HomeMy WebLinkAbout1245 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Design Review Amendment
Address: 1245 Cabrillo Avenue
Item No. 8f
Regular Action Item
Meeting Date: January 14, 2019
Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Chu Design Associates
Property Owners: Eric and Jennifer Lai
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 026-171-050
LotArea: 6,119 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 and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review and Special Permit for building
height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage at 1245
Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2018 (see attached
February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). An FYI for clarifications to the left side dormer was
reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2018.
A building permit was issued in July 2018 and construction began shortly thereafter. During the demolition phase,
most of the first floor walls and entire second floor was demolished, which exceeded the amount of walls shown to
be removed on the previously approved plans. Several existing nonconforming walls on the first and second floors
which were shown to remain were removed, including the nonconforming first floor walls along the left side of the
house (2'-3'/z", 1'-6" and 2'-8" existing side setbacks to the porch and main dwelling, where 4'-0" is required) and the
second floor wall at the front of the house (19'-7" existing front setback where 20"-0' is required).
With this application, the applicant is proposing to build the first floor foundation and walls 4'-0" from the left side
property to comply with minimum side setback requirement of 4'-0". In addition, the second floor wall at the front of
the house has been set back 20"-0' to comply with minimum second floor setback requirement of 20'-0". Therefore,
variances are not required.
In addition, because the entire existing second floor was demolished, the existing nonconforming building height of
30'-2" became void. However, with the revised project the second floor addition complies with building height
requirements (29'-2" building height proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed). The revised project
eliminates the previously required Special Permit for building height for the addition.
Additional changes include reducing the size of the windows in the kitchen and dining room along the Left
Elevation, reducing the plate height from 9'-10" to 9'-0", increasing the size of the dining room and increasing the
size of the deck at the rear of the house. The applicant submitted the originally approved and proposed plans, date
stamped December 18, 2018, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project.
A stop work notice was issued by the Building Division on October 24, 2018, and was applicable to the areas
affected by the nonconforming walls in question (along left side of property). The notice allows construction to
proceed on other areas of the project at the property owner's own risk.
Design Review Amendment
1245 Cabril/o Avenue
December 10, 2018 Regular Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission RegularAction meeting on December
10, 2018, the Commission had several suggestions and requests for additional information and therefore voted to
continue the application (see attached December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes).
The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, date stamped December 18, 2018, to address the
Commission's comments. Please refer to the copy of the December 10, 2018, Planning Commission minutes
included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission comments. Listed below are the suggestions and
requests for information from the Commission and a summary of responses by the applicant or staff.
1. Request that staff investigate the front wall and determine whethera variance or change is required.
■ In his response letter dated December 18, 2018, the applicant notes that the contractor confirmed that
only three cripple studs on the living room wall have been replaced. The applicant further clarified that a
portion of the plate, between the cripple wall and floor beam along the left side if the living room wall,
has also been replaced, but was done by a previous owner to address dry rot issues.
Based on the work completed on this wall to date and factoring in a new header for the living room
window, Building and Planning Division staff reviewed the wall and determined that it would consider it
to be an existing wall. Therefore, a Front Setback Variance is not required to retain the existing
nonconforming wall, nor is the wall required to be relocated to comply with current code setback
requirements.
2. Reduce plate height to 9 feet.
The plate height on the ground floor has been reduced from 9'-10" to 9'-0" (see revised building
elevations, sheets A.4 through A.7, date stamped December 18, 2018). As a result, the overall
building height reduced from 30'-0" to 29'-2".
3. Provide additional details on the plans as requesfed during the discussion.
■ The applicant has submitted revised the plans to address the comments and suggestions made by the
Commission (see revised plans date stamped December 19, 2018).
4. Provide building section through the dormers fo provide a clear understanding of the massing in
this area.
■ Two building sections were provided through the gable and shed dormers along the left side of the
house (see revised sheet A.5, date stamped December 18, 2018).
5. Would like to reiterate concern of apparenf height of the dormer wall due to fhe window wells. It
might be fine to cut a section through there, but would like applicant to really consider refining the
dormers.
In his response letter dated December 18, 2018, the applicant notes that the "overall roof pitch has
been redesigned to accommodate a more consistent plate height at the 2"d floor". The height of the
dormer wall along the left side of the house was reduced by increasing the roof pitch from 2'h:12 to
3:12, reducing the size of the windows in the master bedroom, and eliminating the window well under
these windows (see revised Proposed Left Elevation on sheet A.S, date stamped December 19,
2018). This also allowed more of the lower roof to slope up into the side of the dormer.
The Commission also noted that it would be helpful to have the contractor frame an 8 foot section of wall with a 9
foot plate height to give the Commission and neighbors a visual of what is being proposed. The applicant indicated
that a mock-up of the wall will be installed by the Friday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
F
Design Review Amendment 1245 Cabrillo Avenue
Lastly, during its discussion the Commission asked about the stabilization of the creek at the rear of the lot. The
Engineering Division notes that it is their understanding that the embankments have been stabilized since the
demolition of the existing garage. The inspector for this project will assure that the required measures are
implemented accordingly to prevent embankment erosion into the creek. The Engineering Division will continue to
work with the applicant if there is any deterioration of the embankment during the construction of the project.
Project Description: The existing two-story house and two-story detached accessory structure contained 2,793
SF (0.46 FAR) of floor area. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing accessory structure, build a new
detached garage, replace and add onto the first floor of the house and build a new second floor. The proposed
project will increase the total floor area to 3,336 SF (0.54 FAR), where 3,378 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum
allowed. The project is 42 SF below the maximum allowable floor area and is therefore within 1% of the maximum
allowed FAR.
The existing house had four bedrooms and there is no change in the number of bedrooms with this project. Two
parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the
new detached garage (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the
driveway.
1245 Cabrillo Avenue
Lot Area: 6,119 SF Plans date stam ed: December 18, 2018
EXISTING PREVIOUSLY CURRENTLY ; ALLOWED/REQ'D
APPROVED PROPOSED ;
SETBACKS
Front (1st flr): 17'-1"' no change no change � 18'-9" (block average)
(2nd flr): 19'-7" ' no change 20'-0" 20'-0"
_ ..............._..........................................................................................................................................._..... ........_._......._........................................................_............................_...._........._...._............................................................ _........._..............................................._....._...._......_.._.......................... .
Side (left): 2'-3'/2" to porch ' no change 4'-0" to porch 4'-0"
1'-6", 2'-8" to house' 4'-0" to house
(right): 10'-6" ` 11'-3" to addition : no change 4'-0"
f
Rear (1st flr): 39'-0" 40'-7" 38'-1" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 65'-0" 49'-7" no change 20'-0"
_. .............................................................................._. _..._............................................................................_....._........_..................................................................... .....................................
Lot Coverage: 2498 SF 2426 SF 2442 SF 2447 SF
40.8% 39.6% 39.9% 40%
FAR: 2793 SF 3368 SF 3336 SF 3378 SF
0.46 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.54 FAR 0.54 FAR
# of bedrooms: 4 4 no change ---
_ .................................................................................................................... .........._.__._............_........................................................................................................ ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Off-Streef Parking: 1 covered 1 covered no change 1 covered
1 uncovered (10' x 20') (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
_ ............................................................................................................... .....
Building Height: 30'-2" 30'-2" 2 29'-2" 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies complies complies C.S. 25.26.075
' Existing nonconforming front setback (1St and 2"d floors) and left side setback.
2 Special Permit previously approved for overall building height (30'-2" existing and proposed where between
30'-0" and 36'-0" is allowed with a Special Permit).
3
Design Review Amendment 1245 Cabrillo Avenue
Staff Comments: Frank Knifsend, the adjacent neighbor at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, submitted letters and exhibits
dated January 8, 2019 and December 4, 2018 expressing concerns with the proposed project. Emails concerning
the project were also received from Gene Bordegaray (emails dated January 4, 2019 and December 9, 2018), Sally
Brown and Philip Ross (dated November 30, 2018), Peter Gum (dated November 21, 2018), and Julie Carlson
(dated November 26, 2018).
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 addition (featuring a
combination of gable and shed roofs, composition shingle roofing, reduced and proportional plate heights,
horizontal siding on the house and board and batten siding on the gable ends, adhered stone veneer base, and
aluminum clad wood windows (with simulated true divided lites and wood trim) is compatible with the existing house
and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are
placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project
may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria.
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:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
December 18, 2018, sheets A.1 through A.7;
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�;
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 the conditions of the Parks Division's May 2 and December 27, 2017 memos and the Engineering
Division's January 12, 2018 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon
the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
4
Design Review Amendment
1245 Cabrillo Avenue
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall
be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission,
or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the
construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval
shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on
appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require
a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 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:
11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and
set the building footprint of the addition per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City
Engineer;
12. 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;
13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or
residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown
in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as
shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved
design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge
and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural
details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved
Planning and Building plans.
Ruben Hurin
Planning Manager
c. Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer
Eric and Jennifer Lai, property owners
5
Design Review Amendment
Attachments:
1245 Cabrillo Avenue
December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
Applicant's Response Letter, dated December 18, 2018
February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission (from original application)
Applicant's Explanation Letter, dated November 30, 2018
Letters and exhibits submitted by Frank Knifsend, dated January 8, 2019 and December 4, 2018
Emails submitted by Gene Bordegaray, dated January 4, 2019 and December 9, 2018
Email submitted by Sally Brown and Philip Ross, dated November 30, 2018
Email submitted by Peter Gum, dated November 21, 2918
Email submitted by Julie Carlson, dated November 26, 2018
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed January 4, 2019
Area Map
0
1 TY
� ����
,
� �
a
.,�'Yco ., — �o
��R6ow�rvo �
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, December 10, 2018 7:00 PM Council Chambers
b. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for
changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single
family dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a). (Eric and Jennifer Lai, applicants and property owners; Chu Design
Associates Inc., designer) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Commissioner Kelly was recused from this item as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto indicated that she had met with
the adjacent neighbor to the south. Commissioner Sargent indicated that he had also met with the
adjacent neighbor to the south and the applicant.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
> Understand that the applicant was directed to stop work on the nonconforming wall. Was a stop work
order issued for the entire project? (Hurin: The Building Division issued a partial stop work order for the
nonconforming wall along the left side of the house; applicant was allowed to work on the remaining portion
of the house at their own risk.)
> On existing walls that are located within the required sefback, how much of the wall can be removed
before it needs fo conform to current code setback requirements? (Hurin: The foundation and framing
needs fo be kept,� the exterior siding and drywall may be removed.)
> It appears that the framing between foundation and lower floor on a portion of a nonconforming wall at
the front of the house has been replaced, so if that considered to be a wall replacement and therefore
subject to current code requirements? (Hurin: Planning and Building Division staff would need to review the
details of whaf has been replaced in order to determine if it is considered to be a new wall.)
James Chu, represented the applicant, along with Eric Lai, property owner.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> Your are proposing to comply with the required side setback of four feet along the left side property
line and to mainfain the existing plate height by changing the roof pitch to accommodate the narrower
house width, correcf? (Chu: Correcf.)
> The cripple wall along the living room at the front of the house has been replaced. The floor framing in
this area is rotted as well and the window header will need to be replaced. It appears that most of fhe
living room wall will need to be replaced. (Chu: The original purpose of preseiving the existing wall was to
refain the existing nonconforming front setback; could reframe the wall to make fhe house better.)
> Who is maintaining responsible control over the work site and its current condition? (Chu: The
contractor is the person responsible over the work site. Designer has not been hired to oversee the
project during construction.) Is the contractor present tonight? (Chu: No.)
> Would like to note that there are severa/ conditions of approval that require milestones to be verified
both by the surveyor and architect, so there are multiple people involved.
> At various points during construcfion, certain verifications are required. Concemed that property
City of Burlingame Paqe 1 Prinied on 1B/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018
owners don't do this for a living, so they are at the mercy of the contractor and professionals completing
the construction. Concerned that fhe contracfor has made a gaffe like this and still expected thaf they will`
mainfain confrol. (Chu: One of the conditions of approval includes fhat prior to the framing inspecfion, a
professional needs to inspect the construction to make sure thaf the architectural elements are built
according to the approved plan and that the project is in compliance with FAR. In this case, everything
happened during the demolition stage, prior to requiring any sort of verification.)
> Moving forward, what gives us the confidence that whatever gets approved will be builf? Not feeling
confident abouf that right now. (Chu: Contractor is a local developer who has lived in Burlingame for many
years and has built several new homes in Burlingame. However, he may not have had experience with a
remodel/addition project as detailed as this, requiring existing nonconforming walls to be retained.)
> Is contracfor licensed? (Chu: Yes.) (Lai.� Asked contractor to attend the meeting tonight, but he did
not come.)
> When originally approved project, quite a bit of the house was going to remain. There were a lot of
pre-existing conditions, including fhe setbacks and plate heighfs which were in place but not being
specifically reviewed. Can'f see us approving a nearly 10-foot plate height on a raised floor. Have you
looked at lowering the plate height to 9 feet? (Chu: Yes, we can consider doing that if it would help us get
an approval.)
> On the proposed Left Elevation, there is a window well towards the rear of the house with a shoulder on
the Rear Elevation, so it may force the end window in a bit. Shoulder on long, tal! gable along left side will
be fine because it will help dormers settle into the roof. But will be limited with gabled dormer towards the
front of the house along the left side with how much roof you have cutting into just below the sill. May
want to think about reducing the height of the windows, making them smaller, so you have enough roof to
cut into the bottom dormer and bring up the bottom edge up a bit. (Chu: Yes, will consider doing fhat.)
> Did you see letter from Sally Brown and Philip Ross regarding stabilizing the creek at the rear of the
lot for construction of the garage? (Chu: Yes, we made some changes to the foundation of the garage,
instead of a spread footing will be using a pier and grade beam foundation to disturb less of the soil in the
area. There is also erosion control in place.)
> Will there be a soils report submitted? Who would validate the stabilization of the creek? (Lai: Hired
Precision Engineering to prepare fhe soils report.) (Hurin: The Engineering Division is reviewing this issue
and will contact the applicant if any additional measures are required.)
Public Commenis:
Frank and Robin Knifsend, 1243 Cabrillo Avenue: Appreciate modifications made, but the changes are
small and don't directly address key concerns about the massing and scale of the project. From our view
the house is massive and is built to the maximum allowed criteria. One of the biggest issues we have is
rnar we don't frust the plans, there are many inconsistencies. The path they took to get to this poinf was
making misleading statements directly to us, as well as in the planning process, about keeping the
existing structure. 85% or more of the existing strucfure is gone and down to the subfloor, fhat's a pretty
big accident that took place of several weeks. There are a lot of call-outs on the plans and la6eled
existing on the proposed structure, and would content that not one element on the back 80% of the house
is to the origina! existing floor heights, ceiling heights, and plate heights. On proposed building elevations,
indicated plate height lines don't match to what is drawn. Took them at their word, see the proposed plans
with many references to existing conditions, used the existing sfructure as a story board for the plans fhat
they were going to build. Now see what has actually been framed, measured wall myself and determined
that it was builf one fooi taller than approved. Concerned with what the plans do and don't shown,
questionable communication from the applicant, and what the contractor has done up to this point. Don't
have a lot of confidence going forward that we're not going have this massive structure next to us.
Gene Bordegaray, neighbor across the street: Realize there have been some mitigations measures to try
to get the project back info conformance. However, in looking at the proposed plan, the massing of the
wall adjacenf to the left side neighbor is huge, measuring 25 feet tall and 50 feet long and only 4 feet away
from the fence. Can'f really appreciate how that will look because there is nothing to show us that right
now. Suggest installing story po/es and netting io show massing along left side property line to give a
Clty of Burlingame page 2 Printed on 1/8/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018
better sense of how intrusive that wall will be from their side of the property line.
Bill Howell, 1424 Benifo Avenue: When we remodeled house, our contractor made us to stick to the rules.
This is an intimidafing process, but there is a fundamental trust that when plans are approved, one
expects that the house will be built as shown on the approved plans; most people abide by that rule. Was
at neighbor's house and saw the wall near fhe fence, doesn'f feel natural because iYs so high relative to
the driveway.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Glad to be reviewing these revisions and not the revisions previously proposed. Also glad to see that
the intent is to comply with the side setback.
> What is before us now is simply an amendment to design review. However, fhere some revisions that
could possible occur, but also additional information needs to be shown and corrected on the plans so
that we know what we're approving.
> Moving forward, as standard procedure there will need to be certification of the framing provided by a
professional confirming that what has been built is consistent with the approved plans.
> House is approximately 5 feet above adjacent grade and is similar to other houses nea�by. Houses to
the right and left are elevated above grade. So project would benefit from reducing the plate height to 9
feet.
> Would like to see exacfly what plate height we are being asked to consider for the dormers on the
second floor, because we have an indication on the drawings that say 8'-1" buf it says "existing top plate"
however if that top plate no longer exists it doesn't matter. Need to clarify plate of dormers on second
floor,� needs to be corrected and made accurate so that everyone knows what were are reviewing and
approving as the project moves forward.
> Not prepared at this point to move forward with an approval, but am accepting of the general intent of
the changes proposed along fhe left side of the house to bring it into compliance wifh setback
requirements.
> Concerned wiih the way the dormers are treated on the second floor along left side in that it creates
another tall, flat surface; caused by window wells fo make windows taller. Suggest that the roof slope run
up to hit the wall and windows be made smaller. It would appear to be a much smaller wall if the vertical
surface stopped at a certain point, the roof sloped away, and the windows were in a small wall that was
pushed way back on the roof. As proposed, the window wells that are cut out are exposing a tall wall on
top of another fall wall. Dormers along left side of house need to be rethought to reduce the apparent
heighf of the wall.
> Agree with most comments made. However, not convinced that the design of the dormers need to be
rethought if they are in compliance wrth code requirements.
> Provide at least one section to understand what is happening on the second floor.
> Correct drafting error for plate height shown at family room, shown at 9'-0" but building elevations still
show it at 9'-10".
> Nonconforming front wall a/so needs to be addressed since the required front setback is several feet
further back.
> Left side elevation is tall and flat, so would like to see some articulation there.
> Concerned about front wall; Planning and Building Divisions should review how much has been done
fo the wall; may need to apply for a Variance to retain it.
> Would be helpful to have the contracfor frame an 8 foof section of wall with a 9 foot plate height to
give the Commission and neighbors a visual of what is being proposed.
> Disappointed that this house got this far away from the original house.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the
application with the following direction:
> Request that stafF investigate the front wall and determine whether a variance or change is
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 1/8/2019
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2018
required.
> Reduce plate height to 9 feet.
> Provide additional details on the plans as requested during the discussion.
> Provide building section through the dormers to provide a clear understanding of the
massing in this area.
Commission Discussion:
> Would like to reiterate concern of apparent height of the dormer wall due to the window
wells. It might be fine to cut a section through there, but would like applicant to really consider
refining the dormers.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6- Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse
Recused: 1 - Kelly
City ot Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 1/8/2019
b��
����:�)
` %�LJ1�1
��1 �� ign Associates
. `Ij�:l�u�pm . - _ . _- .
December 18, 2018
City of Burlingame
Planning Commission
501 Primrose Rd
Burlingame, CA 94010
��������
D�C�92018
Re: New residence at
1245 Cabrillo Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
(�I�jY �F Bl1i�LINGRME
',f�{ l..r�;_r"t;``,I:,"�llf�!G DI�/.
Dear Planning Commissioner:
We have made the following changes per your request/comments:
1. First floor ceiling/plate height is now 9'-0" for entire house.
2. Second floor plate height is 8'-1", except bathroom #2 which is 8'-2".
3. Windows at left side of master bedroom has been reduced to accommodate more roof
and less wall.
4. Overall roof pitch has been redesigned to accommodate more consistent plate height at
2nd floor.
5. Sections thru dormer are provided.
As to the front living room wall, the framer/contractor has confirmed there were 3 cripple studs
replaced, therefore we believed this would qualify as an existing wall without a variance
application.
Thank you for your time in reviewing the revised plan, we will be happy to answer any question
at the meeting.
Sincerely,
%�C�tt¢d ��
James Chu
Chu Design
55 West 43rd Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Phone: (650)345-9286 Fax: (650)345-9287
�� .
_ � �� � �,
' F
�� t�� : �' '� � �
:�, r�r����.
� ; i , .�- . :��.
�� „-... � ;. �. ... �
';;..-�- _.._>s..
� �� _ �
� u�r+. '.- � �t �
.�,�.!' .��.� I � . ..S
�'�' ._. ,
...����� . � `.`
�4Y� ` -
.. .
�'iu��� � , �.:.
� . __
� �� � • ' � :�..._.. s� .__ .. .._._.
_..�.. � �_�T . .
� ., i
_ -..� ���.�_" _' _._"_ �-
<:<fi, - � ' � �.. �� � � ��a! �._._
{���� \ � �� '„� a���i _ �F -.
� ��� - � :..�.� � •.- :�3;_.'w ..
.:: s,- O�. � . y.� y . . _
. . �. ,. . '.:�: k� � �.:':9 _ 's�' _^iL. ._...._. .,_. _
y _ -_ � !As
� xw o
� � -. � _:.:=y`����`� �_._. _ ...
_. •�__:�: i „ $, �' , ��..:` � �°
���' \ �` "``, "� -. �
�� � _
, �- a.. .
'��� � �` �r-�- �'_.,� .�::��.�
� � f s_ �� _;�
� �
� �k� �
_ . '� ., �>: , j�' .z�.�, � - _
�, - » �
_ l�: .
-_ _ :,� .
��� ��'a``�,�.€�- _ . --` ', � ,
� r. ; p
� . �ti
_y
`�� V�Y. _ S3. � '�
A�.
�1 �t
— _ " �. ` -1
� �� _ —p q _
� ��
�._
94 �?
��
�,._�.
�
■ �� �� "..�,"
^ �_
�� �
� �
��. t
� :�.�, l�� ' �
� ....-
7 �„ j��: � _. '� . _ . —" . yY . '
r. . g�..--..
�,.:.x- . __",. N
�{
\ , ` i�,`� . +.
: r�� ._ �� ��.�. �
� . .� . � ..� h�� r.-:
i
-.::a�._., .� ,:�.f� Y�-�rs� �
.. • �� ran^""" . ' � ��v
�
�.� "� �,, . `'4 � t:
� �,, � �� ��:rA .
, �;.
.� ,�..-.?�.���t� �� � � �a !�. �.i„
_ � ='�I�'- �+� .6 N .
L
�., _"`,� .'� ����i��, 7:�����•'�:
�'� �' { `
� . � ' �;'�y� ;r � � �;� ��t �.
..._._ _. �.� �y �,. � � �r+ •1�.�' '�,` i
� �
0.ii� �� F ^1• �� �� 1 � •'v�
� y... �'�i �i �' '. .`, � � t : ` �,� t :
� -. .. . �\ii ���1;�- ` V . . � ,I
.I � .. ' jt� .]'
1_ t \
/ .
�i
� . 't .. � - ... .. . . _� �1
�►/ ��:� ' �:�._
, �. �.�-�
n
.'���� �' •}$'ii
�-'�.- -.. � � -
'>'�
�
.'Y y ) w��/;•lil�lu :' �Yi � h'. i �.#!' : � t� -.
�.�, ; _�r„ ,�".�ri,� a;, v . :.. � , , .� �� �`� �'.
-� ..�,:',.�-.�. - . �„, � ;� ,,-�: _�
,,�,c• . � . �r '"'� �, .r � �_, �,
,
. . y.LL . ... .. . �
�
� �`, � � �' i
�
� ;, a �.
h_ �� �� � � �
� �
� ,� � l.
1 � �
� � .,
'� . f.
' � � �:.� �"�'� ,��M �. �
a � � t"' �r LL� _ � �!�
; � " ;� �' , � �,..� , � �r'� � �, � �
€��.,, < � ; ! 5 ¢ ��,, w
{ ; � "� p�•'�� . I ��� � ��, — - �?� -
�• - � � � i�
' + ! {; �{ ;:
'F: . � N , �
� ` ; � i', i
riy� . � �J � y . �_"� �� ,
i�/I\."" . /�.�,,...�_ l . ��,� `^ d/ '.�� � '� .
- y� r As �` + ��Y'.•' :f
W y ��c , .. ,:..'�'@. �^ '�.
� - v a � �. �:.
� = � � �a: s �c 9
.s � � " ,
- � � t','
- .` � �,.�j�.., j�',. � .
i � y'@�/�.�� t �j
.� • - ' '� , � ��+t;' t � � .fn r
_ �I � d •
" I�. i� � y�^ .y�y�, .}
- s., �':�" r �"� ' ,:�,dr' �'
� � . �,< r,a� ., . -
,-_ - ..-�e` �.
�. , i. , �.�..i . �,�yo 1ir.
7
�♦ ;:.�. Y� �$-S..a�'�..`��^>
� ~ �3 �,�s +� :Q
.�
! �,.: ��, ►
nY - "
i ��
-„y
. `i� ,7� i`,4.
.. . � -�r -. ''i :r
1� '
. �. . .�e...� L�•�w. .� _ . . � � . .. . _... ._
�"' �yh,.'-..t yM�'-�.+E,�io.ti:-...;..,�. �... - '
� , ��.
a � � I �
w 4
�` F�
� �;� ��� ���; .
. 's�%��� � �,�,
t`.
4
k{
����
�� k �
tx
� � , ��,�
. $�� � �
,z� 4 ��,,
� :
` k t
t � '�
� m � . �� �7i
�_:. w'�f�
� ��
S'
9 ;y
� :� � i
�'"� �` �' :
. . � •..d � .� .�
S
. , � . �,( M1 - ,
� �.
f /► �,�:
, .1F�s� r E' .
�;,.
��
— — ` ,',��� -
n '� .
�
�"
�� 4 � .� f � F ` 1
. f' , � � Tfi ►P
s,�
,^ � .t;<'i'�'— -.
y + I
� .� v
' '� ` "� ��c �, ,-....,,e
i
'�d ,� . . k"%������'k � � A�
ai . � � �'8 � �6 `�° � , M1 � .�
a.. � ,�: , � �
� � — , . , � -� ,``:���
' � _ � ',,��- ����y�`
� .
�_, ,
'f � Y+�.�:�.4` --�� ' - , � �.� •
�` � •—\ '' K••' , ��•• � C'�� "� Nv 1.
� r� \
�= � ��r• . 1, �,� ��--F,�+.
~ ,, �� �y,��. • �,�.{ `m1�� \� .-e, .. � � w . .
� �r� �" �, � h � J ��.:
�`` ' � � 3 �`� '�,0 k�A i
���'i� �1�,*—. 4Ai �� �i�.� - '.,,` -
P
� � ' ,> . �ic � r " a # i .
� `:- r _ � .� � +,;,.
. `�Y '� . i .�/`'\ `�}�..
� Si
L' ,
Y �, ' � ---,�, �j �"- ;; _
�4,,_.� �,1 '� . a. • ' 1�,
`:. �a"^ �- � . , ,;+,� _
� CITY
�� � �II �
� - � i,,�
, .�
m
�co � ��
?no eo �
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, February 12, 2018 7:00 PM Council Chambers
c. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling
and new detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Chu Design Associates Inc., applicant and designer; Eric and Jennifer Lai,
property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Commissioner Kelly was recused from the discussion as he resides within 500-feet of the property; he left
the dais and the chambers.
Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Quesfions of Staff.�
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
James Chu represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> With respect to the left elevation, second floor,� the master bedroom and master bath appear
co-planar on the floor plan, but not on fhe elevation. (Chu: is cutting a well into the roof plan.)
> Noted that the well would only be under the two tall windows.
> Need to prepare a roof plan that more accurately shows the detail of the roof well on the left elevation.
Public Comments:
There were no public commenfs.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Is a nice project. Appreciates that the applicant is retaining the existing siding. The revisions are
nicely done.
> Need an FYI to finalize the roof plan on the left elevation, second story.
> Well articulated project.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve as the
application with the added condition that a revised roof plan shall be submitted as an FYI. Chair
Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Cfty of Burlingame paye � Printed on 11/15/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2018
Aye: 8- Gum, Gum, Gaul, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto
Recused: 1 - Kelly
City of Burlingame page 2 Printed on 11H5/2018
/ � u�-v\
. j,
,�i
COMMUN�TY DEVEI.OPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE R�AD � BURLINGAME, CA 54010
p: 65Q.558.T250 � f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org
APPLIGATIQN TQ THE PLANNING COMMCSSION
Type af application:
� Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: �26'171-050
� Conditional Use Permit L� Special Permit O Zoning / Other:
PROJECT ADDRESS: � Z45 CABRILLO AVE.
APPLtCANT
Name: CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES
Address: 5� W• 43RD AVE.
CitylState/Zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94403
Phone: 6�0-345-92$6 x104
E-mail: James@chudesign.corn
PROPERTY OWNER
��rn�: ERIC 8� JENNIFER LAI
Address: 1245 CABRILLO AVE.
CitylState/Zip: BURLINGAME, CA
Phone:
E-mail: lenericlai@yahoo.com
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: JAMES CHU
Address' �� w• 43RD AVE.
CitylStatelZip: SAN MATE�, CA 94403
Phone: 650-345-9286 x104
E-mai�: lames@chudesign.corn
���.J������
APR 1 7 2017
CITY OF E3URLINGAME
CDD-PLAn.rv�NG DIV.
Burlingame Business License #: 22684
Authorization to Reqroduce Pro�ect Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burtingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted wifh fhis
app![cation on fhe City's website as parf of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising out of or related to sucti action. �� (Initia[s of ArchitectlDesigner}
PR�JECT DESCRIPTION: EXISTING RESIDENCE ADDITION & REMODEI W/ DETACHEQ 1-CAR GARAGE
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I her� rtify und f penalty of perjury that the inforrnafion given herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and bel' (�
Applicant's signature:_ ' , _ Date:
I am aware of the propos d applic i' n and hereby authorize the above appiicant lo submit this application to the PlaRning
Commission. % r
Property owner's signature: '�' Date: �r ��` l�
Datesubrnitted: ���7' ��
5: { NAYDOUTS�PC Appii[ofron. doc
n
� �1 n i l.l
�� ll .�r
C� I`� {��ign Associates
� l�e . m . : � — . .
November 30, 2018
City of Burlingame
Planning Comrnission
501 Primrose Rd
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: 1 St & 2°a story addition/remodel at
1245 Cabrillo Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Planning Commissioner:
,�J
NOU � 0 20i8
c��� ti` O� Bl1 �LI�1GaME
�.�GD-�LP-,R!!�!��!G DIV.
The above reference project was approved earlier this year with non-conforming left side
setback. But during construction the contractor accidentally removed more than 50% of existing
walls which triggered the variance application. After more discussion and reviewed a letter from
our adjacent neighbor, the owner has decided to completely rebuild the left side of the proposed
to comply with 4 feet minimum setback. Here is the summary of the proposed changes:
1. Rebuild entire left side of the proposed project at first floor to comply with 4 feet
minimum setback.
2. Reduce the size of window in both kitchen and dining room. This will minimize the
privacy concern.
3. Reduce the plate height at dining room to 9 feet.
4. Added couple more downspouts along the left side, to prevent rain water over flow to left
side neighbor.
Thank you for your time in reviewing the revised plan, we will be happy to answer any question
at the meeting.
Sincerely,
%?c�ie� ��
James Chu
Chu Design
55 West 43rd Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Phone: (650�345-9286 Fax: (650�345-9287
Dear Commissioners:
Upon review of the Dec. 19, 2018 date stamped design package for 1245 Cabrillo, we ask
that you do not approve this project design revision without further changes.
We share the goal of the owners and neighborhood of wanting to get this project completed
quickly. We appreciate the design changes respecting the left side setback, and lowering the
ist Floor Ceiling to 9'. While most proposed modifications in this revision are improvements,
the design still requires changes to deal with the height, length, and mass issues that were
raised in the Dec. 10 Planning Commission meeting. In addition, the revisions do not fully
incorporate the suggestions that Commissioners provided to reduce mass and improve what
is a new house design.
We ask that some important remaining issues be addressed by the following changes to the
design before approval:
1. Do not Allow the proposed additional 2'8" wall extension (1st Floor Left Rear)
a. This bigger wall eliminates the last open "airspace" on shared property line -
See Exhibit 1 and our letter dated Dec. 4, 2018.
b. A wall increase aggravates the large monolithic vertical wall of � 51 feet x
12-14 feet high
2. Reduce the impact of the Large 2nd Floor Gable Dormer (Bedroom 3)
a. Reduce each window dimension to 48"h x 30"w from 60" x 42" and Raise
window sill height to 36" from �18". Significantly reduces exposed vertical wall
with smaller well, more sloped roof lip. Improves furniture flexibility also.
b. Lower Gable peak by 1-2 feet by lowering vaulted ceiling from �11' to 10;
which would match Stair gable dormer on right side. Or use a shed dormer by
orienting ceiling vault other direction.
i. This still satisfies egress requirements; use casement windows that
appear "double hung"
ii. Reduces mass of �29' high dormer with �10.5' x 11.75' vertical wall.
iii. Echos value of improvements to Mstr Bedroom shed dormer's increased
sloped roof and "smaller" (still �30"x30") windows which minimize
perceived mass.
3. Reduce Big Bedroom 1 windows and change layout
a. Reduce �60" h x 48" w window size to 48"h x 30"w to be similar to proposed
Kitchen windows, with �32-36" sill height.
b. Move attached bathroom from front of house (which has a�60" x 48" front
window?) to be adjacent to kitchen wall and use smaller Clerestory window.
� Bathroom would also benefit from more privacy.
i. This still satisfies egress requirements; or use a french door to porch
4. Move Kitchen windows
a. Raise window sill height to 48" to minimize direct view onto our yard, or move
sink to island and reduce windows to clerestory
5. Visually Break up Large Monolithic ist Floor left wall, �51' run of straight wall & roof
a. Articulate/break wall at junction of Bedroom 1 and Kitchen to rear of house by
moving this wall section back 18 in, and increasing 2nd Floor roof pitch
i. This replicates articulation of Original House, between Front and Rear
sections, °breaking" long wall and roof run into 2 sections. See Exhibit 2
Jan. 8, 2019 Page 1 of 4
6. Lower Overall House Height and Mass
a. Proposed 2nd floor has 8'1" top plates, but every bedroom has �11'+ vaulted
ceilings.
i. High vaulted ceilings are driving up roof height aggravating mass issues
we outlined in our submission for the Dec 10 Planning Meeting.
ii. Even with all changes proposed in this revision, house height only
shrank 11 inches.
b. Reduce ceiling vault heights to 10'
c. Lower foundation wood cripple walls 2 feet
i. Reduces overall building height and height of ist Floor vertical wall,
while increasing privacy by increasing Fence coverage of windows.
ii. Rear Foundation walls are new, and raised original floor height by 1-2'.
They could have chosen to lower front of house to rear floor height
instead of raising rear floor, given extent of demolition.
d. Lower roof peak - Reduce Roof peak by 2 feet
i. Lowers overall building height
ii. Could still have 2nd Floor 10' vaulted ceilings; current dormers would
maintain room floor dimensions.
Further we would still ask the following:
1. Once the Plan is approved that there is 100% Compliance during construction. There
should and can be no changes to these approved plans without prior approval. Before
final approval of completed project, there should be no rash of FYI or Variance
requests to "true" up project because of more mistakes or errors.
a. That plans be made accurate, free of critical omissions and any misleading
statements. See Exhibit 2A of our letter Dated Dec. 4, 2018 for items we've
identified, and not all of which have been corrected in this revision.
2. That elevation/heights and setbacks be explicitly indicated (some are missing/implied)
for all lst and 2nd Floor top plates, roof eves and peaks, and that required surveyor
confirmation be expanded from just roof peak height to include these before final
permit approval at completion of project.
3. Licensed Surveyor to set stakes/marks, etc and to verify setbacks, heights, etc. If new
design kills or removes willow tree next to our garage, then a verified vertical story
pole be set so new construction heights can be quickly verified during construction.
4. Proper Steps to mitigate future land and creek erosion due to the removal of the
carriage house, and wooden retaining wall under it, to maintain proper flow in heavy
rains to avoid flooding.
a. Our neighborhood understands that it is not the Planning Commission's
responsibility, but this appears to be the only venue for public input on how the
design of the garage and Creek Bank plan will impact the Creek.
We appreciate your time and consideration and welcome you to view this project from our
driveway. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.
Respectfully yours,
Robin and Frank Knifsend
Jan. 8, 2019 Page 2 of 4
Exhibit 1: Left Rear Photos
Current vs Proposed 2.8' Wall Extension
Poles and Tarp at proposed 9' 1st Floor Plate Height
Currently
Note: Current wall/window stud is not to edge (short) of current foundation. Poles set at
proposed (Jan 14) location and height.
Jan. 8, 2019 Page 3 of 4
1st Floor Wall Proposed in this Design
Exhibit 2
Articulate Long Run of Wall & Roof
Proposed: N51' x 12-14' Vertical Rectangle (1st Floor excluding Porch)
Originally: House had more open Porch (> 50% of main house section), �4
"sections" to 1st Floor wall, and stepped down in rear to minimize mass and visual
impact.
At Blue Line, if ist Floor left rear wall was moved in 18", and roof pitch steepened to new
plate, it would break long run into 2 sections, similar to how original house used differing roof
heights and an 18" inset between peaked roof main house and middle addition to break up
long run originally. ist Floor Roof Eve is �13' above grade at this point.
Jan. 8, 2019 Page 4 of 4
Dear Commissioners:
Our apologies for the length of our overall response, which we tried to make as complete as
possible. Here is a summary of the issues at stake in this project.
What is wrong with this project and why all Variances should be denied, and project sent
back for Design Review:
• Pre-existing non-conforming design made worse. Taller, Longer, Higher, More Massive
• Historical structure was not preserved and protected; Now a New Construction Project
- Almost entirely removed, therefore existing non-conforming use no longer exists
- Demo'ed to sub-floor. Opportunity to fix all issues with Design and plan
inaccuracies
• Moving the Left wall 18 inches away from the property line does not significantly
address the issues highlighted below, nor correct the many inconsistencies and
inaccuracies found on the submitted Design Plan.
What specifically is worse now:
• Taller - 1st floor walls are 2.5 to 3.5 feet higher. Longer - 1st Floor is 11 feet longer
(removal of front sunroom glass + extended rear addition), 2nd Floor is extended 15
feet. Massive - Straight, vertical, monolithic lst floor wall and roofline plus 2nd floor
additions all massed at rear. No "open" air space from our garage to front setback
• The windows at rear, facing our property are bigger and higher than pre-existing ones.
• Floors and ceilings are raised to highest point (1st floor 5' main floor, 9'10 ceilings, 2nd
floor 9' master bedrm) throughout house; high elevation on top of 3.5-5' Foundation
• Every mass reducing feature has been removed - lower floors, lower ceilings, varying
roof lines, largely glass walls in front of house.
Why weren't these issues raised earlier during Design Review:
. Misleading Communication and assertions - the owner promised previous owner, us,
and other neighbors repeatedly they were going to preserve and update existing house.
- Simply add dormers and update rear addition
• We were trying to be good neighbors and not create unnecessary burdens as they
worked on "existing" house.
. Misleading, inaccurate plans presented to Design Review process:
- Did not accurately reflect true extent of demolition. Bad drawings, Bad numbers.
- Inaccurate, Missing and Misleading Call Outs for Existing & New walls, ceiling
heights, and floor heights. House had multiple, differing floor and ceiling heights,
which are not shown. New Design uses (E)xisting everywhere; Not True.
- As Built now, is physically even higher than plans showed.
• The neighbors would have raised very different issues about conformance, scale,
massing, and privacy, during Design Review if we had know truth of this project.
Why can't property owner and neighbors work out a compromise:
• Concerns ignored - We discussed our concerns with the owners prior to their design,
during, and most recently in response to actual demolition, and raising of new framing.
• Suggestions rebuffed - we spent 1.5 hours with owners discussing potential ways to
mitigate scale, mass, and privacy issues.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 1 of 12
— We told them frosted windows, higher fences, minor adjustments to window sills,
and the fact "they were not tall" (their words) were not substantial responses.
• Goodwill and Trust Exhausted - The owners, designer, and builder have exhausted us.
— Builder repeatedly failed to honor requests to clean up nail, glass, framing, and
roof debris in our driveway, or give us warning when they will work above our cars.
— Every "accidental error" makes Max Design more extreme. As Built exceeds plans.
— Lack of sincere back and forth discussion with Owners; any and all plan
modifications have only come after planning process submittals and feedback
What are we asking for:
• No Variances. Project sent back to Design Review
• Revised, completely Accurate, Clear, and Verifiable Plans. NO more "accidental errors"
• Project treated as New Construction. Design in keeping with Neighborhood and
Community character spirit and rules.
— Improved Scale, Mass, Privacy
— Objective, verifiable standards applied: 12 Foot Declining Envelope, 4 Foot Set
Back, etc.
— No Monolithic, vertical walls on our shared property line that run from our Garage
to the Front of 1245 leaving No "open" air space above fence.
— Use of Clerestory Windows onto our private backyard space. Windows placed and
sized to provide for privacy for both sets of current and future homeowners
— 9 foot ceilings maximum, and only if it results in a"good" design on the outside
w.r.t. Mass, Scale, Height, Privacy; Otherwise, reduce 3' wooden cripple walls on
top of cement foundation to Lower House
— NO tall fence to hide excessively tall walls.
• Licensed Surveyor to set stakes/marks, etc and to verify setbacks, heights, etc. If new
design kills or removes willow tree next to our garage, then a verified vertical story pole
to be set so new construction can be verified.
• Proper Steps to mitigate the land erosion due to the removal of the carriage house, and
wooden retaining wall under it, to maintain proper flow in heavy rains to avoid flooding
. 100% Compliance with all applicable rules and standards, and Approved Plans.
While the above seems extensive, all of the framing above the subfloor onsite today was
installed in 2 days, including work done 1 day after Stop Work was issued on Left side.
Every neighbor that adjoins this property, as well as many neighbors on our block or in the
Burlingame community (38 families) have signed a petition highlighting the issues with this
project, and are asking that it be brought into full compliance with the spirit and rules of the
planning process and fit into the character of Burlingame neighborhoods.
We appreciate your time and consideration and welcome you to view this project from our
driveway. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.
Respectfully yours,
Robin and Frank Knifsend
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 2 of 12
Item 1: Left Rear Photos Before & After
See Top Plate and Roof relative to "Y" in Tree.
Before (Photo taken Aug. 16, 2018)
�� �,
'_ , �,°.4, : +�+ `•
( � .�1._0::.. �_.'►.� �'
� ,
�` t
,�;���:
i{ �k _ _�
. ; ,�,�, -� � -� � �
� } ' �'� " ; `�r � .�
,�; �.. �, �
, �� �^ � . ��
� �� � � ' I
ir"'�f.r �� �� .. M� ' ` �T, * mp �4`i y �v., • }
w_"�; �� ��`�' , , ` � �� �i -,� a� y�' "s<'
����_ �� "� : -- � � _: ` __ � ,
�'�=� . �, �,� � � � ''e�"� ,; .
� ' 1� a� .�'•y. $ +��. ,ta.
A*` ���'`4�` - f` '�, 3:
��.
v� '�'� ':� ..
�"�.� � + ' `.
_� i�.
,�:''" � `��� . F VS. t . .'�,-:
Note: New Wall is 3 1/2 feet taller than before, as measured. Plan says 2'/2 feet taller
�
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 3 of 12
Befo re N O W
Item 2: Left Wall Photos Before & After
See Intersection of Top Plates at stub of existing cantilever wall
1. Old wall N4-6" below, New wall is now N8" above, so N 1 ft taller
2. This is also the situation at Front Left corner.
3. Entire 60' left wall is taller than BOTH Existing AND Approved claimed 9'10"
top plate height, which was measured at front living room ceiling.
Left Rear & Front
Before
NOW
,�,, r w; .. z� � �,� - -� 6,..�-
�� A '�y�^. d�� IR, � s"�` 4
� : , �� iF�� ?1ir..,¢y
,.:� rf F �,�•", .'
r � f
_ �� f� �,
� �,�� �
`� ��' � � '
��� +� .:� F �`� � ..
� ;��. , �
��,t ::� ,:�
r ���i
.�:•� � � �+ � , .
P
c,�4�i � s
� .�A �$� . ��4•�J /Y� � �'�
Left Front - this new wall also is taller
Note: In bottom right photo, the Top Plate on right side lines up with claimed 9'10"
top plate in Living Room Ceiling that was indicated as "Existing".
NOW
Left Rear - old wall intersects 4-6" LOWER than cantilever top plate
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 4 of 12
Left Rear - new wall taller
� �
� ���a '
_ ,� ,
�"�
{� � � � � �
,�,:� :
r � � �=M
� �
:� � �� � ,
.���«.� �:� � r
� �. �,�� .�_� �� +� , �
.. K ��, .pn. , I� . iN.
� c.4P '
� 7 1-�� � i Y- . w�. l 4 '��
� ar 3 d#5�
. � ed .� � � �� �� „� �� � q �;'�
� ' i ' �� �,� � ,::
{` - � #� � � � ,wa ��
���� � �„�' �;.�:� !� ���� � � � °'� "'E, �a`'r,°+v
_;� - � � � � � - ��,
�- - . , .;v"'";xaw:�,a�''��; � � -I +�,! �. '�
-�� � • sw. �:- .�r!_ . _...__� i � '`��1�.
♦ ' �' ' �' � < �r a � � `�
/ �� i '� ���,� 9 �. .•. ,
� ., ,. , � R, ;�.�� , ��� . � � _ "�. , � p'� � °�'�� _ �'++'` .' . . ,' , , , �,
'4 "�k:. . :�.• I�
i.._ � .iJ.�.,. P 1.Y��.,r.S.:r .4.A�u.L �i . � �� ,,, ..�... .,,
1
�
_ � �x .� �.
_ t ��' �
,..;,� ,.. :� . ' �
w,y; ,� �
�, H . ` t +`
� � �
�� � � + �� � �
< � �d'h:. `' ?, . y ��
� ..
�;.�'� a � �'�',�� •, .
� � "ti�,�i . .
� � mT� r, �
, _ � � _ .: «. _ �»
' �r �!,.�� a-k,� � �►'.+-�;. ' �►"� ;�,;'•' `���
�., ,� ,� �*�,�.'�'.�.�`�a � .���� • ► �.. �. r
Item 2 (continued)
Example: As Built Front & Rear Left Wall Exceeds Plans
As Built New Rear Wall: 10.725ft =�10'-9" As Built vs. 9'-10" on Plans
New Front Left Wall = 10'-1" + 8" = 10'-9" As Built
Rebuilt Left Side Walls all exceed Plan Call Out Heights of 9'10" by nearly 1 foot extra
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 6 of 12
Existing Cantilever Wall - 10.1ft = �10'-1"
Item 3: Example of Missing / Inaccurate Labels on Plans
See Exhibit A2 for a more comprehensive list of inaccurate, misleading items on plan
Below from Jan 4 Rev. Missing "Existing" Floor is 2'-7" as shown on Survey, and "Existing"
Top Plate is 8'-0" as shown below
Mlssing Plate Level
of Middle Addition
,= ❑ � �
�a
� is Is Main Floor
from Front of house
Lower Floor at Rear
I�
� i lE14" pAINTED LLl.^OD
BlDING, 7'YP.
Note:
1. Right Elevation calls out 8' plate at Rearmost addition. Still missing middle
addition plate height.
2. Right Elevation Floor heights missing, and incorrectly labeled. Incorrectly
suggests Main Floor height was existing Floor level at rearmost edition. The
Rear threshhold height is on Survey and shows it is 8-10" lower than
indicated "Main Floor" height.
3. Left Elevations Missing all of that information, and claims ��Existing" are Plate
and Floor levels Living Room in front of house. This house had multiple
differing floor heights especially along Left and Rear of structure.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 7 of 12
This is from Jan 4 Rev, Original Existing Rear Elevation A6
Item 3 (continued)
Floor Height of Existing SunRoom = 46", or 3'-10", This information is Missing from Plans
� _ �.
, �
��,,�-.
�•� - � a�
�;:-"ci„�_t_.y .ai � --��'a' - -
��e; 1
� --
M -
� �
. N =
a'
�-'
�.: f
�.:
�.
�
a_:
Floor of Living Room "Main Floor" Called Out on Plans is 8-10" Higher than Floor of Left Wall
Floor of Cantilevered Bump Out steps up, then stepped down to 2'-7" Surveyed Height at Rear
Threshold
`^� �� :J�
�
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 8 of 12
Item 4: Inaccurate Demolition Plans
Even current Revised Demolition Plan submitted for this Variance Application is inaccurate.
1. Entire "Existing" Right wall is gone except for open column porch
2. Entire "Existing" Left wall is gone except for cantilever stub wall
3. Entire Rear of Structure is gone
4. All Interior walls are gone, with exception of rear living room wall
5. Including second floor demolition, there is likely less than 16% remaining; see
calculation in Exhibit C
Changing Design to deal with Mass, Scale, Height, Nearness to Property line, and Privacy is
not an "unnecessary hardship" since basically the entire structure is gone. Now is the time
to improve Design.
Gone - Entire Rear of House & all interior walls
:< �
, „
. : , . ,., . ..... , ,. ...-
- J',_
�
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 9 of 12
Gone - Existing Right Wall Gone - Existing Left Wall, front & rear
Item 5:
Impact to our Property &
Loss of Property Value
1245 1st floor top plate is 3-4 feet higher than our 2nd Story floor, and even higher
than roof of our garage.
: �) �'�
5 � �'M' y F�� „�y y a �
� y��
, �.�N. �jf.. � �y�K'l��� ¢,5,�� ��t��� �/� �...,L' .
�7f i�,o� �fj !
1 �.,.
. .�� ��ti� ��.�.. � ue �i �M�i�,�
. T T � �
' i �' .
�` y � � �r '
<. ;� .
��� � �
As.. .. • . , . �... .
- -
.-
V��a �� �
i `
a
I
�
I
Their first floor top plate alone is higher than our garage. When we did our
remodel, we had to lower the roof 2-3 feet of this existing garage, building
» so it would not "impact" 1245 view «
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 10 of 12
Relative Height of Structures
Scale & Mass of new >first floor< wall alone
� ��� r�+
b,. y r �V �
��, ��
� k��
�� i9
�� �� � +�� +�, �� �� �ry �„T ' �' .
i � ~1 �'1s.�
Impact to use of our Private Space
View from standing at elevation of their first floor
� �� ,
���.h � ., � �—`—"-_"�'--'-' ��""�'� ;VC � �.�,� � �, Y �, f4'�:
Y
�. � . Aa .. .. _ .i M�" -. � � ISMt��.
Jq
.II
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 11 of 12
Fence is a�6+1' but about 6'S"
Standing at elevation of new floor
Complete view into our backyard They are eye level with our house roof,
garage roof & basketball hoop.
All of the windows on their first floor will look through tops of our windows.
Similarly, all of the windows on their second floor will look through tops of windows
into our bedrooms.
f R � k� „%`�y`u � ",�
r�, ci�" `,, 3°J�»..?`�"i ''�` '��� ��•��,
I � �� i I � r i.la� I ?�' `_�� "+� � �
¢
�.� '''=k� 8
.,�,. ...- �; ,,, i �+
:�:�� .-. .
-F �
� ��, _
��� _ 51�,
�
�� ����
�� ���
�
M T � .��
� � t .
` � �'
�: r�.,�.,_, �,
�, t``,� �, .�-�.:. �- ti�y�*.
�� � ' •, •' • �
, r T� �
,`{
'S I
f`, I ' 1
I
With Nov 29 Rev, they propose extending this wall even further to Tree, and 2nd
Story Floor will start just above "paired" 2x4 to right of window opening, creating a
continuous, monolithic wall along entire fence line from our garage to the front of
their house, with no ��open" sun & sky gaps. See Left Elevation, Sheet A5 Nov 29
Rev.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 1Z of 12
Impact to Our Property (continued)
December 4, 2018
Dear Commissioners:
In regards to the Application for Amendment to Design Review for changes to a previously
approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached
garage at 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, we respectfully request you deny the variance and revisit the
review of the previously approved design under the grounds that the existing structure was
nearly all demolished and the written and verbal information provided during this process has
been deceptively misleading resulting in even worse non-conforming elements getting approved
in the plans under false pretenses.
We ask that you come out to this property, view this new ("existing") structure, and ask
yourself is this what should be the outcome of a collaborative planning process that follows the
spirit and rules of Burlingame? More pointedly, would you want to live next to that tall
structure just feet from your property line with attendant size, mass, scaling, and privacy
issues?
This project has a negative impact on the use of our home, it decreases our property value
and has a negative impact on the overall neighborhood. We have lived in this neighborhood for
20 years, built good relationships with all of our neighbors, are raising a family here and hope
to enjoy many more decades here. What they are building next door really negatively impacts
that (see Exhibit F).
We believe the switch and bait gaming of the planning process was intentional to minimize
attention to the changes desired for this historical property and avoid pushback from neighbors
to bring the non-conforming elements into standards. We and all of our neighbors were denied
the ability to appropriately comment in the planning review process since this project was not
honestly presented as to the scope of demolition and the relevant details of the existing
structure clearly labeled.
We, and our neighbors, would have approached the original Design Review hearing very
differently, if we had not been misled by the owners and incomplete labels presented on the
drawings (see Exhibit A). The owners promised the previous owners to preserve and update the
existing 1906 structure. They told us and other neighbors they were adding dormers and
updating the rear addition. The plans submitted with demo plans and existing walls labeled
further reinforced everyone's view on what this project entailed. (see Exhibit B) Further we
were told that the existing non-conforming structure and elements could not be changed by us
or the owners, or they would no longer be existing non-conforming. Everyone relied on these
drawings and those communications to inform and direct their input to the planning process.
We believed that the existing structure would remain, including the height, windows
size/placement, and roof pitch, and used the existing structure as a storyboard.
If we had known the amount of demolition that would take place, as well as the removal of
existing non-conforming elements, we would have asked for conformity to the rules and
keeping within the character of Burlingame(see Exhibit D).
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 1
Even now with these revised Plans, the demolition plan shown is WRONG. It shows walls
remaining that have already been removed. It says 69.4% is removed when the truth is 84%+
is already gone. (see Exhibit C) The truth is that this entire house was leveled down to
sub-floor joists and only a few framing stubs were left to try to grandfather a few
non-conforming elements: front and side setback, 30ft+ overall building height, 10ft+ front
room ceiling height, 3-4ft high foundation cripple walls. They did not try to preserve this historic
1906 house, they only preserved a few of its worst elements.
Now, the argument of rebuilding "the existing structure" is being used to make previously
non-conforming aspects worse to increase the height of walls and expand windows. The old
additions at the back of the house stepped down floor and ceiling heights, which reduced
massing and scale on the part of both of our properties that have sun and sky space. Now the
walls that are being built are 2.5-3.5 feet higher and completely dominate the little open space
along our shared property line. We are to going to have a 2 story monolithic structure along
almost the entire shared property line. This structure is NOT even being re-built to the same
scale and size as the pre-existing structure.
When we did our project, we sought out all of our neighbors to get their concerns and
review of what we planned on doing. The owners of the 1245 property have never proactively
discussed or showed their plans to us or any of our neighbors and after our attempts at trying
to share our concerns and come up with reasonable solutions, we find that the owners are not
willing to engage in substantive discussion and truly listen to people's concerns. At this point,
any goodwill that we have has been exhausted (see Exhibit E). Although it is likely the owners
of the 1245 property will claim they made some changes to appease us, they do not address
the real problems of scale, mass and privacy.
Now that the majority of the house has been demolished, we request that the entire plan be
revisited to reduce the massing and scale of this project, the non-conforming walls be required
to come into compliance with setback rules and provide appropriate privacy. All of the first floor
framing that is currently in place was put up in Z days; this is the time to address these issues.
At this point, many things could and should be done to reduce the massing and scale of this
project and provide appropriate privacy to both ourselves and the current and future residents
of the 1245 property. We outline several suggestions in Exhibit D.
If the rules and spirit around existing structures are there to encourage the preservation
value and maintenance of historical nature of our community, this 1906 house was completely
leveled maintaining only the "value" of being too high off the ground, too close to the property
lines, and having very tall first floor ceiling heights. None of which would be allowed in a new
construction project in our neighborhood today, and therefore, given the state of demolition,
this project should be evaluated as a new build construction.
Further, as all of us who have been through a remodel project have had to follow the rules
and make design concessions, it seems only fair that these rules and considerations should
apply to the 1245 project. In fact, allowing a project like this will certainly set a bad precedent
and will destroy the very "character of Burlingame" that the planning commission has tried to
preserve. We encourage you to come out and view what they built so far and ask yourself if
this is what our community desires to be the outcome of the Planning Review process, and if
you would like this home in your neighborhood or would like to live right next door to it.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 2
Finally, in Exhibit G is a Petition from 38 of our Burlingame neighbors who share in our
concern about this project; this includes >Every< neighbor who adjoins this property or directly
views this property as well as the vast majority of our block, and many other community
members who have seen this project.
Lastly, although the revised plans do not address our concerns, we have noted ongoing
discrepancies on every revision of these plans - Jan 4, Oct 25, Nov 29. Some examples are
noted below.
. Missing and misleading Floor and Top plate heights. See Exhibit A1
. Many, many inconsistencies, missing, and misleading Call Outs and information. See
Exhibit A2
• Inaccurate Demolition Plan. See Exhibit C
We appreciate your time and consideration and we welcome you to come talk to us and view
their project from our driveway. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any
questions.
Respectfully yours,
Robin and Frank Knifsend
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 3
Exhibit A1
Deceptive Labeling on Drawings Submitted in January 2018 for approval
As we are not in the home building trade, it is not reasonable to assume that we would be able
to catch the items that are mismarked or left off of the plans as follows:
1. What is supposed to be an existing wall is 2.5-3.5 feet higher and now is 6-7 feet above
the top of our privacy fence, where the top plate used to be 3-4 feet above fence.
2. The design and plans did not clearly and accurately reflect the floor and ceiling heights
of the existing structure.
a. The existing structure had 3 different sections to it; evident on the side
elevations of existing structure.
b. From the front of the house to the back, there were several different floor heights
as well as top plate heights.
3. The plans that were submitted and "approved" show the "existing" designation in the
incorrect spot.
a. This existing designation is applicable to the front living room of the house only
b. It is not the existing height of the back of the house next to which the words are
located.
4. The windows which are staying on the existing walls are actually being raised up and are
substantially bigger.
a. In fact, the entire scale of the house is massive but it is not evident in the
drawings as everything looks proportional when you are told that everything is
existing,
b. One comes to the conclusion that everything is the same since we are told wall
height is existing, but it is now taller, so everything is bigger.
c. Original structure had lower windows that did not clear the fence and appropriate
clerestory windows on a lower floor height that provided some privacy to us in
our backyard.
5. The drawings also do not call out the change to existing floor heights.
a. The Survey for the Property show Rear Threshold at addition is 8-10" LOWER
than Front Threshold (Living Room /"Main Floor")
d IFFER FLOOR
�
A PL4TE I F�.sl
�
ExlstlnQ
Q
�
$-�'�s e.�
A (E1�
True
ExlstlnQ �
�
�
�� -
� I��I I�I�� C
; ; i��.i ii
ExlstlnE
�����
True
Existlne ^
�
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 4
Before
NOW
Dec. 4, 2018
�,' �
�
/ L Y♦'�� ;@'����
� F♦,.��� � ��..,.��
"'� �� i �,..
' ;�
� `� � ` '�; °, �
�.�� ��;+�� � ,,
�:�,► ,
,�:x c
r � . o
c,
v�.
,� ,
f�
t
k��, t �
f ��?. . ,. rw� .
k ,a� ! r
J�"°�,l " „�'-�.
f�,
� Krw � „
' y ���^ ` ��,
'i�; �. . v.:,
� 1�.`� -r :���
A t �^� + ti �
�j� . , '"�* A �..
6z.P� � X � � � !h+
� r ` , i �,. � . `4 �'h. ...
e . a iy� , �,,� � .,. .
�.�..�� ., � ' .'k _._.�`
� �„
�� �' � ��, .�,� ,'���'��, t
s:. s,���`��:.�i w •- �
4+��
�
. .,�"
Page 5
��Existing Wall" is now around 3.5 feet higher. Fence is approximately "6+1",
actually shorter.
. �`�i7��'�,�'�."�Y
� ��'� r1�'�
�:c i
�7 .��
� ' tt�
n.� � �
���r �i
i +�.i•�';� � �
� �e:;< : �� ''rl : [ , � ; � "tl i
�� ��
Standing at elevation of new floor
�';,
�'+, �,.,,����� '�, -,�. --
"�
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 6
Exhibit A2
Inconsistent, Inaccurate, Misleading,
and Omitted Key Details
Across all Revisions of Submitted Plans (including current)
1. Fence - Sheets A.2, A.5 Nov 29 Rev
a. Call Out - 7' solid fencing + 12" lattice
b. Designer has been informed multiple times that this is not allowed and should be
removed from Design
2. Demolition, Sheets A.2.1 & A.2.2, A.4, A.6, ]an 4, Oct 25, and Nov 29 Rev.
a. Removal Calculations are both WRONG and nonsensical. Is NOT 69.4%. Should
be 83-84%, only 16-17% remaining.
b. It appears that they didn't include any wall length that had a window set in that
wall...so got a 144' perimeter wall length for a house that is �62 feet long and
�38 feet wide, with 2 floors.
c. Correct Calculation is:
i. Building is �62 feet in length, �38 feet in width, so total perimeter walts
are �200 feet (by just guestimating) for ist Floor
1. We actually added up and measured every wall segment on Sheet
A.2.1 and calculated N196 feet for 1st Floor
ii. 2nd Floor Wall calculation makes NO sense. Should be �26'-8"
1. 13'-4" front wall + 13'-4" rear wall = 26'-8" 2nd floor perimeter
walls
2. Does NOT include Wall lengths under roof, but not adjacent to
bedrooms, so Under reports these walls
iii. Claimed remaining walls are 144-109 = 35 feet. That is WRONG. See
Sheet A.2.1
1. front wall = 4-8 + 10-10 +4-8 = 20'-2"
2. Right wall = 15'-2"
3. Left wall = �Z'-6"
a. The "Sunroom" was completely enclosed with exterior walls
and windows, and was used as a bedroom by previous
owner. This is already demolished down to a� 3 feet high
stub wall
4. So Remaining walls = 37'-10"
iv. Removal calculation is correctly: (196' + 26'-8"- 37'-10") /(196 + 26'-8")
= 83.0% Removed.
1. Using claimed 35' remaining of 1st floor, that would be 84.2%
demolished.
3. Rearmost Addition - Sheet A.6, A.5
a. 9'-0" Ceiling height Call Out for rearmost addition, does not match 9'-10" Top
Plate height Call Out
b. Use of "Ceiling Height" vs "Top Plate"
c. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See ]an 4. 2018 Sheets A.5 Left Elevation and A.6 Rear Elevation, and Nov 29
Rev.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 7
i. Wrong, Existing Elevation, Sheet A.5 -(E)xisting ceiling height of this
addition is 8'-0"
ii. Wrong, Existing Elevation -(E)xisting Main Floor is called out and implied
to be at height of front Living Room (front threshold). The Survey shows
that the Rear threshold doorway entering this addition is 8-10" LOWER
than called out "main floor" height
iii. Missing, Existing Elevation- Claimed (E)xisting Main Floor of 3'-9" is not
correct for Rear Addition.
1. The Addition Floor height has a reference line, but it is NOT
labeled. It is LOWER than labeled "Main Floor" height by about 8"
to 12" lower.
2. "Main Floor" is referencing floor of Living Room at front of house.
iv. Missing, Exisitng Elevation - no Call Out for Top Plate of Middle Rear
Addition
v. Wrong, Proposed Elevation - On new design elevation, everything
references (E)xisting floor and ceiling heights, and implies that the new
construction conforms to Original/Existing heights. All of new design is
Higher than Original heights
4. Second Floor Master Bedroom and Side Additions - Sheet A.4 A.S, A.6, A.7
a. The top plate of the Master Bedroom is HIGHER than the claimed 2nd Floor
(E)xisting Top Plate Height of 8'-1"
b. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See Jan 4. 2018 and Nov 29 rev Elevations
i. Missing, Proposed Elevations - There is NO Labeled Call Out for Ceiling or
Top Plate Height of Master Bedroom.
1. Extend Reference Line Call Out of (E)xisting Top Plate 8'-1" and it is
higher
ii. Missing, Proposed Elevations - There is NO Labeled Call Out for Ceiling or
Top Plate Height of Leftside Peaked Dormer
1. Extend Reference Line Call Out of (E)xisting Top Plate 8'-1" and it is
higher
iii. Missing, Proposed Elevations - There is NO Labeled Call Out for Ceiling or
Top Plate Height of Rightside Peaked Dormers (stairs, mstr bath, etc)
1. Extend Reference Line Call Out of (E)xisting Top Plate 8'-1" and it is
higher
5. Left Elevation, Rearmost and Middle Additions - Sheet A.5
a. 9'10" Top Plate height call out for rear addition. Not 9' ��Ceiling" as on A.6.
Further, inconsistency in use of "Top Plate" vs "Ceiling" text. If not the same,
what is height difference?
b. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See Jan 4. 2018 Sheet A.6 Rear Elevation and Nov 29 Rev.
i. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting Floor Height,
�2'-3" to 2'-7", of rearmost addition
ii. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting Ceiling Height,
8'-0" of rearmost addition
iii. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting Floor and Ceiling
Heights of middle addition (i.e. addition behind peaked roof house, but in
front of rearmost addition).
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 8
6. Basement & Kitchen, Right Elevation - Sheets A.6 and A.7
a. Claimed (E)xisting Basement height of 5'-11" w.r.t. Original floor height of
Kitchen. New Design has higher Basement Ceiling
b. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See Jan 4. 2018 Sheets A.6 and A.7 Rear and Right Elevations and Nov 29 Rev
i. Missing, Existing and Proposed Elevation - the (E)xisting Floor Height of
the Kitchen is NOT Labeled, NOR is reference line for height of Basement
1. If you trace claimed (E)xisting Main Floor height 5'-6" Call Out back
of house, you will see that it is about 8-12" HIGHER than Kitchen
Floor Height
2. In New design, the floor of Kitchen is raised to claimed (E)xisting
ii. Missing, Proposed Elevation - Ceiling Height of Basement. Since Kitchen
Floor has been raised 8-12" than likely Basement Height is 6'-7" to 6'-11"
iii. Missing, Proposed Elevation Rear - Floor and Height of Basement
c. Basement NOT subject to FAR, Lot Coverage, or any other City Rules because
they claim and have shown it to be "not improved" on Plans
i. It is claimed that this entire basement space will ONLY be accessible from
exterior hatch, and will be UNIMPROVED, therefore not included in FAR,
Lot Coverage, or subject to any rules regarding basements with ceilings
higher than 6; and extending more than 3' above grade.
ii. We have been informed by Planning Department that if at ANY time
(construction, Sale of Property, etc), this basement space is "Improved"
(such as interior accessway, permanent stairs, part of Conditioned house
environment, etc) then it would be in Violation and should be reported to
Code Enforcement.
7. Left Elevation, SunRoom - Sheets A.2.1, A.5
a. The SunRoom was Originally completely enclosed by perimeter walls and
windows. Sheet A.2.1 implies that it was an open porch, and not part of Existing
perimeter wall structure of house. Also, this doesn't appear to be included in
Designer provided Removal Calculations (shown inaccurate above)
b. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See Jan 4. 2018 Sheet A.5 Left Elevation and Nov 29 Rev
i. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting Floor Height of
Sunroom. Measured at 3'-10" (Dec. 2, 2018, photos), and about 8-9"
LOWER than Living Room Floor Height, which is being used as Called Out
"Main Floor" height
ii. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting ceiling Height of
Sunroom, not shown. However, this top plate was likely at same level as
cantilevered wall section that is still remaining.
8. Front Elevation, SunRoom, Sheet A4
a. SunRoom Floor and Top Plate have been raised and are HIGHER
b. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See ]an 4. 2018 Sheet A.6 Rear Elevation and Nov 29
i. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting Floor Height of
Sunroom. Measured at 3'-10" (Dec. 2, 2018, photos), and 8-9" LOWER
than Living Room Floor Height, which is being used as Labeled "Main
Floor" height
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 9
ii. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting ceiling Height of
Sunroom.
9. Creek and Garage, Sheet A8 (]an 4 rev, Garage), Survey (located in Jan 4 Rev Plan
bundle), Landscape Plan
a. The Survey and Plan are inaccurate
i. The Survey was conducted Oct 20, 2017, before the large storms we had
in Jan, 2018 that eroded the bank 1-2 feet (and caused tree shown
�existing' in back left of property to fall into creek.
ii. Further - demolition of Original, Existing carriage house further removed
the wooden retaining wall under the structure and also caused further
collapse of Creek Bank.
iii. It is likely that rear of Garage is at, or over, the current edge of Creek
Bank line
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 10
Exhibit B
Conversations that misled us to Original Design Review
1. The owners told the previous owner, us, and other neighbors they were preserving the
current house and updating it.
a. The previous owner actually passed on many offers over the years by developers
who made it known they were going to tear down the house, and was told during
this sale the plan was to preserve the historic house.
2. They told us that they were merely adding onto an existing structure.
a. We were repeatedly told that this was a remodel where some dormers were being
added, and the addition at the back being updated.
3. In preparing for the design review in January, we had to go to the CIty and pull the
plans despite asking the owners repeatedly if they would share their plans.
a. Even with these revised plans, we were not shown them prior to submittal.
Although we did view a version with essentially the same elements during a 1.5
hour long discussion, where we again outlined our substantial privacy, massing,
and scale issues, and suggested potential compromises.
4. When viewing the plans for the January Design Review, we were told the new plans used
existing non-conforming walls, and shown the existing height label on the elevation
drawings.
a. However, these drawings did not accurately label the differing floor and top plate
heights across the existing structure.
b. Most specifically, the floor and top plate height for the front living room was used
for the entire first floor structure and labeled "(E)xisting"
5. Further, the demolition plans suggested that majority of the existing structure, walls,
roof was being kept, with the movement of interior walls was majority of demolition.
6. The owners told us specifically that the wall adjoining our property would remain the
existing wall.
a. Even after we saw the new framing, they continued to tell us that they are just
rebuilding the existing wall, even though it is 2-3 feet taller.
7. We have since learned that it is not typical to keep an existing structural wall and add a
2-3 feet cripple wall above that, so the removal and rebuilding of the existing
non-conforming wall was already implied, even though we did not understand that. But
that further shows those walls should never have been labeled "existing"
8. Also, after raising all of the issues included in this document to the owners prior to Nov
26, they pulted and resubmitted revised plans, which they did not communicate in any
manner with us.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 11
Exhibit C
Incorrect Original Demolition Plan
Inaccurate Removal Calculations Still on Revised Plans
This is a NEW House
1. The revised (Nov 29 Rev) Demolition Plans are still Inaccurate. See Calculations and
Photo Below.
a. More than 84% of this house was demolished
b. That is a kind calculation, not fully counting second floor
2. The January Demo plan for first and second floor led us to believe that majority of
structure - exterior walls, roof, etc would remain, and only dormers added, addition
updated, and interior walls moved.
3. The structure was effectively taken all the way down to the subfloor joist platform with
the exception of a couple of stub walls to maintain the extreme closeness to the side
property, front setback and height of the front room.
a. Almost the entirety of the first floor is down to joists.
4. The "Existing" House is Gone. This is a New house and should be treated as a New
House project and not a limited Remodel with additions.
a. What they are Proposing is Worse than Original, Existing structure, and is Taller
and Wider with way more MASS.
b. Now is the time to deal with mass, scale, height, and privacy issues
5. ]an 4 Rev Demolition Plans claimed less than 50% exterior wall removal primarily at
right rear and showed 2nd Floor remaining with just interior wall changes, thereby
creating impression majority of structure was remaining, with just new additions and
interior wall changes.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 12
Nothing left except sub floor joists and "stub" walls
Exhibit C (continued)
Correct Removal / Demolition Calculation
1. Removal Calculation is Inaccurate.
2. It appears that they didn't include any wall length that had a window set in that wall...so
are claiming a 144' perimeter wall length for a house that is �62 feet long and �38 feet
wide, with 2 floors.
3. We went through Sheet A.2.a and actually added up and measured every wall segment
on Sheet A.2.1 and calculated �196 feet for ist Floor and �26'-8" for 2nd Floor
a. We didn't include 2nd Floor Wall length that was under roof, but not directly
connected to a bedroom, so a very conservative calculation
b. The Remaining walls shown on plan are: 37'-10"
4. Correct Calculation is:
a. Removal calculation is correctly: (196' + 26'-8"- 37'-10") /(196 + 26'-8") _
�83.0% Removed.
lst Floor Walls 195.75
2nd Ftoor Walls 26.67
Width or Length House
Segment Length -"feet" part Segment Length -"inch" part Segment
4.00 8.00 W
10.00 10.00 W
4.00 8.00 W
15.00 2.00 L
7.00 6.00 L
1.00 4.00 W
3.00 8,00 W
3.00 8.00 W
3.00 4.00 L
7.00 6.00 L
3.00 4.00 L
1.00 2.00 W in
5.00 11.00 L
3.00 6.00 L
2.00 2.00 L
5.00 3.00 W in
3.00 6.00 W in
0.00 5.00 W in
3.00 6.00 W in
8.00 4.00 W in
3.00 6.00 L
Dec. 4, 2018
From "Labeled" Drawing or
"Measured" off Drawing
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Page 13
Sst Floor walls
2nd Floor walls
10.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
5.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
7.00
6.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
4.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
7.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
172.00
13.00
13
26.00
3.00 L
8.00 W in
6.00 W in
8.00 W in
6.00 W in
10.00 W in
9.00 L
8.00 L
7.00 L
6.00 L
7.00 L
0.00 L
9.00 L
2.00 W out
9.00 L
9.00 L
6.00 L
4.00 L
6.00 L
9.00 L
0.00 L
7.00 L
9.00 W in
6.00 L
2.00 L
0.00 L
9.00 L
1.00 L
285.00
195J5
4.00 front
4 rear
8.00
26.67
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measure
Measured
Drawn + Measured
Drawn + Measured
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 14
Exhibit D
Rules and /"Keeping within the character of Burlingame" We Request
Compliance
1. Large scale of house and mass right on property line not consistent the neighborhood
spirit of Burlingame.
2. No Variances. Project sent back to Design Review to fix both Design issues and
misleading, missing, wrong, and inaccurate items on Plans.
3. Revised, completely Accurate, Clear, and Verifiable Plans. NO more "accidental errors"
4. Project evaluated and treated as New Construction. Typical Planning Review, Evaluation,
and Expectations for a New Build Construction. Design in keeping with Neighborhood
and Community character spirit and rules.
a. Improved Scale, Mass, Privacy
b. Objective, verifiable standards applied: 12 Foot Declining Envelope, 4 Foot Set
Back, etc. Example: the existing wall that was added to is now 14 feet plus, even
though Plans only showed 13 feet.
c. No Monolithic, verticat walls on our shared property line that run from our Garage
to the Front of 1245 leaving No ��open" air space above fence.
d. Use of Clerestory Windows onto our private backyard space. Windows placed and
sized to provide for privacy for both sets of current and future homeowners
e. 9 foot ceilings maximum, and only if it results in a"good" design on the outside
w.r.t. Mass, Scale, Height, Privacy; Otherwise, reduce 3' wooden cripple walls on
top of cement foundation to Lower House
f. NO tall fence to hide excessively tall walls.
5. Licensed Surveyor to set stakes/marks, etc and to verify setbacks, heights, etc. If new
design kills or removes willow tree next to our garage, then a verified vertical story pole
to be set so new construction can be verified.
6. Proper Steps to mitigate the land erosion due to the removal of the carriage house, and
wooden retaining wall under it, to maintain proper flow in heavy rains to avoid flooding
7. 100% Compliance with all applicable rules and standards, and built exactly to Approved
Plans.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 15
Exhibit E
Neighborhood Goodwill Exhausted
1. When we first heard the Lai's were going to undergo a remodel, we asked them to speak
to us in advance because we had some issues with the existing structure; the debris
from their gutters falls into our driveway; their adjacent wall was really close to the
property line; and the impact of their project on the creek was a concern. We also
suggested that they speak to other neighbors. The owners of 1245 Cabrillo never
proactively discussed or showed their plans to us or any of the other neighbors. We
have had to go down to the City Planning Department to pull their published plans every
single time.
Z. As the original review of their plans was approaching, they discouraged us from raising
any issues by telling us that they are keeping the existing house with some dormers
were being added and the addition at the back being updated.
3. Despite having had conversations about our concerns and expressing interest in their
project, the owners act surprised that we had concerns and use the excuse that they
didn't know.
4. We explicitly raised the following issues with the owners:
a. House is too close to the property line and fence, ranging from 1.5 - 2 feet
instead of required 4 foot setback. We are especially concerned about the
cantilevered wall section.
b. The wall is too high and dominating. It is now over 14 feet tall, and being right
next to property line exaggerates that. Lower the first floor ceiling to 9 feet.
c. There are now many very large windows that are situated on a higher floor height
that are directly overlooking our yard, and located within required setback. This
is both a severe privacy issue, as well as the scale is all wrong. Makes it Iook we
are on display. Change the kitchen and dining room windows to clearstory
windows. We highlighted that we did that along the entire South side of our
house to provide privacy to our neighbors at 1241 Cabrillo Avenue.
d. Roof, gutters and property line. Everything slides off their roof onto our cars and
driveway. Making the house taller just makes this roof situation worse and
increases likelihood that everything ends up on our side of the fence. Plus the
roof overhang and gutters are on property line.
5. Besides multiple emails and discussions, we sat down with one of the owners for 1�/z
hours to go over these issues, and try to come up with ways to mitigate the scale,
massing and privacy issues. We did not get a substantive response other than the
following:
a. We will plant a tree between the house and the fence (24" space, little light)
b. They would remove the farthest back window entirely, so blank 14' wall
c. The owners claimed that they are not tall so they would not look into our house.
d. They recommended frosted windows.
e. They recommended raising the fence.
f. They recommended going from a pitched room to a flat roof.
g. On multiple occasions we stated that the solutions were not viable, were "quick
fixes" which could easily be changed, or would not work with the aesthetics of the
house.
6. Further, on multiple occasions we have complained to the owners about the builder:
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 16
a. Dropping a roof section onto the fence and breaking it
b. Dropping multiple windows onto our driveway and failing to clean up all glass
shards and splinters
c. Dropping and leaving framing sections with nails pointed up on our driveway on
several different days.
d. Leaving a demo'ed 12-16 sections of the house wall leaning on the fence and
over our property near vehicles.
7. Then when it was determined that a variance would be needed due to non-compliance
with the Set Back on the left side, the owners said they would address our concerns.
However, they submitted plans to the City without talking to us and made no effort to
get our feedback on their suggested solutions. The Plan Revision submitted on Oct 25
which did not address our concerns in any meaningful or significant way, was essentially
all of the items in (5) above that we had told them that we did not find satisfactory, and
ignored all suggestions that we had made.
8. On the day of the planned Planning Hearing, Nov 29, they pulled their application stating
they wanted further address our issues. We still did not receive any further
communication with them.
9. On Nov 29, they submitted another Revision. While they significantly made the change
to conform with the 4' Set Back, they actually made the Left Side walls even TALLER
than they had previously been, and extended the addition a further 3' along the
fenceline, effectively closing off any "open" air space above the fence for the entire run
of our shared property line from our garage to the front of their structure..
Substantially, this�move to 4' Setback, is only moving 18 inches away.
a. We can only interpret this move as an attempt to avoid the need for a Variance to
the 4' Set Back requirement, while in no way substantively addressing our
expressed concerns about Mass, Scale, Height, and Privacy, but actually making
the situation WORSE in all these cases.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 17
Exhibit F
Negative Impact of 1245 Project
1. This Project is a clear attempt to build to Maximum limits of FAR, Lot Coverage, Set
Back, and Height.
a. It makes little to no accommodation for our use and enjoyment of our property or
the needs of other neighbors.
b. This house is already 4-5' above Grade because of its foundation with high
wooden cripple walls. They have then raised all floors to the highest elevated
spot, and then topped it with very high ceilings (impacting 2nd floor elevation).
This increase mass and scale, and has a significant impact to the use of our
house and yard areas, with resulting loss of privacy.
c. It also takes into little account any unique challenges of this property such as the
Creek running through it. By removing the existing carriage house, they actually
significantly reduced their usable area of their Lot. Now they are maxing the
House and Garage leaving little open space on the Lot.
2. The massing and scale of this project is out of the character of the neighborhood and lot
size. The house at 1249 Cabrillo is also very tall, however, it sits on a lot and a half and
it is separated from neighboring houses by 2 driveways on the left side, and 2 side yards
on the right side.
3. The 1245 Cabrillo project is a hugely non-conforming house that is so tall that it dwarfs
our house, exacerbated by extremely tall first floor ceiling heights (vs, higher than
typical 9 feet). The extremely tall first floor wall is taller than our garage, 7-8 feet above
fence and extends 3-4 feet above our second story floor. This non-conforming wall is
unattractive and dominating and it is yet to be topped with a second story, which has a
master bedroom with 9' + ceilings. When we remodeled our house, the roof height of
our garage was required to be lowered so it wouldn't dominate the 1245 neighbor's yard.
Their first floor is now significantly taller than our garage.
4. The non-conforming wall that is adjacent to our property is only set back from 1.5 - 2.5
feet. On the non-conforming wall, there is a bumpout that reduced the setback to 1.5
feet. This likely would put their gutters/downspouts over our property line. Therefore,
this huge unattractive and dominating wall sits right next to our property line.
a. With Latest Revision they are proposing moving the wall to 4' Set Back, which is
only 18 inches further away from Property Line. All of our concerns about Scale,
Mass, Privacy remain.
5. The minimal setback from our adjacent property line creates an extreme loss of privacy
with no ability for either party to put in screening foliage because of the minimal setback
as was proposed by the 1245 Cabrillo owner. A higher fence does not address the issue
since they are still so high above ground they will look over fences. All of the fences on
our block are 5 feet + 1 foot privacy. A higher fence just reinforces the big wall and is
not an acceptable solution as proposed in their plans.
6. The size of the windows and the placement of the windows creates an extreme loss of
privacy. The raised floors and the corresponding raised and bigger windows create
stadium viewing into our house.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 18
Exhibit G
Petition to Bring Project into Compliance and Character of Neighborhood
As part of the Burlingame community, we are concerned that the project at 1245
Cabrillo did not retain the existing, historical structure of the house as it was described
on the approved plans submitted to the Planning Commission. Further, we are
concerned that variances were avoided and height restrictions exceeded all predicated
on the retention of the existing structure. Further, details such as the 14 ft envelope,
and use of 5-6 ft windows create an unattractive, excessively large and obtrusive
house.
Given that the building was effectively demolished down to the 1st floor joists except
for a couple of'�stub" walls , we ask that the project's scale, massing, and nearness to
property lines be reconsidered, and measures taken to reduce its impact to the
neighborhood and neighbors.
Bret Bottarini 1225 Cabrillo 75% of the non-conforming walls are removed.
Avenue The new walls should conform to current city
regulations. The house already sits too close to
the property line. The homeowner, designer, and
builder knowingly broke the rules.
Robert and Gretchen
Cody
Stanley Parker
Melissa Macko
Jon Gilmour
Jennifer Callahan
1240 Drake Ave. We are particularly concerned about the
destruction of the creek bank behind this
property due to removal of buttressing walls that
were part of the garage structure that was taken
down. We feel that heavy winter rainfall will
surely cause further erosion, stoppage and
overflow onto our adjoining properties.
1801 Ray Dr, I lived within the setback and height
Burlingame requirements for our project - they are good for
Burlingame. This builder should do the same.
1257 Cabrillo Ave This construction project is not adhering to the
plans and altering sections of the house that
require variances. As a neighbor "down the
creek" I am also concerned about the impact
their project has had on the drainage channel
behind their house. Their property is situated at
the 90 degree bend in the Easton Creek.
1001 Balboa Ave This project is out of line with the neighborhood
and the owners are ignoring the approved plans.
1321 Balboa Ave., Awhile back we did a big remodel to our home,
Burlingame obtained permits, and worked within Burlingame
codes and guidelines. While there were other
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 19
things we wanted to do, we followed the rules. If
you let this mega mansion be built on this
standard size lot, it will hurt the character of our
neighborhood. More important, you will further
what seems to be a trend among some builders:
break the code, build different from the plans,
and say sorry later. Preserve your department's
integrity and our neighborhood's charm.
Don Clark
1128 Vancouver
Avenue
This design is crazy. Not what burlingame is
about.
joel and margaret
steinberg
William and Esther Hou
1224 Cabrillo Ave
We fully agree with the issues raised by the
Knifsend's
1424 Benito Ave, Renovations should stay within the "spirit" of
Burlingame, CA zoning guidelines. It would be a very bad
93010 precedent to allow for additional exceptions
beyond what was originally approved. I am
surprised to see this home's southern exterior
wall within two feet (or less) of the fence and
property line, creating the appearance of a
cantilevered room over the fence and an invasion
of privacy for both homes. Routine homeowner
maintenance would also appear to be impossible
without utilizing the Knifsend's driveway. Please
have the homeowner and contractor comply with
approved plans. Deviations should not be further
allowed without prior review and approval. Thank
you. Bill and Esther Hou
Sue Kaufman 1132 Vancouver I would be very concerned and rather distraught
Ave, Burlingame if that was being built next door to my home.
There should be thoughtful, respectful, and
reasonable development going on in our
beautiful neighborhood.
Stephen Chan
kerry fitzpatrick
Vitas Viskanta
1355 Drake Ave As someone who lived next door to, and through,
a similar tear down rebui�d project, I support
more cooperative and constructive discussions
prior to planning commission approvals. Existing
neighbors' concerns should be heard and
considered, and more effort should be made to
minimize inconveniences and annoyances of
having to live just a few feet away from a
lengthy construction site.
1348 bernal ave
1704 Sanchez
Avenue
too big for property- too close to property lines
Burlingame has dealt with bait and switch
development before - please have the project
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 20
John Kannasto
1245 Cortez Ave,
Burlingame
Frank & Robin Knifsend 1243 Cabrillo Ave.
Hans and Sigrid Geiger
Sally Brown & Philip
Ross
Arlene Gallegos
]oyce & Gary Walter
Eric Ranta and Euni
Kow n
Paul & Ani Safavi
Gene and Gloria
Bordegaray
John and Gail Diserens
Jennifer Sullivan
Cathleen Pearson and
Paul Nelson
Jamie Cheng
]ulie Carlson
Matthew Potter
Andrew Haskell
Christina Habelt
1237 Cabrillo Ave,
1248 Drake Avenue
1720 Sherman
Avenue
1244 Cabrillo Ave
1232 Cabrillo Ave
1240 Cabrillo
Avenue
1236 Cabrillo Ave.
1249 Cabrillo
Avenue
1356 Bernal
2004 Easton Drive
1316 Drake Avenue
2105 Roosevelt
Avenue
1205 Bernal Ave.
1125 Cabrillo Ave
1531 Columbus
Ave, Burlingame
follow the rules.
Shocked that they tore down historic 1906 house
and carriage house. Now that it's gone, build
something that fits with current neighborhood.
This property has challenges given house
placement and height. "Additions" make no effort
to be a good neighbor or mitigate its massing,
scale, or nearness to property line - actually it
aggravates all of these issues. They have sought
no input from any neighbor, nor cared about the
impact of tearing down this property after
promising previous owner they would preserve it.
They're "rebuilding" existing walls 3 feet higher
than original.
We support Frank and Robin Knifsend on their
concerns regarding work being done at 1245
Cabrillo Ave, Burlingame
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 21
Domonique Moraga
Grace McMahon
Gail & Anthony Mosse
Amy Grenier
Leslie Holzman
David and Wendi
Upchurch
John Fish
Will Evans
1916 Devereux dr
1901 Hillside Dr
1915 Carmelita
Avenue
1575 Newlands
AVe.
1441 Drake Ave
1212 Cabrillo
Avenue
1221 Cabrillo Ave
1324 Cortez Ave,
Burlingame
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 22
CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin
From: Gene Bordegaray <genebordegaray1 @att.net>
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 1:07 PM
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners
Cc: Frank Knifsend
Subject: Construction at 1245 Cabrillo Ave.
Dear Commissioners,
I attended the Planning Commission meeting on 12-10-18 at which the subject construction project was discussed. One
of the Commissioners promoted the idea of the contractor constructing a"mock-up" wall on the upper level on the
southern side of the building at a plate height of 9 feet. This was suggested to the Commission so that the
Commissioners and the concerned property owners could see first hand the massiveness of the proposed construction.
do not believe that the motion that the Commission approved, included the Commissioner's suggestion to construct the
"mock-up" wall. I feel that the "mock-up" wall would be very beneficial to all concerned and should become part of the
Commission's recommendations.
Thank You,
Gene Bordegaray
12.10.18 PC Meeting COMMUNICATIONRECEIVED
Item 8b AFTER PREPARATION
1245 Cabrillo Avenue OFSTAFFREPORT
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
DEC 10 2018
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
From: Gene Bordegaray [mailto:�eneborde�aravl@att.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2018 11:46 PM
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <Plannin�Commissioners@burlin�ame.or�>
Cc: Frank Knifsend <fknifsend@�mail.com>
Subject: 1245 Cabrillo Ave.
Dear Commissioners,
I live across the street from the proposed project at 1245 Cabrillo Ave. (reference the agenda item b. on
your "Regular Action Items" for the meeting on Dec. 10, 2018).
Although the proposed changes to the original approved plans make an effort to mitigate the intrusive
mass of the building, there still exists an objectionable, towering structure that stands only a few feet
away from the left side property line. This massive wall that is approximately 50 feet long and 25 feet
tall has a severe negative impact on the adjacent property (1243 Cabrillo Ave.).
Before this project is allowed to proceed, I think it would be in the Planning Department's best interest,
along with the best interest of the property owners, to construct a"story pole" structure which would
show the actual height of the proposed structure at its proposed location. Once the story pole structure
is constructed, the planning commissioners should visit the site to view for themselves the massiveness
of the proposed structure.
The commissioners should evaluate the appropriateness of this construction as if it were being build 4
feet from their own property.
Thank You,
Gene Bordegaray
12.10.18 PC Meeting COMMUNICATIONRECEIVED
Item 8b AFTER PREPARATION
1245 Cabrillo Avenue OF STAFF REPORT
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
DEC 10 2018
From: Sally [mailto:sallv.brown@sbc�lobal.net] CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 8:05 AM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlin�ame.or�>; PW/ENG-Martin Quan <mquan@burlin�ame.org>
Cc: Philip Ross <philipross@sbc�lobal.net>
Subject: 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame - Construction Project
Dear Ruben & Martin,
My husband and I live at 1248 Drake Avenue (right across the creek from the project at 1245
Cabrillo). We're writing again about this project because a piece of tractor/backhoe drilling
equipment was delivered to the property in the past couple of days. I understand that the
construction of the main building is currently on hold. Does that hold also apply to the
construction of the new garage? If not, we are concerned about such garage construction
proceeding without a plan for the stabilization/restoration of the creek bank. We have raised this
concern repeatedly - at every stage of the project - and, as far as we are aware, no such plan has
been developed let alone approved by the City. We are even more concerned given the
careless/unprofessional manner in which the contractor has run the project so far. To re-iterate
our concerns:
• We haven't seen the creek bank stabilization/restoration plan yet.
• We don't know what the new creek bank and garage will look like below the grade of the
bank, since the plan only shows from ground level up.
• The builder has not been professional so far by, among other things, dropping debris into
the creek stream and impacting the creek bank and stream during demolition, particularly
of the old garage.
• We have concerns about future flooding due to an un-reinforced bank. The former garage
had a wooden retaining wall under the structure that has now been removed during
demolition.
Please advise what measures will be/have been taken to make certain any work on the new
garage will not negatively impact the creek bank and that a plan to stabilize/restore the creek
bank will be in place and enforced by the City.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Sally Brown (650 868-4631) and Philip Ross (650 868-1766)
Sent from my iPad
11.26.18 PC Meeting �;;;� t� '1VIt ',17IO;ti' RT_:� i i 1,
Item 8b � �'��R PREPARA71; � �
1245 Cabrillo Avenue � � >�
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
NOV 21 2018
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
From: Peter Gum [mailto:peter�um3@�mail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 12:19 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlingame.org>
Subject: 1245 Cabrillo Ave.
Dear Commissioners,
I was involved in the initial review of 1245 Cabrillo Ave. and would like to share my thoughts as
you deliberate on this item.
Due to the proximity of the non-compliant left side set back, I was concerned that adjustments to
the left walls might exacerbate the non-compliant condition and make the project not
approvable. The plans I reviewed and the assurances received from Mr. Chu indicated that the
left wall would retain the existing dimension.
The plans I reviewed the other day, with accompanying photographs of the current framing,
clearly show that the rebuilt left wall does not match the original wall nor is it consistent with the
commentary received from Mr. Chu, and therefore, in my opinion, the current construction
should be considered for revision.
If a variance is sought, I'm not sure it would meet the standard of "...extraordinary
circumstances...[nor]...unnecessary hardship..." as it is quite common for an owner to desire to
extend plate heights, and non-standard plate heights are often scrutinized by the Commission.
Fortunately, construction is not yet complete and reducing the wall height at this time will be less of a
burden than doing so when construction is complete.
Thank you for all the hours you put in to your service on the Commission!
Peter
11.26.18 PC Meeting ;�. .' ; . ,.,�,
Item 8b �1f��'IER PRE1�,�12�1I.,. ���.
1245 Cabrillo Avenue � �r.- <�T���r� r>>_ ��� .�::�
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
NOV 26 2018 '
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
From: Julie Carlson [mailto:iuliebcarison@�mail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 7:07 AM
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PI_annin�Commissioners@burlin�ame.or�>
Subject: 1245 Cabrillo Avenue
To Burlingame Planning Commission-
I will not be able to attend the Nov 26th planning meeting as I hoped so I am writing this email
to address the property at 1245 Cabrillo. I had a chance to go over to the property and look at it
from the neighbors next door and was shocked at what I saw. The house was extremely tall, had
huge windows that looked right down onto their property and was with-in the required set
back. My friends, the Knifsend's, explained to me that the reason the house was able to be built
within the setback was because it was existing.
When I took a look at the plans I saw that the original house had an existing plate height of 8'
at the back of the house yet the revised plans do not reflect that existing plate height and show it
at the same height as the front of the house.
That is not the non-conforming condition that existed and for the Knifsends, they are seeing
terrible consequences of this oversight Because this house is so close to the Knifsend's property,
the height of this first floor is completely unacceptable and will have a very negative impact on
their property.
Since the existing wall was removed, it is no longer considered existing and should now have to
comply with the same rules as every other property in Burlingame. If this type of situation is
allowed it will set a terrible precedent for the future.
Thank you,
Julie Carlson
2105 Roosevelt Avenue
F, ciTr �
��;�� �
�`,Y �,�
tic;` ��,_,�'o
�'>aoww
Project Comments — Planning Application
Project Address: 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-050
Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing
two-story house.
From
Martin Quan
Public Works Engineering
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
1.
}•*� .+ F^r r ., *^ a^«^•.,,;^^ ;� �^ ^ �^+ �r-nr��. We have not received the Title Report for review.
3. No further comments at this time.
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.
4. Based on the scope of work, this is a"Type I" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution
Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial fie,ld inspection is required
prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way).
5. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public
easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work.
5. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city
standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If
required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service
connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval.
7. The scope of work is substantial. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit is required to (1) replace
all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and
install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be
installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city's
right-of-way.
s. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of
work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets,
perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures.
9. Because the property abuts a natural creek, please add the following verbiage: Property owner
improvements (deck, retaining wall, pool, shed, dwelling foundation, driveway pad, etc.) that are constructed
within 25' of the creeks top of bank shall stabilize the surrounding area to prevent erosion due to stormwater
discharge from the improvements. In addition, vegetation that may impact the creek must be removed and
replaced with stabilized material. Please show all downspouts that are directed to the creek and proposed
stabilization measures on the site plan or landscape plan. With the removal of the existing garage over the
creek, the expectation is that the applicant shall remove any non-native material along the embankment and
take great care not to disturb the hillside. If erosion is evident after removal of the existing garage, the applicant
shall submit and detail a plan of action to shore the embankment.
Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 1/12/18
650-558-7245
� CITY 0
'`�';�I1
„ ��
��0� � � �-�
� �L � �
C� � g
4vOww
Project Comments - Planning Application
Project Address: 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-050
Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing
two-story house.
From
Bob Disco
Parks Division
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
1. Permit for removal of Port Orford Cedar was denied in December 2016 because the tree was in
good condition and there was no effort to explore a means to preserve the tree and eliminate
the tripping hazards.
Because improvements are being proposed on the property, the Cedar will be adversely
affected by the new construction. The tree will most likely be approved for removal since the
demolition and construction of the new garage and patio will damage the roots and cause the
tree to decline.
A new Protected Tree Removal Permit is required and attach the proposed improvements and
landscape plan for review. The permit will not be approved until the Planning Commission
reviews and approved the proposed project.
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.
Reviewed By: BD Date: 12.27.17
bdisco@burlingame.org
�� CITY O�
�� � �' �
=.``�'�
1c L �'� I�o
°��.o�,.
Project Address
Description:
From
Project Comments - Planning Application
1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-050
Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing
two-story house.
Bob Disco
Parks Division
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
Permit for removal of Port Orford Cedar was denied in December 2016 because the tree was in
good condition and there was no effort to explore a means to preserve the tree and eliminate
the tripping hazards.
The City Arborist cannot approve removal since the tree is in good condition and has good
structure. Roots are lifting patio but this tree does not meet the criteria for removal.
Planning Commission should discuss options for retaining or removing tree.
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.
Reviewed By: BD Date: 5.2.17
558.7333
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESiGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
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 Amendment for chanqes to a previouslv approved first and second story addition to an existinq
sinqle familv dwellinq and new detached qaraqe at 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, Zoned R-1, Eric and Jennifer
Lai, property owners, APN: 026-171-050;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January
14, 2019, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments
received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence
that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical
exemption, per CEQA Section 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, is hereby approved.
2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment 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 14th dav of Januarv, 2019 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
1245 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective January 24, 2019
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped December 18, 2018, sheets A.1 through A.7;
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 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 the conditions of the Parks Division's May 2 and December 27, 2017 memos and the
Engineering Division's January 12, 2018 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be
placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development
Director;
6. that demolition 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;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval
adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of
all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all
conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or
changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building
permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
1245 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective January 24, 2019
Page 2
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners and set the building footprint of the addition per the approved plans; this
survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
12. 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;
13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification
that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at
framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans;
architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be
submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled;
14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and
15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
. CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
�����1 BURLINGAME, CA 94010
' . �� , PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1245 CABRILLO AVENUE
The (ity of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, JANUARY 14,
2019 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall (ouncil Chambers, 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Amendment to Design Review for chonges to
a previously approved first and second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling and new detached garage at
1245 CABRILLO AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 026-171-050
Mailed: January 4, 2019
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
City of Burlinqame
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.
Kevin Gardiner, AICP
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
O
a' o
�
O �
N �
.` � �
� � o
V � �
� � Z
0
a
� M Q
<:Q �:uQ �D,, ,��,0
� ��a° ��Q a� r� ��Q � �'�aQ ��, �� �w� � ,
�Q� �F 6 ��a a ��"ar� �� °�� � ta
a
'Ga o�a� ° aQaL ° � co�� �J' ��,oQ a Q� �?.
� �QQ a�Qa aaQ � ��o ,. Qn �a
�� d c��G �Q�Q �,� `a G� J an UQ
G�yQ �a �P�Q a ��i3a Q3Q �� n<JQa � ¢�
�06C � Q��a ���` �pQ��Q� �R�`a Q �3aQ3 C3� ��'13Q
�p aaaa � �(�ga G,�Q� �13/S t)IS�a ��, ���Q/3 �0(3
a Q
Q. �6a Ua paQ 3�aa ���QQ ��aQ � n��C
� °aa �,�, �a �wa �'�� �aa ��a�
cs�Q �� a �p�� Q� a ��a
�OR,, ann �'F��� a�+ I:� Q
Q� �3
��'p�� ,. , �,''^?Q Q(
owe��c� �
4qQQ � ���.� a�a ''.> �Q� ` F, Q�QaQC
c��, �.o Qa
vo � c o �,z,�
� 6 � ya,� c�
�LC�?Q�� , nn.rt pP�Q
G��Q�� >`> ^ ~ "�ei ° ��+5� J, �G
��Q ; , ` �¢ Gh
�Qe
Q
? � � Qfs� `.,�� r � Q
, "-'.�; '�lSQ
`yt3�Q � .,w r (�Q �
��� �a., , �� a
�W a . > p+t, �Cc
Q �Q � ��' � q�
C�'Q `'?,
�L� CS � . . °�� C��c
� � •,,, ��.
Q ��Q :,, . ,..ry aG
��J'� ,� j o � ,::;�e _ � ""�" A �''C�
6'�'!3 �,rd �, '�, �''* '''•' "� . Qv
��a ���.� "�, �' s �<AF ' a �� �L
a ?�
� ,!' ",�s,. � ''�a . aya, .. � l.! ,4
� � �i
e�J'�Q�� ��Yj^�9` ._s :� ��� �°'�b `°'`, ::t�Q � U�G
. � J S,u� R� � O�U'
;�Q : E pK.a �p� . 4� .. Sy9q 1,ahQ Q
�O� � *v �Gir es
� a !,?
�' � � �yr s t,. .`"•km . � °ticy�ad., �� 7 D��� Q
� �.
��fr`Q '. . d y, '�'e, ° +� �\. , �'�e
�
'�� ' ,�,� �. �� /,�c
'�y�
, � ,,�M °° a Is` . a
e� dQ � � s.�f � � °� ���
pv �� �� , ay �� „ �� ��
�, °<J au ' a
� ,,� ,
wQ �a„� q� ; ',�'�� ,� ;�� r Q �3
� a:� ��'4. .:sa +k 4�a
c� ��r .� v,� �� a� .�, � >..� �C''e
' ,.�.,. f(�'�� 9, y��.,� ' Q QCi
' { ._.� �... �.v` ,.
, ��`' �C.7 .�O � ���'
�q�i� Q� qQ A�..,� �7U ^�,f3€3r3 �`� Vq �i
� p
a�n O y-y ?SGD73 �'
V� n
C3, p �� `�O �
O�,Q q� �J`
�
O p
Q�fa PQ �� a��a SCi �wo Q�q a��p � 4h��� tiD � 4�....
,� a c3� � �a o �� ;�� �a ��
�� o , a Qd� �p� �'�p � `� ��
�� n ��a aa�a ���a ��� � ��ca n��
�� d�� a�Qa �r���a a ,��Q� a ,� ��a
� c� �a �, a yy Jo
t�Q� � pQ .�^� Q�,4 �q c
���*'a e ��a ��'eQ ���� �Q�a �v
a
�Q`�^� � , ��� F9��Q tl f��a � � �l� G'
�c��Q Ec�Q Q�,� ���� �QQ � Qt��
r���QJ�_ �C3�r., �_ a ��.a `�f-,. Gr.,
City of Buriingame
Design Review Amendment
Address: 1245 Cabrillo Avenue
Item No. 8b
Regular Action Item
Meeting Date: December 10, 2018
Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: Chu Design Associates
Property Owners: Eric and Jennifer Lai
General Plan: Low Density Residential
APN: 026-171-050
Lot Area: 6,119 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 and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review and Special Permit for building
height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage at 1245
Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2018 (see attached
February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). An FYI for clarifications to the left side dormer was
reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2018.
A building permit was issued in July 2018 and construction began shortly thereafter. During the demolition phase,
most of the first floor walls and entire second floor was demolished, which exceeded the amount of walls shown to
be removed on the previously approved plans. Several existing nonconforming walls on the first and second floors
which were shown to remain were removed, including the nonconforming first floor walls along the left side of the
house (2'-3'/2", 1'-6" and 2'-8" existing side setbacks to the porch and main dwelling, where 4'-0" is required) and the
second floor wall at the front of the house (19'-7" existing front setback where 20"-0' is required).
With this application, the applicant is proposing to build the first floor foundation and walls 4'-0" from the left side
property to comply with minimum side setback requirement of 4'-0". In addition, the second floor wall at the front of
the house has been set back 20"-0' to comply with minimum second floor setback requirement of 20'-0". Therefore,
variances are not required.
In addition, because the entire existing second floor was demolished, the existing nonconforming building height of
30'-2" became void. However, with the revised project the second floor addition complies with building height
requirements (30'-0" building height proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed). The revised project
eliminates the previously required Special Permit for building height for the addition.
Additional changes include reducing the size of the windows in the kitchen and dining room along the Left
Elevation, reducing the plate height in the dining room, increasing the size of the dining room and increasing the
size of the deck at the rear of the house. Please refer to the attached explanation letter, dated November 30, 2018
for a list and explanation of the proposed changes to the project. The applicant submitted the originally approved
and proposed plans, date stamped November 30, 2018, to show the changes to the previously approved design
review project.
Project Description: The existing two-story house and two-story detached accessory structure contained 2,793
SF (0.46 FAR) of floor area. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing accessory structure, build a new
detached garage, replace and add onto the first floor of the house and build a new second floor. The proposed
project will increase the total floor area to 3,334 SF (0.54 FAR), where 3,378 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum
allowed. The project is 44 SF below the maximum allowable floor area and is therefore within 1% of the maximum
allowed FAR.
Design Review Amendment 1245 Cabrillo Avenue
The existing house had four bedrooms and there is no change in the number of bedrooms with this project. Two
parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the
new detached garage (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the
d riveway.
1245 Cabrillo Avenue
�ot Area: 6,119 SF Plans date stam ed: November 30, 2018
' PREVIOUSLY ' CURRENTLY
EXISTING ; APPROVED ` PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
......................................................._................._._...................._.............................._............... ..............................._....._......_. ......._................................... _ ..... ... ..._.__..:__...__...._...._............... .............................._..........._.........._. ...... .. ....................
Front (1sf flr); 17'-1 °' no change no change ' 18'-9° (block average)
(2nd flr): 19'-7"' no change 20'-0" ' 20'-0"
....................................................................................__................ ..................................................... ......._.............................. ............ ........;............__................_............................._........................:................................_..............,............................._.................... ,........................
, . _ ...................................................................................._..
Side (left): 2'-3'/" to porch ' no change 4'-0" to porch 4'-0"
1'-6", 2'-8" to house '' 4'-0" to house
(right): 10'-6" 11'-3" no change , 4'-0"
......._ ................................................................_...... .................................................... _.. ................................................... .....................................__.. ......._,........................_.................:...................................................................................... _........ ................_.........
, ..........................................................................................
Rear (1st flr): 39'-0" 40'-7" 38'-1" ' 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 65'-0° ' 49'-7" no change 20'-0"
_ ................................_ .................._....._.........__..........�........................_........... ......................_...._................................................._....._..___........................_.._._._..............................._.....__.............:..............---....._..................................___.�....._.._.................;................................_.......
� .........................................................._.._...._...
Lot Coverage: 2498 SF 2426 SF 2447 SF 2447 SF�
40.8% 39.6% 40% 40%
FAR: 2793 SF ' 3368 SF 3334 SF 3378 SF
0.46 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.54 FAR ' 0.54 FAR
_.,........._ .......................__......__......._.....----..._....�,..._....__....._. ._..-----..........._._..._._._.._._._...........,._..........._......_..................._.................._....__........................__......._......_.
# of bedrooms: 4 4 no change ---
Off-Street Parking: 1 covered 1 covered no change 1 covered
1 uncovered ' (10' x 20') (10' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20')
__....._ ...................._._,.........._......._.........._.....�_._......' ....2 ._..._.........._.............._.._.....__......_................_�._.....-��....._......_...._.............,.............................._...................................._.......................................................
Building Height: 30'-2" 30 -2 30 -0 30'-0"
DH Envelope: complies � ... .................complies......_.........................................._complies........................,.........................C.S. 25.26.075........................
' Existing nonconforming front setback (1St and 2"d floors) and left side setback.
2 Special Permit previously approved for overall building height (30'-2" existing and proposed where between
30'-0" and 36'-0" is allowed with a Special Permit).
Staff Comments: Frank Knifsend, the adjacent neighbor at 1243 Cabrillo Avenue, submitted a letter and exhibits
dated December 4, 2018 expressing concerns with the proposed project. Emails concerning the project were also
received from Peter Gum and Julie Carlson, dated November 21, 2018 and November 26, 2018, respectively.
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.
2
Design Review Amendment 1245 Cabrillo Avenue
Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring a
combination of gable and shed roofs, composition shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, horizontal siding on
the house and board and batten siding on the gable ends, adhered stone veneer base, and aluminum clad wood
windows (with simulated true divided lites and wood trim) is compatible with the existing house and character of the
neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the
structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be
compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and
the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning
Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any
action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
November 30, 2018, sheets A.1 through A.7;
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�;
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 the conditions of the Parks Division's May 2 and December 27, 2017 memos and the Engineering
Division's January 12, 2018 memo shall be met;
5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon
the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director;
6. that demolition 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;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall
be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission,
or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the
construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval
shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on
appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require
a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
3
Design Review Amendment
9245 Cabrillo Avenue
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO
THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project
architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates
that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property;
12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or
residential desigr� 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.
Ruben Hurin
Senior Planner
c. Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer
Eric and Jennifer Lai, property owners
Attachments:
February 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
Application to the Planning Commission (from original application)
Applicant's Explanation Letter, dated November 30, 2018
Email submitted by Peter Gum, dated November 21, 2918
Email submitted by Julie Carlson, dated November 26, 2018
Letter submitted by Frank Knifsend, dated December 4, 2018
Staff Comments
Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed)
Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 30, 2018
Area Map
4
C(TY
c�,, ,4<, , ... , m
� `'."` � �
�ryc-� �
a
Nvo Teo �
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Monday, February 12, 2018
7:00 PM
Council Chambers
c. 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned. R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling
and new detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA
Guidelines. (Chu Design Associates Inc., applicant and designer; Eric and Jennifer Lai,
property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications fo report.
Commissioner Kelly was recused from fhe discussion as he resides within 500-feet of the property,� he left
the dais and the chambers.
Community Deve/opment Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff.�
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gum opened the public hearing.
James Chu represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
> �th respect to the left e/evation, second f/oor,� the master bedroom and master bath appear
co-p/anar on the floor plan, but not on the elevafion. (Chu: is cutting a well into the roof plan.)
> Noted thaf the well would on/y be under the two tall windows.
> Need to prepare a roof plan that more accurate/y shows the detail of the roof well on the /eft e/evation.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gum closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Is a nice project. Appreciates thai the applicant is retaining the existing siding. The revisions are
nice/y done.
> Need an FYI to finalize the roof plan on the /eft e/evafion, second story.
> Well articulated project.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve as the
application with the added condition that a revised roof plan shall be submitted as an FYI. Chair
Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote:
Clty olBurlingame page � Printed on 11/15/2018
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2018
Aye: 8- Gum, Gum, Gaul, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto
Recused: 1 - Kelly
CityofBurlingame paye p Printed on 11/15/2018
�'�vL_. .p.
� +.
��
�_
GOMMUNI7Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSc R�AD � BURLINGAME, CA 94010
p: 650.558.T250 • f: 650.696.3790 • v�r�w.burlingame,org
APPLiCAT10N T� THE PLANNING CON9MlSSIaN
Type of application:
� Design Review ❑ Variance
C7 Conditional Use Permit L� Special Permit
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1245 CABRILLO AVE.
APPLICANT
f�ame: CHU DESIGN ASS4CIATES
Address: 55 W. 43RD AVE.
City/State/Zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94403
Phone: 650-345-9286 x104
E-ma►�: lames@chudesign.com
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: �AMES CHU
Address� 5� W. 43RD AVE.
E-mai1: lames@chudesig n.com
CitylStatE/Zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94403
Phone: 650-345-9286 x104
❑ Parcel #: ��6-171-05�
❑ Zoning ! Other:
PROPERTY �WNER
Narne: ERIC 8� JENNIFER LAI
Address: 1245 CABRILlO AVE.
City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME, CA
Phone:
E-mail: lenericlai@yahoo.com
�����������
APR 17 2Q17
c�rr o� Bu����vGarnE
CD�J-PLA!��+Fi�G DIV.
Burlingame Susiness License #: 226$4
Authorization to R�roduce Project Plans:
I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority io repraduce upon request andlor past plans suBmitted with fhis
application on the City's website as pari of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City
arising oui of or related to such action. �� (Initials of Architect/Designerj
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EXISTIVG RESIDENCE ADDITION & REMODEL W/ DETACHED 1-CAR GARAGE
AF�lDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I he� rtify und f penalty of perjury that the inforrnaiion given herain is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and bel�
, Applicant's signature: ' , Date:
I am aware of the propos d applic i� n and hereby authorize fhe above applicant lo submit this application io the Planning
Commission. �t/ f
Property owner's signature: !/ 4'�" Date: /J ��( ��
Datesubmitted: ���7' �7
5: {HAVDOUTSIPC AADlkot(on.dx
�/ _. y:
�' � \�_\� �+ � 1��
` i;� ���i�.—
��u;I���'ign Associates �� r.c.
. 1!�'��U�inm . : . - .
November 30, 2018
City of Burlingame
Planning Commission
501 Primrose Rd
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: 1 Sr & 2°a story addition/remodel at
1245 Cabrillo Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Planning Commissioner:
��������
NOV � 0 2018
CITY OF EU�LINGAUIE
CGD-PU`-�Rl�ING DIV.
The above reference project was approved earlier this year with non-conforming left side
setback. But during construction the contractor accidentally removed more than 50% of existing
walls which triggered the variance application. After more discussion and reviewed a letter from
our adjacent neighbor, the owner has decided to completely rebuild the left side of the proposed
to comply with 4 feet minimum setback. Here is the summary of the proposed changes:
2
3.
4.
Rebuild entire left side of the proposed project at first floor to comply with 4 feet
minimum setback.
Reduce the size of window in both kitchen and dining room. This will minimize the
privacy concern.
Reduce the plate height at dining room to 9 feet.
Added couple more downspouts along the left side, to prevent rain water over flow to left
side neighbor.
Thank you for your time in reviewing the revised plan, we will be happy to answer any question
at the meeting.
Sincerely,
%�� ��
James Chu
Chu Design
55 West 43rd Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Phone: (650�345-9286 Fax: (650)345-9287
11.26.18 PC Meeting <<�;i1,��1C1���I� �t����I��_'�� RI��_`I:�1� i�:L�
item 8b :=1FTER PREPARAZ'IU �'
1245 Cabrillo Avenue ��l �'"l'. �I�f���IZL�I'��R7
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
NOV 21 2018
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD - PLANNING DIV.
From: Peter Gum [mailto:petergum3@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 12:19 PM
To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlingame.or�>
Subject: 1245 Cabrillo Ave.
Dear Commissioners,
I was involved in the initial review of 1245 Cabrillo Ave. and would like to share my thoughts as
you deliberate on this item.
Due to the proximity of the non-compliant left side set back, I was concerned that adjustments to
the left walls might exacerbate the non-compliant condition and make the project not
approvable. The plans I reviewed and the assurances received from Mr. Chu indicated that the
left wall would retain the existing dimension.
The plans I reviewed the other day, with accompanying photographs of the current framing,
clearly show that the rebuilt left wall does not match the original wall nor is it consistent with the
commentary received from Mr. Chu, and therefore, in my opinion, the current construction
should be considered for revision.
If a variance is sought, I'm not sure it would meet the standard of "...extraordinary
circumstances...[nor]...unnecessary hardship..." as it is quite common for an owner to desire to
extend plate heights, and non-standard plate heights are often scrutinized by the Commission.
Fortunately, construction is not yet complete and reducing the wall height at this time will be less of a
burden than doing so when construction is complete.
Thank you for all the hours you put in to your service on the Commission!
Peter
11.26.18 PC Meeting ;'u,tt.�l�.'�l�'.-!I�tC��� l<� t'�-;1i�1��%
Item 8b : iF'7�L:R PREPARATC(�,��
1245 Cabrillo Avenue UF ST.�FF RFP<�I?T
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
NOV 26 2018
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CDD — PLANNING DIV.
From: Julie Carlson [mailto:iuliebcarlson@�mail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 7:07 AM
To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <Plannin�CommissionersC�burlingame.or�>
Subject: 1245 Cabrillo Avenue
To Burlingame Planning Commission-
I will not be able to attend the Nov 26th planning meeting as I hoped so I am writing this email
to address the property at 1245 Cabrillo. I had a chance to go over to the property and look at it
from the neighbors next door and was shocked at what I saw. The house was extremely tall, had
huge windows that looked right down onto their property and was with-in the required set
back. My friends, the Knifsend's, explained to me that the reason the house was able to be built
within the setback was because it was existing.
When I took a look at the plans I saw that the original house had an existing plate height of 8'
at the back of the house yet the revised plans do not reflect that existing plate height and show it
at the same height as the front of the house.
That is not the non-conforming condition that existed and for the Knifsends, they are seeing
terrible consequences of this oversight Because this house is so close to the Knifsend's property,
the height of this first floor is completely unacceptable and will have a very negative impact on
their property.
Since the existing wall was removed, it is no longer considered existing and should now have to
comply with the same rules as every other property in Burlingame. If this type of situation is
allowed it will set a terrible precedent for the future.
Thank you,
Julie Carlson
2105 Roosevelt Avenue
Dear Commissioners:
Our apologies for the length of our overall response, which we tried to make as complete as
possible. Here is a summary of the issues at stake in this project.
What is wrong with this project and why all Variances should be denied, and project sent
back for Design Review:
. Pre-existing non-conforming design made worse. Taller, Longer, Higher, More Massive
• Historical structure was not preserved and protected; Now a New Construction Project
— Almost entirely removed, therefore existing non-conforming use no longer exists
— Demo'ed to sub-floor. Opportunity to fix all issues with Design and plan
inaccuracies
• Moving the Left wall 18 inches away from the property line does not significantly
address the issues highlighted below, nor correct the many inconsistencies and
inaccuracies found on the submitted Design Plan.
What specifically is worse now:
• Taller - lst floor walls are 2.5 to 3.5 feet higher. Longer - ist Floor is 11 feet longer
(removal of front sunroom glass + extended rear addition), 2nd Floor is extended 15
feet. Massive - Straight, vertical, monolithic lst floor wall and roofline plus 2nd floor
additions all massed at rear. No "open" air space from our garage to front setback
• The windows at rear, facing our property are bigger and higher than pre-existing ones.
. Floors and ceilings are raised to highest point (lst floor 5' main floor, 9'10 ceilings, 2nd
floor 9' master bedrm) throughout house; high elevation on top of 3.5-5' Foundation
• Every mass reducing feature has been removed - lower floors, lower ceilings, varying
roof lines, largely glass walls in front of house.
Why weren't these issues raised earlier during Design Review:
. Misleading Communication and assertions - the owner promised previous owner, us,
and other neighbors repeatedly they were going to preserve and update existing house.
— Simply add dormers and update rear addition
• We were trying to be good neighbors and not create unnecessary burdens as they
worked on "existing" house.
. Misleading, inaccurate plans presented to Design Review process:
— Did not accurately reflect true extent of demolition. Bad drawings, Bad numbers.
— Inaccurate, Missing and Misleading Call Outs for Existing & New walls, ceiling
heights, and floor heights. House had multiple, differing floor and ceiling heights,
which are not shown. New Design uses (E)xisting everywhere; Not True.
— As Built now, is physically even higher than plans showed.
. The neighbors would have raised very different issues about conformance, scale,
massing, and privacy, during Design Review if we had know truth of this project.
Why can't property owner and neighbors work out a compromise:
• Concerns ignored - We discussed our concerns with the owners prior to their design,
during, and most recently in response to actual demolition, and raising of new framing.
• Suggestions rebuffed - we spent 1.5 hours with owners discussing potential ways to
mitigate scale, mass, and privacy issues.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 1 of 12
- We told them frosted windows, higher fences, minor adjustments to window sills,
and the fact "they were not tall" (their words) were not substantial responses.
Goodwill and Trust Exhausted - The owners, designer, and builder have exhausted us.
- Builder repeatedly failed to honor requests to clean up nail, glass, framing, and
roof debris in our driveway, or give us warning when they will work above our cars.
- Every "accidental error" makes Max Design more extreme. As Built exceeds plans.
- Lack of sincere back and forth discussion with Owners; any and all plan
modifications have only come after planning process submittals and feedback
What are we asking for:
• No Variances. Project sent back to Design Review
. Revised, completely Accurate, Clear, and Verifiable Plans. NO more "accidental errors"
• Project treated as New Construction. Design in keeping with Neighborhood and
Community character spirit and rules.
- Improved Scale, Mass, Privacy
- Objective, verifiable standards applied: 12 Foot Declining Envelope, 4 Foot Set
Back, etc.
- No Monolithic, vertical walls on our shared property line that run from our Garage
to the Front of 1245 leaving No "open" air space above fence.
- Use of Clerestory Windows onto our private backyard space. Windows placed and
sized to provide for privacy for both sets of current and future homeowners
- 9 foot ceilings maximum, and only if it results in a"good" design on the outside
w.r.t. Mass, Scale, Height, Privacy; Otherwise, reduce 3' wooden cripple walls on
top of cement foundation to Lower House
- NO tall fence to hide excessively tall walls.
• Licensed Surveyor to set stakes/marks, etc and to verify setbacks, heights, etc. If new
design kills or removes willow tree next to our garage, then a verified vertical story pole
to be set so new construction can be verified.
• Proper Steps to mitigate the land erosion due to the removal of the carriage house, and
wooden retaining wall under it, to maintain proper flow in heavy rains to avoid flooding
• 100% Compliance with all applicable rules and standards, and Approved Plans.
While the above seems extensive, all of the framing above the subfloor onsite today was
installed in 2 days, including work done 1 day after Stop Work was issued on Left side.
Every neighbor that adjoins this property, as well as many neighbors on our block or in the
Burlingame community (38 families) have signed a petition highlighting the issues with this
project, and are asking that it be brought into full compliance with the spirit and rules of the
planning process and fit into the character of Burlingame neighborhoods.
We appreciate your time and consideration and welcome you to view this project from our
driveway. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.
Respectfully yours,
Robin and Frank Knifsend
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 2 of 12
Item 1: Left Rear Photos Before & After
See Top Plate and Roof relative to "Y" in Tree.
�ti. �:
., ; •�.
, �,�--� ,
., sr�:�`.": �
Before
� ���� ��� :. �
t 1 ���
.� � �
� t��*�,` ---�
.� �� �
:t . :�
� � �-
.
� .-.�r� � .�
� � �i;�-`? :,i�
��'r'-
.�+ �:
r ,e
�w'' ��
� �
,x�
.tR
� �.� .
, =;.
.� �
,�-�,��� � �� �� � �
�_� � .:�� y � �S. .
Note: New Wall is 3 1/2 feet taller than before, as measured. Plan says 2'/2 feet taller
Dec. 4, 2018
�R���� �:' i� - --------
+ � v�� ��� c' "u" %'�,n""..e.�fi�r: 96.^a
. , . �'r 4 ""�Z _ ` ,:� , �;,�.,�.�!'� :
- a �. , • ��. r. ,� ,,
a. � � .t � ... � ;r —;,.
. e , r, �� � ,M ? - =- �� �i�!_ � _ �' •T �A ��'7
_' _ _ _ . .. `. i..._�" -. .'� . ; •p�`��:�.,� .�,�\
. j • 4 �a �
,�,h� t �. � ' 'i
`�� � ; � � , � � _ �., �
,�: t a � =H aa .4 � "s `�L' �.. �
NOW
Page3of12
Before (Photo taken Aug. 16, 2018)
Item 2: Left Wall Photos Before & After
See Intersection of Top Plates at stub of existing cantilever wall
1. Old wall N4-6" below, New wall is now N8" above, so N1 ft taller
2. This is also the situation at Front Left corner.
3. Entire 60' left wall is taller than BOTH Existing AND Approved claimed 9'10"
top plate height, which was measured at front living room ceiling.
Left Rear & Front
Before
NOW
Left Rear - old wall intersects 4-6" LOWER than cantilever top plate
NOW
�� � : ,�
-� , -£
°� ' � b �`
� :. 1 A �'+� � � `4" '
( y
, �',.'
)�'Y¢f "t w'�1.�� �� 'M`I��t�• �
� �� '`v � r�
" ,� ;,� • `�� r� � �
�; , � � i .
�� � �. � �
,.
, � . �� n.
fj * r � � �
�j�'�� ` �� � � � • Y� .
1l1C •'�' ,.�r . ,
Left Front - this new wall also is taller
Note: In bottom right photo, the Top Plate on right side lines up with claimed 9'10"
top plate in Living Room Ceiling that was indicated as "Existing".
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 4 of 12
Left Rear - new walt taller
1
�
i �` �� �''�,;
�.,,a ..�,'�
/ !, �° �
. � e�+
� �1 ��
� � ' �"��►
-�
� �:���
r. . �; i.. �
�
��.. � .,.
�: f ; ,��:��
. .....�__
� �
�. : �r � !-� ,Ny �.lt�
. �' f i � ��F� , �u
, �� `�,:�:��
'"'' ��'�- � � . �-�� .
.. i -� ,�:� ���^,T -w,.,�t,�.
, . i • . . -.a�..' _ t ., `
'� �� .. e - � i .1�� � �� '� ,. .
, , , �,$ �,� � ��, � f , �► � �
� � o �� v w , y '�
� , � R., >�. .. . ��� t r:� �r ���-`�_°.'� .
'�i�;�� �
��. ; � . .
� �` .
�.
�"
- ---,-.--_-�._.. ;���
��:�;, �. , +,
`�,+.:_t_,. , � , �' , , ,',
�� ;' . . -.
�� �:y} �
_ t�.`3�'.i-, .��' . . .��t'����a.'i►....,.•���,1. ,,? � .. r_.�,�
. , Y ,1�
�i���� r Y .�
. j='�
- _ ��
����4 ��
..: � �
.. _ . T6� �
� "���
�»� �', . .
r ♦ . `'`�, ���'l�,.���
��
i
�i►1 ���; ►+ % ►1
H .»� � �
h� � �
� ,, ` I, � �
�� � � r � �
����"4.�i��',•`. •. 1
Item 2 (continued)
Example: As Built Front & Rear Left Wall Exceeds Plans
As Built New Rear Wall: 10.725ft =-10'-9" As Built vs. 9'-10" on Plans
New Front Left Wall = 10'-1" + 8" = 10'-9" As Built
Rebuilt Left Side Walls all exceed Plan Call Out Heights of 9'10" by nearly 1 foot extra
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 6 of 12
Existing Cantilever Wall - 10.1ft = �10'-1"
Item 3: Example of Missing / Inaccurate Labels on Plans
See Exhibit A2 for a more comprehensive list of inaccurate, misleading items on plan
Below from Jan 4 Rev. Missing "Existing" Floor is 2'-7" as shown on Survey, and "Existing"
Top Plate is 8'-0" as shown below
Miaslnt Plate Level
of Mlddle Additfon
i' ❑ �
� ,�
� m
is is Maln Floor
from Front of house
i
Lower Floor at Rear
I�
� � (!)1• PAINTED LL170D
I I 61DPG.17P.
Note:
1. Right Elevation calls out 8' plate at Rearmost addition. Still missing middle
addition plate height. �
2. Right Elevation Floor heights missing, and incorrectly labeled. Incorrectly
suggests Main Floor height was existing Floor level at rearmost edition. The
Rear threshhold height is on Survey and shows it is 8-10" lower than
indicated "Main Floor" height.
3. Left Elevations Missing all of that information, and claims'�Existing" are Plate
and Floor levels Living Room in front of house. This house had multiple
differing floor heights especially along Left and Rear of structure.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 7 of 12
This is from Jan 4 Rev, Original Existing Rear Elevation A6
Item 3 (continued)
Floor Height of Existing SunRoom = 46", or 3'-10", This information is Missing from Plans
�. ���--_,_„_.
/� �
" ��,��:,
< r�
! �._
�a
C., , _
. �_,': a .. . ,....... m,.__� `
_. P;- I
� S
�
�
M o.
• H .
N B_
F �'z,
�.
� g �!
a-'! _
Floor of Living Room "Main Floor" Called Out on Plans is 8-10" Higher than Floor of Left Wall
Floor of Cantilevered Bump Out steps up, then stepped down to 2'-7" Surveyed Height at Rear
Threshold
���
�
�. �: � �IAI�II�
_ - , :a�
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 8 of iZ
Item 4: Inaccurate Demolition Plans
Even current Revised Demolition Plan submitted for this Variance Application is inaccurate.
1. Entire "Existing" Right wall is gone except for open column porch
2. Entire "Existing" Left wall is gone except for cantilever stub wall
3. Entire Rear of Structure is gone
4. All Interior walls are gone, with exception of rear living room wall
5. Including second floor demolition, there is likely less than 16% remaining; see
calculation in Exhibit C
Changing Design to deal with Mass, Scale, Height, Nearness to Property line, and Privacy is
not an "unnecessary hardship" since basically the entire structure is gone. Now is the time
to improve Design.
�� .e :;
p,� _ r..
Gone - Entire Rear of House & all interior walls
��
�
a;.r..s. � '+ �;i. r ' .. , . .
�r' • a=i., ..t-:w � 'k f
_ .r
8�'.�.�?,.a� .4� �
'�-�:. - . .. . , . � +i���.
.. �.1�� �.SSiltr � p�.=' � -��..:. �t_`L,
Gone - Existing Left Wall, front & rear
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 9 of 12
Gone - Existing Right Wall
Item 5:
Impact to our Property &
Loss of Property Value
1245 lst floor top plate is 3-4 feet higher than our 2nd Story floor, and even higher
than roof of our garage.
� ^� r,�.�;�,�
� .���w ` ,�Y � �� ��,�
Y, ��«p 5
k � - � �� , ��'��� ,� � � �d ��� 3Y�-
-• `. • , ���� �
��s cr �`"% +�°�" r t �- Y�
C;� *� ' z . � i '�� �
�� �"" � � - '
. �,,, � ti ,' .
, ,� �: �. � ,�
�
t�
�������...:.�, ��.. �i Y �
' a R 1
� h
.- --� �.���,� � �- � �• •
�� ��� -;��-_..� _ -..--_-��.���,
��.. • . �
'�'1['+-r� � --r • . •� .
� • I �' � a
� , I �
� : ,�
�. � i
.�..;.^�..�- _ -- ��:.�� � . � '!
Their first floor top plate alone is higher than our garage. When we did our
remodel, we had to lower the roof 2-3 feet of this existing garage, building
» so it would not "impact" 1245 view «
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 10 of 12
Relative Height of Structures
Scale & Mass of new >first floor< wall alone
�., -
,
�s ���" ��'~ ,_,,
... ,
-;
—�—, —
� �� � � � � � ,�<" � �
I w�,�. �����11� �� ' ��, `'_11.yi„1_�.� 'I
,�j ' � i � "'"„ "'� 'r � ..� ,y
�� _ ___ '6+hF.`� � �.s ` i i' „-y. _ , 's'
�� .�� , • �
.�� �
� �.:;� �
.
. ..
,
. .:_._ � i:.',y:i__.::.'.._'. . . . .. .
Fence is a�6+1' but about 6'5"
Impact to use of our Private Space
View from standing at elevation of their first floor
�' � � �" ' �� ��„�ti�,�:..
- �. r
* ��,. �
�
. .
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 11 of 12
Standing at elevation of new floor
Complete view into our backyard They are eye level with our house roof,
garage roof & basketball hoop.
All of the windows on their first floor will look through tops of our windows.
Similarly, all of the windows on their second floor will look through tops of windows
into our bedrooms.
� �
'���' � °' "� � s
r �` � �, �~ � 3 � ,.
�
. � '` +�.� �C + �ff �Y � !
� .�; ��'=<t .: } _..,�� � t • = � "
r� M 4 1Y�' � ,'� t� ��� f
:�`� �� � �� - �
� .
. - ,T _
� 'i::___�,� 5p � �♦ �. �
�� � i, i
�� ��� � � , , . .
�---:..... "�' � x: �,
� � � � � �"^-� -� -.
� . 4--- - -
_ � �, . �� ,�; .-� ���
.�
�--r- ', �
, ; �_� _�,.�_ --
� � I �
�.----- �:.- -- - � l�ti��' k � . .,�
With Nov 29 Rev, they propose extending this wall even further to Tree, and 2nd
Story Floor will start just above ��paired" 2x4 to right of window opening, creating a
continuous, monolithic wall along entire fence line from our garage to the front of
their house, with no'�open" sun & sky gaps. See Left Elevation, Sheet A5 Nov 29
Rev.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 12 of 12
Impact to Our Property (continued)
December 4, 2018
Dear Commissioners:
In regards to the Application for Amendment to Design Review for changes to a previously
approved first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached
garage at 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, we respectfully request you deny the variance and revisit the
review of the previously approved design under the grounds that the existing structure was
nearly all demolished and the written and verbal information provided during this process has
been deceptively misleading resulting in even worse non-conforming elements getting approved
in the plans under false pretenses.
We ask that you come out to this property, view this new ("existing") structure, and ask
yourself is this what should be the outcome of a collaborative planning process that follows the
spirit and rules of Burlingame? More pointedly, would you want to live next to that tall
structure just feet from your property line with attendant size, mass, scaling, and privacy
issues?
This project has a negative impact on the use of our home, it decreases our property value
and has a negative impact on the overall neighborhood. We have lived in this neighborhood for
20 years, built good relationships with all of our neighbors, are raising a family here and hope
to enjoy many more decades here. What they are building next door really negatively impacts
that (see Exhibit F).
We believe the switch and bait gaming of the planning process was intentional to minimize
attention to the changes desired for this historical property and avoid pushback from neighbors
to bring the non-conforming elements into standards. We and all of our neighbors were denied
the ability to appropriately comment in the planning review process since this project was not
honestly presented as to the scope of demolition and the relevant details of the existing
structure clearly labeled.
We, and our neighbors, would have approached the original Design Review hearing very
differently, if we had not been misled by the owners and incomptete labels presented on the
drawings (see Exhibit A). The owners promised the previous owners to preserve and update the
existing 1906 structure. They told us and other neighbors they were adding dormers and
updating the rear addition. The plans submitted with demo plans and existing walls labeled
further reinforced everyone's view on what this project entailed. (see Exhibit B) Further we
were told that the existing non-conforming structure and elements could not be changed by us
or the owners, or they would no longer be existing non-conforming. Everyone relied on these
drawings and those communications to inform and direct their input to the planning process.
We believed that the existing structure would remain, including the height, windows
size/placement, and roof pitch, and used the existing structure as a storyboard.
If we had known the amount of demolition that would take place, as well as the removal of
existing non-conforming elements, we would have asked for conformity to the rules and
keeping wifihin the character of Burlingame(see Exhibit D).
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 1
Even now with these revised Plans, the demolition plan shown is WRONG. It shows walls
remaining that have already been removed. It says 69.4% is removed when the truth is 84%+
is already gone. (see Exhibit C) The truth is that this entire house was leveled down to
sub-floor joists and only a few framing stubs were left to try to grandfather a few
non-conforming elements: front and side setback, 30ft+ overall building height, 10ft+ front
room ceiling height, 3-4ft high foundation cripple walls. They did not try to preserve this historic
1906 house, they only preserved a few of its worst elements.
Now, the argument of rebuilding "the existing structure" is being used to make previously
non-conforming aspects worse to increase the height of walls and expand windows. The old
additions at the back of the house stepped down floor and ceiling heights, which reduced
massing and scale on the part of both of our properties that have sun and sky space. Now the
walls that are being built are 2.5-3.5 feet higher and completely dominate the little open space
along our shared property line. We are to going to have a 2 story monolithic structure along
almost the entire shared property line. This structure is NOT even being re-built to the same
scale and size as the pre-existing structure.
When we did our project, we sought out all of our neighbors to get their concerns and
review of what we planned on doing. The owners of the 1245 property have never proactively
discussed or showed their plans to us or any of our neighbors and after our attempts at trying
to share our concerns and come up with reasonable solutions, we find that the owners are not
willing to engage in substantive discussion and truly listen to people's concerns. At this point,
any goodwill that we have has been exhausted (see Exhibit E). Although it is likely the owners
of the 1245 property will claim they made some changes to appease us, they do not address
the real problems of scale, mass and privacy.
Now that the majority of the house has been demolished, we request that the entire plan be
revisited to reduce the massing and scale of this project, the non-conforming walls be required
to come into compliance with setback rules and provide appropriate privacy. All of the first floor
framing that is currently in place was put up in 2 days; this is the time to address these issues.
At this point, many things could and should be done to reduce the massing and scale of this
project and provide appropriate privacy to both ourselves and the current and future residents
of the 1245 property. We outline several suggestions in Exhibit D.
If the rules and spirit around existing structures are there to encourage the preservation
value and maintenance of historical nature of our community, this 1906 house was completely
leveled maintaining only the "value" of being too high off the ground, too close to the property
lines, and having very tall first floor ceiling heights. None of which would be allowed in a new
construction project in our neighborhood today, and therefore, given the state of demolition,
this project should be evaluated as a new build construction.
Further, as all of us who have been through a remodel project have had to fotlow the rules
and make design concessions, it seems only fair that these rules and considerations should
apply to the 1245 project. In fact, allowing a project like this will certainly set a bad precedent
and will destroy the very "character of Burlingame" that the planning commission has tried to
preserve. We encourage you to come out and view what they built so far and ask yourself if
this is what our community desires to be the outcome of the Planning Review process, and if
you would like this home in your neighborhood or would like to live right next door to it.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 2
Finally, in Exhibit G is a Petition from 38 of our Burlingame neighbors who share in our
concern about this project; this includes >Every< neighbor who adjoins this property or directly
views this property as well as the vast majority of our block, and many other community
members who have seen this project.
Lastly, although the revised plans do not address our concerns, we have noted ongoing
discrepancies on every revision of these plans - Jan 4, Oct 25, Nov 29. Some examples are
noted below.
• Missing and misleading Floor and Top plate heights. See Exhibit A1
. Many, many inconsistencies, missing, and misleading Call Outs and information. See
Exhibit A2
. Inaccurate Demolition Plan. See Exhibit C
We appreciate your time and consideration and we welcome you to come talk to us and view
their project from our driveway. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any
questions.
Respectfully yours,
Robin and Frank Knifsend
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 3
Exhibit A1
Deceptive Labeling on Drawings Submitted in 7anuary 2018 for approval
As we are not in the home building trade, it is not reasonable to assume that we would be able
to catch the items that are mismarked or left off of the plans as follows:
1. What is supposed to be an existing wall is 2.5-3.5 feet higher and now is 6-7 feet above
the top of our privacy fence, where the top plate used to be 3-4 feet above fence.
2. The design and plans did not clearly and accurately reflect the floor and ceiling heights
of the existing structure.
a. The existing structure had 3 different sections to it; evident on the side
elevations of existing structure.
b. From the front of the house to the back, there were several different floor heights
as well as top plate heights.
3. The plans that were submitted and "approved" show the "existing" designation in the
incorrect spot.
a. This existing designation is applicable to the front living room of the house only
b. It is not the existing height of the back of the house next to which the words are
located.
4. The windows which are staying on the existing walls are actually being raised up and are
substantially bigger.
a. In fact, the entire scale of the house is massive but it is not evident in the
drawings as everything looks proportional when you are told that everything is
existing,
b. One comes to the conclusion that everything is the same since we are told wall
height is existing, but it is now taller, so everything is bigger.
c. Original structure had lower windows that did not clear the fence and appropriate
clerestory windows on a lower floor height that provided some privacy to us in
ourbackyard.
5. The drawings also do not call out the change to existing floor heights.
a. The Survey for the Property show Rear Threshold at addition is 8-10" LOWER
than Front Threshold (Living Room /"Main Floor")
�
m
r.� __` �:Tr•r•::a
_��
. .�
Existtn`
True
Exlatlne i
-m�' --x-- ---
(E! MCPI ROOR
A� �4l79
. Ftua
Exlstlne m
��
i
I■I I
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 4
�t,
��`` - --"
w� :���:1��~ � - - r--'r�--"-� �-
` +`;. ��.��� �r��+��� ,'.�� �■1 �, h '' � ��
�,
�: � ..
� , a ` � �' ,�� ��;
? �� .�ij!, � ��•'� r ��`.
' 4� � �:
Before _..: � � <�•: � �� �'� �. �� �� . ��"'
_, *�w.,,,4
._� �yF't
.: .
r
;� 'r�
` -' ��:
:€,•..
.y
.,�
NOW
�
�
�i
ia� '
i��" _"�`��f�
i
r �+ a
� a"� ��� ` ��
�' `� -t �:�
�����_��
, 6 �.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 5
'�Existing Wall" is now around 3.5 feet higher. Fence is approximately ��6+1",
actually shorter.
:.Qrd;x: : ,�^ .,t;r:��' �:i
, � !1 �7 �I 1 +�.� �
�
t
t. � , �...� ��
�' �
; . � �
�I � � � �: ---- ��[
r
���""����� ��T i
} . {�ct r' � r
� hti'� j '��1.. ' �._..
'��
�. ..:.."Y ',..,.. ... .�
�,... � .. . . _
�
... i.,l ..., . ♦ .... . . . ..
Standing at elevation of new floor
�
�-;•
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 6
'-- -- - -. -,.
---,
-�"'* ,-,�
'+-r .�_
Exhibit A2
Inconsistent, Inaccurate, Misleading,
and Omitted Key Details
Across all Revisions of Submitted Plans (including current)
1. Fence - Sheets A.2, A.5 Nov 29 Rev
a. Call Out - 7' solid fencing + 12" lattice
b. Designer has been informed multiple times that this is not allowed and should be
removed from Design
2. Demolition, Sheets A.2.1 & A.2.2, A.4, A.6, Jan 4, Oct 25, and Nov 29 Rev.
a. Removal Calculations are both WRONG and nonsensical. Is NOT 69.4%. Should
be 83-84%, only 16-17% remaining.
b. It appears that they didn't include any wall length that had a window set in that
wall...so got a 144' perimeter wall length for a house that is �62 feet long and
�38 feet wide, with Z floors.
c. Correct Calculation is:
i. Building is N62 feet in length, N38 feet in width, so total perimeter walls
are N200 feet (by just guestimating) for 1st Floor
1. We actually added up and measured every wall segment on Sheet
A.2.1 and calculated N196 feet for lst Floor
ii. 2nd Floor Wall calculation makes NO sense. Should be �26'-8"
1. 13'-4" front wall + 13'-4" rear wall = 26'-8" 2nd floor perimeter
walls
2. Does NOT include Wall lengths under roof, but not adjacent to
bedrooms, so Under reports these walls
iii. Claimed remaining walls are 144-109 = 35 feet. That is WRONG. See
Sheet A.2.1
1. front wall = 4-8 + 10-10 +4-8 = 20'-2"
2. Right wall = 15'-2"
3. Left wa I I= N 2'-6"
a. The "Sunroom" was completely enclosed with exterior walls
and windows, and was used as a bedroom by previous
owner. This is already demolished down to a� 3 feet high
stub wall
4. So Remaining walls = 37'-10"
iv. Removal calculation is correctly: (196' + 26'-8"- 37'-10") /(196 + 26'-8")
= 83.0% Removed.
1. Using claimed 35' remaining of lst floor, that would be 84.2%
demolished.
3. Rearmost Addition - Sheet A.6, A.5
a. 9'-0" Ceiling height Call Out for rearmost addition, does not match 9'-10" Top
Plate height Call Out
b. Use of "Ceiling Height" vs "Top Plate"
c. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See ]an 4. 2018 Sheets A.5 Left Elevation and A.6 Rear Elevation, and Nov 29
Rev.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 7
i. Wrong, Existing Elevation, Sheet A.5 -(E)xisting ceiling height of this
addition is 8'-0"
ii. Wrong, Existing Elevation -(E)xisting Main Floor is called out and implied
to be at height of front Living Room (front threshold). The Survey shows
that the Rear threshold doorway entering this addition is 8-10" LOWER
than called out "main floor" height
iii. Missing, Existing Elevation- Claimed (E)xisting Main Floor of 3'-9" is not
correct for Rear Addition.
1. The Addition Floor height has a reference line, but it is NOT
labeled. It is LOWER than labeled "Main Floor" height by about 8"
to 12" lower.
2. "Main Floor" is referencing floor of Living Room at front of house.
iv. Missing, Exisitng Elevation - no Call Out for Top Plate of Middle Rear
Addition
v. Wrong, Proposed Elevation - On new design elevation, everything
references (E)xisting floor and ceiling heights, and implies that the new
construction conforms to Original/Existing heights. All of new design is
Higher than Original heights
4. Second Floor Master Bedroom and Side Additions - Sheet A.4 A.5, A.6, A.7
a. The top plate of the Master Bedroom is HIGHER than the claimed 2nd Floor
(E)xisting Top Plate Height of 8'-1"
b. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See ]an 4. 2018 and Nov 29 rev Elevations
i. Missing, Proposed Elevations - There is NO Labeled Call Out for Ceiling or
Top Plate Height of Master Bedroom.
1. Extend Reference Line Call Out of (E)xisting Top Plate 8'-1" and it is
higher
ii. Missing, Proposed Elevations - There is NO Labeled Call Out for Ceiling or
Top Plate Height of Leftside Peaked Dormer
1. Extend Reference Line Call Out of (E)xisting Top Plate 8'-1" and it is
higher
iii. Missing, Proposed Elevations - There is NO Labeled Call Out for Ceiling or
Top Plate Height of Rightside Peaked Dormers (stairs, mstr bath, etc)
1. Extend Reference Line Call Out of (E)xisting Top Plate 8'-1" and it is
higher
5. Left Elevation, Rearmost and Middle Additions - Sheet A.5
a. 9'10" Top Plate height call out for rear addition. Not 9"`Ceiling" as on A.6.
Further, inconsistency in use of "Top Plate" vs "Ceiling" text. If not the same,
what is height difference?
b. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See Jan 4. 2018 Sheet A.6 Rear Elevation and Nov 29 Rev.
i. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting Floor Height,
N2'-3" to 2'-7", of rearmost addition
ii. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting Ceiling Height,
8'-0" of rearmost addition
iii. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting Floor and Ceiling
Heights of middle addition (i.e. addition behind peaked roof house, but in
front of rearmost addition).
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 8
6. Basement & Kitchen, Right Elevation - Sheets A.6 and A.7
a. Claimed (E)xisting Basement height of 5'-11" w.r.t. Original floor height of
Kitchen. New Design has higher Basement Ceiling
b. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See Jan 4. 2018 Sheets A.6 and A.7 Rear and Right Elevations and Nov 29 Rev
i. Missing, Existing and Proposed Elevation - the (E)xisting Floor Height of
the Kitchen is NOT Labeled, NOR is reference line for height of Basement
1. If you trace claimed (E)xisting Main Floor height 5'-6" Call Out back
of house, you will see that it is about 8-12" HIGHER than Kitchen
Floor Height
2. In New design, the floor of Kitchen is raised to claimed (E)xisting
ii. Missing, Proposed Elevation - Ceiling Height of Basement. Since Kitchen
Floor has been raised 8-12" than likely Basement Height is 6'-7" to 6'-11"
iii. Missing, Proposed Elevation Rear - Floor and Height of Basement
c. Basement NOT subject to FAR, Lot Coverage, or any other City Rules because
they claim and have shown it to be "not improved" on Plans
i. It is claimed that this entire basement space will ONLY be accessible from
exterior hatch, and will be UNIMPROVED, therefore not included in FAR,
Lot Coverage, or subject to any rules regarding basements with ceilings
higher than 6; and extending more than 3' above grade.
ii. We have been informed by Planning Department that if at ANY time
(construction, Sale of Property, etc), this basement space is "Improved"
(such as interior accessway, permanent stairs, part of Conditioned house
environment, etc) then it would be in Violation and should be reported to
Code Enforcement.
7. Left Elevation, SunRoom - Sheets A.2.1, A.5
a. The SunRoom was Originally completely enclosed by perimeter walls and
windows. Sheet A.2.1 implies that it was an open porch, and not part of Existing
perimeter wall structure of house. Also, this doesn't appear to be included in
Designer provided Removal Calculations (shown inaccurate above)
b. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See Jan 4. 2018 Sheet A.5 Left Elevation and Nov 29 Rev
i. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting Floor Height of
Sunroom. Measured at 3'-10" (Dec. 2, 2018, photos), and about 8-9"
LOWER than Living Room Floor Height, which is being used as Called Out
"Main Floor" height
ii. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting ceiling Height of
Sunroom, not shown. However, this top plate was likely at same level as
cantilevered wall section that is still remaining.
8. Front Elevation, SunRoom, Sheet A4
a. SunRoom Floor and Top Plate have been raised and are HIGHER
b. (E)xisting measurement Call Outs are inaccurate missing, or misleadingly labeled.
See Jan 4. 2018 Sheet A.6 Rear Elevation and Nov 29
i. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting Floor Height of
Sunroom. Measured at 3'-10" (Dec. 2, 2018, photos), and 8-9" LOWER
than Living Room Floor Height, which is being used as Labeled "Main
Floor" height
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 9
ii. Missing, Existing & Proposed Elevation - True (E)xisting ceiling Height of
Sunroom.
9. Creek and Garage, Sheet A8 ()an 4 rev, Garage), Survey (located in Jan 4 Rev Plan
bundle), Landscape Plan
a. The Survey and Plan are inaccurate
i. The Survey was conducted Oct 20, 2017, before the large storms we had
in Jan, 2018 that eroded the bank 1-2 feet (and caused tree shown
'existing' in back left of property to fall into creek.
ii. Further - demolition of Original, Existing carriage house further removed
the wooden retaining wall under the structure and also caused further
collapse of Creek Bank.
iii. It is likely that rear of Garage is at, or over, the current edge of Creek
Bank line
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 10
Exhibit B
Conversations that misled us to Original Design Review
1. The owners told the previous owner, us, and other neighbors they were preserving the
current house and updating it.
a. The previous owner actually passed on many offers over the years by developers
who made it known they were going to tear down the house, and was told during
this sale the plan was to preserve the historic house.
2. They told us that they were merely adding onto an existing structure.
a. We were repeatedly told that this was a remodel where some dormers were being
added, and the addition at the back being updated.
3. In preparing for the design review in ]anuary, we had to go to the CIty and pull the
plans despite asking the owners repeatedly if they would share their plans.
a. Even with these revised plans, we were not shown them prior to submittal.
Although we did view a version with essentially the same elements during a 1.5
hour long discussion, where we again outlined our substantial privacy, massing,
and scale issues, and suggested potential compromises.
4. When viewing the plans for the January Design Review, we were told the new plans used
existing non-conforming walls, and shown the existing height label on the elevation
drawings.
a. However, these drawings did not accurately label the differing floor and top plate
heights across the existing structure.
b. Most specifically, the floor and top plate height for the front living room was used
for the entire first floor structure and labeled "(E)xisting"
5. Further, the demolition plans suggested that majority of the existing structure, walls,
roof was being kept, with the movement of interior walls was majority of demolition.
6. The owners told us specifically that the wall adjoining our property would remain the
existing wall.
a. Even after we saw the new framing, they continued to tell us that they are just
rebuilding the existing wall, even though it is 2-3 feet taller.
7. We have since learned that it is not typical to keep an existing structural wall and add a
2-3 feet cripple wall above that, so the removal and rebuilding of the existing
non-conforming wall was already implied, even though we did not understand that. But
that further shows those walls should never have been labeled "existing"
8. Also, after raising all of the issues included in this document to the owners prior to Nov
26, they pulled and resubmitted revised plans, which they did not communicate in any
manner with us.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 11
Exhibit C
Incorrect Original Demolition Plan
Inaccurate Removal Calculations Still on Revised Plans
This is a NEW House
1. The revised (Nov 29 Rev) Demolition Plans are still Inaccurate. See Calculations and
Photo Below.
a. More than 84% of this house was demolished
b. That is a kind calculation, not fully counting second floor
2. The ]anuary Demo plan for first and second floor led us to believe that majority of
structure - exterior walls, roof, etc would remain, and only dormers added, addition
updated, and interior walls moved.
3. The structure was effectively taken all the way down to the subfloor joist platform with
the exception of a couple of stub walls to maintain the extreme closeness to the side
property, front setback and height of the front room.
a. Almost the entirety of the first floor is down to joists.
4. The "Existing" House is Gone. This is a New house and should be treated as a New
House project and not a limited Remodel with additions.
a. What they are Proposing is Worse than Original, Existing structure, and is Taller
and Wider with way more MASS.
b. Now is the time to deal with mass, scale, height, and privacy issues
5. Jan 4 Rev Demolition Plans claimed less than 50% exterior wall removal primarily at
right rear and showed 2nd Floor remaining with just interior wall changes, thereby
creating impression majority of structure was remaining, with just new additions and
interior wall changes.
Nothing left except sub floor joists and "stub" walls
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 12
Exhibit C (continued)
Correct Removal / Demolition Calculation
1. Removal Calculation is Inaccurate.
2. It appears that they didn't include any wall length that had a window set in that wall...so
are claiming a 144' perimeter wall length for a house that is �62 feet long and �38 feet
wide, with 2 floors.
3. We went through Sheet A.2.a and actually added up and measured every wall segment
on Sheet A.2.1 and calculated �196 feet for ist Floor and �26'-8" for 2nd Floor
a. We didn't include 2nd Floor Wall length that was under roof, but not directly
connected to a bedroom, so a very conservative calculation
b. The Remaining walls shown on plan are: 37'-10"
4. Correct Calculation is:
a. Removal calculation is correctly: (196' + 26'-8"- 37'-10") /(196 + 26'-8") _
N83.0% Removed.
lst Floor Walls 195.75
2nd Floor Walls 26.67
Width or Length House
Segment Length -"feeY' part Segment Length -"inch" part Segment
4.00 8.00 W
10.00 10.00 W
4.00 8.00 W
15.00 2.00 L
7.00 6.00 L
1.00 4.00 W
3.00 8.00 W
3.00 8.00 W
3.00 4.00 L
7.00 6.00 L
3.00 4.00 L
1.00 2.00 W in
5.00 11.00 L
3.00 6.00 L
2.00 2.00 L
5.00 3.00 W in
3.00 6.00 W in
0.00 5.00 W in
3.00 6.00 W in
8.00 4.00 W in
3.00 6.00 L
Dec. 4, 2018
From "Labeled" Drawing or
"Measured" off Drawing
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Page 13
Sst floor walls
2nd Floor walls
10.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
5.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
7.00
6.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
4.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
7.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
172.00
13.00
13
26.00
3.00 L
8.00 W in
6.00 W in
8.00 W in
6.00 W in
10.00 W in
9.00 L
8.00 L
7.00 L
6.00 L
7.00 L
0.00 L
9.00 L
2.00 W out
9.00 L
9.00 L
6.00 L
4.00 L
6.00 L
9.00 L
0.00 L
7.00 L
9.00 W in
6.00 L
2.00 L
0.00 L
9.00 L
1.00 L
285.00
195.75
4.00 front
4 rear
8.00
26.67
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measured
Measure
Measured
Drewn + Measured
Drawn + Measured
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 14
Exhibit D
Rules and /"Keeping within the character of Burlingame" We Request
Compliance
1. Large scale of house and mass right on property line not consistent the neighborhood
spirit of Burlingame.
2. No Variances. Project sent back to Design Review to fix both Design issues and
misleading, missing, wrong, and inaccurate items on Plans.
3. Revised, completely Accurate, Clear, and Verifiable Plans. NO more "accidental errors"
4. Project evaluated and treated as New Construction. Typical Planning Review, Evaluation,
and Expectations for a New Build Construction. Design in keeping with Neighborhood
and Community character spirit and rules.
a. Improved Scale, Mass, Privacy
b. Objective, verifiable standards applied: 12 Foot Declining Envelope, 4 Foot Set
Back, etc. Example: the existing wall that was added to is now 14 feet plus, even
though Plans only showed 13 feet.
c. No Monolithic, vertical walls on our shared property line that run from our Garage
to the Front of 1245 leaving No "open" air space above fence.
d. Use of Clerestory Windows onto our private backyard space. Windows placed and
sized to provide for privacy for both sets of current and future homeowners
e. 9 foot ceilings maximum, and only if it results in a"good" design on the outside
w.r.t. Mass, Scale, Height, Privacy; Otherwise, reduce 3' wooden cripple walls on
top of cement foundation to Lower House
f. NO tall fence to hide excessively tall walls.
5. Licensed Surveyor to set stakes/marks, etc and to verify setbacks, heights, etc. If new
design kills or removes willow tree next to our garage, then a verified vertical story pole
to be set so new construction can be verified.
6. Proper Steps to mitigate the land erosion due to the removal of the carriage house, and
wooden retaining wall under it, to maintain proper flow in heavy rains to avoid flooding
7. 100% Compliance with all applicable rules and standards, and built exactly to Approved
Plans.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 15
Exhibit E
Neighborhood Goodwill Exhausted
1. When we first heard the Lai's were going to undergo a remodel, we asked them to speak
to us in advance because we had some issues with the existing structure; the debris
from their gutters falls into our driveway; their adjacent wall was really close to the
property line; and the impact of their project on the creek was a concern. We also
suggested that they speak to other neighbors. The owners of 1245 Cabrillo never
proactively discussed or showed their plans to us or any of the other neighbors. We
have had to go down to the City Planning Department to pull their published plans every
single time.
2. As the original review of their plans was approaching, they discouraged us from raising
any issues by telling us that they are keeping the existing house with some dormers
were being added and the addition at the back being updated.
3. Despite having had conversations about our concerns and expressing interest in their
project, the owners act surprised that we had concerns and use the excuse that they
didn't know.
4. We explicitly raised the following issues with the owners:
a. House is too close to the property line and fence, ranging from 1.5 - 2 feet
instead of required 4 foot setback. We are especially concerned about the
cantilevered wall section.
b. The wall is too high and dominating. It is now over 14 feet tall, and being right
next to property line exaggerates that. Lower the first floor ceiling to 9 feet.
c. There are now many very large windows that are situated on a higher floor height
that are directly overlooking our yard, and located within required setback. This
is both a severe privacy issue, as well as the scale is all wrong. Makes it look we
are on display. Change the kitchen and dining room windows to clearstory
windows. We highlighted that we did that along the entire South side of our
house to provide privacy to our neighbors at 1241 Cabrillo Avenue.
d. Roof, gutters and property line. Everything slides off their roof onto our cars and
driveway. Making the house taller just makes this roof situation worse and
increases likelihood that everything ends up on our side of the fence. Plus the
roof overhang and gutters are on property line.
5. Besides multiple emails and discussions, we sat down with one of the owners for 1�/2
hours to go over these issues, and try to come up with ways to mitigate the scale,
massing and privacy issues. We did not get a substantive response other than the
following:
a. We will plant a tree between the house and the fence (24" space, little light)
b. They would remove the farthest back window entirely, so blank 14' wall
c. The owners claimed that they are not tall so they would not look into our house.
d. They recommended frosted windows.
e. They recommended raising the fence.
f. They recommended going from a pitched room to a flat roof.
g. On multiple occasions we stated that the solutions were not viable, were "quick
fixes" which could easily be changed, or would not work with the aesthetics of the
house.
6. Further, on multiple occasions we have complained to the owners about the builder:
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 16
a. Dropping a roof section onto the fence and breaking it
b. Dropping multiple windows onto our driveway and failing to clean up all glass
shards and splinters
c. Dropping and leaving framing sections with nails pointed up on our driveway on
several different days.
d. Leaving a demo'ed 12-16 sections of the house wall leaning on the fence and
over our property near vehicles.
7. Then when it was determined that a variance would be needed due to non-compliance
with the Set Back on the left side, the owners said they would address our concerns.
However, they submitted plans to the City without talking to us and made no effort to
get our feedback on their suggested solutions. The Plan Revision submitted on Oct Z5
which did not address our concerns in any meaningful or significant way, was essentially
all of the items in (5) above that we had told them that we did not find satisfactory, and
ignored all suggestions that we had made.
8. On the day of the planned Planning Hearing, Nov 29, they pulled their application stating
they wanted further address our issues. We still did not receive any further
communication with them.
9. On Nov 29, they submitted another Revision. While they significantly made the change
to conform with the 4' Set Back, they actually made the Left Side walls even TALLER
than they had previously been, and extended the addition a further 3' along the
fenceline, effectively closing off any "open" air space above the fence for the entire run
of our shared property line from our garage to the front of their structure..
Substantially, this move to 4' Setback, is only moving 18 inches away.
a. We can only interpret this move as an attempt to avoid the need for a Variance to
the 4' Set Back requirement, while in no way substantivefy addressing our
expressed concerns about Mass, Scale, Height, and Privacy, but actually making
the situation WORSE in all these cases.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 17
Exhibit F
Negative Impact of 1245 Project
1. This Project is a clear attempt to build to Maximum limits of FAR, Lot Coverage, Set
Back, and Height.
a. It makes little to no accommodation for our use and enjoyment of our property or
the needs of other neighbors.
b. This house is already 4-5' above Grade because of its foundation with high
wooden cripple walls. They have then raised all floors to the highest elevated
spot, and then topped it with very high ceilings (impacting 2nd floor elevation).
This increase mass and scale, and has a significant impact to the use of our
house and yard areas, with resulting loss of privacy.
c. It also takes into little account any unique challenges of this property such as the
Creek running through it. By removing the existing carriage house, they actually
significantly reduced their usable area of their Lot. Now they are maxing the
House and Garage leaving little open space on the Lot.
2. The massing and scale of this project is out of the character of the neighborhood and lot
size. The house at 1249 Cabrillo is also very tall, however, it sits on a lot and a half and
it is separated from neighboring houses by 2 driveways on the left side, and 2 side yards
on the right side.
3. The 1245 Cabrillo project is a hugely non-conforming house that is so tall that it dwarfs
our house, exacerbated by extremely tall first floor ceiling heights (vs. higher than
typical 9 feet). The extremely tall first floor wall is taller than our garage, 7-8 feet above
fence and extends 3-4 feet above our second story floor. This non-conforming wall is
unattractive and dominating and it is yet to be topped with a second story, which has a
master bedroom with 9' + ceilings. When we remodeled our house, the roof height of
our garage was required to be lowered so it wouldn't dominate the 1245 neighbor's yard.
Their first floor is now significantly taller than our garage.
4. The non-conforming wall that is adjacent to our property is only set back from 1.5 - 2.5
feet. On the non-conforming wall, there is a bumpout that reduced the setback to 1.5
feet. This likely would put their gutters/downspouts over our property line. Therefore,
this huge unattractive and dominating wall sits right next to our property line.
a. With Latest Revision they are proposing moving the wall to 4' Set Back, which is
only 18 inches further away from Property Line. All of our concerns about Scale,
Mass, Privacy remain.
5. The minimal setback from our adjacent property line creates an extreme loss of privacy
with no ability for either party to put in screening foliage because of the minimal setback
as was proposed by the 1245 Cabrillo owner. A higher fence does not address the issue
since they are still so high above ground they will look over fences. All of the fences on
our block are 5 feet + 1 foot privacy. A higher fence just reinforces the big wall and is
not an acceptable solution as proposed in their plans.
6. The size of the windows and the placement of the windows creates an extreme loss of
privacy. The raised floors and the corresponding raised and bigger windows create
stadium viewing into our house.
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 18
Exhibit G
Petition to Bring Project into Compliance and Character of Neighborhood
As part of the Burlingame community, we are concerned that the project at 1245
Cabrillo did not retain the existing, historical structure of the house as it was described
on the approved plans submitted to the Planning Commission. Further, we are
concerned that variances were avoided and height restrictions exceeded all predicated
on the retention of the existing structure. Further, details such as the 14 ft envelope,
and use of 5-6 ft windows create an unattractive, excessively large and obtrusive
house.
Given that the building was effectively demolished down to the 1st floor joists except
for a couple of "stub" walls , we ask that the project's scale, massing, and nearness to
property lines be reconsidered, and measures taken to reduce its impact to the
neighborhood and neighbors.
Bret Bottarini 1225 Cabrillo 75% of the non-conforming walls are removed.
Avenue The new walls should conform to current city
regulations. The house already sits too close to
the property line. The homeowner, designer, and
builder knowingly broke the rules.
Robert and Gretchen
Cody
Stanley Parker
Melissa Macko
]on Gilmour
1240 Drake Ave. We are particularly concerned about the
destruction of the creek bank behind this
property due to removal of buttressing walls that
were part of the garage structure that was taken
down. We feel that heavy winter rainfall will
surely cause further erosion, stoppage and
overflow onto our adjoining properties.
1801 Ray Dr, I lived within the setback and height
Burlingame requirements for our project - they are good for
Burlingame. This builder should do the same.
1257 Cabrillo Ave This construction project is not adhering to the
plans and altering sections of the house that
require variances. As a neighbor "down the
creek" I am also concerned about the impact
their project has had on the drainage channel
behind their house. Their property is situated at
the 90 degree bend in the Easton Creek.
1001 Balboa Ave This project is out of line with the neighborhood
and the owners are ignoring the approved plans.
Jennifer Callahan 1321 Balboa Ave., Awhile back we did a big remodel to our home,
Burlingame obtained permits, and worked within Burlingame
codes and guidelines. While there were other
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 19
Don Clark
joel and margaret
steinberg
William and Esther Hou
1128 Vancouver
Avenue
1224 Cabrillo Ave
things we wanted to do, we followed the rules. If
you let this mega mansion be built on this
standard size lot, it will hurt the character of our
neighborhood. More important, you wilf further
what seems to be a trend among some builders:
break the code, build different from the plans,
and say sorry later. Preserve your department's
integrity and our neighborhood's charm.
This design is crazy. Not what burlingame is
about.
We fully agree with the issues raised by the
Knifsend's
1424 Benito Ave, Renovations should stay within the "spirit" of
Burlingame, CA zoning guidelines. It would be a very bad
93010 precedent to allow for additional exceptions
beyond what was originally approved. I am
surprised to see this home's southern exterior
wall within two feet (or less) of the fence and
property line, creating the appearance of a
cantilevered room over the fence and an invasion
of privacy for both homes. Routine homeowner
maintenance would also appear to be impossible
without utilizing the Knifsend's driveway. Please
have the homeowner and contractor comply with
approved plans. Deviations should not be further
allowed without prior review and approval. Thank
you. Bill and Esther Hou
Sue Kaufman 1132 Vancouver I would be very concerned and rather distraught
Ave, Burlingame if that was being built next door to my home.
There should be thoughtful, respectful, and
reasonable development going on in our
beautiful neighborhood.
Stephen Chan
kerry fitzpatrick
Vitas Viskanta
1355 Drake Ave As someone who lived next door to, and through,
a similar tear down rebuild project, I support
more cooperative and constructive discussions
prior to planning commission approvals. Existing
neighbors' concerns should be heard and
considered, and more effort should be made to
minimize inconveniences and annoyances of
having to live just a few feet away from a
lengthy construction site.
1348 bernal ave
1704 Sanchez
Avenue
too big for property- too close to property lines
Burlingame has dealt with bait and switch
development before - please have the project
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 20
John Kannasto 1245 Cortez Ave,
Burlingame
Frank & Robin Knifsend 1243 Cabrillo Ave
Hans and Sigrid Geiger
Sally Brown & Philip
Ross
Arlene Gallegos
Joyce & Gary Walter
Eric Ranta and Euni
Kown
Paul & Ani Safavi
Gene and Gloria
Bordegaray
John and Gail Diserens
Jennifer Sullivan
Cathleen Pearson and
Paul Nelson
Jamie Cheng
Julie Carlson
Matthew Potter
Andrew Haskell
Christina Habelt
1237 Cabrillo Ave.
1248 Drake Avenue
1720 Sherman
Avenue
1244 Cabrillo Ave
1232 Cabrillo Ave
1240 Cabrillo
Avenue
1236 Cabrillo Ave.
1249 Cabrillo
Avenue
1356 Bernal
2004 Easton Drive
1316 Drake Avenue
2105 Roosevelt
Avenue
1205 Bernal Ave.
1125 Cabrillo Ave
1531 Columbus
Ave, Burlingame
follow the rules.
Shocked that they tore down historic 1906 house
and carriage house. Now that it's gone, build
something that fits with current neighborhood.
This property has challenges given house
placement and height. "Additions" make no effort
to be a good neighbor or mitigate its massing,
scale, or nearness to property line - actually it
aggravates all of these issues. They have sought
no input from any neighbor, nor cared about the
impact of tearing down this property after
promising previous owner they would preserve it.
They're "rebuilding" existing walls 3 feet higher
than original.
We support Frank and Robin Knifsend on their
concerns regarding work being done at 1245
Cabrillo Ave, Burlingame
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 21
Domonique Moraga
Grace McMahon
Gail & Anthony Mosse
Amy Grenier
Leslie Holzman
David and Wendi
Upchurch
John Fish
Will Evans
1916 Devereux dr
1901 Hillside Dr
1915 Carmelita
Avenue
1575 Newlands
AVe.
1441 Drake Ave
1212 Cabrillo
Avenue
1221 Cabrillo Ave
1324 Cortez Ave,
Burlingame
Dec. 4, 2018 Page 22
� ciTr a
�� � ��� ��
��, ri ��
ti�� �� �1.1.�—��i �i o .
c � q
�9wow�r
Project Comments - Planning Application
Project Address: 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-050
Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing
two-story house.
From
Martin Quan
Public Works Engineering
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
i.
*•«�� - ^-� �^� - ., �� a^�^-^^:^^ �f ^^ ^ �^* ;� n �� We have not received the Title Report for review.
3. No further comments at this time.
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.
4. Based on the scope of work, this is a"Type I" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution
Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial fie,ld inspection is required
prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way).
5. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public
easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work.
5. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city
standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If
required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service
connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval.
7. The scope of work is substantial. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit is required to (1) replace
all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and
install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be
installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city's
right-of-way.
8. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of
work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets,
perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures.
9. Because the property abuts a natural creek, please add the following verbiage: Property owner
improvements (deck, retaining wall, pool, shed, dwelling foundation, driveway pad, etc.) that are constructed
within 25' of the creeks top of bank shall stabilize the surrounding area to prevent erosion due to stormwater
discharge from the improvements. In addition, vegetation that may impact the creek must be removed and
replaced with stabilized material. Please show all downspouts that are directed to the creek and proposed
stabilization measures on the site plan or landscape plan. With the removal of the existing garage over the
creek, the expectation is that the applicant shall remove any non-native material along the embankment and
take great care not to disturb the hiliside. If erosion is evident after removal of the existing garage, the applicant
shall submit and detail a plan of action to shore the embankment.
Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 1/12/18
650-558-7245
�, ciTv o
��;�� ��
=`�" '�
tic �` ��� � a .
0 9
Nvo
Project Comments — Planning Application
Project Address: 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-050
Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing
two-story house.
From
Bob Disco
Parks Division
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
1. Permit for removal of Port Orford Cedar was denied in December 2016 because the tree was in
good condition and there was no effort to explore a means to preserve the tree and eliminate
the tripping hazards.
Because improvements are being proposed on the property, the Cedar will be adversely
affected by the new construction. The tree will most likely be approved for removal since the
demolition and construction of the new garage and patio will damage the roots and cause the
tree to decline.
A new Protected Tree Removal Permit is required and attach the proposed improvements and
landscape plan for review. The permit will not be approved until the Planning Commission
reviews and approved the proposed project.
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.
Reviewed By: BD Date: 12.27.17
bdisco@burlingame. org
� CITY O
�� � J' �
,
_```, ��
� � � i;�o.i..
% ;
�ti a� � �
�..oAa.
Project Address
Description:
From
Project Comments — Planning Application
1245 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-171-050
Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing
two-story house.
Bob Disco
Parks Division
Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised
plans with your resubmittal:
Permit for removal of Port Orford Cedar was denied in December 2016 because the tree was in
good condition and there was no effort to explore a means to preserve the tree and eliminate
the tripping hazards.
The City Arborist cannot approve removal since the tree is in good condition and has good
structure. Roots are lifting patio but this tree does not meet the criteria for removal.
Planning Commission should discuss options for retaining or removing tree.
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.
Reviewed By: BD Date: 5.2.17
558.7333
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desian
Review Amendment for changes to a previouslv approved first and second story addition to an existinq
sinale familv dwelling and new detached garacte at 1245 Cabrillo Avenue, Zoned R-1, Eric and Jennifer
Lai, propertv owners, APN: 026-171-050;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
December 10, 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 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions
to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result
in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby
approved.
2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment 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
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regula
Planning Commission held on the 10th day of December, 2018 by the
Burlingame, do
r meeting of the
following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categoricai Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
1245 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective December 20, 2018
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped November 30, 2018, sheets A.1 through A.7;
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
which would include adding
permit;
4.
�
or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage,
or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this
that the conditions of the Parks Division's May 2 and December 27, 2017 memos and the
Engineering Division's January 12, 2018 memo shall be met;
that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be
placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development
Director;
6. that demolition 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;
7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project
construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval
adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of
all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all
conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or
changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building
permit is issued;
9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment.
1245 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective December 20, 2018
Page 2
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION
PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION:
11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the
project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design
professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor
area ratio for the property;
12. 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.
. CITY OF BURLINGAME
'� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� �,�,,, BURLINGAME, CA 94010
'''"�'���_'- PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX; (650) 696-3790
www.burlingame.org
Site: 1245 CABRILLO AVENUE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the
following public hearing on MONDAY, DECEMBER 10,
2018 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA:
Application for Amendment to Design Review for changes to
a previously approved first and second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling and new detached garage at
1245 CABRILLO AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 026-111-050
Mailed: November 30, 2018
(Please refer to other sideJ
PUSLIC HEAR�NG
NOTICE
Citv of Burlinqame
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
PilSi1C HEARl�G WOTiCE
(Please refer to other side)
1245 Cabrillo Ave. •
300' Radius
APN # 026.171.050
� w � - � w � � +� �� -a; -.. .:• W
�4a� A4 aD� � �F��� 4 aG^. J �° ,�q p� �C� 9��3V '•is,�.. Q o ca �^i fa
"� <<^, a ta �y Q�v a n � P F7 `�. 0 � p c-� c ^�
,�`�-� ��9 �''� p `�b �Q q ,aq9 r�7. p py� �^v �''(.!ti p.� �"_.� p� V p
I ` � .,; ,
^f4`d y�� , vt7? c:,' C ,n,a� y p4'' Sh� ',� � 4. 4�' pQ p p p q''� `
D Gn
i� q �yn� q t7�j r, .�� , ... 'S�� 4rjR � G p'�D h q� �w,�'. q �4i �� GlGQ � - hca ,�O
J � 4 ry 'J� 0 -" � n . +h� ., n Gi. �'3 �.� Qd � ,a �
� u�� 4v a r U � � A� p 7
A� M1�.y, � q�c'` �Q �OU � - .; 4 DQ � ����'` � �
- �nti b �� 77U :, ' 'i y? ,:. � a� A p a R p�:
� O 4q� 44 � 7`� \ .. - . ' ��C r qGy �� . "�.
a �`� 4Q � �� � � ' ' 'a �G A �sa 5�c� �4+�
� 41� 44� Or� - , Q q�74 q�^ �^�l �"'�d�`°:
Q" ay p �� c: - w a�v o nw �v�
C D a
41 ��� � 4'-.i .iG L;p �. ��, �,.. . Q `p a qW �4r'.
. �� L, Fj � � � A wnV � qq ��
yy`� q4 � `�0� `N " �4 q q5i � ,�Ca ; �
4 n D. r ' - - nt 4l aq �A
� �W Q Up, . � ,� .- 9 � ,jv
�� QQ � ��,� � a '� .. _ q ^v� AQ O
�� �c� �a a�q� Dor, . y'• � t " _ ��' p�4 a� ,�W
q� �y� D� �, . �� �� 4 pp �c
R,'� 4� �C7 D��L ���., c ` � 4� p �� a 4�
� ``y � p A p '�'.
U�� q a�' � � 3' �j�7U � X - - : tJ QpU qqC Q4 Aq�p Da�, �.
p�' �y q0 C`9. �r?:. - _ - . . 4 'V' W �'
`�� Q a Vi7 "G . = A� p �C?
' ��,`� � �v, ` ' .` -- '� p e Qo a
p�*(v � � O� •� _ � - 4�� p� 4 �
c� p � _ , _ � q q �j 'a p
4� �5n'i nCJ � p - - , ' - _ . 44`i q � ��1 �C:
4 �q y,
��' U9 G�'J � Gi p . � .. _ q AA� . '� U
v �
) �� � �G � � ' � � �' - - 4 4�� r � q�'J �C�
p Qp qCj �C" �(, -u,9 A�� yV - �- � ��o� ._ p° <J �w" Q?� b C� p (j� q�17
q� �- �iJ 4 ' h�y'' [�yp Q ^uu c. �O AAQ s4 p�i` 4a pO Q� p"
t7Q� �C Q�a ' q�'j pp q'[V q r�J �� M1 9� �p O 4 Q
qG �&, vp a� Q� �q '�° p„o�v Q� �� AQ� a ��
;� q`'S � �4 wy% �4 p4'i O c� p a a,p�` Qsa 4 4n O Q ObA 41
a� �a� Dv� - a�p� �a A� b�� A A�' _H�b n, ���� �� A 4�4QG .�� Q�w,�AQ� Q � 4a� _ � QU� ..�� .