HomeMy WebLinkAbout1428 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff Report{ ;,: � �` ��
+.» ,.
" r ' � `•�
� ' � `a t ; ,�
�
� � •' g � =
� '�' '.:t -. . ���.�v; ir'
��`� \ �"�wt Y" �,+,:
��,, ;! �: . `t;:
�3., �,
t�:u"'vs `� ;t��'-
;. _ : \,�.
;��r , �
- �.2,t ;,� ,
' ?
�T. -' } :��'�S�S::.
i � 4 y '
�., u. %� ��
�4.,� �.��
34� �"
'", .,, (�...,t.)`^ t'� � �
:� _ _
,'"k�"' .�.�f.�. w.. ,
�^ % ' ..;'>N
v�,� i A '� �.e.
� 1 r'�"'�e;
1A "'�i2 & �'✓
15��- '�7�� 4 � °filt����
A -� 1:
//.
"� "}- �':.
. �:
r4.`+x �
h� '�. /. ."4 .�.'1
X�;♦ .. pie.�y�
r �. > 7,.; k„ �
♦ 4p�
_ � �' �` n.s,
,�� 5
,� ti �.}a '
. .., �,".��a . ��.%,'.,,+n + _ _
Item #5 a,b,c
Action Item
City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit for Re-emergence of Two Parcels Previously Merged by a Use;
Design Review for Two New, Two-Story Single Family Dwellings With Detached Garages, and a
Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope at 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Address: 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Meeting Date: 11/24/03
Request: Conditional use permit for the re-emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use,
design review for two new, two-story dwellings with detached garages and a special permit for
declining height envelope at 1432 Cabrillo Avenue.
Applicant and Designer: James Chu APN: 026-051-160
Property Owner: Robert and Cynthia Gilson Lot Areas: 6360 SF (1428 Cabrillo Ave. - lot 28)
General Plan: Low Density Residential 6000 SF (1432 Cabrillo Ave. - lot 29)
Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a) construction of a
limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a
second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences
maybe constructed or converted under this exemption.
Project Revisions: At the October 14, 2003, design review study meeting, the Planning Commission
suggested several revisions to the project (October 14, 2003 P.C. Minutes). The applicant submitted
revised plans, date stamped October 29, 2003, a letter explaining the changes made to each house,
dated October 30, 2003, and an arborist's report from Mayne Tree Expert Company, dated October 27,
2003, in response to the Commission's concerns with the project. The Commission's concerns and
responses by the applicant are presented on pages 5- 9 of the staff report. The changes to the project
are also reflected on Tables 1 and 2 for each project.
Summary: The site is an interior single parcel with a submerged lot line. Lot 28 is on the right side
and lot 29 is on the left side. There is an existing single-family home on lot 28 and a detached garage
on lot 29 that provides covered parking for the dwelling. Although no structures extend across the
submerged lot line between lots 28 and 29, the lots are merged by the fact that the required parking is
on the second lot.
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to demolish the existing dwelling and detached
garage on the site, causing the two existing standard lots to re-emerge. Lot 28, or 1428 Cabrillo
Avenue, is 6360 SF and lot 29, or 1432 Cabrillo Avenue, is 6000 SF, where the minimum lot size for
the area is 5000 SF.
The applicant is requesting design review for two new, two-story single-family dwellings with
detached garages and a special permit for declining height envelope for the dwelling at 1432 Cabrillo
Avenue.
1428 Cabrillo Avenue (October 29, 2003 plans)
The floor area for the new, detached garage and single family dwelling at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue will be
3,124 SF (0.49 FAR) where 3,535 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The floor area was
reduced by 410 SF or 11.6% as compared to the previous proposal (from 3534 SF to 3124 SF). The
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
proposed dwelling will have four bedrooms (the den meets the definition of a bedroom) and the
proposed detached two-car garage provides the required covered parking on the site (the number of
bedrooms was reduced from five to four from the previous proposal). There is a 14-inch protected-size
coast live oak at the front of 1428 Cabrillo Avenue. An arborist report has been submitted addressing
the protection of this tree (see response to comment #2 on page 6) and noting that it can be retained.
The City Arborist notes in his memo dated September 19, 2003, that any protected-sized trees to be
removed for this project, outside of the building footprint, will require a tree removal permit.
1432 Cabrillo Avenue (October 29, 2003 plans)
The floor area for the new, detached garage and dwelling at 1432 Cabrillo Avenue will be 3,244 SF
(0.54 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The floor area was reduced by 105
SF or 3% as compared to the previous proposal (from 3349 SF to 3244 SF). The applicant is
requesting a special permit because the right side of the dwelling encroaches into the declining height
envelope by 160 SF (4'-6" x 35'-6"). The proposed dwelling will have five bedrooms (the library/den
meets the definition of a bedroom) and the proposed detached two-car garage provides the required
covered parking on the site. There is one, 36-inch protected-size redwood tree and two protected-size
black acacia trees at the front of 1432 Cabrillo Avenue. The proposed porch (on a slab foundation)
will be approximately seven feet from the protected-size redwood tree. An arborist report has been
submitted addressing the protection of this tree (see response to comment #2 on page 8) and noting that
it, along with the four black acacia trees located at the front of the lot, can be retained. The City
Arborist notes in his memo dated September 19, 2003, that any protected-sized trees to be removed for
this project, outside of the building footprint, will require a tree removal permit.
All other zoning code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following:
• Conditional use permit for two (2) re-emerging standard lots (C.S. 25.28.030,5);
• Design review for two new, two-story single family dwellings at 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
(C.S. 25.57); and
• Special permit for declining height envelope at 1432 Cabrillo Avenue (right side encroaches by 160
SF (4'-6" x 35'-6") (C.S. 25.28.035,c).
The development data tables for each proposed dwelling and detached garage at 1428 and 1432
Cabrillo Avenue follow. Information was provided for the existing house to use as a comparison.
Because the existing house and detached garage are located on a double-wide lot and the proposed
houses would be located each on a single standard lot, only the square footages for lot coverage and
floor area were given to provide an equal comparison (lot coverage percentage and floor area ratio not
included). Since the existing house is located entirely on lot 28, existing side setbacks are based on the
side lot lines for lot 28.
2
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
Table 1
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
REVISED PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLW'D/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
11/24/03 10/14/03
SETBACKS
Front (Ist flr): 22'-0" 20'-0" 20'-10" 19-11" (average)
(2nd. flr): 23'-0" 22'-0" 24'-10" 20'-0"
Side (left): 10'-0" 10'-6" 9'-0" 5'-0"
(right): 5'-6" 5'-0" 10'-0" 5'-0"
Rear (Ist,flr): 37'-0" to deck 28'-6" 35'-0" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 48'-6" 45'-0" 58'-0" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,214 SF 2,409 SF 2,089 SF 2,544 SF
34.8% 38°/a 40%
FAR: 3,124 SF 3,534 SF 2,927 SFl 3,535 SFZ
0.49 FAR 0.55 FAR 0.55 FAR
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
�Zo� X Zo�) (Zo� X Zo�) (Zo� X zo�) (Zo� X Zo�)
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') on lot (9' x 20')
29
# of bedrooms: 4 5 4 ---
Height: 25'-8" 29'-3" 27'-11" 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: dormer exception dormer exception complies see code
' The existing house and detached garage has a floor area ratio of 0.46 (2927 SF) when measured only
against lot 28 (0.55 FAR, 3535 SF inaximum allowed on lot 28).
(0.32 x 6360 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3535 SF (0.55 FAR)
3
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
Table 2
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
REVISED PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLW'D/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
11/24/03 10/14/03
SETBACKS
Front (Ist flr): 25'-10" 23'-4" 20'-10" 19-11"
(2nd, ftr): 30'-4" 28'-0" 24'-10" 20'-0"
Side (left): 10'-0" 10'-0" 9'-0" 4'-0"
ri ht 4'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" 4'-0"
( g )�
Rear (lst flr): 45'-0" 45'-0" 35'-0" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 45'-0" 45'-0" 58'-0" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1,943 SF 1,958 SF 2,089 SF 2,400 SF
32.3% 33% 40%
FAR: 3,244 SF 3,349 SF 2,927 SF3 3,420 SF4
0.54 FAR 0.56 FAR 0.57 FAR
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
(20' x 20') (20' x 20') (20' x 20') (20' x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') on lot (9' x 20')
29
# of bedrooms: 5 5 4 ---
Height: 27'-3" 27'-5" 27'-11 " 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: encroachess encroaches complies see code
3 The existing house and detached garage has a floor area ratio of 0.49 (2927 SF) when measured only
against lot 29 (0.57 FAR, 3420 SF inaximum allowed on lot 29).
4(0.32 x 6000 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3420 SF (0.57 FAR)
5 Special permit required for encroachment into the declining height envelope (right side encroaches
by 162 SF (4'-6" x 36'-0")).
4
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New, 2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
Staff Comments: See attached.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on
October 14, 2003, the Commission made several suggestions for the project (October 14, 2003 P.C.
Minutes). The applicant addressed the Commission's concerns in a written response dated October 30,
2003, which is included in the staff report for review, and on revised plans date stamped October 29,
2003. Below you will find a list of significant revisions made to each house. Also listed are
suggestions made by the Commission and a response to each question provided by the applicant.
Revisions to 1428 Cabrillo Avenue (October 29. 2003 plans)
• This house has been completely redesigned since the previous proposal.
• Floor area was reduced by 410 SF or 11.6%, from 3534 SF (0.55 FAR) to 3124 SF (0.49 FAR)
where 3535 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
• Front setbacks were increased to 22'-0" on the first floor and 23'-0" on the second floor (20'
first floor front setback and 22' second floor front setback previously proposed).
• Rear setbacks were increased to 37'-0" on the first floor and 48'6" on the second floor (28'-6"
first floor rear setback and 45' second floor rear setback previously proposed).
• Lot coverage was reduced by 195 SF, from 2409 SF (38%) to 2214 SF (34.8%) where 2544 SF
(40%) is the maximum allowed.
• The number of potential bedrooms was reduced from five to four.
• Overall building height was reduced by 3'-7", from 29'-3" to 25'-8".
• Roof pitch changed from 10:12 to 8:12. The revised roof pitch is not as steep as previously
proposed.
1. Landscape plan has no evergreeH material on right side; in the front of the house, the proposed
vegetation under the existing oak tree is not compatible with the shade and moisture
environment; need large scale plant materials as part of landscape plan.
The revised landscape plan indicates that five, five-gallon camellia evergreen shrubs will be
planted along the right side property line at the front of the house. A new 15-gallon grecian
laurel evergreen shrub/tree is also proposed at the front right corner of the house. Under the
existing oak tree, the applicant is proposing to replace the previously proposed manzanita
shrubs with additional douglas iris and a new cluster of dwarf daylilies. The Sunsent Western
Garden Book notes that dwarf daylilies are appropriate under high-branching deciduous trees.
The landscape plan has been revised to also include larger scale plants (see plant materials list
on Landscape Plan, sheet L1.0).
5
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
2. Arborist report needs more information, need monitoring and protection information, should
also include anything around garage footings; tree report is inadequate and needs revision.
• The applicant submitted a revised arborist report, dated October 27, 2003, completed by Mayne
Tree Expert Company, Inc. The report discusses general tree health and structure, expected
construction impacts, and tree protection and mitigation to reduce impacts through construction
adjustments. The report also addresses the areas around the garage footings.
At 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, only the existing 14-inch oak tree at the front of the lot will remain.
The arborist notes that this tree leans over the sidewalk and street and that it has a root
zone/system that needs protecting. Although there is no expected impact from construction on
this tree, the arborist recommends installing protective fencing eight to ten feet around the tree
to the construction side. He also notes that the proposed detached garage should not impact
neighboring trees, as they are small or weed trees. The arborist report recommends having the
protective fencing inspected for adequacy and that weekly site inspection be made when
demolition and construction begins.
The City Arborist reviewed the revised October 27, 2003, arborist report and notes the report
appears complete and adequately addresses tree protection measures needed for this project.
3. Window over front entry needs more detail, make stronger.
With the redesign of the house, the applicant revised the window above the front entry from a
small round window to a larger rectangular leaded glass window.
4. Put the light at the entry inside of the entry hall, could add a smaller light on outside.
• The applicant indicated that there will be a light installed in the front porch. A light will also be
installed outside on the face of the porch.
S. Large structure on normal size lot, reduce size, mass and footprint of the structure; under design
review Commission looks at intensity of use and increase of size on the block, does not fit in with
neighborhood, too big; project is to the limit on FAR, size of house is amplified; nice design
overall but need to tone down, can be reduced without effecting design; reduce plate heights and
visual mass; need to see substantial change to this project, reduce floor area by about 10% of
what is proposed.
The applicant has completely redesigned this house to address concerns regarding mass and
bulk and size of house. As noted, the overall floor area has been substantially reduced by 410
SF or 11.6% compared to the previous proposal. The number of bedrooms was reduced from
five to four. Lot coverage was also reduced by 195 SF, from 38% to 34.8% lot coverage.
Although the second story plate height (8'-1") was not revised, the applicant did revise the roof
6
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
pitch from 10:12 to 8:12 and carried the rooflines down to the first floor in several locations.
The revised roof pitch helped to reduce the overall building height by 3'-7", from 29'-3" to 25'-
8". Front and rear setbacks were also increased in reducing the overall size of the house.
6. Deck on rear elevation looks like a wall, doesn't flow, needs improvement to look more like a
deck.
� A redwood railing was added to the rear wall of the deck. The revised deck walls are now a
combination of solid stucco and redwood railing.
7. Lot coverage is close to the maximum, very little yard, a lot of hardscape.
• Lot coverage was reduced by 195 SF, from 2409 SF (38%) to 2214 SF (34.8%), where 2544 SF
(40%) is the maximum allowed).
Revisions to 1432 Cabrillo Avenue (October 29, 2003 plans)
� Floor area was reduced by 105 SF or 3%, from 3349 SF (0.56 FAR) to 3244 SF (0.54 FAR)
where 3420 SF (0.57 FAR).
• Front setbacks were increased to 25'-10" on the first floor and 30'-4" on the second floor (23'-4"
first floor front setback and 28' second floor front setback previously proposed).
� Shape of the second floor window above the front porch was revised from an oval shape to a
rectangular window with a round top.
� Detail of the trim piece above the windows has been slightly revised on all elevations.
� Height of the chimneys has been reduced and the shape has been revised.
1. Landscape plan has Ho evergreen for screening, stepping stones go nowhere; pla�ts around
redwoods are not compatible with the shade and moisture environment under the trees; star
jasmine shown as one foot in height, but would be at least two feet tall.
� The landscaping plan has been revised to address the Commissions' concerns. The applicant
provided screening at the front of the lot by adding a new 24-inch box strawberry tree
(evergreen) at the right front corner of the lot. The applicant also notes that evergreen screening
along the right side and rear property lines are provided with 22, 5-gallon pittosporum, three, 5-
gallon hydrangea and three, 15-gallon photinia shrubs. Two, 24-inch box size swampmyrtle
trees will provide additional screening at the rear of the lot. Pink jasmine vines are proposed
along the left side property line adjacent to the driveway.
Under the existing redwood tree, the applicant reduced the amount of azalea and western sword
ferns and added lilytuft and impatiens. These plants are fast growing and reach an average
height of two feet.
7
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
The stepping stones along the right side property have been eliminated and replaced with bark
mulch and sun camellia vines. The plant list has been revised to show the average height of
the star j asmine from one to two feet.
The City Arborist reviewed the revised October 27, 2003, arborist report and notes the report
appeaxs complete and adequately addresses tree protection measures needed for this project.
However, although he feels that the tree protection measures and mitigation are adequate for a
slab foundation on the porch, he does recommend that the applicant consider a different type
foundation for the porch, such as a pier and beam foundation. This would help to further
protect the existing redwood tree.
2. Tree survey says slab within 10' of tree, but plans show building within 4' of the tree, explain.
Tree report is inadequate and needs revision.
The 10' measurement in the tree survey indicated the distance from the existing tree to the
house foundation, not to the porch foundation.
At 1432 Cabrillo Avenue, five existing trees at the front of the lot will remain. The revised
plans pushed the house back an additional2'-6" from the previous proposal. The porch will be
built with a slab foundation and the house with a pier and grade beam foundation. The arborist
notes that only the existing 36-inch redwood tree, located approximately 7'-0" from the porch
and 11'-9" from the house, will potentially be impacted by construction. The arborist
recommends installing protective fencing eight feet around the tree. He also recommends that
the grade beams be kept above the roots and to hand dig the piers to avoid roots. The redwood
tree should be fertilized now and in June, 2004. The arborist report recommends having the
protective fencing inspected for adequacy and that weekly site inspection be made when
demolition and construction begins.
The proposed detached gaxage is replacing an existing garage in the same location. The arborist
report notes that if the proposed garage excavation remains within the same footprint and depth
as the existing garage, tree impacts will be minimal. To minimize any potential impact to the
neighbor's tree, the arborist report recommends removing and installing the new driveway after
the existing garage has been removed and the new garage built.
3. Study window trim, need to enhance.
The detail of the trim piece above the windows has been slightly revised on all elevations. The
trim is now heavier than previously proposed.
4. Look at window over front door.
• The shape of the second floor window above the front porch was revised from an oval shape to
a rectangular window with a round top.
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
5. Reduce FAR by about 10% from what is proposed.
� The applicant reduce the floor area by 105 SF or 3%, from 3349 SF (0.56 FAR) to 3244 SF
(0.54 FAR) where 3420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed floor area is
now 176 SF below the maximum allowable FAR.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a conditional use permit for two (2) re-
emerging standard lots, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the
property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c):
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience;
(b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame
general plan and the purposes of this title;
(c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems
necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner
compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on
adjoining properties in the general vicinity.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted
by the Council on Apri120, 1998 axe outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for declining height envelope at 1432
Cabrillo Avenue, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the
property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or
addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and
neighborhood;
9
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
(b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new
structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary
and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal
that is proposed is appropriate.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be by resolution and include findings made for the conditional use permit, design review
and special permit for declining height envelope, and the reasons for any action should be clearly
stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered for the properties at 1428
and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue:
Conditions for 1428 Cabrillo Avenue:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped October 29, 2003, sheets A.1 — A.3, A3.A, A.4 — A.6 and L1.0, and that any changes
to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or detached garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
3. that the tree protection measures for the protected-sized trees described in the arborist report,
dated October 27, 2003, shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of
a building permit and shall be complied with during construction, and that the property owner
shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the arborist report;
4. that protective fencing shall be installed eight to ten feet around the oak tree in the front yard
prior to any demolition, construction, or materiaUequipment staging on site and shall be
maintained until the final inspection has been completed;
5. that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified
Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City
Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and
requirements are being met;
10
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New, 2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
6. that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist's report
detailing a three year protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning trimming
and fertilizing the protected-sized trees prior to building permit issuance; the applicant shall be
responsible for the maintenance of the trees for three years after construction is finaled by the
City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the three-year period; the trees
shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the three-year period;
7. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 12, 2003 memo, the Fire Marshal's
September 15, 2003 memo, the Recycling Specialist's September 10, 2003 memo, and the City
Arborist's November 18 and September 19, 2003, memos shall be met;
8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the proj ect architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as
window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed
professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the
certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building
Department;
9. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
10. 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;
11. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners and set the building envelope;
13. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the
new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm
water runoff;
11
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New, 2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
15. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs
(Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm
drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and
proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil
storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed
drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately
downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout
areas;
16. that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or
attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment
control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading,
excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for
planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent imgation;
17. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be
diverted around exposed construction areas;
18. that fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are installed around the construction site
as a barrier to prevent erosion and construction runoff into the storm drain;
19. that oils, fuels, solvents, coolants and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be protected from
drainage by structures such as berms and roof covers; bulk materials stored outdoors shall be
protected from drainage with berms and covers; equipment stored outdoors shall be stored on
impermeable surfaces, shall be covered and shall be inspected for property functioning and
leaks; all storage areas shall be regularly cleaned, including sweeping, litter control and a spill
cleanup plan;
20. that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface
filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides;
21. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
22. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
23. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
12
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
Conditions for 1432 Cabrillo Avenue:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped October 29, 2003, sheets A.1 — A.6 and L1.0, and that any changes to the footprint or
floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or detached garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
3. that the tree protection measures for the protected-sized trees described in the arborist report,
dated October 27, 2003, shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of
a building permit and shall be complied with during construction, and that the property owner
shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the arborist report;
4. that protective fencing shall be installed eight to ten feet around the redwood tree in the front
yard prior to any demolition, construction, or materiaUequipment staging on site and shall be
maintained until the final inspection has been completed;
that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified
Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City
Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and
requirements are being met;
6. that the front porch and single family dwelling shall be constructed using a pier and grade beam
foundation;
7. that the existing driveway shall be removed and new driveway installed only after the existing
garage has been removed and the new garage has been built;
8. that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist's report
detailing a three year protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning trimming
and fertilizing the protected-sized trees prior to building permit issuance; the applicant shall be
responsible for the maintenance of the trees for three years after construction is finaled by the
City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the three-year period; the trees
shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the three-year period;
9. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 12, 2003 memo, the Chief Building
Official's and Fire Marshal's September 15, 2003 memos, the Recycling Specialist's September
10, 2003 memo, and the City Arborist's November 18 and September 19, 2003, memos shall be
met;
13
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as
window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed
professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the
certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building
Department;
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Deparhnent 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;
12. 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;
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 Deparhnent;
14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners and set the building envelope;
15. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the
new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
16. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm
water runoff;
17. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs
(Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm
drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and
proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil
storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed
drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately
downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout
areas;
14
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
18. that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or
attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment
control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading,
excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for
planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation;
19. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be
diverted around exposed construction areas;
20. that fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are installed around the construction site
as a barrier to prevent erosion and construction runoff into the storm drain;
21. that oils, fuels, solvents, coolants and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be protected from
drainage by structures such as berms and roof covers; bulk materials stored outdoors shall be
protected from drainage with berms and covers; equipment stored outdoors shall be stored on
impermeable surfaces, shall be covered and shall be inspected for property functioning and
leaks; all storage areas shall be regularly cleaned, including sweeping, litter control and a spill
cleanup plan;
22. that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface
filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides;
23. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
24. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
25. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Erika Lewit/Ruben Hurin
Planner
c: James Chu, designer
15
City of�;B:�rlirigame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003
Chair Bojues made otion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested
revisions have en made. This motion was seconded bv �. Visitica.
Co�fient on motion: this is a great project• igned with thought about the living n ; design is sensitive
�the existing style; the architecture s great.
Chair Bojues called for a e on the motion to place this item o e consent calendar when s had been
revised as directed. e motion passed on a voice vote 5- -(C. Brownrigg absent . Auran abstained).
The Planning mmission's action is advisory and appealable. This item cluded at 9:17 p.m.
C. Auran rned to the dias.
8. 1428 & 1432 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —
a. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGING LOT LINE;
b. 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE — DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
c. 1432 CABRILLO AVENUE — DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
(JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND
CYNTHIA GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERSZ(75 NOTICED� PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the Black Acacia are protected,
thought they weren't. SP Brooks clarified that the size is protected but not the species, so the City Arborist
does not list them as protected. Commission asked for the number of existing bedrooms and the height of the
existing house so that the Commission can compare the difference and intensification of the use. Tree no. 1,
a Redwood, need to see an arborist's report on the health and protection proposed for this tree. Commission
noted that the floor area listed in staff report and plans do not match. SP Brooks explained that staff always
calculates floor area and does not rely on the numbers shown on the plans and double checks when the FAR
is close to the max.
Chair Bojues opened the public comment. James Chu, project designer, and Bob and Cindy Gilson, property
owners, were available to answer questions. Project designer noted that current house has four bedrooms,
height of the existing house is over the maximum allowable and taller than the proposed houses; noted that
the redwood tree is 4 feet from the proposed porch but the porch foundation will be a concrete slab without
piers, piers and grade beam foundation is for the house which would be 10' away from the tree; talked with
neighbors and moved the driveway to the other side at their request. Neighbors are happy with the proposal
because existing house has seven cars on the property. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the proposal:
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
• Landscape plan has no evergreen material on right side;
• In the front of the house, the proposed vegetation under the existing oak tree is not compatible with
the shade and moisture environment;
• Need large scale plant materials as part of landscape plan;
• Arborist report needs more information, need monitoring and protection information, should also
include anything around garage footings;
10
City ofl�urlingame Planning Commission Minutes
October 14, 2003
• Window over front entry needs more detail, make stronger;
• Put the light at the entry inside of the entry hall, could add a smaller light on outside;
• Second story plate is all at one height, need to break it up, bring plate height down in some places;
• Large structure on normal size lot, reduce size, mass and footprint of the structure;
• Under design review Commission looks at intensity of use and increase of size on the block, does not
fit in with neighborhood, too big;
• Deck on rear elevation looks like a wall, doesn't flow, needs improvement to look more like a deck;
• Project is to the limit on FAR, size of house is amplified; ,
• Lot coverage is close to the maximum, very little yard, a lot of hardscape;
• Need to look at whole package, two houses are replacing one;
• Nice design overall but need to tone down, can be reduced without effecting design;
• Needs better articulation;
• Reduce plate heights and visual mass;
• Tree report is inadequate and needs revision; and
• Need to see substantial change to this project, reduce floor area by about 10% of what is proposed.
1432 Cabrillo Avenue:
• Landscape plan has no evergreen for screening, stepping stones go nowhere;
• Plants around redwoods are not compatible with the shade and moisture environment under the trees;
� Star jasmine shown as 1 foot in height, but would be at least 2 feet tall;
• Tree survey says slab within 10' of tree, but plans show building within 4' of the tree, explain;
• Study window trim, need to enhance;
• Look at window over front door;
• Mass and bulk not an issue with this house by itself, but need to look at intensification of site and
concern when putting two houses close to max together, can not support as a package;
• Tree report is inadequate and needs revision; and
• Reduce FAR by about 10% from what is proposed.
Commission discussion: need to look at intensity of use and increase in size on the block under conditional
use permit and design review process; need to look at the whole package; concerned with size of these
homes and impact on the block; need to reduce each house by approximately 10%; need to design relative to
the neighborhood; could be a candidate for design review; think this designer is talented and design review
would be a waste of time, has experience to make changes, but need to make substantial changes to size of
buildings when this project comes back.
Chair Bojues made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested
revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-1-1 (C. Keighran dissenting and C.
Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded
at 10:05 p.m.
11
CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC.
39 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403
Tel: (650) 345-9286; Fax (650) 345-9287
October 30, 2003
City of Burlingame
Planning Commission
501 Primrose Ave.,
Burlingame, CA 94010
�(���� V �V
i.�C7 3 0 2003
Re: 1428 & 1432 Cabrillo Ave.
Dear Planning Commissioners:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLAiVvING DEPT
Per your design review comments on October 14, 2003, we have made the following
changes to the above reference project site.
1428 Cabrillo Ave
Complete re-design the proposed residence, with total floor area reduced by 397.53 SF or
11.24% from the maximum allowable floor area. The new 8:12 roof pitch (reduced from
10:12) also help to bring the overall mass & bulk down, in comparing with the existing
two story residence and original proposal. (Please see front elevation on sheet A.4 where
existing outline of the home is shown) The new overall height is now @ 25'-8" or 4'-4"
under the maximum allowable.
Landscape plan has been revised, with new arborist report provided per comment.
1432 Cabrillo Ave
Total floor area reduction: 175.64 SF or 5.14% from maximum allowable floor area
(Taken from front & rear of home). New window/door trims are shown, new window
above entry added, and new fireplace design proposed.
Landscape plan has been revised, with new arborist report provided per comment.
Conclusion
The combined total floor area reduction: 573.17 SF or 16.38% are now proposed, which
reduced the overall Mass & Bulk of the proposed project.
We will be available to answer any question you may have at the Planning Commission's
meeting, and thank you for your time.
James Chu
Project Desig r
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
November 12, 2003
❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Rec ling Specialist
[9"City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for design review for two new single family dwellings at 1428
& 1432 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-051-160
c<.
%�i F� i�ov� cv-c.�,., IyLG � tv�¢.eE S 0�� �� 6� �2 7�lt S G�¢G�`
_.= k�Ovc.� ,2ECay,s��.c�'� . .�Los�Ev� 2 . 7'i�i't�" �o f-rJ�K62
t�
��
--�i'?P�c� � -7st��"' 71�� I�2an�' �?� /-�_c��� ,� � �i-`�� 6-2
��c�a ���� oz orsr�<-z T'����. oF '�Es�6w .
Reviewed by:
�`�� Date: �� //�-�0 3
�
Date:
To:
From:
_ Project Comments
9/9/03
❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
�City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height
envelope for a new two story single family dwelling at 1432 Cabrillo
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-051-160
Staff Review: 9/15/03
tc �,
c�FL�4��-�-�C-.� �p 5 r'2 E T�z
i2 �.�sm .� �C� �' � �t T� � s t�2�.��6- c-Q� mc�7' �'. � ,� ox
- %?l � �levs � /�'v-o �--,?�L �,�-v- !� �' ll ,Z,�v � 2�. /�l
�?-� �E. �Z � �v-v/� Z. �,5�lir•c,,J��'
2c.s.� G�i'`l� �6 ,.(,�.`7�fs,�-c ��
��L�� L�-��t 2a�'+ � m-� `7'�E. ij-fi'�a-8 � '�a�-6�
!% M� a�.��w�`Z•� 2�cr- �.o-�.c a-�-,E.- /� `�o �E 2 t—�E�•c-r
�?+E �v.�.��s� r�., u,: G( r3�. �3��T. /d F��r�;`��
n�o�s �-- ;����-- w� �� �� ,z��i2.�� G`��,�
—�G� i rt� .
Date:
��/ �'��
�� �
Reviewed by:
.
Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR"S LICENSE N0. 276793
GRADUATE FORESTER • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPERATORS
535 BRAGATO ROAq STE. A
SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6228
TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400
FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443
EMAIL: info@maynetree.com
RECEIVED
OCT 3 0 2003
RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON
PRESIDENT
KEVIN R. KIELTY
OPERATIONS MANAGER
Robert Gilson
Gilson Mechanical
P.o. BoX sss
Burlingame, CA 94011-0585
Re: 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame
Dear Mr. Gilson:
October 27, 2003
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANfJING DEPT.
On September 25, 2003, I visited the above sites for the purpose of providing an arborist
report. The purpose of this report is to determine general tree health and structure and
outline expected construction impacts. I will also address mitigating/reducing these
impacts through construction adjustments, i.e. pier and grade beam foundations.
Each tree was given a small plastic tag with a corresponding number to the site plan. The
trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above grade (DBH or diameter breast
height). Trees with multiple trunks were so measured or just noted.
The condition of each tree was deternuned by a visual ground inspection. The percentage
rating is a combination of general tree health and structure as it compares to a perfect
tree. The following table gives relative ratings.
0-29 ...Very poor
30-49 ... Poor
50-69 ... Fair
70-89 ...Good
90-100 .. Excellent
Finally, the "Comments" section is to explain the conditions, construction impacts and
mitigations. This same section addresses recommendations for the "fate" of each tree.
For example, if the condition of a tree is low, a removal recommendation may be made,
regardless of construction activity.
Tree Protection
Protecting trees during construction activity can be a challenge as access and room can be
limited. The first step is to install protective fencing to encompass as much of a tree's
drip line/root zone as possible but still allow for the approved project to proceed. The
fencing remains through the entire project.
Fencing should be as secure and unmovable as possible; chain link fencing with the posts
pounded one foot into the ground. Some level of care needs to be taken with post
positions to reduce potential root damage. The project arborist can help with this. Hand-
dig outside of the proposed tree protection zone post to find roots. If roots are not found
at 12 inches, pound the post in at the desired position. If a root 3-inches or larger is
found when hand digging, move the post right or left and pound it in. (See site plan.)
Where the protective fencing does not encompass the drip line or root zone, potential soil
compaction could occur and can be reduced by placing a four- to six-inch layer of wood
chips over the root zone. Sometimes plywood is placed on these wood chips if
equipment access is needed. If equipment can be kept on existing paved areas and away
from the trees, especially around the redwood on lot 1432, the plywood should not be
necessary.
Tree number 14 is not a highly desirable tree due to its lean over the sidewalk and street.
Its eventual fate will be removal. This will, however, take many years until its trunk
encroaches into the sidewalk space. If the tree is not maintained by thinning and end-
weight reduction, the risk of tree failures will be higher, as well as risk to the public.
With routine maintenance, the tree should continue to be an asset to this property for
many years.
This tree, number 14, also has a root zone/system that needs protecting. On this tree the
drip line and root zone are different since the tree leans; the drip line does not overhang
the root zone on the east side. Since this tree leans away from the proposed
construction/excavation, root support is more critical. With chain link fencing installed,
as previously described, tree health and support should not be compromised. Keeping
protective fencing eight to ten feet to the east, construction side, will be adequate to keep
impacts minimal.
Proposed garages should not impact neighboring trees. The proposed garage for 1428
Cabrillo should not cause any tree impacts as neighboring trees are small, or are weed
trees, and the gazage abuts to the back alley/right-of-way.
The proposed garage for 1432 Cabrillo is replacing an existing one. Tree number eight, a
neighbor's deodar cedar, is approxirnately eight feet away from proposed demolition and
construction. If the proposed garage excavation stays in the same footprint and depth as
the existing one, tree impacts will be minimal. This also applies to the proposed
driveway.
To keep potential impact minimi�ed to the neighbor's tree, pull up and replace the
driveway after the existing garage has been removed and the new one built, to reduce
impact to the roots below the e�sting driveway. Remove the driveway carefully so as
not to damage underlying roots. Have the project arborist inspect for roots within the
trees' drip line to help determine if proposed driveway design will work and not
significantly impact these trees.
Different driveway designs and/or profiles may need to be discussed. These may include,
but not be limited to, surface changes (i.e. using pavers, reducing baserock depth, or
placing a protective covering, like Styrofoam, around the roots).
Monitoring
As the project arborist, I recommend having the protective fencing inspected for
adequacy. Adjustments can then be recommended and undertaken.
When the demolition/construction phase begins, weekly site inspections should be made.
These can and should be coordinated with the city arborist so an open and ongoing line of
communication is inaintained.
In conclusion, there are only 6 trees worth retaining. These are tree numbers 1-5 and
number 14. Of these, only number 1 will potentially be impacted by the construction.
I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and
practices.
Sincerely,
_ r P�
Richard L. Huntington
Certified Arborist WC #0119
a
c�I�',1ETY 4F�
�'o�,.riurr� �Y '�
�'� c�
� � �� �,
z �. WG0119
�
�t
RLH:dcr/pmd cFR �p
Tree No. Snecies
1 Redwood
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Black acacia
Black acacia
Black acacia
Black acacia
Plum
Fig
Deodar cedar
Plum
Box elder
Redwood
Crabapple
Crabapple
Coast live oak
TREESURVEY
DBH Condition Distance from Comments
(Inches) (Percent) Construction
53.3 @ 1' 65 10 feet Dieback on north side. Small roots in upper
8 inches. Keep grade beams above roots.
Hand dig piers to avoid roots. Fence off
from site at 8 feet. The proposed porch
will be on a slab and the rest of the house
will be pier and grade beam. Fertilize tree
now and repeat in June, 2004.
10.1 55 15 feet Weak structure. Topped, with all growth
on one side.
8.25 55 20 feet Weak structure. Topped, with all growth
on one side.
5.6 55 20 feet Weak structure. Topped, with all growth
on one side.
16.65 50 12 feet Forks at 8 feet, topped.
Multi 50 0 feet. Mature, with weak structure. In footprint
of proposed construction.
7.5, 5.9 45 6 feet Topped at 8 feet. Forks at ground level.
prudent to remove, but fence off at 5 feet
if retained.
NA 70 8 feet. North neighbor's tree. Potential root damage
during garage demolition and reconstruction.
Multi 50 0 feet. In proposed construction footprint.
NA 60 12 feet South neighbor's tree. Minimal expected
impacts.
7.4 80 0 feet In proposed construction footprint. Trans-
plantable.
5.6, 4.4 30 8 feet Very mature, significant decline. Prudent to
remove.
6,9 20 8 feet Very mature, significant decline. Basal
wound. Prudent to remove.
14.2 65 12 feet Leans over sidewalk and street. Very thick
and heavy. No expected construction
impact, but fence off at 8 to 10 feet. Lighten
and thin this tree.
ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborist: Richard L. Huntington
Date: October 27, 2003
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training
and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty
and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients
may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek
additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the
structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not
fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground.
Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all
circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations
beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries,
property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord-tenant
matters, etc. Arborists cannot take such issues into account unless complete
and accurate information is given to the arborist. The person hiring the arborist
accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment or remedial
measures.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlted. To live near a tree
is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to
eliminate all trees.
10/02/Oa THLi 08
FAX 65059ad44a
MAYNE TREE EXPERTS CO
1Vlayne Tree Exper
ESTABLIStiEU 1931
CiRADUA7E T'OI�ESTER
RICI�IARp L, HUNI'�NGTnN
PRESmENT
KCVIN R, KII:t.TY
OPEItAI'IONS f�NACF.R
• CERTIF'1L•nARAO1t1STS •
Robert Gilson
Gilson Mechanical
P.O. Box 585
Dur,lu�game, CA 94011-0585
t Company, I��,
S7ATF CON7�RAC1'OR"S LICENS� NQ. z76793
PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OP];IUITORS
Septemher 26, 2003
Re: 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame
Dear Mr. GiLson:
r�oo2
535 pjt,qGA"rc> ROAp, S'1 F n
SAN CqRI OS, cn ��av�o-bzzs
T�i,.EP110NE (650) 593•aan0
i=.aCSIMrLG (6S0)593-4a��
FMA1L �nf'oumaynclraacom
On September 25, 2003, I visited the above sites for the purpose of pr�viding an arborist
reporc. 'I'he purpose ofthis report is to dctermine �eneral tree hcalth and structure and
outline expected construciion impacts. I will also address mitigating/reducing these
impacts through construction adjustment�, i.e. pier and �rade beam foundations.
�ach tree was given a small plastic tag with a corresponding number to the site plan. The
trees were thcn measured for diameter at 54 inches above gcade (D13H or diamcter breast
heighi). '1'rees with �nultiple trunks were so measured or just noted.
The cOndition of each tree was deternaincd by a visual ground inspection. l�he percentage
ratin� is a combination ofgeneral tree liealth nnd structure as it compazes to a perfect
tree. The i'�llowing table gives relative ratings.
0-29 ... Very poor
30-49 ... Poor
SO-69 ... Fair
70-89 . . . Good
90-100 .. Excellent
Finally, the "Comments" sectiun is tu explain the conditions, constn�ction impacts and
mitigations. This same section addresses reconunendations for the "fate" o;Feach tree.
For example, if the condition of a tree is low, a removal reconnmendation may be mAde,
regazdless �f construction activity.
10/02/Oa THL� 08:41 FAX 85059�444a MA�NE TREE EYPERTS CO f�00a
Giison 9-26-03, Pg, 2
Tree No. S ccies
1 Redwood
? Black acacia
3 $lack acacia
4 Blnck acacia
5 Black acacia
6 Plum
� �'��g
8 Deodar ccdar
9 Plum
10 Box elder
11 Rcdwood
12
13
14
Crabapple
Crabapple
Coast live oak
TFtEE 5URVF.y
DBH Condition bista� (;��ents
(inches) (Percent) Gonstruction
53.3 @ I' 65 ]0 Feet Dicback on nurth side. Sma11 roots in upper
8 inches. Keep grade beams above roots.
Hand dig piers to avoid roots. }�enec off
from site at 8 feet. The proposed porch
will be on a siab and the rest ofthe house
will be pier and srade beam. Fertilize tree
now and rtpeat in Junc, 2004.
10. I 55 15 feet Weak struc:turc. Topped, with all �ow1h
on one side.
8.25 55 20 feet Weak structure. Topped with all growth
on one side.
5.6 55 20 Feet Weak structu�e. Topped, with alI growth
on one side.
16.65 SU 12 feet Forks at 8 feet, topped.
Mu1ti 50 0 feeC. Mature, with weak slructure. in footprint
of proposed construction.
7.5, 5,9 45 6 fcet Topped at 8 feet. Forks at ground level.
pradent to remove, but fencc off at 5 feet
if retained.
NA 70 8 feet. North neighbor's tree. Potenlial root damage
durin� garage demolition and reconstruction.
Multi 50 0 feet. ln proposed construction tootprint.
NA 60 1Z feet South neighbor's tree. Minimal expected
impacts.
7�4 84 0 fz�� In proposed conscruction footprint. 'frans-
plantable.
5.6, 4.4 30 8 f'eet Very mature, sigr►ificant dcc(ine_ k'rudent to
remove.
6,9 20 8 fect Very maturc, significant decline. Basal
wound. Prudent to remove.
14.2 65 12 feet [,cans over sidewalk and street. Very thick
and heavy. No expected construction
impact, but fence off at 8 to 10 feet. Lighten
and thin this trec.
10/02/09 THL1 08:41 FAX 65059a444� M�YNE TREE EYPERTS CO f�004
Gilson 9-26-03, Pg. 2
�n conclusion, there are only 6 trees wvrt)i retaining. These are tree numbers 1-5 and
number 14. Of these, only number 1 will potentially be ;mpacted by the construction.
I believe this report is accurate and based on soru�d arboricultural principles and
practices.
Sincerely,
� ������
Richazd L. Huntington
Certified Arborist WC #O11)
RLH:dcr
s�'� �\
�4��, HUlyT�,�, \
�� �a
� — Mo. MK�i01 i9 �
i�
*
10/O1/OJ wED 15:20 FAX 650593444J NAY�E TREE EXPERTS CO
�S' i1LLEY
,,.--� b5
�, �� N55'0�'00'lll Im3ID0'
1. _ _ _ i ��
� . '`'.',7:.':.'..' ': � � ... �
1
. I
� . . .. • '
� �.. . ;..: '
( ..�. ... '�' D.t�CAR..
i � �
,... , ` �
� - , �...,� ro �
�: �
r ' �
�1 _ � ar,
I.8 � .. J —`� a �
r � � 3
. • �'�
� �
� " . . � �ae�
� . .'. . ,. . . ... . �
b 29
� -
r- --�.-,.+q
- . •1
�-' -�:► ..I
i ��
� ►
� `_ �.� --... i
_ • • .:....
r�. � {
. � i
i•
_ f :_�
�� �
� ,,
1 • ' � •�j
f :. .:.�
�. .. • 1..'.', �'' I
� ., . :!, ..,
3 , 'eA .'ROlti6ER i. 6iGRY. ... 1
l . 1K}L rAMI�)�'i4701�bIGL �.
� � d�sw
N �
; , � ' :,. . . . .' ' ...'.' ' ' ' .' '.'.
, � �.�
, .
t , ��
� __ ��
� —
m v �
. ���,� . :
<:' ... � e
• ' a
rt+ v � � �
2�
SmZm' ,
5'mt' '�
113i G4BRILlO 4 .
enQ w a�o
.v
;'�
i
�
��� i,•
� ���
� � .d�'
��
. �
r
� ��`E �:.
�-���.-•.
+ irlY��1 .
� ..�� ��..�.
. �f
.:.i
u�i • - � t
'�
� . '
. � .•:�..i'2d4.
�� �
I�
O .s' �
�- � ��
"�',.� �.
/ !
�I
e . ,���'.
- - �
�
i
�
', � mec
$ ".'°'m
_
� 2%
�
� '
;� .
�. � NOUSE
I �
l�
� !
_ _=__,- _____ �_�
.� ,���..,���� .�
a �we� io ee �w� I
I
� 1
�� � '
IE ��� I
Ii/ MPK
� 4� .,,.
5j�0' _ _ I 3
imD�'
W28 GABR�LLO AvE
$ �—
GABRILLO AvENIJE
5�' RIGH7-OF-W4T
�� STTE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
�" c.�.n ur-r�•
�002
1Vlayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
!:S"I�Af3L[SEIF.11 1931 STATE CONTRACI'OR"$ LfCGNSI� NO. 27679i
GRAD[�ATF. �OI2ES"!TR � CF.RTIPII;D ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPI?Rn�'ORS
R[Cf 1 �I:I� 1__ I fl �N"I�INCi7�ON 535 I3RAGAT�O ROAD, STE..4
PIil:sinl;v'r JLUle 3�, 2��3 SANCARI,OS. CA 94070-6228
I�LVfN R. KIEL'I�Y
r�i>i�_itnrt�>n�s nnnN:�<�r�r
Robert Gilson
Gilson Mechanical
P.O. Box 585
Burlingame, CA 94011-0585
Re: Lot at ] 432 Cabrillo, Burlingame
Dear Mr. Gilson:
Tf'LLPFIONE: (6?0) �93=1400
PACSIM(I.I:: ((ii01 j93-d443
EMAIL: inlixii�m�}�netree.aom
On June 23, 2003, we met at the above referenced site for the purpose of inspecting the
two-trunked coast redwood in front. This tree has estimated diameters at 48 n�ches above
grade of 30 and 16 inches. The measured diameter at one foot above grade is 53.3 inches.
This tree is mostly hidden from the street by several black acacias and one cannot see it
from the sidewalk at 1426 Cabrillo. When one does view the redwood, one can see many
dead branch ends, mostly on the smaller north secondary trunk and the top. This indicates
to me that there was a shock or stress related incident in the past. There are, however,
sprouts visible on most limbs that have dieback.
The tree appears to be stunted, as it is not very tall for the trunk size. This may be the
result of existing or past soil conditions, lack of adequate irrigation, etc. You indicated
that a past fire may also be partially to blame for any tree abnormalities.
This lot is to be developed, so roots east of the tree growing into the lawn become important.
For this reason I probed down along a tangential line at 15 feet east of the tree. I encountered
many small roots in the upper 6 inches. The proposed driveway will be in approximately the
same footprint as the existing driveway on the north side of the lot.
In conclusion, the tree appears to be responding positively to the past impacts. Apparently
this is not a dominant tree on this lot and it may have problems which are not known at this
time, i.e. fire, soil contamination, etc. There is about 18 feet of root zone between the tree
and the existing sidewalk. This gives us plenty of root for mitigating construction impacts.
Therefore, I believe, if the tree remains, construction may come within t ��.
within 10 feet of the tree and cause minimal impact to the tree. ��� ��', >-`�- �--=
SEP - � 20G3
cii-Y or �����,���.�r�Ur,�v��
P�nivr�i�v�� �Ef�T.
Project Comments
Date:
To:
9/9/03
�City Engineer
O Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From:
Subject:
Planning Staff
Request for design review for a new two story single family dwelling
at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-051-160
Staff Review: 9/15/03
� �`1� �T�%�0
� , ; ; r r � � _,.•._.,%./ �
c1�an,�ra� �, i7 r�.
Reviewed by:
V _.� -
Date:
�����3
:.�. _ �
w
� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS
The following requirements apply to the project
Project Name:G;���,� ,_,�2��i
- Project Address: .'-lu ��_._� �'
1 � A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey shall show a11 property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical feaiures and utilities. (Required prior to the
building pernut issuance.)
2 � The site and roof drainage sha11 be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit
issuance.)
3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 'The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
5 �_ A sanitary sewer lateral t�is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standazds. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.)
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public accass improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. 'The sewer analysis
shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. �
8 Submit tr�c trip generation analysis for the project.
9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the prnject generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements,
monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map.
Page 1 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
. ,.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. A latest preluninary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews.
12, Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel
map.
13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
14 � The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
; appurtenant work.
15 T'he project sha11, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to velucular traffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street pazking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 The project sha11 submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
18 Any work within the drainage azea, creek, or creek banks requires a State
, Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 No construction debris sha11 be allowed into the creek.
20 Y The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
21 __� The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
22 Y The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
U:�private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMEI�ITS.doc
t.
� IT r
' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 —�— The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the street into private property.
24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The
� sidewalk fronting the store sha11 be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
sha11 be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMIVVIENTS.doc
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
9/9/03
❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
�Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
O City Attorney
Planning Staff
Request for design review for a new two story single family dwelling
at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-051-160
9/15/03
� � ' �.► . .
Reviewed by: Date:! ����
��
.��Ex'I � .'YS�'^ . T..W, _ � R Real.M:r_ '�
Project Comments
Date: 9/9/03
To: O City Engineer
O Chief Building O�cial
❑ Fire Marshal
[9" Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review for a new two story single family dwelling
at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-051-160
Staff Review: 9/15/03
�
Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan and
Recycling Deposit for this and all covered projects and
sections of projects prior to any demolition, construction
or permitting.
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
9/9/03
L� City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
0 Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height
envelope for a new two story single family dwelling at 1432 Cabrillo
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-051-160
Staff Review: 9/15/03
-�_� �fi�o .
s
Gh2.�r.n/,�c.�s �o , t % � � -
Reviewed by:
vu
Date: �����
�
� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS
The following requirements apply to the project
Project Name: ��� � �3a�„�
- Project Address:_ �3�-_I,�o, �
1 ,�_ A property boundary survey sha11 be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property comers,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building permit issuance.)
2 �_ The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit
issuance.)
3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project sha11 comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
5 '� A sanitary sewer lateral �t is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.)
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public acc�ss improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and I3evelopment Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis
sha11 identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. -.
8 Submit tr�c trip generation analysis for the project.
9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should
identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engi.neer.
10. The project shall file a pazcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map shall show a11 existing property lines, easements,
monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map.
Page 1 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
', ., , �
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map
for reviews.
12, Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel
map.
13 The project sha11 submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
14 _ �� The project sha11, at its own cost, design and conshuct frontage pubiic
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
; appurtenant work.
15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traf�c
and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 T'he project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic
calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year
flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a Sta.te
_. Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 No construction debris sha11 be allowed into the creek.
20 l� The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
21 �! The project does not show the dimensions of existi.ng driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
22 `� The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
r
� •. .
' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
23 � The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach sha11 be at least 12" above
the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm
water from the street into private property.
24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle sha11 be placed in front. The
sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
property.
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
sha11 be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
�..� � �,�
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
9/9/03
❑ City Engineer
Q Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
O City Attorney
Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height
envelope for a new two story single family dwelling at 1432 Cabrillo
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-051-160
StafF Review: 9/15/03
�+� � �I��� ,.l�N�^ �"QSfS�I�e G��,���OK r�:U��� ��rS
. .� f /� � / /' .
G�D�O�.�
Reviewed by:
Date:
���'�( U3
$ _ __
Project Comments
Date:
9/9/03
To: O City Engineer
❑ C,hief Building Official
�� ire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height
envelope for a new two story single family dwelling at 1432 Cabrillo
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-051-160
Staff Review: 9/15/03
�'�''� �/' �'�_ 0. �'e s ' `�'v��`► �Q -� � ✓� S,� � i ,1.�t... �.r[�/
s�,s
��
Reviewed by: �._
��
Date:
ig—'�Q` o�
�_�
., I�.RY.�n.y. .yi-+qn'. �:" 'iY^, H.
- Project Comments
Date: 9/9/03
To: 0 City Engineer
O Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
Ca" Recycling Specialist
O City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
�
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for design review and special permit for declining height
envelope for a new two story single family dwelling at 1432 Cabrillo
Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-051-160
Staff Review: 9/15/03
Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan and
Recycling Deposit for this and all covered projects and
sections of projects prior to any demolition, construction
or permitting.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
�a� CITY O�
BURLINOAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
� T�..ow..ie`'o
Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Permit Variance
� �Sp�,ci�P�it �- Other Parcel Number:
L.
Project address:
APPLICANT �
Name:
��� �H�
Address: ��� � ��Y L� �
City/State/Zip�, • d �
Phone (w): ��J � 3� � I��
PROPERTY OWNER
. - ►"� �� _:1 = � �►11� .% � .'
� � I // _I_/' �
- • I _s.I/►/ i1 _ � :% /'
. � _ ,11''�� �� ✓ ' �
(h):
�fl��� =�����
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
(h):
c�� � I —�°1 �°I
. I� � I � i � �/''
Address:
City/State/Zip: ���'s �
Phone (w): � �i �
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
�{� �F�.:::-R �� ��._ .�'
�.
S E a - � 2003
(h):
���
CI I Y Ui .;!ll�� �l'auAldlE
PLHI��i�;iivG UEP I
I know abo� ro d application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commis�i,on. J �
G� � �. g'
Property owner's signature: ate � � �
PCAPP.FRM
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby c' under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true a corr t to th st of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's ' ature: Date: � �
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
��� -�
�
,
���,.,. � _
.`f�r�. -.��u� 1�'.
� �i=
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CONDITIONAL USE PRMIT APPLICATION
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section
25.52.020). YQur answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision
as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of
this form for assistance with these questions.
_f�
Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity or to public hea[th, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
The proposed use for this project (two single family dwellings on
two par�el) is low-density residential zone, which is consistent
with existing surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, it should not
have any major impact that will be detrimental or injurious to
the properties in the vicinity...etc. ,The proposed projects will
only improve and enhance the surrounding neighborhood through
design review process and it's consistent with city planning goals.'
2.
How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Bur[ingame General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance?
The existing
('=.',-1 ) single
single legal
General Plan
3.
zone for the proposed building site is low-density
family residential, which allows one dwelling per
parcel. It's consistent with City of Burlinyame
and zoning regulation.
How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the
existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity?
The proposed project are located within a variety of styles with
majority of homes being a two story and detached garage in the
rear of the lot. Compatibility is achieved by matching the same
detached garage pattern which creates a greater setbacks between
the buildings, and by proposing two different styles homes in trying
to fit better with the existing homes on this block, all of which
shoul3 minimize any potential impact on adjoining properties. In
adaition, the existing vegetations (�o be remained) will also bring
the mass/bulk down to human scale.
CUP.FRM
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
� �� I � �- -���
6, CITY , CITY OF BURLINGAME
�� A
BURLJNGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
��.,m �o
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making
the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink.
Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominantstructural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the
existing street and neighborhood.
The proposed colonial inspired home required a special permit for the right side declining
height envelope. The mass & bulk are reduced due to the large front setback proposed,
and is approximately 39'-0" from the street curb which also help to reduce the proposed
scale and should fit into this neighborhood well. �
2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of
the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street
and neighborhood.
The proposed colonial design have wooden siding, wood shutters, entry porch &
columns, and with similar garage pattern (detached garage), all of which are consistent
with this particular design and is compatible with majority homes in this neighborhood
who have similar design.
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
The proposed residence complied with all zoning requirements, except right side
declining envelope (special permit), and single-family design review guidelines.
4. Explain how the re`noval of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure
or addition is necessary and is consistent with the ciry's reforestation requirements.
What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is
appropriate. _
Y Y " :"
�.a. . . . .. , ��� y.,.. ���..
No trees will be removed, and all new trees with proposed hardscape are shown on
landscape plan. � 8 2003
ci�r�� �,, ������,������,��,��nt
PLtifvf��ii�dG DEPT.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
conditional use permit for re-emerging lots and design review for construction of a new, two-
story single family dwelling and detached �ge at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, Robert
and Cvnthia Gilson 30 Woodgate Court, Hillsborough, CA 94010, property owners, APN: 026-
051-160 (LOT 28 & NWLY 3 FT OF LOT 27 BLK 48 EASTON ADD BURLINGAME NO 4
RSM A/45);
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
November 24, 2003, 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:
1. 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 Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3—
(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a)
one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized
areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this
exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said conditional use permit and design review are approved, subject to the conditions set
forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use pernut and design
review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Matea
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 24th day of November, 2003, by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, conditional use permit and design review.
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective December 4, 2003
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Deparlment
date stamped October 29, 2003, sheets A.1— A.3, A3.A, A.4 — A.6 and L1.0, and that any
changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this
permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or deta.ched garage,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review;
3. that the tree protection measures for the protected-sized trees described in the arborist
report, dated October 27, 2003, shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist
before issuance of a building pernut and shall be complied with during construction, and
that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the
arborist report;
4. that protective fencing shall be installed eight to ten feet around the oak tree in the front
yard prior to any demolition, construction, or materiaUequipment staging on site and shall
be maintained until the final inspection has been completed;
5. that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a
Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in
writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are
in place and requirements are being met;
6. that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist's
report detailing a three year protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning
trimming and fertilizing the protected-sized trees prior to building permit issuance; the
applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for three years after
construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not
survive the three-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by
the City Arborist during the three-year period;
7. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 12, 2003 memo, the Fire Marshal's
September 15, 2003 memo, the Recycling Specialist's September 10, 2003 memo, and the
City Arborist's November 18 and September 19, 2003, memos shall be met;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, conditional use permit and design review.
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective December 4, 2003
Page 2
8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the proj ect architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department;
9. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
10. 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;
11. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building
Department;
12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners and set the building envelope;
13. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation
of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the
new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff;
15. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing
BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from
entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property
lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of
cutlfill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected;
existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-
site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes,
staging areas and washout areas;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, conditional use permit and design review.
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective December 4, 2003
Page 3
16. that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications,
and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and
sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for
grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods
and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent
irrigation;
17. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff
shall be diverted around exposed construction areas;
18. that fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are installed around the construction
site as a barrier to prevent erosion and construction runoff into the storm drain;
19. that oils, fuels, solvents, coolants and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be protected
from drainage by structures such as berms and roof covers; bulk materials stored
outdoors shall be protected from drainage with berms and covers; equipment stored
outdoors shall be stored on impermeable surfaces, shall be covered and shall be inspected
for property functioning and leaks; all storage areas shall be regularly cleaned, including
sweeping, litter control and a spill cleanup plan;
20. that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface
filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides;
21. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District;
22. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
23. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
conditional use permit for re-emer�g lots, design review and special permit for declinin� height
envelope for construction of a new two-story single family dwelling and detached ag ra�e at
1432 Cabrillo Avenue zoned R-1 Robert and Cvnthia Gilson, 30 Woodgate Court,
Hillsborough CA 94010 propertv owners APN: 026-051-160 (LOT 29 BLK 48 EASTON
ADD BURI,INGAME NO 4 RSM A/45);
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
November 24, 2003, 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 Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3—
(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a)
one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized
areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this
exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said conditional use permit, design review and special permit are approved, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use
permit, design review and special permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of
said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission held on the 24`h day of November, 2003, by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, conditional use permit, design review and
special permit.
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective December 4, 2003
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Deparhnent
date stamped October 29, 2003, sheets A.1 — A.6 and L1.0, and that any changes to the
footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or detached garage,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review;
3. that the tree protection measures for the protected-sized trees described in the azborist
report, dated October 27, 2003, shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist
before issuance of a building permit and shall be complied with during construction, and
that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the
arborist report;
4. that protective fencing shall be installed eight to ten feet around the redwood tree in the
front yard prior to any demolition, construction, or materiaUequipment staging on site and
shall be maintained until the final inspection has been completed;
5. that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a
Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in
writing to the City Arborist and Planning Deparhnent that all tree protection measures are
in place and requirements are being met;
6. that the front porch and single family dwelling shall be constructed using a pier and grade
beam foundation;
7. that the existing driveWay shall be removed and new driveway installed only after the
existing garage has been removed and the new garage has been built;
8. that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist's
report detailing a th�ee year protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning
trimming and fertilizing the protected-sized trees prior to building permit issuance; the
applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for three years after
construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not
survive the three-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by
the City Arborist during the three-year period;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, conditional use permit, design review and
special permit.
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective December 4, 2003
Page 2
9. that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 12, 2003 memo, the Chief Building
Official's and Fire Marshal's September 15, 2003 memos, the Recycling Specialist's
September 10, 2003 memo, and the City Arborist's November 18 and September 19,
2003, memos shall be met;
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department;
11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
12. 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;
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
Department;
14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners and set the building envelope;
15. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation
of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
16. that during demolition of the existing residence, site prepazation and construction of the
new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, conditional use permit, design review and
special permit.
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective December 4, 2003
Page 3
17. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing
BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from
entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property
lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of
cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected;
existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-
site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes,
staging areas and washout azeas;
18. that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications,
and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and
sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for
grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods
and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent
irrigation;
19. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff
shall be diverted around exposed construction areas;
20. that fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are installed around the construction
site as a barrier to prevent erosion and construction runoff into the storm drain;
21. that oils, fuels, solvents, coolants and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be protected
from drainage by structures such as berms and roof covers; bulk materials stored
outdoors shall be protected from drainage with berms and covers; equipment stored
outdoors shall be stored on impermeable surfaces, shall be covered and shall be inspected
for property functioning and leaks; all storage areas shall be regularly cleaned, including
sweeping, litter control and a spill cleanup plan;
22. that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface
filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides;
23. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District;
24. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, conditional use permit, design review and
special pernut.
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective December 4, 2003
Page 4
25. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
��F, ciTr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLJN�AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
� BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
Site: 1428 & 1432 CABRILLO AVENUE
Application for a conditional use permit for re-
emerging lot line, design review, and one special
permit for declining height envelope for two (2) new PUBLIC HEARING
two-story single-family dwellings at 1428 & 1432 NQTICE
CABRILLO AVENUE, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-051-
160).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on Monday,
November 24, 2003 at 7:00 PaM. in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
Mailed: November 14, 2003
(Please refer to other side)
A copy of the a
to the meeting
Burlingame, Cal
If you cha]
raising onl
described i
at or prior �
Property c
tenants at
558-7250.
Margaret Nl�
City Planner
be reviewed prior
Primrose Road,
be limited to
iblic hearing,
;d to the city
ming their
call (650)
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
� ..: . z. -* ` ,", � a:. � �. ' �. ' � � - J w , w, f _
a.�y.� ,�( `8�Y �
. ' {, 1 f .. �` a 'J_� � Yt�(� �. � '� r � 3` � a� r.� . M'.� � �>` ""V � *�"� <��y'C . t. a � .. y.�
• � � '1`'�i � �� ^- �ry,�'�:' �y ` . /f e '�+ 5 7 u � �-�' � �*'� 't�� g � R: .�
<.m •�;� d r ::� :`c -..�'"6, �./S`'� °.�.��-� /-.i 4 \ .... �'"��t; r I - �,.�a; �' � � . 4 ��a':.,
. `
.:) t.�� �r,�` �i :���*� !� �A�4�� il � h,� � ..� �� f� �.. � �� �
� � i � i , s '. � � { °k+"' . �. � a ♦
! l`��o.-.,A`.`vp. /�*�. a,�ti A�, a i� x � � tis - b'�x �� � : � `4
^�� � � ; �' ..`, ' � � x�� `� # �v" ,� . , ; � ��$�i" ., p, �,� � ,�,� y �'`'
. ' .
, �^ + , ,, < `fCP �^! < ,� i y= � � �{ , :y� �. , `y�,
• 5 ''t�:' �;: �'tt�: ,`;� !r' / v � �V' y' �' ,� & ; : � �w�., . �: s �
���Y', `� �°, � _, �'� � �`�'`''���{�s� ��'^� �'' � o , � R � �r�� ret �`` � : ��° c h � ��'��" o- p �
� �t ` � F �A • a�;.r` ,�r r
`"*�� .� o � � \ �s y„ yr �, � /" r ,� 1 �� � � '�. , ` �G A. �;� � '"��,,'q* �'
� � � �r .{�
x.'C.} �, �,
� �i� �� � t �~ �������.� ?Y �,n � ��➢' i♦ �r✓ �rt ,� „ k . � xli t�
' ,,�� � � �m, �'' q,,c�' n v � ��"��� ,pi t '�a F , y' � ` � `� ,�.� „�
� � i "'i� � ! � � 1,�� . f_�: 6 % , ' �� � '� N y � f �
��.K�.._,�y., i ��lt��..�� j� �5 " �.: � i '�� f.::., j � � � f � e�.�
'"�; �^ /'� #'4i � ( Y�
r. � �
. . �
i t i, . , �% . �p��
/ . � . . ; .� � � �.:., �, ,�,. 1 . ., � rv' y i'�, i " "''a t r��r'++
, , �
, r � %' � � '^^ �,�,. ' � :' `�
• � �w,,�s' ' � ��n .' ^.��.��r%. `*� '��� �'� �� u� � �� . � � '�.
,� s: .�-; � , r • f `- ` � '�i' � � 1� " r �+ , "'�
� J ! ', �� ��� r 1 ��' � � r4 �, ,�����.. , � .; � �*'`^�,� ��>� �, s �,J� '�„ ,.� J's 'w�e�ty� •Pw'�
Y: �^' i ` � .. a , yh f � � �'>,._ A +Y � / ", ;� r �f
� � � � � �� -�� � �� � {� � �� r , �� � � ��
��, � �
►,�?�,� .•^ ,,o; � � ;,� .
,..� g r,> � < � ��: ' �,^ s,� , . .
+,� � . ��� .. 3 a '� p_ w� -^a�,�� . .� �� ` � W
42�t �. . .� � � � ' /. _
� .. . . . � '� •�. � _ � � � � �
� . , . �
y �:.'R „R �� s �\`� � 1 � A / a �� .'' .� � : 7 � � � . Z' '��! ..
_ ,� �. . � �`�a. ��- r �' fF 7i *r i ' ,ai+.�
�
� 43 `� - '�. ` �� �`,� ,� :�
� y-"�: a y . � k � ."3-. � � �b . � ��. � {• . � • �. � � . t �>�.. . ' , -
*� �:� h � . �J S,. q,� _ �'f
• i� Rrsi. �� a ��� V". ',.{ � ` 1 � 4 � ^» � / �` � , A',��t� Kr, s�� a�/�� t '$' •� � �
� � -� `� �{,�' `"�AY � ��F�'!`.. �� .\, wf ��"" f� �� 1�'FJ����� � ���r t�ta � � � �';,�.tT.. i i �`�.y � � lr,�,`.�.
, 4'� �4' # xt„�,' �,�.g,� ay�� �" { .'�'�'F�'FO ��+ � .. � , �/��e�• � A �� a'�� � ;��� � � � ~��r � �y �� .
� � i n . �' xi%� " � ; .' � � ' � ` �..
� ♦ � h 7@ �h ,,,���nnr f4 � �yVP�' �-T� � ".C.A � / � F� Y .
-e y � �, �'���"'h �,W �,�'� ti �%� � . ' � �`s � x �� s^. V ` . ,� i � �+.
r ` »9� ,M1 . ��� �� '�'� � ,' ' , ' / 14�i� ��, �� � �' l y � �,�1 � C ,l ��
. • ,, t
_ �: `,.. . . � ' �'"� . �%� ��� r�., 1��` .� � �tl f ��'.
� 143 �
�� �y A s� � �,- ,; ,. � :� �. �,. �, _.
� � i. , �V' , 4�, V `V� . w� �j .. , � ���� � .. `\;= 1 � i,'AN .
�_ >��, r ;� �` 4 � � ;� •r��_ ` 14L.� . � rF � <ti...'� �.i .
. , - ' C �, � ��y, ;;.:r�,� a' ��, 'c '.'*.�, ��,
, •. ,� 1445!{�� :�� � ,�� '�432 '. � ,� `,� � .� . � �,,, :�
r�,�'�.��1 0 � x �r. .,� ; �� �. p�� � `��'�': �-' �� f�' �c x '';--..
� ir'4'"� � i f� `� 4 ��`v"'� . �% � - �+C"d; � �t�, - �.:�fl • � j �' s ��p O� � �'
;� . � ��': \ �!!� , 4 >�424 � � �. \`' . � '�. '{
` � � 1437 �. `� � < � ,� �f� ��,� ',
, �, , �k �.. �'�� � �c � :: �' ? i M� � ��2� . . '�,,,t- 1 j, �' n , r r
� �g � � � �.�
� r � .. 'a£i`i ' - \''� �� ,�� 143� �� y`��; `�� ,;� ��yr.y � . 4 � ��,� � � •' ✓ � �:.-a ' .
�.� :� Lj,� 1 .� . � � rt�' vl �.ti ' � � ! �A. f ti
�; . ��429 � ' ,, � ��� ��,
`f �� � ' 'x� `��,, r 141� � 1 z ,
� � r � . � �, � � ,�s' ,r','� 3 -, �h
. j. � � � � s '�'. yy � � ��� M�,,.4 .J ��
'' 4 :- *�'`'' c � ' r%A�1nC ' � � � 'I 4�1'� x• f> � ; s' f.,. � � _t � . ;
_ � .. t ~ ` ' !,� I�tLJ._ -."�` . .R��*i ! 1�.. � .. \ +" . � -:.
�.ef�� I�., _ ,A. �' : �. . . ' .- � .:: � � . ` � � .:� ' � , .'� ,� `�, .; h" �� . °`+�u'�',�`.d,� i
° � �► �.'�421 � � '. ' '140$ �, � �,�- - � ;.'��
� ' ,�� �' �� � •, �� � �,��� � ', x: b �..
� : : • • ' .� � kz� '1417.�� ��v`�=, � . �/. 'r ��r '. s y'e
��+*• � '`�Q� ,�` f . Y .� �ti ; i
� s t/ . . '.`j' Y a ������` /��� . .� � ;., Ap r � .
- :,� - F ,�, - _ � " � ``� ,,� � �{�,1�2Q � ,f .i�� .
�: ^ � Y �Y . . � , �*oy y, ., � �r' � N A� �
', ` � ,� , � �4�.� >� ���� , �-, ,�,.�.� �.` ,
�i ' 8 w � 1' . . . N �+" �� � n�t .
�~'�' :••' � . �\ �,'� � �'� ' `/~ . ,. . �. ,, � � h � � �L �' 1�
.f n ��'�,s � `��s��3''w '�` � \�, '� ..�, '� ✓t� . /� 41 �.l�
/ a �/� � .
A�/i���,1'?� ,�„G � rs ��� ` ./���} •.:�'l' ��: 4� � �. �F.,� ' �. �� n:, `., � �?��..�f � ��} � y �'� c���
��.a.: Fy.. �'` .�,.L ��+*: � � j�'� E��" ��,�' . `i`4 �� ,.. �� a/ e �
�,� :,� �',`: �� �� �..3� .},, � � ��° ,��j 3a i �' �y�:ytL�t.."y�
� �. aa� 1: �.: � ,+� ., . i �- � 'Y� . '} ` �"� •'g � •� .. % yti •�
�� #'% .. � { •��J� ��h ' �!G' A_� `P2i ��.• . . r ''G"'" f� � � �\ _ J `� r �
•`^`; � a���.l ` . � �.�'���j%���. ' . � _ ;�t� ! ��, t �`�l O�/ at _c� �;. .��i ql�d`. � f `,,y,��>
-���,���.�. / � . _ . ! . ;,� � �.�.
. `�, /% ��,s �Y°` � '' . .� � � �.� .-�E "y � � /��'j � '� ;�.L
�;.. . . - fj�+`` t ' �; � � . �� •el .�' ,�'' , ' � ~ `�, : . �" ; � � . r q � r �,�`� �:.��
� .
. .r,r� . �t
• , . ` . �'"`�� _-. .� a ,. ,, � � '� �' .�''
�s ,•
.:_, � ,:.� f f .:,,. J
� b �
� ' � . �:, . .f �' ' i. `�;., '�a� , � i a ' X � � �, ,P ;"� ` � ! �►
� , . .: . , �., , /� .� ;� �• , e,y� E. � * J p 1 i d
� � ., [
�
, � ,� � t ..
'ti, �. �: • �° �� � � " • . e ,� , ti _ !� �ar�. � � ar ,,�ts � � � �`
,� . .�nq . -t# '�� F a �0'" . �a,''�� �,,�'� ,, � +� , . �� ,� ��,� �` yy1� �'. , j j "�
�r.:� �� 3YA.�.� ...:�� r'��{.,,�R� � . A�cY .� � ��`a.,� X��'a.���q'� � *��r+ - �s�i �',yY
,� .I r"?' . `� . y � •
� ��'n�, ' . \ ... • : ;''�. }� � r � , � � �, ' � �� . . :��x ' s. a���a �
��� ` � ' � � g�,' + � � k ��,�����-�. ;O .� � i j,. _• - .
. a
�: e
. � . . t • .� .g. �,, �
,. � . s. n,y > . a .i'r ., � l r > e , 'h
i 1 f � � Y$ 2 \+r•. f' .� i
� . � . , � Y ,�I y� * � � ! � � , w '' �a;+�l Mt l i • ♦ �.
�� � �� � � � �Fp. ..
�.. _
v ,
� , , �ry j' .. � . . .
�+ I � A ��/� ,� , ' i,�
.,F � � "` ` �7. 4 ,� q . . . `� 't� � ' �` � - `'i t� t y � ��. � ' � � � � �°�j .
. � . ; ��_. ` ..
��. - � ` r c�. � �.. �'0.� �, ��t ' � ' < � .
a ;� .f e` .s `• � '�'� ,; a! a � i� e �A .�. �,'„� r
�"' ` � %a„ � j'�,� �' i�t r y � C .t�� , a - ,r „� .:x � . �� � � '` �wtr� �yg.,.
�: I . � t � ' t � ,� ` / � ' ,Aqx; � � � "��
� �. � � t'*;� �` �', 4 `. . .. m"' .y� .,n`.'s n h�'�'-qy� ''0 �. � ��`�r� �� ,� A{,���'' ��,�� c.„
'�� �""= `,� %- �' r � ' n il � �� 3 /�Fw„,� � /� � '�
:'�. �.� , � . �z���i� � ..�` �✓ '�� '` �, � ,�..,:�d ��.'�'`�,�i��+a�-,�r" �v��'�` z"'�� `` �'_- s ' \ �.�;
. . %S'� . .r. �' [ � � �a„ � ♦ �> ':
Item # c.
+ Design Review Study
+ City of Burlingame
Conditional Use Permit for Re-einergence of Two Parcels Previously Merged by a Use;
Design Review for Two New, Two-Story Dwellings With Detaclzed Garages, and a Special Permit
for Declining Height Envelope at 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Address: 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue Meeting Date: 10/14/03
Request: Conditional use permit for the re-emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use,
design review for two new, two-story dwellings with detached garages and a special permit for
declining height envelope at 1432 Cabrillo Avenue.
Applicant and Designer: James Chu APN: 026-051-160
Property Owner: Robert and Cynthia Gilson Lot Areas: 6,360 SF 1428 Cabrillo Ave. (lot 28)
General Plan: Low Density Residential 6,000 SF 1432 Cabrillo Ave. (lot 29)
Zoning: R-1
Summary: The site is an interior single parcel with a submerged lot line. Lot 28 is on the right side
and lot 29 is on the left side. There is an existing single-family home on lot 28 and a detached garage
on lot 29 that provides covered parking for the dwelling. Although no structures extend across the
submerged lot line between lots 28 and 29, the lots are merged by the parking use because the detached
garage on lot 29 provides the required covered parking for the dwelling on lot 28.
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to demolish the existing dwelling and detached
garage on the site, causing the two existing standard lots to re-emerge. Lot 28, or 1428 Cabrillo
Avenue, is 6,360 SF and lot 29, or 1432 Cabrillo Avenue, is 6,000 SF, where the minimum lot size for
the area is 5,000 SF.
The applicant is requesting design review for two new, two-story single-family dwellings with
detached garages and a special permit for declining height envelope for the dwelling at 1432 Cabrillo
Avenue.
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
The floor area for the new, detached garage and dwelling at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue will be 3,534 SF
(0.55 FAR) where 3,535 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed dwelling will have
five (5) bedrooms (the den meets the definition of a bedroom) and the proposed detached two-car
garage provides the required covered parking on the site. There is a protected-size Coast Live Oak at
the front of 1428 Cabrillo Avenue.
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
The floor area for the new, detached garage and dwelling at 1432 Cabrillo Avenue will be 3,349 SF
(0.56 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The applicant is requesting a special
permit because the right side of the dwelling encroaches into the declining height envelope by 162 SF
(4'-6" x 36'-0"). The proposed dwelling will have five (5) bedrooms (the library/den meets the
definition of a bedroom) and the proposed detached two-car garage provides the required covered
parking on the site. There is one protected-size Redwood tree and two protected-size Black Acacia
trees at the front of 1432 Cabrillo Avenue. The proposed porch (on a slab foundation) will be 4 feet
from the protected-size Redwood.
All other zoning code requirements have been met.
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
The applicant is requesting the following:
• Conditional use permit for two (2) re-emerging standard lots (C.S. 25.28.030,5);
• Design Review for two new, two-story dwellings at 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue (C.S. 25.57);
and
• Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope at 1432 Cabrillo Avenue (right side encroaches by
162 SF (4'-6" x 36'-0") (C.S.25.28.035,c).
1428 CABRILLO AVENUE
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (1 st flr): 20'-0" 20'-10" 19-11 "
(2nd flr): 22'-0" 20'-10" 20'-0"
Side (left): 10'-6" --- 5'-0"
(right): 5'-0" 5'-0"
Rear (1 st flr): 28'-6" --- 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 45'-0" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,409 SF --- 2,544 SF
38% 40%
FAR: 3,534 SF --- 3,535 SF
0.55 FAR 0.55 FAR
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
�Zo� X Zo�) (Zo� X Zo�) (Zo� X Zo�)
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') on lot 29 (9' x 20')
# of bedrooms: 5 --- ---
Height: 29'-3" --- 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: complies --- see code
2
CUP for re-emerging lots, Design Review for 2 New,2-story Dwellings 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
1432 CABRILLO AVENUE
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
SETBACKS
Front (Ist ftr): 23'-4" 20'-10" 19-11"
(2nd itr): 28'-0" 20'-10" 20'-0"
Side (left): 10'-0" --- 4'-0"
(right): 4'-0" 4'-0"
Rear (1 st flr): 45'-0" --- 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 45'-0" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1,958 SF --- 2,400 SF
33% 40%
FAR: 3,349 SF --- 3,420 SF
0.56 FAR 0.57 FAR
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
�Zo� X Zo�) (Zo� X 20�) (Zo� X Zo�)
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9' x 20') on lot 29 (9' x 20')
# of bedrooms: 5 --- ---
Height: 27'-5" --- 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: encroaches * --- see code
* Special permit required for encroachment into the declining height envelope (right side encroaches
by 162 SF (4'-6" x 36'-0")).
Staff Comments: See attached. The applicant has submitted a preliminary arborist report, dated June
30, 2003, and at the request of the City Arborist (memo dated September 19, 2003), a more in-depth
report was submitted on September 26, 2003, by Mayne Tree Expert Company, to address tree
protection measures and mitigations for construction impacts to the trees.
Erika Lewit
Planner
c: James Chu, designer
3