HomeMy WebLinkAbout1422 Capuchino Avenue - Staff Report (2)�, �,�,, : � ,e ,
3 K' ,� ' i� "n' .F�
� .-,,.� �j, i, � f �,�, f �`,y � �
d
r� l,a,� �' �° 0.y�« J� '... 31 I�•�+ j
t .�; , ��`� ¢ �
� ��
__ r
�' N /�,� ..,s� � . `i �
r ta �� �,l''�� � ` �^ �' .�....�lr'aC
�'� .��� .�' �I11� � � �i�ll��4'111�.HIili i1�� IVv'�����
' p,a�'�� '�:� � � i�;��" °;',�'�"�'�"
� ���t ' � - ; , �,�, .
w�
„
��� � _ �� .� . - ;
4 �
1
S'j� ! 1 �. k'"** �„ .
�R`. ) t �Y`. �
-� � , "' ,� . �.� _
�j � _`�-t . � , . ... .. �
i � �l1�fs � �-�-` ' �.ry�� .+7Ak'�
- ��-,.� '- _ ..�^" J4.
_: •'1y..;:... „e�:- .- .31i ^, ., — -- . - �
�a�� -,
- , "!. .a: �"�.
' ,��,������i,�p;; � '1
;, �'., :,, -4',A+�'�. � ....r _ , ',.. S � .
��►
�;�� ,[+. `f�. P',.
S �.ti.. L a �.
� �+�'����s. ,
_y, _ �
�4
'� _ ..y
4� t
� � r
:,..� �: . ,
�' i ` ��� �
>,}� � � ��
.:� <��� ,'
- _ ,.... ..t» �..„ -,� $K=. -�-`+r
. � �' i 1�' 'Y ��
Item No. 8a
Regular Action Item
City of Burlingame
Design Review
Address: 1422 Capuchino Avenue
Meeting Date: October 9, 2018
Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition (major renovation) to an existing
single family dwelling and a new detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Robert Wehneyer, RC Wehmeyer
Property Owners: Kamal and Pritee Thakarsey
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 026-074-210
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) 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. In urbanized areas, this
exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of
a project.
Project Description: The existing single family dwelling and detached garage contains 1,285 SF (0.21 FAR) of
floor area. The proposed project includes retaining the right side wall of the house, reconstructing and adding on
to the rear of the first floor and constructing a new 1,356 SF second floor. The existing detached garage would
be replaced with a new single car detached garage. The total floor area would be 3,349 SF (0.55 FAR) where
3,356 SF (0.56 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
The existing house contains 3 bedrooms and with this application would increase to 4 bedrooms, which requires
two off-street parking spaces, one of which must be covered. Staff notes that the office at the front of the first
floor is more than 50% open to the foyer and therefore is not counted as a bedroom, and the meditation room
has a dimension less than 7 feet and therefore is also not counted as bedroom. The new detached garage would
provide a 10' wide by 20' deep clear interior space and one uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway
(9' x 20'). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following
application:
■ Design Review for a first and second story addition (major renovation) to an existing single family
dwelling and a new detached garage (CS 25.57.010).
1422 Capuchino Avenue
Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stam ed: Se tember 11, 2018/Se tember 27, 2018
, ,
EXISTING PROPOSED � ALLOWED/REQUIRED
�
SETBACKS '
_�...... :............................ . ... .................................. ..........................................................
Front (1sf flr): 14'-10" ; 17'-7" i block average 17'-7"
(2nd flr): N/A ; 23'-1" ; 20'-0" or block average
............ :...................
, ............................�...........,�....................................................:...............................................................�..........�.........................................................
Side (left): 12'-1" i 10 -7 ; 4-0
(right): 4'-11" 4'-11" ' 4'-0"
;.....
�_..........� ..................................................
Rear (1st flr): 54'-7" 43'-1" 15 -0
(2nd flr): N/A � 44'-7" � 20'-0"
;
Design Review 1422 Capuchino Avenue
EXISTING PROPOSED ; ALLOWED/REQUIRED
Lot Coverage: 1,802 SF � 2,120 SF 2,400 SF
30% 35.3% 40%
.......................................................:...........................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................... ...... .. �
FAR: 1,285 SF I 3,349 SF ; 3,356 SF
,
0.21 FAR � 0.55 FAR 0.56 FAR
_ .. .......................................................... ;......... .........................
# of bedrooms: 3 � 4 ; ---
� ............................................................... ...
;
�
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered i 1 covered 1 covered
(10' x 20') (10' x 20') (10' x 20')
+ 1 uncovered � + 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
; '
� �
� �
�
. �
�
(s X_zo...� ................. __. ...... . . . .....�9.._X_2o) ................................... :..._.. _....................... (9 _X...2.0.).
Height: 15'-1" 29'-9" � 30'-0"
. ............................. ..................................... ,
DH Envelope: N/A Complies ' CS 25.28.075(b)(2)
' (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF + 336 = 3,349 SF (0.55 FAR)
The changes to the plans from the September 24, 2018 Design Review Study meeting to the October 9, 2018
Action Meeting include exterior material changes only, with no changes to the zoning regulations listed in the
table above.
Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Parks and Stormwater Divisions. Staff notes that the project
includes the retention of the existing oak tree along the left side property line. The project has been designed to
provide a 10'-2" clearance for vehicles into the detached garage. The City Arborist has requested a tree
protection plan for the oak tree, which has been provided and is attached.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on September 24,
2018, the Commission had the following comments (September 24, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes attached):
• Wrought iron railings don't fit this architectural style;
• Verify color of standing seam metal roof- concerned with light, reflective color;
• Chimney cap on east side elevation seems undersized/not proportional; and
• Driveway width is narrow (due to tree), recess the electrical panel.
The applicant submitted elevations and a revised perspective drawing, sheets A0.0 through A3.3, and a response
letter dated September 27, 2018 to address the comments from the September 24, 2018 meeting. The revised
plans include the following:
• All wrought iron railings have been changed to wood;
• New standing seam metal roof is called out as "dark bronze";
• Chimney cap has been increased in size to be proportional to the chimney;
• West elevation shows elevation panel recessed.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
2
Design Review 1422 Capuchino Avenue
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 project is
compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. That the building has a variety of materials including
standing seam metal roofing and composition shingles, ledgestone veneer, wood railings, fiberglass clad wood
windows, and wood shingle siding that will enhance the block face. The articulation provides visual interest on all
elevations and the architectural elements of the proposed craftsman style structure compliment the
neighborhood; 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
September 11, 2018, sheets A0.0 through A9.0, and L1.1 and revised elevation sheets, A0.0 through
A3.3, date stamped September 27, 2018;
2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection
measures as defined in the arborist report by Kielty Arborist Services LLC, dated June 19, 2018 and
revised September 5, 2018;
3. that prior to construction beginning on the subject property a licensed arborist shall verify that all tree
protection fencing has been installed and shall submit a letter to the City Arborist confirming fencing
installation;
4. that a licensed arborist shall inspect the site anytime excavation work is taking place within 6 times the
diameter of a protected tree;
5. that a licensed arborist shall first give consent if there are tree roots to be cut that are over 2 inches in
diameter;
6. that all trenching and excavation within the drip line of a protected tree shall be hand dug; backfilling of
trenches shall be done as soon as possible and shall be with native materials and compacted to near its
original level; trenches and excavations that are required to be left open shall have all exposed roots
covered with moistened burlap and the trenches shall be covered with plywood until such time that
backfilling occurs;
7. 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�;
8. 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;
9. that the conditions of the Parks Division's April 16, 2018 memo and the Stormwater Division's April 19,
2018 memo shall be met;
3
�esign Review
1422 Capuchino Avenue
10. 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;
11. 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;
12. 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;
13. 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;
14. 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;
15. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR
TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
16. 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;
17. 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;
18. 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
19. 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.
Catherine Keylon
Senior Planner
4
Design Review
c. RC Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer
Kamal and Pritee Thakarsey, property owners
1422 Capuchino Avenue
Attachments:
■ September 24, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
■ Applicant's Response letter, dated September 27, 2018
■ Application to the Planning Commission
■ Arborist Report & Tree Protection Plan, dated June 19, 2018 and September 5, 2018
■ Staff Comments
■ Planning Commission Resolution (proposed)
■ Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed September 28, 2018
■ Area Map
5
� CITY O
��,�� �
�°``� ;� I
a
��Z �. �
�qroanreo �
City of Buriingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, September 24, 2018 7:00 PM Council Chambers
b. 1422 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a major
renovation (new construction) for a first and second story addition to a single family
dwelling and a new detached garage (RC Wehmeyer, applicant and designer; Kamal and
Pritee Thakarsey, property owners) (163 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer, project designer, represented the applicant.
Commission Quesfions/Comments:
> Overall this is a nice design.
> There appears to be a lot of stone veneer, will it actually get built? (Wehmeyer: Yes, owner intends to
build it as shown. Combination of stone veneer and cedar shingles will look really nice and add character
to the neighborhood.)
> Wrought iron rail not typically seen on craftsman style house. Have you given any thought to using a
different material? (Wehmeyer: Wrought iron railing allows more natural light in, looks lighter, is not as
heavy and bu/ky as a wall would be if wood pickets were used. Client wou/d rather see the stonework and
not a picket railing.)
> Don't typically review color because it can be changed. However, on a metal roof the color will remain
for a long time. What co/or were you think of using on the metal roof? (Wehmeyer: Have discussed using
a darker roof color, don't want a reflective quality off roof).
> When project returns, provide something that is more definitive on metal roof color, want to avoid
bright color.
> Why are there two different roof types (Wehmeyer. Looked at different layouts and designs, client
prefers metal roof on lower roof and shing/es on upper roof, in line with other two story houses in
neighborhood.)
> Chimney cap on East Elevation looks small for size of chimney, make more proportional and bigger.
> Consider using cable rail system instead of wrought iron, would work better with the metal roof.
> Add note on plans to place pipe inside wall and recess e/ectrical panel; location could be prob/ematic
on driveway side and aesthetically it would look better. (Wehmeyer. Preference is to keep it hidden, but
there were a lot of PG&E issues encountered on that block. Preference is to bring main service into
garage, then underground from garage to house.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
City of Burlingame page 1 Printed on 10/2/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2018
Commission Discussion:
> Would like to see the general range of the intended roof color, including a sample or picture of the
proposed metal roof.
> Wrought iron railing doesn't seem appropriate for this house, not sure about the cab/e rail system
because this is not a contemporary design. The right material for this craftsman style house would be
wood.
> Cab/e rail would match the metal roof better.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the
Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote:
Commission Discussion:
As previously noted, we typically don't specify roof color, but this is one area where we have
asked for specifications before. I think in this case the plans should specify the roof color.
Aye: 6- Sargent, Loftis, Keily, Comaroto, Gaul, and Tse
Absent: 1 - Terrones
City o/Burlingame paye p Printed on 10/2/2018
� ��h
RCVV , �,. �
September 26, 2018
RC Wehmeyer � Design � Build
1204 Burlingame Avenue Suite 7
Burlingame, CA 94010
O: 650.340.1055
3 y � �„'�, �
� ��`��
a����� �
Ms. Keylon, City of Burlingame Planning Division Sr� �����8
RE: Thakarsey Residence
��?Y Or 3lJ�LIP�GAM�
Project Address: 1422 Capuchino Avenue
cc�_;��.,�,��r.i,<<;a �+��
Description: New Two-Story Single Family Dwelling w/ a New Detached Garage
Date of Plans
Dear Catherine,
March 30,2018 Revised: September 26,2018
Please find detailed below our written response to the September 24th, 2018 Planning
Commission Meeting Comments for the New Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling with a New
Detached Garage at 1422 Capuchino.
First, we changed the materiality of the proposed railing on the front porch, rear porch
and balcony at the rear of the house. Instead of a wrought iron rail we would are proposing a
simple painted wood railing. We have noted this change on all the Proposed Elevation views on
Sheets A3.0- A3.3.
Secondly, we specified on the Proposed Elevations A3.0-A3.3 that the new standing seam
metal roof will be Dark Bronze.
We also changed the size of the chimney cap to make if more proportional to the
proposed chimney size. You can see this on the Proposed East Elevation on A3.1.
Finally, we noted on the Proposed West Elevation on Sheet A3.3 that the new electrical
panel will be recessed as well as the weather head hidden.
I believe this addresses all of the comments of the Planning Commission. Upon your review, feel
free to contact me directly with any questions that you may have. I am looking forward to
getting our Hearing Date and Presenting to the Planning Commission as soon as possible so if
there is anything additionally you may need please do not hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
�"-�,�.�-� ,�-.
Robert C. Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD
Wehmeyer Design
Kielty Arborist Services LLC
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
P.O. Box 6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650-515-9783
June 19, 2018, Revised September 5, 2018
RC Weymeyer design and Build
Attn: Ms. Katrina Hall
Reweymeyer.com
Site: 1422 Capuchino, Burlingame, CA
Dear Ms. Hall,
As requested on Friday, June 15, 2018, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on the
trees. A new home is proposed for this site and your concern for the future health and safety of
the trees has prompted this visit.
Method:
All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The
trees in question were located on a map provided by you. The trees were then measured for
diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were
given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees condition rating is based on 50 percent
vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale.
1 - 29 Very Poor
30 - 49 Poor
50 - 69 Fair
70 - 89 Good
90 - 100 Excellent
The height of the trees was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was
paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided.
1422 Capuchino 9/5/18 (2)
Survey:
Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SP Comments
1P Pin oak 4.1 90 20/10 Good vigor, good form, young tree, street
(Quercus palustris) tree.
2*P Coast live oak 30est 80 40/35 Good vigor, fair form, well maintained,
(Quercus agrifolia) close to neighbor's driveway, overly thinned
out. 6 times diameter=l5 feet
3R Cherry brush hedge 11.8 30 15/10 Poor vigor, poor form, nearly dead, heavily
(Syzygium australe) topped, in decline.
4R Lemon 8.1 10 15/10 NEARLY DEAD.
(Citrus spp.)
SP Coast live oak 29.8 45 40/35 Good vigor, poor form, multi leader at 6
(Quercus agrifolia) feet, shared tree on property line, tree has
Shared tree on property line been hedge pruned on both the property side
and neighbor's property side, adjacent to
existing and proposed driveway.
6R Cherry plum 10-10-8-6-5 45
(Prunus spp.)
7R Apple 11.2 35
(Malus spp.)
30/20 Fair vigor, poor form, multi leader at base
with decay at base, most of tree a stump re-
sprout.
20/20 Poor vigor, poor form, heavily decayed
trunk.
8R Pear 8.2 45
(Pyrus spp.)
9R Black acacia 2"x6 40
(Acacia melanoxylon)
15/12 Fair vigor, poor form, not well maintained.
20/10 Fair vigor, poor form, multi leader at base,
invasive species.
P-Indicates protected tree by city ordinance
R-Indicates proposed tree removal
*-Indicates tree on neighboring property
1422 Capuchino 9/5/18 (3)
Summary:
The trees on site are a mix of imported and native trees. Pin oak tree # 1 is a street tree that has
been recently planted. This tree is in excellent condition. Street trees are required to be
protected regardless of size in the city of Burlingame. The entire street tree planting pit is
recommended to be fenced off. This will help to retain the existing soil structure and protect the
soil from compaction within the tree's root zone as well as future root zone.
Coast live oak tree #2 is located on the neighboring property to the east, only a few feet from the
property line. The existing home on site is within the tree's calculated root zone of 6 times the
tree's diameter. The existing home foundation likely acted as a root barrier for this tree. Roots
underneath the homes foundation are expected to be nonexistent to minimal.
Cherry brush #3 consist of 4 trees. The recorded diameter is the largest diameter measured out
of the 4 trees. These trees are all in poor condition due to being topped in the past as well as
growing in the suppressed conditions caused by the neighboring oak tree. These trees do offer
some minor screening for the property. Because these trees are in poor condition they are
recommended for removal. These trees are not of a protected size in Burlingame. To replace the
lost screen it is recommended to replant with a native species with the same water requirements
as the oak tree. The Pacific Wax Myrtle (Morella californica) would be a good replacement
species in this location.
Lemon tree #4 is nearly dead and should be removed. No mitigation measures would be
expected to improve the trees health. This tree is not a protected tree in Burlingame.
Coast live oak tree #5 is located at the property line to the west. The majority of the tree is on
the property, but a portion of the tree's trunk is on the neighboring property making it a shared
tree. This tree has been poorly maintained in the past by both the neighbor and the previous
property owner. The tree has been hedge pruned on both sides for building clearance. Pruning
cuts consist of heading cuts on all of the limbs, resulting in an abundance of sprout like growth.
The pruning has also created an unbalanced canopy. The tree has caused significant property
damage to the existing driveway on site. The driveway is proposed to be replaced in the same
location. Future pruning shall consist of hedge pruning on both sides of the tree as taken place in
the past. The top of the tree is recommended to be reduced as well.
Cherry plum tree #6 is in poor condition. The tree is a stump re-sprout meaning the tree was
removed in the past but no poisoned so the tree grew new trunks from the base of the tree. The
tree has a good amount of fruit production. This tree is recommended to be removed due to
substantial decay near grade.
(4)
Apple tree #6 is in decline and recommended for
removal. Heavy decay was observed on the tree's trunk
making the tree hazardous. This tree is not a protected
sized tree.
Showing heavy decay on apple tree #6
Pear tree #8 is in poor condition. This tree is not of a
protected size and no permit is required to remove the
tree. Removal is recommended.
Black acacia tree #9 is in poor condition. This tree is
codominant at grade with 6 separate leaders. This species
is extremely invasive and encouraged for removal in most
cities. Removal is recommended. This tree is under the
protected size in Burlingame. The following tree
protection plan will help to reduce potential impacts to
the retained trees on site.
Potential impacts to the retained trees from the proposed construction/mitigation
measures:
The proposed first floor foundation near the neighbor's coast live oak tree #2 will be slightly
further away from the tree than the existing foundation. The existing foundation will need to be
carefully removed when working near this tree. Tree protection fencing is recommended to be
placed at a radius of 15 feet (6 times diameter) from this tree where possible throughout all
stages of construction including demolition. Fencing will need to be placed at the existing home
foundation and out to 15 feet from the tree where possible. Demolition equipment must work as
far from the tree as possible to reduce the risk of compaction to the tree's root zone. Fencing at
15 feet from the tree will stop demolition equipment from being located within the tree's critical
root zone. The project arborist is recommended to be called out to the site to witness the
removal of the foundation near this tree, so that mitigation measures can be recommended if
roots are impacted(not likely). The proposed foundation near this tree is recommended to be
excavated by hand. If roots are encountered they must first be shown to the Project Arborist
before being cut. All roots to be cut must be cut cleanly using a hand saw or loppers. A soaker
hose will need to be placed at the proposed foundation edge if root loss takes place. The soaker
hose shall remain in place during the first dry season following root cutting. The hose should be
turned on until the top foot of soil is saturated once a month.
1422 Capuchino 9/5/18
(5)
A new concrete paver driveway is proposed in the same
location as the existing driveway near oak tree #5. Special
construction measures must be taken to reduce impacts to the
tree. Driveway demolition and construction is recommended
to take place at the end of the project as the existing
driveway is acting as protection to the root zone. The roots
in this area are used to growing in compacted conditions
caused by cars driving on the driveway. If the driveway is
retained until the end of the project, tree protection fencing
can consist of orange plastic fencing wrapped around the tree
to form a 2 inch thick layer. The orange plastic fencing must
continue until the first lateral limb is reached. 2 inch thick
wooden slats shall then be bound to the outside of the orange
plastic fencing. This will protect the trunk of the tree as
roots are being protected by the existing driveway.
Showing oak tree #5 next to existing driveway
At the end of the project when it is time to start the driveway work near oak tree #5, the Project
Arborist shall be called out to the site before the work is to take place to meet with the contractor
who is doing the work, so the contractor fully understands the method needed to do the work
with the least amount of impact to the tree. The existing driveway material must be carefully
removed by hand using a jackhammer to break the material into small hand manageable sized
pieces when working within 20 feet from this tree. All needed excavation for the new driveway
must also be done by hand. All encountered roots must be retained when within 20 feet from
this tree. Structural soil (CU Mix) is recommended to be used as a base rock material underneath
the proposed driveway. This material looks just like normal aggregate used for driveway
construction but has been specifically designed (by Cornell University) to allow roots to grow
under the required compacted conditions that driveway construction will need. All encountered
roots must be exposed and remain damage free. If roots are to be left exposed for longer than
one day they must be wrapped in burlap and kept moist by spraying down the burlap multiple
times a day. Structural Soil (CU Mix) shall then be packed around all of the existing roots that
have grown into the driveway area until all roots have been covered. Then after compaction of
the Structural Soil mix the paver driveway can then be built on top of the material. Structural
Soil can be purchased at TMT Enterprises out of San Jose, California. If the above
recommendations are carried out, impacts to the tree are expected to be minor. This tree will
need to be monitored every 6 months for a year following construction. Heavy irrigation will be
needed following the construction of the driveway. The area should be flooded every 2 weeks
for 6 months following the construction of the driveway.
The proposed first floor foundation when within 20 feet from this tree will need to be excavated
by hand with the Project Arborist on site to document. Rooting in this area is expected to be
minimal as the existing home foundation likely acted as a root barrier for the tree. All roots in
the proposed foundation area must first be shown to the Project Arborist before being cut.
Impacts to the tree are expected to be minor.
1422 Capuchino 9/5/18
1422 Capuchino 9/5/18 (6)
Tree Protection Plan:
Tree Protection Zones
Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of the
project. Prior to the commencement of any Development Project, a chain link fence shall be
installed at a distance of 6 times the diameter of any protected tree which will or will not be
affected by the construction. Fencing for the protection zones should be 6 foot tall metal chain
link type supported my 2 inch metal poles pounded into the ground by no less than 2 feet. The
support poles should be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. Signs should be placed on
fencing signifying "Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out". No materials or equipment should be
stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. Excavation, grading, soil deposits, drainage
and leveling is prohibited within the tree protection zones. No wires, signs or ropes shall be
attached to the protected trees on site. Utility services and irrigation lines shall all be place
outside of the tree protection zones if possible. Tree protection fencing is recommended to be
installed at a distance of 6 times the diameter of the protected trees to be retained. The retained
street tree #1 will need to have its planting pit completely fenced off.
Fencing distances from trees to be retained
Pin oak tree #1- Fencing shall be installed in a way that completely fences off the entire street
tree planting pit.
Coast live oak tree #2- Fencing shall be installed at a distance of 15 feet(6 times diameter) from
the tree. Where not possible because of the existing foundation, fencing shall be placed at the
foundation edge.
Coast live oak tree #5- Tree protection fencing will consist of orange plastic fencing wrapped
around the tree to form a 2 inch thick layer. The orange plastic fencing must continue until the
first lateral limb is reached. 2 inch thick wooden slats shall then be bound to the outside of the
orange plastic fencing. The existing driveway near this tree will need to be retained until the end
of the construction.
Inspections
The site arborist will need to verify that tree protection fencing has been installed before the start
of construction. The city of Burlingame usually requires a letter stating the fencing is in place
before any permits are to be granted. The site arborist must inspect the site anytime excavation
work is to take place within 6 times the diameter of a protected tree on site. It is the contractors
responsibility to contact the site arborist if excavation work is to take place within 6 times the
diameter of the protected trees on site. Kielty Arborist Services can be reached at
kkarbor0476@yahoo.com or by phone at (650) 515-9783 (Kevin), or (650) 532-4418 (David).
1422 Capuchino 9/5/18 (7)
Root Cutting and Grading
No roots are expected to be cut on this site. If for any reason roots are to be cut, they shall be
monitored and documented. Large roots (over 2" diameter) or large masses of roots to be cut
must be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist, at this time, may recommend irrigation
or fertilization of the root zone. All roots needing to be cut should be cut clean with a saw or
lopper. Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and
kept moist. The site arborist must first give consent if roots over 2 inches in diameter are to be
cut.
Landscape Barrier zone
If for any reason a smaller tree protection zone is needed for access, a landscape buffer
consisting of wood chips spread to a depth of six inches with plywood or steel plates placed on
top will be placed where tree protection fencing is required. The landscape buffer will help to
reduce compaction to the unprotected root zone.
Trenching and Excavation
Trenching for irrigation, drainage, electrical or any other reason shall be done by hand when
inside the dripline of a protected tree. Hand digging and the careful placement of pipes below or
besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss, thus reducing trauma to the tree. All
trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted to near its original level, as
soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of time, will require the covering of all
exposed roots with burlap and be kept moist. The trenches will also need to be covered with
plywood to help protect the exposed roots.
Irrigation
Normal irrigation for the imported species to be retained (#1 and #6) should be maintained
throughout the entire length of the project. The imported trees on this site will require irrigation
during the warm season months. Some irrigation may be required during the winter months
depending on the seasonal rainfall. During the summer months the trees on this site should
receive heavy flood type irrigation 2 times a month. During the fall and winter 1 time a month
should suffice. Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus
reducing water consumption. The trees are recommended to be irrigated by means of a soaker
hose during the dry summer months. The soaker hose should be turned on once a month for 4
hours at a time. The coast live oak trees shall not be irrigated unless their root zones are
traumatized.
The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural
principles and practices.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Kielty David P. Beckham
Certified Arborist WE#0476A Certified Arborist WE# 10724A
�-��
�,,���:� -�
lH{i�h-Nil=�'�'
� �
f3+ sc� �..�
0 �-
::i.l�"/ �:F�''.]
� �,� '-
j[] � ,<..�„
� � ���_:�
j. .�,_:
� _...��rraw..r.
i ���g�
+ - �� �,.:-nx
i
it
-�--a--�- �..��Y
i�
;
x �
i�'�.1 � '
i ° �
E i �
' ` �. e
fa .�-,— _ : --_; ".
��v a -- _t,�-:.,� - . — x�
•.-. -�
----- ----- ---- - --- - - - _._........
_ -�,.�. �:�-:r-
T � . �
,�`. ^ ..�� -� � ` -t�'e.i.'..3Aa s
� J .
'_.._.-.__-___'._.-.-__.-_-.__-.-._. . . ._ _._..�-..__ ..- _: ..
_.� '. _ -.-...__ .._......�...._.wC:R Ka:S'30.�'_�W.-.-_-
_.`__ Z.n'S� .�
. . .IE2W.^Sx. � . .
, _. � � - -`� . . -y
_"__.�._._._..._._..._... ..__.__.__.�..-.__ .... _. _,_C_._ . .-..�._.. _"r.-. _'-.'_ ...._"_"
. _ __ � � c�����}�^ s'_J0.�4Y@.'➢i}itT
, ' � e � ����- 7� �
h�
e 3
='.�c. ��� � ..� � e _. e -
....�m�..« : ;� � �
aa.m r,;wx+n�e: � :.: - � - .-
� �-
____.. _..____..�_��_._... __. �` i . - .
_. � ; � . - _-__`—.__.—.._---
r _.
, ,
IIvi4nT3��r^4'...aGl'- � �a=.. � -"iK! �"'S+R., __.___— -
� �_ . ._
..� ...__—_"�.. __ __ "
i � �� - �
i y
� � � �.- p -.. , '' �� . �_ _....__._�_..__'___ '__.. .._.:
� . . . .._ �_^_.t3 -.. �-_ __" ..
trU. cc�.cT�t.. j'. . , . ', .-aex.�a's�y �.,
i.� -- % «caea .
_� ..._.�.�.�: . � .
� - � � _��-.s"Nc`:.,." .
�,x'.��,. �'_'� ,y-- ' _ r.,u �..�>-..� .
���wvo.:� �� j . \ � ✓ _ .
-�•y�xj ;� . . _-���rt:rr.
I . 11 ��o��, _ �
t�%�uciJR��'el¢'i+C�.ss6-i� - ,1 � � _ . -i'R�a� r_�.-w . .._"_
Ia . . . - ' �.. 4 ��.
i .. . . ._E����µ � ��.
- srt.ata^c* - , b:.om �
c's'�.^c�esTw�dK��+.*� `� . . � � : '" --" ..
� _ __�` ... . £ � .
_-..... .. ..._ -"' _
.. __ _ .:�s'm:m_...� .� � . - I __ . . .. � .._ .
..�.._z�mx� �-- � . x -
.-__... ..._. . .. ._._. .. - _ .._ _...____. . . .._ . .- _ �_. _ . - . ss � �i,t^€ ...._-__
� _ `,� . r„ -c� ,.eaw.
.�.__._"" '_. ... . .. _._ _ _. -- ._ � ! ' .._ . . -. F.��^-�.*i`+c�r� ._ .. _ .."!n'�._...._.'_
t _ �-
_- � � `� y . '� � ti . '
S .�� tr tr.�..r ' ` � _ y f� �.. �+ .__ n�s�-._t.: f. .
TNaR�M � . ... �4 L. . :�NP.S>- . _..— . .. __. . . .
. e
_ _ _ _- - --- - -- --_��_____ - -=�� '."- - - ---
_ _ -- - __ , _ _-- - — --- - -- - --�' — - "�" - - - - -
. ` :'i
__ _.V .. _ ... ._. .. . .. _—_' .- _ "__ �_. _ _ _ - _ '_'— __
-- r
� 2
• �.__ ,. ,.- -- �
___— _ _- _ � � _— —
_ - — ---- --- :,
� �,�-„-��-_a.,�_ _:..-�,�.•m-�.. ,,, .�-
��.� : , � � :.
� �,,,-- _ • '— ._":.rt � �
--- .. ,,.:� �` � ...__---
. __.._..._.._______..
CAPUCHCNOAVENUE -' rc��wa+�rnr3
.� � _ . ..._..._ _ _.___ w..,_____ —
1 �s,-�.a ;��—
— �
THAKARSEY
�
���
��w
m.�.�.,���,�.,
���
� ew�w.^�SCu
Y 1L V� 4 ., �' �
� RGMGe'er�albs}+IBd!
���.. W4w��Uf�C,wuuer:
� �i'GR�'Fl
� m
�� �
�� �..� �.,�'
.. n.--ea.�.��,
f� --- -- -
—_..
- '-
ra�i �,� �-a� .
�
y,��y��
Y.F _ Y ..._"
�rw+r a. ��.
r�=-- ___ _.
EXISTih'G SITEI �'�
G
ROOF PLAN
A1.0
�
� ciry �
�� ' � � �
_��`��+:�!�
� ���; s�, ��
�'c � i� ..ue
Project Address
Description
From:
Project Comments — Planning Applicafion
1422 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-074-210
Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an
existing single-family dwelling.
Carolyn Critz
Stormwater
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
1. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing
architectural copper. Please read "Requirements for Architectural Copper." A downloadable
electronic file is available at:
http�//www flowstobav ora/files/newdevelopment/flyersfactsheets/ArchitecturalcopperBMPs.pdf
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as
they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater
NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall
ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices
(BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a
building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a
separate full size (2'x 3' or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at:
http://www.flowstobay.orq/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction
BMP Plan Sheet.
For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance
Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolvn.critz(a�veolia.com
Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: April 19, 2018
(650) 342 3727, ext. 118
� GITY O
�i' i ' 71
= l�� �°�
� ,;�'�=:�
Project Address
Description
From:
Project Comments - Planning Application
1422 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-074-210
Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an
existing single-family dwelling.
Bob Disco
Parks Division
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
1. Private Protected Tree Removal Permit required for removal of Oak Tree along driveway.
(attached).
Submit an arborist reports detailing the trees health and structure and why removal is
necessary.
The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they
will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal.
Existing landscape to remain; 3 existing trees and 2 new frees proposed
Reviewed By: BD Date: 4.16.18
bdisco@burlingame.org
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 Application for Desiqn Review for a maior renovation for a first and second story addition to
an existing single family dwelling and a new detached garage at 1422 Capuchino Avenue, Zoned R-1,
Kamal and Pritee Thakarsev, propertv owners, APN: 026-074-210;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October
9, 2018, 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. In
urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three
(3) single-family residences as part of a project, 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 are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording
of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of
the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 9th dav of October, 2018, by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1422 Capuchino Avenue
Effective October 19, 2018
Page 1
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division
date stamped September 11, 2018, sheets A0.0 through A9.0, and L1.1 and revised
elevation sheets, A0.0 through A3.3, date stamped September 27, 2018;
2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree
protection measures as defined in the arborist report by Kielty Arborist Services LLC,
dated June 19, 2018 revised September 5, 2018;
3. that prior to construction beginning on the subject property a licensed arborist shall verify
that all tree protection fencing has been installed and shall submit a letter to the City
Arborist confirming fencing installation;
4. that a licensed arborist shall inspect the site anytime excavation work is taking place
within 6 times the diameter of a protected tree;
5. that a licensed arborist shall first give consent if there are tree roots to be cut that are
over 2 inches in diameter;
6. that all trenching and excavation within the drip line of a protected tree shall be hand
dug; backfilling of trenches shall be done as soon as possible and shall be with native
materials and compacted to near its original level; trenches and excavations that are
required to be left open shalt have all exposed roots covered with moistened burlap and
the trenches shall be covered with plywood until such time that backfilling occurs;
7. 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�;
8. 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;
9. that the conditions of the Parks Division's April 16, 2018 memo and the Stormwater
Division's April 19, 2018 memo shall be met;
10. 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;
11. 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;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review
1422 Capuchino Avenue
Effective October 19, 2018
12. 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;
13. 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;
14. 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;
15. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
16. 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;
17. 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;
18. 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
19. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of
the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
��CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�,,,,�, ,1 - I— BURLINGAME, CA 94010
� PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1422 CAPUCHINO AVENUE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on TUfSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2018 at
7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Rond,
Burlingame, CA:
Application for Design Review for o major renovation (new
construction) for a first and second story addition to a single
family dwelling and new detached garage at
1422 CAPUCHINO AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 026-014-210
Mailed: September 28, 2018
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
Citv of Burlingame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you.
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
1422 Capuchino Avenue
300' Radius
APN 026.074.210
� c�, �a vD�� � a� U�� �
p D ��
a ���yy � t7�G ,���� O
� a
[ Q" ,� ��t�
�
A� � oQ tJ4� q✓ '
A,� � � _ ..
p +%� cJ* �� �y -
��4 a a��� ad��D� ''�
._,�,.. q , ��� �� ' ,�
��j�. Q1x �j �pp _ t'
"� , q �; �'
q� �� pp p��� D��a4 n
�G q�� � dC� L ., � .
D� p z;,2 D j' r ��'
Q�pD� � �� �a� a�, Y�;:
�,`5
� p�� ��p '��� ��0�� e�� ��.
s
� q � �
ti �p� 9 �p4'� � � ;� -
p3� C ,�G� �� ���_ 4U� .;� . �;
� � � � G4
a O � O� q
L� �p���� � c��} � . �� � £� -,�� ����'� �ih ,�����y��� W
�G
Q� _cn p � - �7 � p
,�4 4l �GS ...'� a. tJ d �� y��
p �'a v" �� sy� D qQ ,��
i�Q W Q,�,' � �` p \ pG� p pIp
m �
�� q�� 4l ,,a� 4'i 4� ,�'W -.. . q�� Qd
qOpsab4(c �p6 q� qp,.�,d C yyp Qqp ', RAa ��q^v !
1f Q t� y9 � ��* F<
�`'� p�� a � Q� Q� o° �J
° e�� pr� � qa �,� Q� ��,_: pc
y� � � n D � -� ,
4
q�pc �' p�� D���c ya a p�c p°� `� w�ry� p�
A� r�Q p q1S ��J Q p�J Q� O� ' a�
�� bU q� q� 6 AQ ��7
� 4; 4b p�a � �'4 c'� C:Q p p� �
�� ,.�,nQ _ p �a� q6 �`a Cj`�'� p p 47� 9 9� 4l
Q s: Q 4b
� p�
, _ ''
, �
s° � _
:�� ��v" � _
, ��
- ' ` � n�V .
4 � ���L y � �A
� � o�
rd ,� -.. s � p qq �(��.
_ F 7 p c
. � -• . � �Ci�i G
' . . ' ��{J r7DE
fi gs �` � p9�� �
�; ���q� � �� ��� q ��� � w �g� - �� ' .�U�DO � ���
�0� a�F) �C� . bc�� q iJ� �q ��V
�' Q `'� +� Q �t7
D� O �D �� 4o q ,� <?�
D 7� W � 9 p q4, a
Q �
� t) ��T? b� p� � q�� `3 pQ D�, .
� �'�?� 9pc' q`'� QOq Q �9b q� �d �O 7�
� q
9 c�Q yy U�
� � � p a
�o °°� °9 Qa'�° o Q �qa qq "� D� ��� ��
s� a� ��a a qa Q p�. a Q�
�DF7 �C7Q Q y�'7� �O CJ�'� pq Qd�rJ p�Ct�
qa a�� Q �� � p�' pQ ��� w
wp � � q9� o� p�� 9'",� 3 �g ���t7 r7 D�a`� Q
D �
� I � � p •'�, fT k`I
�9 �aa� a� p� pa� q Q`� c�a r7p �� '� A�d a
`�"���„'�.. Q� 47� p�4 `�� p4 D{I Q� D� 4`�l?
�t Q� _�a QQ �� ?I� �� F�� �a _ , r
`,�