
:«: r .✓".�'y . � � �� . �M �+
�� �' �"•� ; ����° � � _
� '� � 11� .+`.- ,<`.�� f' ���''
� .. ! . I!'���al�i � �'
� � �� r`' a ` ��
1
��„ 4 � �_._,._--�'<� '�y,� v �f„
�' A
.��-i ��:". �
. r� j �= i �: :r,N ,,,.`�
t �
�___-� ._..---�� ----
�i � 'R
� � � �
� � � �
T
,�;3 � �; t
` !�, ��
—�y �� -: ,•
Ef" ti ,�`.
t �
� i�� � i
} a +� < t
. V( .
, � r �°�
,� + �
i � +� i
�;� �� � �
r
��� -�; �
,�
. �� ��. A. ,.�
�° -'
'�� ��
I � � `�
,'� ��q _
�� � � �
��
��
�ECEI�lEC�
NOV 10 2020
�,:,1TY OF BURLI�lGAME
;� � � Y r •Y CDD-PLANNIN `U' DIV.
� x^ f�� �� ' • (r. f.� +'
� d - � d � i� q�� �+» � '�� ��--Y�
�� � ;� �� � �� � A. � .�� ; �.� a�,.";> ! .
� ol � � i � � �,�s r.f . ':' o"� � �° 6 t �:.
, w�
� ��, � � _ i � � $z � �� i � � ik
� � � r
r� �rr ��.,. ...r.�,.%ii � � � r I � �
hj �, L �� �,. � r� �� � � s�T i i �
�`-�,nj�' A �^{ ; � a k6 t k.lw,..
���L' t f ,' � c i � �. s p
s t °' � �
1 • ,� i
� ; F yq y
b �'� � ` p � �f�' �.. M *
� d..� . _ .....�...... . � J. I � � Ay
` '1,J v
P _.. . .. _.... �i�tt ,�� ....___ r ,p! .., r�,�,-� ,. `„ � 1 : L`� j
R,* „� � +�,,, "�5.�.. f`r�!�`�r°�/�'� ' �/ � " ,� �
. s .w.�.F+.r�.�l.��I • ...
... . • • � �� � � t .
._. " �,F . _..._�_ r n�L..
_ _ i� " ' !
See ta�ee f�ncir�g �a�i�tie�� si4e plan (pd� attached 4o email �ith this let�er.
1209 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 4 November 5, 2020
, �- _ __� ��- - _.
- `� + ' - .�. � �.� � r� � • �
.. _.,. � � � µ� ' � ..
. S i
j �p
k ' � :✓"u-�F�,"x.r''4 •, ?�S �'�,{; . , _ _� _ t_
'.^k �. �� �` ` 1 + �V R �y . 3 � .r .. q ^ �
� � y���.�� ,i`� t�., � 5 J;, Y ,
�'7
�t. �.�,�t� �.�.� 'h �'--._� �. ' .
rr � i'�✓�' `�,,.'��,N„t`��ety�i .�1 � "@ �` ,.
� � �„ ♦
'r�� •"y,� i ��'I w ���dC'` a� X � � ��s-+}1. .
L,. d ' .' 'i '. � p�� �. ' t,}� � .
= S:. �!i s! e,�:..
� I
,•,�'� � �i ' .5 �� }� . �.
� . � . ri
y� .,.� _� . , r =.
( � i ' �"_'_`.'__.�_ � � � f F ' r
'° s_�e:� � ' ' ���EI�/ED
��
;_ __ .. . �
. G. ;, � �
� � �: ._r ._ , � . ,� : i � tiov 1 o zozo
� �� � f �
�:�;t � _ . � ; �
-
' - - --- - - ' �'ITY OF BI:RLI�'tGAME
� s ;�, ,-. ;� � .. _ _.___ .,: ? �' �,:.DD-PLRNNING DIV.
�� i � L
i w r i � ' u�
. 4. M l � � � � �
i 1� � � �
; ,. �� 4 :5 � � ,
' e f , � ..�..� � ct_ {� �. .
�� ` 1 � ' � . " �'"lrl�t„�.so���r,:� - � «•-
� �� � �; x` �
i' ,� ! , � � } �i;
#. `is %� a t q �_` � 4�
if / .. _. . f�•.s� ��
�� i � �,r - 2 �
w ; t _,� � 3 o-w--'
h �, - E` � ;.� � �
;�_ -- __� .z, f� _ �
� (` �� � i'L� t"— ��. p + � r'
� � `; � �� ; F. ,s�° ny. �
i � � �rF i � � �........ .._.�. � + !� i !r,
f
/> i ; �j{ �
. `i• , f �' ' , ) �
� i �
� _ _.�_�� < � � ��1 , �,
�,��ffi - .. ��,� � �..
`� k �;�..:._, 1; �
:� ; � ? s
. ' rS. '� � �. � i �
f b� �a ' J,! r y yi
���� `� �j � t� . . �i
aZ- i'�. _ . �_� ��, 1 � �
� � � ..:._z _� ,,� , ?.
i:_ �
�� - .�►- ._._ •'..�" ���� � �
'�'kA+IY�M�•fi�JY. �.Y. �, ��r'�s'�.4 4 d aa n W�. d� .: S'-'�T "f
�L..__ . a ._ _.� . t._ � �
See �re� ¢encing pwopoaed site plan {pdfl attached to email wi#h ihis le4ter.
GRMHIC SCALF:
a o a 8 l8 �2
1 in��
ch = 8(L g- iA -1020
�I
�
��
J
il I
I ) : I
11
J il
I II
II
I I
'i
'; I
li �
n i�'�, I •..W. .�
— . �',
� �..I 1% - , ._ i� dn_....�
I • `
le • I air
i u� /
i�� �
I � p �� _ � �' � I
I I ., i �
it .
�_ I� I i~� I� u` _1J�� �.1 I
�a I
v55:^4 �7 W h. � �0_ _ � j� �.v �
SC..7., ` S i � �_
illl�I I, ,�.yM Q \,.
, �1� Gara9e _ —
I�. II � �
II � ��
t' �! �
�1 � ~{
v i, � t
i �
��ed �; �
------ ------ � :
� T anJ
° ���e� j
1 '�' ,� �-E
i
i
i I
ii
i i
i
��
ABBREVIATIONS
cwE�«uw
roP cr wne
now uur
sraeu cxur� u,w�ac
svn� .wm,w. sc.cA Mu.Mar
I I�
�� � I II�''�' ...' .s:or+ na
�I» I�il�tn II/
��� /„
� �nR �
Av.� I I / I�I
! 19 87' '�
e 'a �i �d � i�i
� _ ,- 1i.�-�'�tv < � � ,�,'• = �Im' i � Y^ I o.... �_,
`� °o ..m� Y� � '�\ (�,�. ����
R �� II I I
.�..'u'� p?' , � ��lYl�1� i,l(J)
i M `1 (4 I�`� : ,A � � I .� )
F� I r'� C;
���; srsa House l I� u� 'Y� i� i�� G�
ri � j q I�,: �
S
�'s-�, � Y - - 555'O4'OC"E �
.._...__ _' S0.00' & ,^
�.u, `' � �. I �.�� O
t'�. �un �l' I � \ �
u, f ---+` \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\���l�il�\\\\�l ° L� _ ° � _ \i' ', �v -r g m
.�. . � i i ? ��� ..' e i I � " � .
_ .IiW w ` '� I fl�, . 'n
" �� �: r_ ��rctec: m- e r�i^, I e��� i' � M••
� . � w.-_ �
�\�\ ��: c����\��\\""�C�����\\� L'�m—r �
N74'S6'OO�EJ � �� V �1` I'�,
119.eY s', � � I li �Y i Ilq
�,aa„y � , i I - lil �+wnw�r
� i. I I'�F. I
I� . PJ
� � • I I
III
�� T I �, I I��I
' � � I III
� O Z � li
� � O � I II'
� � � II
� i��
�"'�
Z � =� '�
z r N
� .,�,�. o ��
CJD �— a !"
� �' �
NOTES
.« as,.�: ,wo ��� .a� ,� �, .� �cnwus.
9pNI��Rv CdiP0.: SEF CCNCURRENT CORMER RECQPD
UMERUWxD unLir - tOfinqV r5 B�SED pl SURlACE ENOLxCE
BUX.PWL LOC�MM' pMCN5PV.5 �RE NE�SUR(0 VERYCNqCIILM t0 ME P�Ea'v
LwES.
puEN9pv5 �C Mf BU�ILtvG ME l�xEM �I TN FxRFiPY �lx9rE0 SI/RF�CE
iNC BVILqNG [N2PoIXt �MiYK� SUxfAf2 .5 �IOCU 5�/,L �x0 v,Ut.YS �PPFOx�u� ctr
0.0�-0.05 i�v MiCxNESS
i11N5Y FICOR ELEV�TCN iINCN A! OOPP iMRESNIXD (ENiERIpR)
BCNMYARN� �SSUKO D�iUu, GpHi �5 4�OW
. eou�+n.ur wnkr w.s vrnronum ro .ccua.rz.. ioc�!c mr �cc�� Fac�ca��-
LxKS iw RE.�PPv i0 i�+[ EnSnnG ivaaOKUExiS !Bv�tbxGj
• NRFENi n iHF SU6.[C� vRCPEFT' X�5 NO! BEEM EYA4iNEC
9Y l W Y�V0�1AN0 SUFKYM E�YUENiS Oi MCOR� u�v Ex151 M�i �R[
NOI SVOVM M'yR1.5 NAP
o�r�a cErsrs�"nncnnav: ecsr crrwr. �.wr rwr .�aeaysrs a+
il1EE5 SMOw Y 6' iRU�nt puKRF W URCER, YEIWRED !' �BOK GIfnDE
LEG� N�
• �� � J/ 'P "r�5 6�6 - IGa �E' � �ti* nS -v,^,'FG;
� F�uhJ Oti AS NJ .:
; ) RECORD GATA / REIERENCf
� WAiFR MEiER OR WAiER VALVF BOX
g FiRE HIDRANT
1FEE 1RJNI( D!AMETER N.NC. FS
O' �"�� iREE SPfCIE51pENiIFICATION BFS' EF/�OHT,
ME ARE NO' AR60RISi5 Q4 DFN R���C'Si5
p�•�=•^,• mcc x+n+uu�nair rrrunKs
TRUNK� TREE ORlP LINE POINiS TGWAROS �REE
�..i.,v iRUNKS ?REE 'JRiP LINES ABOJE
PROPERlY LOCATCD AS SMO'AN.
•j��' i0P OF CURB
- - ��-- FENCE
OYERHEAO W1RF5
On POM£R PpLE
•�++� SPOiEIEVAP.��h
�. SANIiARY Sf15ER �:EAN G�::�
o unurr ecx-rw_ ns .�v�.,..., eize as oeavm
:I7 IRRIGAiION VALVE 90X
BOUNDARY AND
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
1209 CABRILLO AVE.
BURLINGAME
APN: 026-771-!30
LOT 10, Bi.00K 30, 3 MAPS 93
LOT AftEA: 5,993 S0. FT
�PNL
Z�O �yS,L4
V � 7. i
4uss b p
�q a uio�
L. Wade Hammond
Land Surveying
Civil Engineering
36660 Newark Blvd. Suite C
Newark, California 99560
Te1:f51015)9-6111
yePw�landaurveyor.com vatlenammontlple.com
� r '
-Trash/RecyGe Ifr �_i` .
-UnrtPavers MVPCAL � � � '
. �- Ezfg Sidewelk
—_. . --. _-- .___.— -- ---
. . i --1 n � o o I _CMDIV
� _ jr--- _ --- - - .. �
, ' '..' "_ _ - '_� . 4 / � � -}o
._. �_ .... . I _._._-_ � �of ��, � l�
Lj '
� � NAS VIR
'_ — I � ' ' _ . . _ . w.- Y '�tr .
..... ::... ' � '� ` . , .� ._ _. /_ �_._ PE
-..� ..._ iV::. ' ..' I -... J _
�x�� � NADV � ��� COTLOW
� � •_ �'� , � _� . .- -f .
-..T-.-. �.. _,,�,.�y -Cazra�e Pad� • �. �i � - ' pMQp RW r � 1O
L„ �.� � •:_I se �� I ... . � '�. . . ACER SK
q. �_. _.-.. ._—_ .•_ .{�
AGER PAL � = � -- I �- • �
--- � ❑ � � ... a i . - -- 3 f 1� ra.Q � ��'
Sy^��'� EWIS
Paol , �'., ia»., � _e , . � I `..�
HEU SAN
Equiprt�em -
J .
y
' , , - -- . - FEso�� � ��->:
-- _ ; - _. ,
o��. � � �—t_. � ,., �
Swimmin9 �"""D �, ' —' .. � - Na�lDW P2V2I5 I �J•.�,` ,p
Pool �. �. ' , I
� I i
.. r ��> ''�)- t i�, . `+"��-Y��< �7 —__—______ ,.7+t+ + __— ��
�
' S
• ht_ - --- --- � , �.
_..._._._._ _ _.._.. . �.�.m......_ • """.a
� _BUDDAV __ #9 ' �
H� svp _ Large Pots - Honzontal Slat - �'
Wood Fencing SY" S�'-�"" - _ruN oo�.+_. - — / -�s. x�- - -
H,,Rvp - BBQ Serving Counter
"ree "*oteo;�.^n Feneing — �u
� Landscape Plan 1�_ a O 8�1
I 8 I
, . � 4 � F A Plant Palette
'f - - � �, - - - - � - � . — r_ = fi:. . - ....,, xo. sou�+�r wm. commo�. n.m. se. m vir�� x.o.rt.
� ACER PAL br pimmxn Japanex Mapk 1 36' Boa M DeciE Trx
�_ �, , ACER $K Awr p�M�Wm la�i Brk Myk 38' Boa M Dactl Trce
� . z . s,�-- � KYu
C
� __ _iz ._— _ "
�-. . _ .. i� .-r—� . ,.. � BUDDAV BWJasNvq� B Bu�� SG�I L DeriESMUE
f. �r -' _ _ -.. _ .- �•� L 1 � CAR DIV Crex arvvaa Ewope�n Grry SeEge t Gal L Gump Orw
-- - ' m\� IS EQeeNnM1yenWa MwaBtaY tGal H PwTn�l
-'- � � FE I Feawo anna Gb�xa' Festuu Grav t Gni L Clump Grus
�� � - - � HAR VIO Hypenpx ro4cea N C N 15 Gai L E n Wie
��j `� a'tyr "--�c-- '�-��-..-- .�—� � �� O Z HEMSPP H Waspp Deytty(AwoneOodae) 10�1 M luvSlvuE
,.,��ry�. � i I � ����� ' 1_ w� � T T O � HEU $AN Meud�e•a Cvvncl� Cw�i Belk 1 Gel L Lw Sliiuo
FR�r � V MYRCAL M�ricaW�wNu CW:brnuWUMyne SGai L E SnruD
�V SiDE ViEW � CUTAWRY •.•�•i6•• .•••••'•vn ._.� y4� C T C � NAN Nartlien aomeetiz Heeve'M' BeMno 5 Gel t E n SNUD
. ._�_ . ) ~++�v+� �� y� �y NAS VIR NusMa v�,Muia Green M1eetlie Grus L CWmp Grus
PENADV P�nn»wm.aaveeu qeEPourtsinGraw SG�I l Parenni�Grau
� �1 WOOD FENCE Z� O �� Tww+R.
PHIXiRW PrormumRxMow Runoc+Fiea SG�1 L EvgnShrup
Ru+r.EWrculww�v w�w` � � O � WertUr
� �
`..1 J� N T O L CaaMa toM�9' N G N t Gal L Graukc
,_�D o ����
_ _ � � �. �.�, m
� m
Dear Planning Commission, and Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker, and Levy Architects; May 6, 2021
Re: 1209 Cabrillo Avenue — new house
We are responding to the revised plans dated April 30, 2021 for the new house construction at 1209 Cabrillo Avenue,
Burlingame.
The Talwalkers are wonderful neighbors and we are reluctant to disturb that relationship but we had some minor
landscaping comments on the revised plans for their new house.
Our bedrooms are along the side of our one - story house. Our concerns focus around the outdoor space and
landscaping. All the outdoor activities will face our house and bedrooms. While we are glad not to get a long two-story
house along our side yard. We are concerned about the outdoor eating areas, privacy and noise, paralleling our
bedrooms. If the pool and outdoor eating areas are to remain at a minimum, we would like consideration of the following:
a) We would like to request a tall screening hedge of about 10'-15' in height along the side yard for the entire length of
the property. This could be similar to the planting along the current side yard on the north side of the 1209 Cabrillo house.
An example would be a Carolina Laurel Cherry or English Laurel or Podocarpus or similar. It would be helpful if the plants
were a minimum of 5 gallon in size to encourage fast growth. And please no Bamboo along our side yard. The roots are
invasive and it will sprout in our yard as well.
b) We are concerned about the equipment area in the rear corner of the lot. Can this please be relocated or use a sound
proof system? We currently hear the pool equipment for the other neighbor and it is located in their garage. Since it
contains pool equipment and heat pumps for air conditioning, we suspect it will be used quite a bit in the summer. This of
course is when our windows are all open since we do not have air conditioning in our home.
c) There is a roof overhang shown next to our living room. Is this just a cover for rain? Would it be possible to have it
meet the edge of the garage so it does not extend toward the side yard and block light into our living room?
d) We are so glad that the current plans will allow for more room for our shade tree roots, and also the alignment of the
pool away from the side yard. These are great improvements. Thank you
We would still request that the shade tree in our backyard be protected. We have reviewed the arborist report and
would like to request at a minimum that the arborist review our tree and the roots during construction. Replacement of the
tree would be warranted if it dies. We may not know the true impacts for over a year and one growing season. This
concerns us as it may decline after the ADU and pool are in place. Can we request that the tree be replaced if it is
damaged and dies?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we request that these items be included with the Conditions of Approval
so they are part of the Building Permit that would be greatly appreciated. We are afraid that a year from now the
contractor will have lost all these items during construction and they will never happen otherwise.
Again, we cannot thank the Talwalkers enough for being such kind, and considerate neighbors and we are excited that
they are staying in the neighborhood after construction of their new home.
Steve Pade and Jane Gomery
1209 Cabrillo Ave, Burlingame
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW
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 and a Special Permit for new, two-storY sinqle-family dwellinq and attached garaqe at 1209
Cabrillo Ave, Zoned R-1, Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker, propertv owners, APN: 026-171-130;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on Julv 12,
2021, 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 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that
construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family
residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review,
is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permit are set forth
in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairperson
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 12th day of Julv, 2021 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Special Permit
1209 Cabrillo Ave
Effective July 22, 2021
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped June 30, 2021, sheets A0.1 through A4.8, D.1, and L1.1;
2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof
height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning
Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning
staf fl;
3. that any changes to the size
which would include adding
permit;
or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage,
or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
4. 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;
5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the
site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
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 flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building
permit is issued;
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, and Special Permit
1209 Cabrillo Ave
Effective July 22, 2021
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. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this
survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification
that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at
framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans;
architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be
submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
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 built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
�y� CITY OF BURLINGAME
s� � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
�-� �
BURLINGAME SOl PRIMROSE ROAD
,. '�,� l BURLINGAME, CA 94010
��' � PH: (650) 558-7250
www.burlingame.org
Project Site: 1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
fallowing virtual public hearing via Zoom on Monday,
July 12, 2021 at 7:00 P.M. You may atcess the meeting online
at www.zoom.us�join or hy phone at (669) 900-9128:
Webinar ID: 921 0368 6084 Passcode: 163415
Description: Applicotion for Design Review and Special Permit
for a new, two-story single family dwelling with attached
garage.
Members of the public may provide written comments hy email
to: publiccomment(a�burlingame.org.
Mailed: July 2, 2011
(Please refer to other sideJ
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Citv of 8urlingame - Public Hearing Notice
If you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an
appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to
planninsdeptC�burlingame.ora or call (650) 558-7250.
Individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to
request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other
wrifings that may be distributed, should contact the Planning Division at
plannin�deptC�burlingame.org or (650) 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting.
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.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director (Please refer to other side)
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
300' noticing
APN #: 026-171-130
L .�� �� r� ��- � q,�� � w_
d�%Q h CG` ��� �r� �� � . �,� �
� �
�� � Q� q`� q� ��l? W� � 7
� ��
�G .'c� � ^ (� w� r�`r�� y� Q� �4 n�� '
•� �yy � A� ���., � ��� � a�y ��;�, � • ��a
� v � .` GtiJ
� � �t3� h �' Q�rt� 4 ��� � . �;�,r� �r�� � qn ��
W�� � �1�� 4� C�.�� Q�`! i 4 �'�
�aG`' �~ G,� aU "�� Q`�� ``1 �'� .
4�" � �
� � � �`� y3 �� �'.
4 �rr� aGV Y%� ��j �:. � O� ��� q� � �
`N �`:1 ft 1 �G .� � �M M1� �� A� ��;J
�p �'C�'� r� ���t �� �' ��C' � nw� Q � p� ��
'lnl'.`� � � � QQ
C:, �. 4 � c
y c��Q �c� a�y Q � �� v >
� �4 . � 4.7, �� � 4 ��► � � ,
��' � 4�� " ��y`� �� 4 � �� �a�' � �
Q�t� �q , . q �qp � 4^� :��; �q'�'� t� � pc�
�� ��. � �� � �� �� Q�r� Q a�'� �
� ��;�' a � Q � �a �a �; Q ��
�� � � �� � � �' �
� � w c� '_ �
��€ff� � �r,�� �j w ny�V �� . Q4`� � h�, Q�^r �
�� � �; ��, �t- O A � `�� .
, A �Cj ��j A�, �j� � � Q(;�4 p �Q ..+�1G.,
` � 4� �{"� Wb q� � F% � �J q'� �C7
� �� A`� c�yfi� ay� .7 �� c�� q a�
4 � � � � a� Q� ;
t� � 4`' r•:. R� ti� c�,�; � � r+� ti.
A� ;;� 4 �' ��' � : q ,,�: A�
,,�`+�� 4' �� 4b� . �, �� `` �a� �� 4 'a� 'a
a ��� �� " Q�' _� �., �+ � A� q`'' a qyy �
� �' �
� aa �� ���' Q� _ � �� '`�.; , � �� a ,�,QQ �a
U a 4� ,�a a� Q a�. w��� � ��' �
�`v p ��! �Qb �� ,�� q t'' �r,� np
, , �,�� �:i,� �, ��1� .C; �� �i�� C-, �'�� 45�' Q G:'� C�
� � 7
Item No. 8e
Regular Action Item
0
•�tt� .
-..:
; f� �.
r i
^� �
t � J \
(�
,� � �� ��'��'._ ��"�
� ST�ti..i `$ �'` r � _ • � ' � a
� �. �;�-�'� ;�-� ,;�, � a
'��� ��
�, y•„�� 1 - � � •- �
��?�M�1rr�, " � � �. �_ �
"'� 1 � � �►� ��"
_ ' + � ■E � ■ ■
.x;,.r:' .._..x,--- ,:�-�-- ;_ , 1 �t � . ��, .
` � , i'
�� �' It �' '' � . . ���, �„ '; �J�� - . ..
f ,- , � � � ..aa� � �3�,s �;�,�
ta. ' .. - _ �� � - ��
t. .� � :- - �
[ J� � _'�N
R. -. , .
� ;y �
'ti :f.
��•
M_�L
;�^i��?-~, j�;`� � t�'� .
- ,�. _ _ _ -
PROJECT LOCATION
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
i r 4. ?. �
� � ` �': ;, .
� _ .� .��. � j .
�'�,� i � 4.� � �*
F `j R '�. , r "���Hc r.
� � *
���_ �� °� ��4 � ti ;�
t .� � .. ��, js � 4� ,►.
r � �, � .�'� r /�� ''�
� � '��t� ' i� ^
�: "�l�.: 1
'���' � : /
� f ` • r ''� � . v.' ,
`'--�'--���?�'� �fm
■ ■ - .f�`", ,'�` �.�
� � � r r
��.��t,: � •=�-�`� �
"+� ''r i�
. —' - �.w.,.
. " .. _+� �
'�
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Item No. 8e
Regular Action Item
Address: 1209 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: January 11, 2021
Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Architect: Patrick Donato, Levy Art & Architecture
Property Owners: Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 026-171-130
Lot Area: 6,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited numberof
new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential
zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe
constructed or converted under this exemption.
Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing
two-story house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The
proposed house will have a total floor area of 3,319 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,346 SF (0.56 FAR) is the maximum
allowed.
The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered,
are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the detached garage (10' x 20' clear interior
dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in
compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met.
Accessory Dwelling Unit
This project includes building a new 467 SF attached ADU on the first floor at the rear of the house. Staff would
note that according to State law, ADUs are only required to setback 4'-0" from the side and rear property lines;
therefore a Variance for rear setback is not required in this case. Review of the ADU application is
administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the ADU
complies with the recently adopted ADU Ordinance.
The applicant is requesting the following application:
■ Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)).
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stam ed: December 31, 2020
PROPOSED � ALLOWED/REQUIRED
SETBACKS i
--....--------............_.........._ ......................................_..........._........................._............................._............-- ---------------....-----....__...._...............�..._...'....................-------...__.._._.................................................._..__......---------._......................
Front (1st flr): 15'-0" � 15'-0" (block average)
(2nd flr): 20'-0" � 20'-0"
Side (left): 19'-3" 4'-0"
- - - -------- --� ----..._.......�right�.��..... 4'-0" ; 4 -0
Rear (1st flr): 36'-0" (to main dwelling) 15'-0"
;
....................................._...........................................�2nd flr)_-...._. 22'-9" ; 20'-0��
Lot Coverage: 2,116 SF 2,400 SF
35.3% 40%
0
Design Review
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF
PROPOSED
FAR:
# of bedrooms:
Off-Street Parking:
Building Height:
_
3,319 SF
0.55 FAR
4
1 covered
(10' x 20' clear interior) +
1 uncovered (9' x 20')
30'-0"
_ _ _
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Plans date stamped: December 31, 2020
I ALLOWED/REQUIRED
, 3,346 SF'
' 0.56 FAR
__ _ : _
_ . _ _
', 1 covered (10' x 20') +
' 1 uncovered (9' x 20')
._ _ __ _
30'-0„
DH Envelope: complies
' (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF + 326 SF = 3,346 SF (0.56 FAR)
Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:
• Windows: aluminum casement, brake metal trim
• Doors: aluminum and glass
• Siding: wood rainscreen, stucco
• Roof: standing seam metal roof
• Other. steel porch awning, metal guardrail, wood pergola
Staff Comments: None.
CS 25.26.075
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on November 23,
2020, the Commission 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 23, 2020 Planning Commission
Minutes).
Listed below are the Commission's main concerns:
• The design should be more of a house, less of a sculpture.
• Concerned about proximity of pool to adjacent neighbor.
• Amount of windows and skylights — concerned about exposure to neighbors.
• Garage — make it look more like a residential garage; concerned about vertical separation from main
dwelling.
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, date stamped December 31, 2020 to address the
Commission's concerns and comments. Please refer to the applicanYs response letter (attached) for a detailed
response to the Commission's concerns.
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;
2
Design Review 1209 Cabri/lo Avenue
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.
Suggesfed Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the new single family
dwelling (featuring a variety of materials including aluminum casement windows, aluminum and glass doors,
stucco and wood siding, and standing seam metal roofing) provides added character to the neighborhood; that
the proposed detached garage complies with setback requirements and though situated towards the front of the
lot, is separated from the main dwelling to allow air, light, and a view line through the property so that it is not a
dominant feature facing the street; that the articulation provides visual interest on all elevations and the
architectural elements of the proposed structure compliments the neighborhood; 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; and that the proposed landscaping, include new shrubs, ground coverings and
trees to be planted throughout the site, are proportionate to the mass and bulk of the structure. For these
reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review 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
December 23, 2020, sheets A0.1, A0.2, A2.1-A2.3, A3.1, A3.2, A4.1-A4.4 and L1.1;
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 staffl;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer (s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that 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;
5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans
shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans
throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the
conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning
Commission, or City Council on appeal;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and 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;
7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
Design Review
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
8. 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:
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;
10. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,
set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation
at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
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 scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
13. 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.
`Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Associate Planner
c. Patrick Donato, Levy Art & Architecture, applicant and architect
Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker, property owners
Attachments:
November 23, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes
ApplicanYs Response Letter to the Planning Commission, received December 23, 2020
Application to the Planning Commission
Letter of Explanation
Arborist Tree Report
Letters of Support from Neighbors
Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed December 30, 2020
Area Map
4
r�. �a�:�;;'�
BURLING.4ME
,,,.�,r ',
�'�J
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, November 23, 2020 7:00 PM Online
Historic Preservation Commission Meeting followed by Planning Commission Meeting
c. 1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story
single family dwelling and detached garage. (Patrick Donato, Levy Art + Architecture,
applicant and architect; Sandhya and Sohan Talwalker, property owners) (112 noticed)
Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Attachmencs: 1209 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report
1209 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments
1209 Cabrillo Ave - Plans
Community Development Director Gardiner provided an oveiview of the staff repoK.
Questions of staff.�
> The garage location is in the middle to front half of the property versus what we've considerably looked
for in a variance in this neighborhood for an attached garage thaYs in this same spot. ( Gardiner.� In this
case, iYs physically detached. Norma/ly the detached garage is found at the rear comer of most sites. In
this case, this is a different approach. So thaPs something the Planning Commission can look at as part
of the design review in terms of neighborhood compatibility, pattem and re/ationship to the street, but iYs
detached and there's a breezeway thaf goes th�ough fhere. In this rendering, it looks connected because
you can see the plane projecting from the house on the upper floor, but it is physically detached.)
> Is if just a building front setback of 15 feet that the detached garage needs to meef? (Gardiner: N
fhere's going fo be a parking space in front of it you would need an additional space in the driveway. Most
houses require one covered space. If it's a four bedroom house or fewer, you need one covered spot and
one uncovered, and you would need at least 20 feet between the garage door and the property line in order
to accommodate a second parking spot.)
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Ross Levy and Patrick Donafo, Levy Art + Architecture, represented the applicant with property owner
Sandhya and Sohan Talwalker.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> (Levy: To the question that was posed earlier, the garage is setback 25 feet which is the code as we
understand it. It is detached and then we're showing you images of the front and back to show you the
whole architecture, a consistent architecture.)
> What are the plate heights on fhe first and second floors? (Donato: Ten foot plate height. The house
sfacks, so you go up to a level thaPs 1'-6" above grade. Then part of the rest of the house on the first floor
steps down to grade level after that. The plate height at the stepped up area is 10'-2" at the lower level,
and the upper floor plate height is 10' 2-3/4" as measured from fhe leve/ thaYs 1'-6" above the grade. You
can see fhis information on sheet A3.1.)
> Looking at the staff report, specifically at the design review criteria, can you exp/ain how you see fhis
architectural style compatible with that of the existing character of the neighborhood? (Levy: We see it as
compatible in its mass, in its deference to its neighbors and materia/s which is wood and plaster and in
City ol BuAingame pags � Printed on 1/8/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
some of the vernacular in its front porch, in its overhangs that cover the front porch and the notion of a
front stoop. In all those ways, we see it being fairly compatible. I know it's not the norm.
We heard your earlier comments on a different project in the agenda regarding windows and stair-wells on
the side property lines. This house includes one of those as well. That window only exist from the second
floor up so it does create a lot of privacy on the lower levels, but we're open fo your comments about that.
We understand fhe notion.)
> Did you get a chance fo talk with the neighbor to the left or show them the landscape plan and the
location of fhe swimming pool and how it relates io them? (Talwalker: We have spoken to our neighbors to
the left and the right and the three across. We had a lengthy discussion with the neighbor to the left. They
are aware there's going to be a swimming pool. So one of the things that we did is we addressed the free
on their property with an arborist report fo make sure the tree is supported appropriately as we put a pole
in place. They're aware of the project and we have known fhem for the /asf five years.)
> Is the front guest room at slab /evel? So if you come into the entrance a few steps up do you then go
down to that bedroom? (Levy: No. That is 1'-8" above grade, so you step up about four steps to come in.
That room, the bathroom thaf serves it and fhe sfair landing that go upstairs are all on that plane. Then
you step back down and you reach the kitchen and dining area.) That's what is shown on the plan. So
fhere may be a drafting error on the front elevation. That front window comes below the floor level?
(Donato: It does not. That front window is a bay window, so it projects from the facade.) It /ooks like iYs
be/ow the floor level. (Donafo: ThaYs just a detailing fhing that we could provide, but the intent is that the
g/ass hides the thickness of the walls and floor. So you're mostly right, you wou/d see the shadow of the
floor thickness behind the g/ass.)
Public Comments:
> There were no public comments.
Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
> �ll start by saying thaf I'm a modernist architect. The images that you showed of the abstract
barn-like structures standing in the landscape resonafed with me, perhaps they're in a wine country and
couldn't tell exactly where they are, they're very nice. But this is a much different situation. Unlike the
designing of barn-like structure where you create your own context and this dialogue with nature, this is a
small town residential street. Don't find this project to be very compatible with the street and thaYs why
the question about compatible ability with architecture style was asked. Understand the conceptual
response and iYs true that the massing and some of the geometry is similar, but would be hard-pressed
as an architect to see that this project fits in fhis neighborhood. If this were standing in fhe landscape in
wine country, yes could see that. It's nof quite aggressively incompatible like some stuff we have seen
recently — it appears to be trying to be compatible, but iYs so conceptual in its compatibility that finding it
hard to believe that anyone walking down the street who has not been frained as a modemist architect
could look at this and say yeah, that fits. Having problems with this project as much as 1 like the things
that 1'm seeing.
> Have no issues with modern architecture in the Easton Addition in general. We have seen some
projects that have been somewhat successful in that regard. But here can't make four out of the five
basic findings for the design review criteria. Don't see this as being compatible with the architecture style
of the existing neighborhood. For the parking, a rough count along that side of the block shows there were
maybe three houses that had garages towards the front of the property. Still see it as a front forward
garage even if it is detached. IPs not addressing the design review criteria that we typically encourage
particularly on blocks like this.
> Can't make the finding for the architectural style, mass, structure and bulk within this context and the
interface of the proposed structure on adjacent properfies iYs entirely out of character. Don't have a
problem with a design style having a different character, but it has to fit within the given context. Can find
support in terms of the landscape and its proportion fo the mass and bulk. It seems nicely landscaped
and the landscaping is articulating itself relative to the design of the structure. Can't make the other
City of Burlingame paye p Printed on 1/B/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
findings at this point, having an issue with this project of this style and character moving fon�vard .
> Appreciate your presentation, the work and the craft that has gone into this. Appreciate the schematic
design that went into trying to figure out a solution with the pool and all of the space and the back area will
be a really nice place to be. But also struggling with the compatibility aspecf. Can squint and can see the
roof lines similar to ofher roof lines in the area, but iPs a big stretch fo� thaf neighborhood. Also can
accept a den in that front room with a big picture window on the street, but a guest bedroom is nof so
good unless you have a window treatment as well. IYs a lot of exposure out on the st�eet. Agree seeing the
photos of the other examples out in nature, in a larger lot or out in the country, those are excellent p/aces
and it works for the context. But here in our neighborhood, iYs a rough one fo see that this design is
compatible.
> �ll echo a lot of the comments that have been made. This is a really big house. IPs kind of a long
stretched out rambling house and iYs screaming for about three or four more acres around it with rolling
hills as was previously indicated. The garage may technically be detached, but if not misfaken, the code
says something about a four foot separation and assuming fhaYs not just horizonta/ separation, but
vertical separation as well. Staff and applicant might want to look closely into it. Not seeing this fit in and
not sure which direction to send it.
> Agree with fellow commissioners. The architects have great ability to /ook at what we're saying and
possib/y come back with a new rendition of this home. Initially thinking we might need to send it to design
review, but not sure thaYs the direction we need for fhis project. But would like to hear from my fellow
commissioners and see what they think about that.
> 1 fee/ some sympathy for the left and the righf neighbors fhough. From the right side, thaf large plane
of g/ass on the second floor, realized you mentioned earlier that you may address that in a future
submission, but certainly that wall of glass for such a c/ose proximity to a neighbor on the right looking
into their home wouldn't be very welcoming and neighborly. As well as on top of those windows, all fhe
skylights that are immediately below those in fhe sfanding seam roof. Would ask you to take a look at
that and a little bit more consideration for the proximity to the neighbor to the left and right.
> A larger lot would help out a lot, but we're not in that situation. Feel for fhe neighbor on the /eft even
though the homeowner may have spoken to that neighbor and they're aware of the project. Not sold that
iYs acceptable to have a swimming pool a few feet away from one's bedroom and all that activity at the
back of the property is all oriented around that left side. Don't see this being compatible with the
neighborhood.
> On the one hand, don't know if iPs entirely fair to fhe design consultant to put this much on them, buf
on the other hand, can see some potential benefit to some advice from fhe design review consu/tant just
in terms of the design criteria and the knowledge of fhat criteria.
> Wasn't planning to go to design consultant because we've got very capable designers. Don't fhink that
sending this project to design review is going to get us there because if these designers chose to design a
house as opposed fo a fully conceived object, which was the term that was used af the beginning of the
presentation which implies a sort of a sculptural quality to the project, if you thought of it /ess of a
sculpture and more as a house, this could get there. But iYs such a highly conceptual project that what's
happening in design review, there will be a philosophical argument about this house. We don't want a
sculptural object in this neighborhood of houses. We want a house in this neighborhood of houses so
don't think design review personally is the right thing.
> Was a little bit skeptical of the figure ground presentation. IYs a long rambling house, but as a figure
ground, it worked. What doesn't work is the translation from the figure ground to the sculptural object that
wants to be a house instead of a sculptural object.
> Given the product in front of us, they seem like capab/e architects and would trust they have to have
that conversation with the client and come up with what that vision is going to look like. Don't think iYs
going to come back as simply as it has to fit in Burlingame and they're going to copy some of the other
sty/es and houses that we've done. A design review consultant is available should they desire that help,
but don't know if iPs something we need to dictate in the same way that we've had others where iYs crystal
clear that their design team is not understanding what it is going to take to get through. The drawings are
great, and everything is very thought through. It's just the context that we're struggling with and thaYs
something that they're very capable of solving.
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 1/6/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
> (Levy: Thank you commissioners for your comments and of course, we're not really surprised. We're
aware of the design guidelines. Appropriate is a subjective word and there's the wear of time and the
growth of landscape and things that make things fit in, buf I'm not surprised that you find this challenging
as an image. I believe that we can dial it back and make it to be more appropriafe in fhe context of
Burlingame, how everyone perceives Burlingame and what is right for Burlingame which you know more
than we will. This test run was an opportunity for us to get feedback from you, to listen to you, not only
what you say, buf what you don't say about what is appropriate in fhis suburban neighborhood that has
always been a suburban neighborhood and whaf is going foo far. We believe in a design thaPs consistent
and relevant on all four sides and not pasting something on the front to please the commission and
leaving things otherwise unchanged. We'll come back to you with another well-considered entire scheme
that is more subdued. �th that said, the comments about figure ground or ground figure and in
particularly in regards fo the location of the garage and the genera/ scheme, those are very important
comments and if this next fee/s that if ignores the pattem into dramatic way, then that is a more profound
piece of information for us to digest.)
> Appreciate that the applicants came back. Personally like modem architecture. As originally intended,
we can leave it up to you to make the decision whether to engage with the design review consultant.
Chair Tse c/osed fhe public hearing.
> Because of the comment that the applicant made a minute ago about the figure ground and that was
useful information, it generally worked. Not sure what my fellow commissioners think about the location of
the garage. Got the sense from the earlier discussion that it felt like the right location for an attached
garage, but not for a defached garage. Wasn't thinking fhat when commenting abouf the Fgure ground
work. Just thought that the ever widening space in the back worked as a figure ground for a rambling
house on a lot in Burlingame. Despite the use of fhe terms, not seeing Burlingame as a suburban
environmenf. Grew up in a small town in the middle of nowhere of 500 people and this is a small town. It's
wise to fhink of it as a small town as opposed fo a suburban area.
> There are a few examples on that street where the garages are attached and forward. In most cases
when we review those, there's a variance involved and it usually goes through when there are examples in
the area and it doesn't do any harm. Don't know this is the wrong p/ace for the garage and especially for
what they're trying to use the lot for as a whole. They need to be considerafe of what that overhanging
mass is doing and whether fhey're going to get the separation fhey need for the building code and for fire
and all of that being that if's a garage. IYs not the forwardness of the garage that is bothersome, just never
seen a detached garage this far forward. It is a little odd though that iYs a completely blind wall.
> Raised the issue of the neighborhood pattern and a rough counf of how many properties have garage
fonvard. Can be swayed by the idea that fhe benefit that the community is gaining is the ADU thaYs in the
rear and so that causes the figure ground diagram fo have to be evaluated especially relative to the
swimming pool thaYs desired, et cetera. Can understand the idea of having that as garage. IYs a small
one-car garage. But to then say that iYs acting as fence, then we have the equivalent of an eight or nine
foot fence along that front and the whole house plasters itself across the whole front. If iYs going to be a
garage, make it a garage and have it look and be scaled like other elements so it feels residential.
> You can make the argument for having an attached garage b�ought forward, but the concern really is
it being counted as a detached garage? It doesn't count towards the floor area ratio of the house because
you get that as additional square footage if iYs a detached garage. There needs to be a four foot
separation whether iYs horizontal or vertical. There needs to be enough separation that it's a detached
garage by definition and not trying to skirt around some of the floor area calculations.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item
on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as instructed. The motion carried
by the following vote:
Aye: 6- Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid
City of Builingame paye q Printed on 1/8/2021
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 23, 2020
Absent: 1 - Sargent
City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 1/8/2021
L\ � L E V Y �ECEIVED
ART F ARCHITEC'JRE
�__� D�C 2 3 2020
CITY OF BURLINGAME
C�[?-P!ANNING L IV.
RE: REPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISION COMMENTS FROM HEARING ON 11/23/20
Project address: 1209 Cabrillo ave Burlingame, CA
Commissioner Questions
• Garage location in the middle to front half of the property versus an attached garage in the same
location? (Yes, normally in the rear corner, this is a different approach. PC can look at
compatibility with neighborhood.)
fa,�-�, . .��.._ � �: .: . _ _ � . �..� 1��������es on Ga�rill�a,�v� ��ith �y� :��� _ � � �, :;��G� ��.,.��tion.
Although front oriented garages are not the dominant pattern of the street it is not anomalous
either. In fact, our location is consistent with, and supports the pattern of, development along
Cabrillo, maintaining the driveway location, leading to a simple structure that is well set back from
the street.
Just a building front setback that garage has to meet? (Has to meet parking dimensions —
covered and uncovered; at least 20 feet in front.)
��:: �-' �:_ �� � :'�;� from the street. The effect is to diminish its
presence, and this is further enharlcec� by a series of setbacks of the main structure. Beginning
with the bay window with a 13.5' setback, the first floor with a 15' setback, and the second floor
(and front entry) with a 20' setback, the garage at 25' setback is minimized in its impact on the
street. The interior dimension of the garage is 10'-0" x 20'-0", this meets the required covered
space size. There is also sufficient space in front of the garage to accommodate the required off-
StraPt i �nCO��ered parkinn
Applicant Q 8� A
• Terrones — what are the plate heights on first and second floors? (10'-2" at lower level and 10'-0"
more or less on upper level)
����=, ��� . _ � �� � ��� .��ished floor heights on the first floor, and vanous roof
heights on both the first and second level plate heights vary. On the first floor they vary from:
9'-0" to 13'-0"; and on the second floor they are typically 9'-6". The height and proportion of the
house as a function of the plate heights is generally consistent with neighborhood pattern and
�"w� ,�S " � �.�e'
Loftis — design review criteria, explain how this architectural style compatible with existing
character of the neighborhood? (compatible in mass, in materiality, vernacular forms employed —
front porch/stoop)
rl���iial�z;: +;;v i i i�S�, ivi i � i5 alld t i i���i ic3lS Gi c c'aiV (;UfYi�c�fliG�c v'v�'�Il Ci(ir �1C1C�E"il:�v! �'iUU(� �:icii�c;o i d UT
the neighborhood architecture. The revised, proposed design has been re-imagined to include a
nested set of gable forms. This "set" echoes the repetitive forms of the adjacent structures, the
series of arches that characterize the house to the East, and the gable and hip forms of the
house to the West. As a result, the revised proposal "fits" more easily into the context. It is
more consistent with the scale and texture of neighboring forms, addressing them while still
maintaining a sense of its own design integrity
Tse — did you talk to neighbor to the left? (Yes, have spoken to adjacent neighbors and
neighbors across the street; they are aware of the swimming pool.)
i-� . ��� �:� _ � _ � _ � i _ - , _ � � � _
have an objection to the proposed swimming pool. As designed, the area between the pool and
the east property line mitigates potential disturbance between neighbors with a proposed fence
and landscape elements as a buffer. A more significant setback here would serve as a terrace,
creatir,g �� r����c� g�e�t�r ��r.�ie��tial for nois�.
• Tse — is front guest room at slab level? (No, that bedroom is on that plane — a step up) Front
elevation — front window comes below the floor level. (No, window projects from the fa�ade.)
, _ 1
Public Comments — None
Commission Discussion
Loftis - Images shown of abstract barn structures resonated with me; very nice but this is a
different situation; this is a small town residential street and project is not compatible with the
street, does not fit in neighborhood.
����� � � � � � , � � �� ��:. � _ .�, � ; ��r;��, r�fatior;sf�,5�� rC
the neighborhood context. This is done by the use of gabled roofs in a series, a mass and forms
that are typical in the area and sensitive to the specific architecture of neighboring structures.
Architectural detail emphasizes the traditionally recognized shapes and embellishes them with a
scale and sensitivity that is consistent with the other homes in the area, while maintaining the
integrity o�fh� des ,- __ _.�
Terrones — agree with Loftis but have no issues with modern architecture in Easton Addition;
cannot make 4 out of the 5 design review criteria — is not compatible with style, parking patterns
— it is a front forward garage even if it is detached, architectural style mass and bulk and interface
with adjacent properties. Landscaping can be supported.
��ad_, _.�.�. �� '�.� j i ��:���__ .— - �, . _ _ N�t _ �. � _ _ _._ `'Z I;l:u �i''� i,,CIC�h�J'�dl�"1(�iJC% COf1t�Xl
Although the proposal does not mimic the traditional aesthetics of the neighborhood, it does fit
into the small town feel in its mass, scale, position on the lot, and level of detail. We employ
traditional, residential forms that harmonize with the neighborhood, while maintaining a
contemporary design expression, realized with a high level of detail.
• Schmid — appreciate presentation and work, was easy to read. I struggle with the compatibility
with the area, it's a big stretch from that neighborhood. Agree with Loftis — out in nature and in
the country, project works but not in this neighborhood.
�tespon��- :-� ak�ov:
Gaul — long stretched out rambling house, screaming for more acres around it with some rolling
hills. The garage is technically detached — look at 4 foot separation should also be vertically.
R�� ar�. � � - , - q'�)� i� t���__ r`�::: wr� , ,_ , _ .: :y
consistent with the prevailing neighborhood pattern. Of course, the size of the home is a function
of the Zoning Ordinance, with which we comply. The design has been modified to remove the
second-floor cantilever over the garage to comply with the 4 ft required separation from the
garage (we have re-interpreted to mean that the requirement extends vertically the entire height
of the house). We acknowledge that what we are proposing is different than what is typically
found in Burlingame. This is a new solution, based on new regulations, for a new time. The
guest room and the ADU offer the flexibility needed to offer privacy to the owner's parents while
maintaining a connection to the family, and creates much needed housing. Our proposal
respects established patterns while providing a second unit and superior indoor-outdoor space
on a typical Burlingame lot without burdening its neighbors. It does this while maintaining and
�,., _ . A,. _
• Comaroto — agree with fellow Commissioners, architect have great ability to look at what we are
saying and come back with a new rendition, don't feel it needs to be referred.
� �s. We
�;N�. _ � :��� ; .�:_ �;,� .:.;... . .�.::� �::�.:� ,,��U ��,r ;;UN::.��:,�,�� ���u �.,�;.:�:. ,,: �r���� .� an action
hearing rather than a design consultant. We feel the design respects and fulfills the intent of the
!^n�'�"�rv'iG1nIC' '�.�ai�{'Ar1 i� rl1�^�'lr-��'nu-�-�� ^0�-�r� �'� ' A(i�i.^�v^� .-� f t{'lr`�' �""'li � I'\�.
.. . . . . . . � , .
Tse — feel sympathy for left and right side neighbors, wall of glass on side elevation is not very
welcoming and neighborly; the skylights as well — revisit; not sold on having a swimming pool few
feet from one's bedroom. Project is not compatible with the neighborhood.
�- ,w. , �. .. _
.�..o � �.J�e,.. e..,..� .._„ . .J_ ., , .. �.. ! � �� .s �..� �..�. Ic _ ,��.�.,. o s��- Ntt�).�.�v.+ _��;Ji'��,i� C.�{I�
expressed their support. However, the design has been revised to reduce the amount of glass
facing the neighbor to the right (West) specifically reducing glass at the stairwell consistent with
Commissioner Loftis' comments. The quantity and size of skylights has been reduced, they still
provide natural light, but also accommodate privacy on both sides of the line. Additionally,
existing trees and shrubs along the north property line will remain, blocking or obscuring views
frc,~ - h, � �:_ �,���
• Terrones — motion to send to Design Review Consultant.
• Loftis — designers are very capable and referring project is not going to get us there; think of the
project more as a house and less as a sculpture; it's a highly conceptual project, we don't want a
sculptural object in a neighborhood of houses.
i
a, � _
��� ���. ��:; � � � _ � � �
„-
, , , a; , „ ; „ �
s.��� ��.�
• Schmid — given the product they put in front of us they are very capable architects and have them
discuss with their clients; everything is very thought through it's just the context thing we are
struggling with.
�t=� ;�Pl�:c;; �flc j�f���C:� ,.0 P�C)USs flci� ��ci1 I"c''J]S2CI tU aC1i7�C55 �hl� C;OfYiG?�2"1p 52�:' ��I�V1C�U�
_ ' s�_� � ^�_
• Comaroto — leave it up to you to make the decision (making changes to project)
� ., - . .
�a<;�� � ;:;� , ,- - - � ���v� , �_J t,, t� _ --��: .. _ _ . . ,,�-� ,�; ,-
Y'�5�< < e I t "�',I _:..� -
• Terrones — motion to bring back on regular action
Response: The proposed house has been revised to address this comment. See previous
responses �n this document
Loftis — figure ground generally worked, garage felt like right location for an attached garage and
not detached garage; don't see Burlingame as a suburban environment — it's a small town.
�,.., , . � � � �_ _, i p,
� �,,,.,., �
, , _- � - _
addition to revising the house so that no structure cantilevers over the garage (complying with the
intent of the 4ft separation from the house), we made a material change to make the garage look
more like a residential while still maintaining a thematic connection to the house. The proposed
garage is now more recognizable, a stucco structure with a wooden door.
• Schmid — there are few examples of attached garages on that street; don't know that this is the
wrong place for the garage but be considerate of the overhanging mass; forwardness of the
garage does not bother me, just never seen a detached garage this far forward — it is odd that
there is a blank wall in terms of texture.
u a���.+� _:: �a��. a.�r�� ..ai ,�:;i _;��:� �:��� �„' � ,..� u i� i i�v�uJ�, �.Ju li�,JVJC�.e li.) G'h:G1 ��U �)JGi j�l ii:. �clral��. G', i��lCi:
been removed from the project. The garage remains detached, now more so, and visually from
every angle. Although the garage is physically detached, the use of the same materials as the
house, integrates it with the overall design. Its location here is sensitive to neighborhood
patterns, The Design Guidelines. and The Zoning Ordinance,
• Terrones — neighborhood pattern and how many properties have forward garages; ADU at the
rear is a benefit to the neighborhood; if it is going to be a garage, have it be a garage and make it
feel residential.
�rage has been revised to make it appear more strongly as part of the
� ���g� ���r���uu co+�text. The garage position does indeed fit into the pattern, there are several
houses, on this block of Cabrillo, with the garage located near the front of the lot. Some of these
are more classically "attached" sub-urban garages. We propose a detached structure that
benefits from cascading setbacks to minimize its impact on the street while maximizing usable,
nl qtf�n^,r c��(�P
Gaul — look at 4'-0" separation horizontal and vertical so that it is by definition a detached garage.
�� i i�; .' " , � cb-� � ��liJ l,Gl1���i;�` � �'-- �jl�2JVCl :
� l tillc
Please see the accompanying letter from the owner on the next page.
Why are we building this home?
We have been living at 1209 Cabrillo with our two daughter for the past 5.5 years. Our
current home is bungalow originally built in 1925 (contemporary to 1920s period) but then
crudely modified at some point in the 1970s with a second story addition. The second story
addition was done by effectively chopping of the top of the house and was poorly built and
designed with stairs starting at the back wall of the house, no windows in the south wall and
with little respect given to the design of the original house. The prior homeowners didn't
maintain the home and we went through a process of multiple repairs for leaks and a rear pony
wall which was falling apart. We were told by our neighbors that the owner at the time,
performed majority of the work on his own.
After living in the home for over 5 years, and because of the poor condition of the house,
we still have to deal with multiple repairs and have to contend with a poor design of the addition
and awkward layout of the home. Our initial thought was to move to a newer home in the
peninsula and even potentially the east bay. After an exhaustive search during the spring, we
concluded that we did not want to move since we loved Burlingame and more specifically our
neighbors with whom we had developed close ties. We concluded that despite
having to balance two jobs and two children, the best path forward for our family was to build a
new home.
Sandhya and I realize that our proposed home does not look like a home built in 1925 but our
goal is to build a home that would be respectful to neighborhood. This goal would be
accomplished by building a detailed and thoughtfully designed home which captured the
essence of the neighborhood with and use of natural wood and stucco. We are looking to build
a home where we can live for the next few decades and then would be enjoyed for future
families during the 21st century. The home will be respectful of the environment and will be
powered by solar with battery storage to reduce the load to the grid. We also plan on using
electrical appliances and heating system. We anticipate the need to potentially accommodate
one or more of our aging parents over the course of time and for that reason have that this
need could be potentially fulfilled through the construction of the ADU.
Sincerely,
Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker
LEVY
ART + ARCHITECTURE
2501 Bryant Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
RE: 1209 Cabrillo, Burlingame; Statement of Design Intent
Our proposal is a contemporary expression, designed with a sense of mass, scale and
detail that complement the context. The decision to remove the existing house was
made early. The original, twenties vintage structure had been renovated with a large,
boxy addition and variety of material detail, built over time and poorly.
The key features of the scheme are: clean lines based on vernacular forms and a high
level of detail, a concealed side-yard garage, a stepping plan that allows for a long
outdoor space, and net-zero energy construction.
The dominant form is a clear, simple gable. It speaks to the neighborhood through its
shape and detail. It provides relief in profile, supporting our approach to the daylight
plane and neighbors along the long sides of the property.
The detached, one car garage is located along the east side, where the driveway
currently is, maintaining the pattern on the street. The front is set back per the Planning
Code, and, to further soften its presence to the street, the doors are detailed to blend
with the siding, to not "appear" as doors.
Finally, the elongated plan provides for a long yard space. This allows for a reasonable
length (45') lap pool for exercise and fun. It also creates the appearance of a larger
outdoor area with longer vistas. We have integrated an ADU with this "long" plan,
aligning the living spaces so that each enjoys the outdoor space and view without
compromising the privacy of the other.
Bringing these elements together with a gracious entry porch and bay window, the
house will be a good neighbor and a great place for our clients, The Talwalkers, to raise
their family.
1 of 1
9/15/2020
Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793
CERTIFIEU FOREST�R • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OP�RATORS
RICIIARD L. HUNTINGTON
PRESIDENT
535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A
SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6311
J�KUM�;Y 1NGALLS November 5, 2020 TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400
CONSULTANT'/6STTMATOR FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443
Mc Sohan Talwalker EMAIL: info@maynetree.com
1209 Cabrillo Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Tatwalker,
On November 5, 2020, we met to inspect trees to determine heritage tree status. The
existing lot is to be torn down and a new house, pool, and ADU will be built using 4foot
setbacks.
All onsite trees are not heritage trees; see tree survey. Each tree was assigned a number,
measured, and given a condition rating; see site plan. Most of these trees are to be
removed, but some may be retained.
Heritage trees retained must be protected from construction. There are two heritage trees.
Tree #1 is a liquidambar between the sidewalk and the street. Tree #7 is the south
neighbor's flowering pear.
Tree protective fencing must be chain link on steel poles and erected prior to any work being
done. Tree #1 can be fenced along the sidewalk and the curb and out north and south to 15
feet minimum; see site plan.
The second tree, tree #7, is about 5 feet from the property line and about 6 feet from the
existing garage wall. The proposed pool will be 4 feet from the property line with over
excavation being 3 feet frorn the property line.
Pool excavation will be about 8 feet from the neighbor's pear. The tree overhangs the lot by
15 plus feet. Generally, roots go out to their driplines, but the garage floor could have
reduced root growth, therefore reducing potential root/tree impacts.
I recommend, when the garage is removed, having the area inspected for rQots that may
need removal. At this time, mitigating measures can be stated. At this time, tree fencing can
be installed at the fence line. Other fencing can also be inspected as erected; see site plan.
To reduce potential root damage, soil must be pulled away from the tree not across the root
zone. Routine inspections are needed to monitor tree health.
I think this report and opinions are accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and
practices.
1209 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 2 November 5, 2020
Tree Survey
Each tree has been given a condition rating that is a combination of general health and
structure. The following table helps explain these ratings:
Condition Ratinq
0 — 29 Very Poor
30 — 49 Poor
50 — 69 Fair
70 — 89 Good
90 — 100 Excellent
The Comments column gives individual tree characteristics that help explain the condition
rating; it also has general tree protection, mitigating treatments, the presence of insects or
diseases, injuries, broken limbs, trunk damage, past pruning, root damage, etc.
Tree Survey
Tree Species Diameter Condition Comments
# Common (inches) (percent)
1 Liquidambar 26.85 60 Sidewalk curved out around tree.
Fence off along curb and sidewalk.
_......_....__.__....___ ..............._.._......__..._..._...........�...............__......__......_...__._.............__. _ _. ..__......_..._............ _._.__.. __.._......._................_ _........__........_......_...... _._ ... . ___...._........._............__. .
2 Privet 6.0, 5.6 55 Two trunks growing together-to be
removed.
_. _ - __ _ _. _ _.._... _ ... _ ..._... _..._._ _._ y _... ._ ..... ........ ..... _. . _ _ ........
3 Plum 8.4, 4.0, 40 Has trunk deca and bark cankers;
3.9 tree is over mature; to be removed.
_._......____.... _...----._......_ ....................__....---..._..._ _ _......----....__.._..._.__...__--------._._.._..._..._._...........__....._.._----------__...._._.__._..__..__....._..__.......-----....._.....
4 Peach 6.0 60 Could be saved.
_._. .... . _. .._ ____ . .._._. _ . _ .......... ... . ----._.—_..-- --...--------- _...._.
5 Y Pear 2.9, 2.8 55 Some fire blight; not well established ;
to be removed.
------ _.__....__......._....._ _._------ - . _. _._.___��---.....---------._._..._.______......---..._...______...__....-----....._..__.._._.___._..__....__.__..__.
6 Japanese 4 40 Tree is only a bush as canopy is
Maple (est_) comprised of sprouts; to be removed.
_. .._....._ _......._._._....._..__..._..__... _..._._......_............ _........._...._.._ _ _...._...._......_....._......------ _____._........__._ _.._..---._....__._ ...............................__.... ....._.._...._..._.__.._.....__....._._........_......_..............____
7 Flowering 18 6 Five feet from fence; has some fire
Pear (est.) blights; overhangs proposed pool;
pruning needed to keep pool clean;
tree is mature.
Sincerely,
i
, � . �.:. �
Richard L. Huntington
Certified Arborist WE #0119A
Certified Forester #1925
SpC1ETY pF
���?���0 L. HU�rT����p�
,�
G p G
n`_- � Z a
Z No. WE-Of 19A m
*
*
R LH:Ig �`�'pl/FI �� �����
v> �'� � m
� �
��'r #
� 9���r �tFQ�
'�*,.FD FQRF�.-'`
1209 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 3 November 5, 2020
.. _. -
�yr�—�! -.: ��0t"�'+ j��r, . �,,'4—�� ,�.. _.�_..,,_ �
''7� � . �- -�; !'ti '��-�}�
� ��r� M����' i1
i� , � "a.•:.,, �� �"� .: r t � r
� f,k Y� ' — -- . ." �'r
� '"a � _� � � . �t +�t
�d� �",,— � ' < ?� � , .3_i T�, „k._ ._._
� �. � � I � ' �
,
.�. � � � � � ,
.
`:t� ++''� �� � 1° .._ �� � ` ';
F i � •. �ir� � �; e
� �
�!._ �, ' � �
4
i � '� a( �t � .t,�+F,K � �.e,� F�� `»�s, � t. 8:
4��i, � .R_...j,�,� y +`.4° "si .�^
�rW� �A.`%��jF�..=%tfJ�:''f� r t ;i Q
� � � ^s
A�� �f� -�� �,�i� cw
���� � x �
I #� �
t�� �r �f� � � � , �/�,.
f Y?�, l✓"d� � F-�/! r•!�—�Al o�,: �'
� i�1 t � �
�t < �� r - _.% F�
�t � �; i � � ! .f
.� , i k �A� �y yi ::
e '�' �IJ�• � ! ��, �:' �`�i
{ Mr _.�._. �..�� �
�r� �� �__ _ � __ ,� ,f
: }
.'��� �f'- �� r� w:' � "
r ! r.� � �
a �� � �" °rr' � '�� J'i £ �,; �'.:
.�::1 �� �� �'� �i�'%
, ,� �-i` �. ��,�,.,
t � r.
' ' r�;. :h r ....
{;t �� � �A � Y r�.f
��i� f� #� ' � �i
I � R.., _ �,
: �11`� '�"�i i , 3� �
F��� �� °5 �i �r�.. PY rt,,,✓`
� x� � �` � � ]I.�'-�y �'' " � ✓/.n
�, �'�.,;� j
" ��j( . i
'"� al r= � �'Af':t � ' � , {
� Ml�.,. 4 � �� �. . ::�A,� . _.*,.� � r S''.C. e"
1` �I � � �, � F„i
+���:i �; .'r�n' �i . r,
��r zR i t �j � i r� � �i^
il � i � .
�, '� � � ' �' A.�
•�!� Aw �'u � ------ 't ���i'�` * ;�` !� �� °"��
.�#1 �=�" `....i�_ � :� . �«` �!�� �.'
^ t �' f� ,
..r
+
( a. �t ; � ;�g 3
�� j �2 1`� �� � ��
� j � y� � ,� i^i � r• :
j�'ti' ( � ,.l. '`--.,i� �., j. �.�E� i ,•.�,'.� � �
�e � ��t � � �-�',% T o':° t ✓.�:'s!"i'" 4
�f*�„7,� � x' ;+�� -` ,�� .�. � , r e�
, ' � �:. '� �� a� � � i.� �S
����' ' 3 , ,
f� , r
�, �' *".: •^n.'+,«..,..,«.s.--A+r�'.F'..° � � ". i ; ° �
. t A �kR �� r-� 4. � Pt� 7ii�<�� t � � �' '. �
� � `—� : j�...ti_ i { � � � i j�s.k..
E 6 � i' � � ;�.
., x�� , .: � 7 ..3 '"`�� �� i+
E �. . ... _ .. ��S �.-� i •� � 1 i � �
E� . k"ll �1 r � � ��� R
_ �s,.'�'+�g�4+..�... +�.._ ....�.s.,.,.. ��.f.a.C"�.. Jwl,t M�'.�1'��''..��.r"w'.F.� ..A
' i
w w ,1 �
-_�_ � . . +x : x
.,......���.... . R .:. . � } " �.
y � � ..."_"�_"...�._,.�y� � � x�
See tree fencing existing site pfan (pdfl attached ta email�with this letter.
1209 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 4 November 5, 2020
�� ` �`
'L ..
....� . . ...J... '.r .
� �
t:
�
`+ �
�! � .�.
�
M
Y
� K
f. 1
mK�
G
�
�
�
�
�
m
i
{ �'
� �
��
�
C
�
�
� �
� �
�
�
�
�t
� N �`
i
See tree fencing prapo�ed site plan {pdt� attached to email with this letter.
.
. . . —
,. _ ,�. ........... _ . _ . ..__ . � ° ..
.� ..� , a•..� ..... - .
. R _ r �A wr iy , � .
-,,.._,,�„��, �• ....--".,�..+.... . _ .
�lauember i4, �0�0
S��a �C?u
12'tt�B C�briEl� Av�reu�
Bur�in�$me, Cl� �D� 0
T� th�e CEty caf Burl�n,�ame, Pksnr�in� [�i�isit�n
Prc��e�Ct: 12iY9 Ca�rri�lt� �v�, zan�c� �-1, A�N: 426-1�'� -13Q
k currently r�sitle w�th rray famiPy a� 1208 �C�brill� A�+��ena�e, Burlirt��rr�e G,�4.
S�rtdhy�a �n�d Soh�n T��r��k�r �r� c�ur e�eighbor� �nd v�� hsve g�tter� t� kntrw
th�rr� t�v�r the pa�t 5� y���r�. W'�e have �a1 the �p�pt��unity la r��riew th�e p[ans
�r�d h��i��re lhat th��r pr�je�k w�ll erah�e the valu� whil� m��r�t�incng the
i�ttegrity t�f �ur ne�ghb�rhe�d.
'4f'J'� wtu�leh�artedly �upp�rt 1h� �ewr �or�tructk+ara p�t�ject.
Sir°�+��rel� y�urs,
�... . � ..
s,� � � ;_�,���
�� :�_T'�'[M711
��►������r 1:�, 2tl?0
Rima l�h�rl�l �n�i i�i�ur��� Dh�lla
l 21 � C'abrlllo A��c:p�u4
�3ur1�r��,ar��c, �'A'�4U 1 {i
Tc.a tli�; �'�ty c�f F3�.�rlin��.�n�;, �'l�r�t�in� I�ivi�ic}n
,�,},��'��t: I 2 l� '4 hril�c�► � r�:, ���y�:c� [�-1. r['�1; 41��►- I 7 t-1:�{;
1J�'c; arc� �h� c����r���r:� ���ci rl•:�i�i�.���t4 t�f thc; �rc�p�rt}� �t 1� 13 C`��r�llc�
��°�;nti+�, i�urlit��,�i�Y��, C"1'ti, '�1117C��1�'i� i11�C� �(?I1i161 AC'i�Ilh���kr�r ar�:
�x��r n�:xt c�ucar �ei�,l�t�c�r�. �`�: h���s.� I�Rid th+� c���ar��ri��ty� tc� r��+�ie:��
�h� �'al���ik�:r";; ��ans ti�r thc: �xtc�rit�r af th� h�uti� tllc:y �la�� c�n
b�il�in� ��n�i iinc� �hr� d�.�:�i�n attr��:ti�c ar�c� v��c11 thc�t��t�t thrt�u�i�.
�'�'� hil'4Pt,,.° �„�)��C`.i� tCl It:f1�1�.�+ �il��kC�Iljfil ii�i(� SC)�'1+dI� �"�rt'i� Ih�` I��t twt�
y�:a'�, tla�:y I����r� ����:�� ,���c�c� �a��ci r���cc�f�i x��°i�;l�l�c�r:�, ';��� kc���r�=
�h�t thcy� hav�� �c�n:�ulttci a��c� 6�ir�;�i ��tah�i�►1�L•c� cicY�i�n �nc�
k�ui�t�ii�� �r���'�swi�;>n����; �����1 �c�li�r�c� t1�at tl��:y ��i�l �x��utc� t�i:�
�r��jc�t r����+c�n�i�aly. '�1+"c� ►������� tt�c;ir @tar����,��.� 4c>���truc:t�c�n
�rc��i�,t.
�it���r��l}�,
R�ia��i ICt���lu� ��act �i;r.ti��a� ��k��ll�a
�
�V'c�ve�nbert` i 6, ����9
B�►bb� ��t,�r�
1 �t14 t����ll� �,�=�r��
�urlrn�ame, �1� ��01�
Tt� � �G�t� �f �urli�� ��attiun� i'���ci�Mv�t
P"roje��; 1 ��M� �b�cill+a Ave. ��a►z�dti �- � , r�P'l'�: ���-1 ? 1- � ��
�Ve are r�si�l�nts c��` i 2f�4 Ca�rill� �kr�ue, F�urli�ngame, �CA since .�'.#NJ�. Sar�ihy^sr �nd �ah�n
�����.+�' a� �ue n�i�i�+or� art� '��� �.'�� �u� to ��r t�� �►�rl +�v°e�r �� p�st 5 }'�ars.
`X`t�e �'aiwa�ker t'a�nit}r sl�,air�sxi wit,� a�� th� pfat�s fiar t%reir �w tuo�c an�d tirc ratNc�nalt f��' ttt� nru�
ho�c in ��� �nf �ii�� +�t�t'e�tt tao�t� �����h v�sa� bui1� ir� 1+�25 as� ��ingf� ���r' hc�m�� r��ith �
se�:arrd �tc�ry �r�di�i�an ur ?�'s, `17� �co� s�a�r'� a�it��n �s crot v�t��r ��� �pp�lin� �+� rn�ry
fleigh�rs.lt �as huift �►i�h a�la� roo�'� no windc�ws �it��g th� �u►h w�ll �x�d � oue�rali des�g� of
�he ��iitia� i� ia�a�t�r�ot�s ��i�h �e �sr��ta1 �e:�� c�f th� k�u� �r c��er h�m�:s in tt�e
ne��tabcirh�d in�luc�r�,� �t�r $r�rr��..
�i,e �r��d. �d��ign ��ai�s ��ad d�i� �ari�i�l� +u�hiie irr�p�c���n�, t� int�e�eit� t��` �ur
���ghl�cyrt�c►�d. It +a�r'ill f�at� a� .�I�i� �t� �el� �v��+� ��e �o�img crisis i� th� p�i�tr��. It w��� b�
pc�w�ee�cd by� soi�r �qui�e+d r�i�lh b�.tter�r ��ur$ge ta md� ithe� 1� on thc P[i�E �aid tfurin� fire
s�r�r� e�rd �i�r ��rerg���+� :�i�ivati�. !t v�ill � +�q��p�c+d tt�irrl�r �+�il� el���-i��� �PP'li��es
r�s�.lting in �e �tat� �� t�� art ���pur����atail�r f�+e�til� ha�u� �rith �r�o �rt�is�l�ar�s,�ur �cit�r nc�+�
mor� fero e�ni�i�rts hQrn�s in oiode�' to �ale�� c�ur cnwi�nm�en� �ntd ttr� way,we atl wish to l�d
l�a�th� �n� }t�rt'r��i�aus 1��.
Thie fi.alrwa��e�s pla� to rai� th�ir t�► �; oung cl�u���s in tt� ntw �vme and �r�rtt ta stay in t�
�to�re �c��' �. tian� �ir�r� �i��n t�c �la��art��r;pg tl�y I�r�� b�cilt +a�i� tti+� r�����rs.
VwTc whalehc�dl� �up�rt tlu� n�ar �ns1�uc�ia� pnajtxt.�l� fc�� �r+e� to conta,ct �s if" yau
n�ed a�y� fur�� �:��rifcat���.i�u� �m�e �%�crn+� �s 6�4�-���9�3��. � �our +�t�i� a�
��at�iri.1�����t�.re,�t,r�+�t
�
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
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 for a new two-story sinQle familv dwelling and detached aaraae at 1209 Cabrillo Avenue, Zoned
R-1, Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker, property owners, APN: 026-171-130;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January
11, 2021, 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 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited
number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second
dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up
to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exception, is
hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for such Design Review is 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.
Chairperson
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 11th day of Januarv, 2021 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective January 21, 2020
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped December 23, 2020, sheets A0.1, A0.2, A2.1-A2.3, A3.1, A3.2, A4.1-A4.4 and L1.1;
2. that any changes to
height or pitch, and
Division or Planning
staf fl;
building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof
amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning
Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage which would
include adding or enlarging a dormer (s), shall require an amendment to this permit;
4. that 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;
5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval
adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of
all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all
conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed
without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and 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;
7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition
of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 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:
9. 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
professiona�, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor
area ratio for the property;
i��:n:3��_v�
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective January 21, 2020
Page 2
10. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this
survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
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 scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
13. 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
BURUNGAME SOl PRIMROSE ROAD
�' BURtINGAME, CA 94010
� � ' PH: (650) 558-7250
www.buriingame.org
Project Site: 1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following virtual public hearing via Zoom on Monday,
January 11, 2021 at 7:00 P.M. You may access the meeting
online at www.zoom.usJjoin or by phone at (669) 900-6833:
Meeting ID: 860 4166 6099 Passcode: 950192
Description: Application for Design Review for a new, two-
story single family dwelling and detached gnrage.
Members of the puhlic may provide written comments by email
to: publiccomment(p�burlingame.org.
Mailed: December 30, 2020
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Citv of Burlinaame - Public Hearing Notice
If you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an
appointment to view a hard copy of the application and plans, please send an email to
plannin�deptC�burlineame.ors or call (650) 558-7250.
Individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to
request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other
writings that may be distributed, should contact the Planning Division at
planninsdept@burlingame.or� or (650) 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting.
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 respansible for informing their tenants
about this notice.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director (Please refer to othersideJ
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
300' noticing
APN #: 026-171-130
�� '�, 4a
��� _ l�' CJ
F.� �'� a� ^
. �� ��� �3� ��,
'� � � w� ���
�
�`�� t�`�` �,'' �
� �
�� � a�' . �" -
�, � � �� .
�,�y _ :� � ,��i'f C,
w � �
° �,;,� ��_, '� ��-' �v f
�' ,
�� .�� �� ��� �.� �''�.
�ly � r•.
p .,�' ;`,'I ��;
� /' \ '.�
�l'i .�� �Ccl
,
t�
���i � ia ,1� Q
�{v�' �� �� .
c�
o�' a'� �a� �
� �:
�,. ` �
�
�� :�� �-> t<,
�
w r.;,� .;;� n�' C
� �,a Q�� � �a
�;� Gy;,� � ��, �
� �' ��' �
�� �� , q'� �
�,� C��' �j� qQ �'�
�
�l�1 ,�� ^ Q a4 �
� p� av �v � r�� ��� a~ �� 4�'
1 �
; , : 47, `� c��'% � � ;�4 ,w� `y
� �
a`� C� � b� R+f �r c�
�11� � � ���~ �7� �� ��� -� �� � ��� �
Q � �y q, .� Q C� Q�
.
�� .. �� � �7 a;ltir �i, q�" � q ��►3
� '� � �,�� a a . �p '��.
G�� � a bl� � ��' � '•, ' �'�J
� � n.
� ��� �; ; _ �� � aL � �, �
�s�,�,, U �� ��.� �
J �.1, �� c.��� �' �� �C'� c� a�� �� � 4�'�� '�
W'�` �j� �� � � � �a � �� G.
t . � ��, :�` c�4 b y qQ� �� � � � ,
4 �'� -�y� � 4�p� .� �� � .`; � n �
�
a n� � ��� �. � � ,a�_ Qw
� �
►��' ��a ��� a �� � �`�� �L� _ q�' ,
'� � �,� �`, �'•, ,
� � �, q �t�3 � j''� ��, �� c��
w� � p�r `��.l' q `�' f��� r � �q
lJ N�i �•:j 1, V
c�� Q4y�' � Q`'� U� �` ,,� a�4; ,,� a�' a
a �� �� a� '1 �; � , � �� Qa ��
�� a� ��,� � � '� ��� w ;�� Q�
ti � r Q ' T' �A � I
Q � �
.,� �,�, .-, :�A ,.. �.a �Q �t:,
Item No. 11 c
Design Review Study
, ff ;,f^, ;�.,..�;_..����
,�
{ , ��,�`. .�
' e •r .,� 1 � a � �Yti , .tl ^ �' _ . ,
s r✓" ,y �}
; � ',� ' �� �� ,' � t ' y� J� J*r ` �
� � ,',}' � • � � '� � A � • • #
�� � � p� � � j , y t` ,,�,�7•� �„ • -
' ' . f � , . , Y� _ .i �.`« - .F , �
�►.; .* .�--� . � w �; �- �-��l: .S � ./
, ��"C"' . -� �` �, � - �d �"i' � �'�� , �
r �,*''w'�:
�T . "",. � . � � . �` " ,
� , Y , '�r- . '4 ' '�: ��
�,�.r'.� � I � .v�. 2.•. -I'M J`y.
- � � e5 ii i � � ��� � ,�
,� � r. ■ � ?
•�_j � � �� t�� :i
�� ;; . ! ii • �
�, � ,I,�,;i ,, �, ,� .��J
!� � i i � i � � '� �C.�t � �- . ` �'.
�.< . "'� �'
' �._ _
' ��'�
,�:�. � e
� . �.
� - .� o+--� �' �' ,•.
j��
. _I�
� .���i'`�
PROJECT LOCATION
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Item No. 11 c
Design Review Study
Meeting Date: November 23, 2020
Request: Application for Design Review for a new, finro-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Architect: Patrick Donato, Levy Art & Architecture
Property Owners: Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 026-171-130
Lot Area: 6,000 SF
Zoning: R-1
Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing
two-story house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The
proposed house will have a total floor area of 3,345 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,346 SF (0.56 FAR) is the maximum
allowed.
The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered,
are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the detached garage (10' x 20' clear interior
dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in
compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met.
Accessory Dwelling Unit
This project includes building a new 467 SF attached ADU on the first floor at the rear of the house. Staff would
note that according to State law, ADUs are only required to setback 4'-0" from the side and rear property lines;
therefore a Variance for rear setback is not required in this case. Review of the ADU application is
administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the ADU
complies with the recently adopted ADU Ordinance.
The applicant is requesting the following application:
■ Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)).
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: November 10, 2020
PROPOSED
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr):
(2nd flr):
_ . _ __......
Side (left):
___. (right):
Rear (1 st flr):
(2nd..flr).�..
Lot Coverage:
_
15'-0"
20'-0"
11'-6"
4.�...0„
_ _ ......._ _ ........ __ __
36'-0" (to main dwelling)
31 '-6"
2,174 SF
36.2%
ALLOWED/REQUIRED
__.. . _ ........ _ _. _.
15'-0" (block average)
20'-0"
_....... _
4'-0"
4'-0"
_...., _ .._ _. _...... _ __....... _ _ .........
15'-0"
20'-0��
. _ _......
2,400 SF
40%
Design Review
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF
1209 Cabrillo Avenue
Plans date stam ed: November 10, 2020
PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED
FAR: 3,345 SF 3,346 SF'
0.56 FAR 0.56 FAR
_ _.... __ _.. ..... _ _ .... _.._...
# of bedrooms: 4
_ _.. _ _ _ _ __ ____ _ _ : .. ...... __
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered
(10' x 20' clear interior) +
1 uncovered (9' x 20')
i..._ _ ......... _ .
Building Height: 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies
' (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF + 326 SF = 3,346 SF (0.56 FAR)
Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:
• Windows: aluminum casement
• Doors: aluminum and glass
• Siding: wood rainscreen, stucco
• Roof: standing seam metal roof
• Other: metal guardrail
_ _ _ ........
1 covered (10' x 20') +
1 uncovered (9' x 20')
30'-0"
CS 25.26.075
Staff Comments: The proposed trellis adjacent to the accessory structure will need to be completely detached
from the accessory structure in order to not count towards lot coverage and floor area ratio. The floor area ratio
and lot coverage numbers reflected in this report do not include the proposed trellis.
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.
`Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
Associate Planner
c. Patrick Donato, Levy Art & Architecture, applicant and architect
Sohan and Sandhya Talwalker, property owners
Attachments:
Application to the Planning Commission
Letter of Explanation
Arborist Tree Report
Letters of Support from Neighbors
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 13, 2020
Area Map
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�,, BURLINGAME,CA94010
- �,- PH: (650) 558J250
www.burlingame.org
Project Site: 1209 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following virtual public hearing via Zoom on Monday,
November 23, 2020 nt 7:00 P.M. You may atcess the
meeting online at www.zoom.us�jain or by phone at (6b9) 900-
6833:
Meeting ID: 882 8688 2406 Passcode: 106924
Description: Application for Design Review for a new, two-
stary single family dwelling with a detached garage.
Members of the public may provide written comments by email
to: �ubliccomment burlingame.or4.
Mailed: November 13, 2020
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Citv of Burlinaame - Public Hearing Notice
If you have any questions about this application or would like to schedule an
appointment to view a hard copy af the application and plans, please send an email to
plannin�deptLa�burlin�ame.or� or call (650) 558-7250.
Individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or
accommodation to participate in this meeting, or wha have a disability and wish to
request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other
writings that may be distributed, should contact the Planning Division at
planningdeptCa)burlineame.org or (650) 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting.
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.
e
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director (Please refer ro other s;de)
���;� ��il � Es ` ��
� r�
, ����. < �� ��,
� L �:�)
� ���' ���i�,, �%
D� ��� ���� �, ���
�� ��� ���r� r��
F1 sa �fr' �v;��
�� �
:��fi� F`��C, „ ����,. ' : ��3
� C3
� ��`y�n � �d �
D'�FT. ' ��'���� ��
.�
D���� ��D� �� �G
Q�� ���� �� �� �
47 `�'J
�`��Q ���J �C� ps
� �w;
�' � ,
tl�,� �, �
? �.� ��� ���
)�� � �� ,� 3�G� �7���
p ����
} �: � �
FT';� ��"' ,
�1 ' � �'G s� i1`�
�
��" '�rc�
���� � ��a - p��� �
� � �� �l
� �l�.
,
�p D� � g���` �����
� �:
1. r� ��,
✓" ' ��'
\l��
���, � ` ���� ����
�Jp� ��,7��;% ��' �
� �
�p�� tj��� '� . �
Y � �r � �'
% ���� �U �C�;
��
a �� 7 �j�
�� �� ��
r J � �c'�� �a�� � ����'
Fl ��D Jr7y': Da`�r?
j� � ,
`iCT� ,f)'S/y �
(/ J 4� ���
�� � �
�� �� �� .
>>_ �.,, _ ,�J
� v��� �f ���� Z o 0
-� �
��v � � �
t%ry�n �J� i :, N A �
F% C�7�—
.
� �
���� �'�� `� D
�
r � �
���t•� � 1y� o c
�`�4� � ' , c�
��, ��� ,,
E�� �`� ��c`*`:
ifb� ��
�� �-, ��7
` J �
�r`�� �
_ � ��,
(.i.
;; -s r`' Q�
� > ��{ �, � �
���
a ��
c�,�� �,�
������ /' 1 �\��'c�?
`"�,fl� �fFx' 7
����� ���� ���
Dc. � �
�? y� ��� ���'�1.
�'t� ��
� ��
�
��
{%i' _ �f%�
� , ����
��
p �� �'�
1� ��; � ���
� ��
t?;� � ��i•�i+7
�� r �l� ,
t�D �' ��,�y
� � (�'
��1.� �j� ��� 1
��7.� " ��47r� f%n