HomeMy WebLinkAbout1428 Cabrillo Avenue - Staff Report��
��
�,�� �'TY �� STAFF REPORT
BURIJNGAME
oe
�9
�N�TEn 1aus O•
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CTTY COUNCIL
DATE
FROM:
APRiL 9. 2004
CITY PLANNER
AGENDA
TTEM #
MTG
DATE 04.19.04
SUBNIITTED
BY
APPROVED
BY
sus.r�cT APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN
APPPROVED DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AT 1428 CABRILLO, AVENUE,
ZONED R-1.
Action:
City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the request for an amendment to a design review
approval previously granted by the Planning Commission to build a two story house with detached garage.
�rmative action should include findings based on the design review criteria and should be taken by
resolution. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. City Council has three action
alternatives:
a. to uphold the Planning Commission and approve the application;
b. to reverse the Planning Commission and deny the application; or
c. to deny the request without prejudice and return it to the Planning Commission with comments.
Action alternative description and the criteria for design review are included at the end of the staff report.
Conditions on the project considered by the Planning Commission:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped February 18, 2004, sheets A.1 through 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 material/equipment staging on site and shall be maintained until the
final inspection has been completed;
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OFANAMENDMENT TDANAPPPROVED DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATIONAT1428 CABRILLO, AVENUE, ZONED R-1. April 19, 2004
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 bea.r 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 Arborist's November 18, 2003 memo, 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, memos shall be met;
8. that prior to scheduling the fraxning 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;
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 dwing 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 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;
�
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OFANAMENDMENT TO ANAPPPROI�ED DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATIONAT1428 CABRILLO, AVENi7E, ZONED R-1. Aprill9, 2004
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 e�cisting 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.
Planning Commission Action:
At their meeting on March 29, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-1 (C Auran
dissenting) to deny the request for a design review amendment to add 284 SF to the previously approved
house, reducing the front setback by 2 feet, increasing the lot coverage by 4.9%, increasing the floor area ratio
by 5% and reducing the side setback by 6"_ In their action the Planning Commissioners noted that this house
was originally reviewed as an emerged lot, with two houses replacing a single house, the idea of the initial
review was to make both houses smaller to reduce the cumulative impact of the project; if the floor plan of this
house does not meet the applicant's needs it can be changed within the e�erior walls, need not add more
square footage and lot coverage; when review two houses together Commission does not want to be nickeled-
and- dimed later, with the original review the house was revised by taking 3 to 4 percent offthe maximum
FAR it was not an issue of whether the lot could accommodate the size, but requested so that the overall, two
house project would have less impact on the block and neighborhood and the property owner agreed at that
time by revising their plans, but now they want to change again and add the space removed back into the
house at 1428 Cabrillo; at the time of original review there was flexibility, owner addressed a number of
issues as he chose, now wants to change to increase the size of the house, not acceptable, the Commission's
original decision based on the applicant's proposed revisions should be respected. Concerned with the nature
of the changes requested, increase of lot coverage from 34% to 39.7%, reduction in front setback from 22 feet
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OFANAMENDMENT TO ANAPPPROVED DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATIONATl428 CABRILLO, AVENUE, ZONED R-1. April 19, 2004
to 20 feet, reduction in side setback from 5'-6" to 5 feet, need to consider the principle and philosophy, the
applicant voluntarily proposed the project approved previously.
It was also noted that changes are within allowable FAR, the second house has been reduced in size, the house
is located on the downhill side of the street with a proposed height of 25 feet, the houses on the high side of
the street aze much taller, the large Oak tree and 70 foot tall Redwood tree at the front of these two properties
will screen the new houses since the lot slopes downward so the houses will go away.
BACKGROUND:
History, First Application, October 2003, at 1428/1432 Cabrillo Avenue
On October 14, 2003, the property owner Robert and Cynthia Gilson, submitted an application for:
➢ a conditional use permit for re-emergency of two parcels merged by a residential use,
➢ design review for two new two story dwellings with detached garages, and
➢ a special permit for declining height envelope for the house to be built at 1432 Cabrillo.
At the design review study meeting the designer for the project noted that the cunent house which merged the
two lots has 4 bedrooms, it is taller than the proposed replacement houses, and the redwood tree would be 4
feet from the proposed porch on one of the new houses, and after discussion with the neighbors they had
relocated the driveway to the other side of the house_
The Planning Commission reviewed the re-emerging lot request and the design of the two houses and made
several suggestions (PC Minutes October 14, 2003). For 1428 the Commission noted some errors in the
landscape plan, the need to add some larger scale plant materials, and the need to provide an adequate arborist
report regarding the protection of the major trees; they discussed window placement, lighting and the need for
variety in the second story plate line which would also affect visual mass; they noted that this was a large
structure on a normal lot and there was a need to reduce the size, mass and footprint, adding that the increase
of size on the block does not fit with the neighborhood, the project is at the maximum FAR allows which
amplifies the size of the structure, design OK but need to tone it down, can be done without affecting design;
necessary to look at the whole impact of two houses on one lot where there was one before; lot coverage is at
the maximum and there is a lot of hardscape; Commission concluded with expression of a need to see
substantial change to the 1428 Cabrillo project and suggested reducing the floor area by about 10%. For the
house on the 1432 Cabrillo lot, the cominission suggested: concern about the landscape plan, choice of plarrt
materials and their survival in the shaded environment on the site; the arborist report to protect major trees
was inadequate; conflict with the survey and plan regarding the location of the building and the redwood
tree; mass and bulk were not an issue with this house, but expressed concern about putting two houses close
the maximum development limits together; felt that the house should be reduced by about 10%.
In their general comments on the original re-emerging lot project the Planning Commission noted that for
design review on emerging lots it was necessary to look at the intensity of use and the increase in the size in
the context of the block, need to look at the "whole package", and both houses should be designed relative to
the other houses in the neighborhood. They did not sent the project to a design reviewer because they felt that
the designer was talented and had the experience with the guidelines to make the substantial changes needed.
The item was set for the action calendar. (Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003)
The project for a conditional use permit for two re-emerging lots and design review for two new houses with
detached garages and an exception for declining height for the house at 1432 Cabrillo came back to the
Commission for action on November 24, 2003. At that meeting the designer explained that the house at 1432
Cabrillo was reduced by 3% (105 SF) of the FAR by taking sguare footage offthe family room at the rear and
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OFANAMENDMENT TO ANAPPPROVED DESIGN REVIEW
�PPLICATIONAT1428 CABRILLO, AVENUE, ZONED R-1. April 19, 2004
about 6 inches offthe front. Although not addressed directly by the designer the staffreport shows that the
house at 1428 Cabrillo had been reduced by 11.6% (410 SF), the number of bedrooms was reduced from 5 to
4, and information by an arborist for protecting the Coast Live Oak was provided noting that the tree could be
protected and retained during and following construction.
In their approval action on the original re-emerging lots and two new houses the Commissioners voted 5-0-2
(Cers. Keele, Brownrigg absent). In their action the commissioners found that the redesign of 1428 Cabrillo
was a big improvement from the last proposal(e.g. on reviewed by the Commission at Study in October
2003), property owner listened to the Commission, same with 1432 Cabrillo; drastic reduction in the mass
and bulk on the 1428 Cabrillo site, listened to the commission, hate to see two houses replace one because the
increase in density affects the neighborhood, but support the project, the trees will be retained. It was noted
that one commissioner would have liked to have had more square footage removed from 1432 Cabrillo.
(Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 2003)
On Apri12, 2004, a demolition permit to remove the single family house and detached garage which merged
the two lots and a Building Permit were issued for construction on the lot at 1432 Cabrillo Avenue. The
original house and detached garage have been demolished. The tree protection measures were in place and
inspected before demolition. On February ] S, 2004 the property owner submitted an application for an
amendment to the design review for the house at 1428 Cabrillo. The request for the design review amendment
was taken directly to the action calendar of the Planning Commission on March 29, 2004.
Project Request (February 18, 2004, Plans)
The applicarrt is applying for an amendment to the previously approved design review for the house at 1428
Cabrillo Avenue (revised plans date stamped February 18, 2004). The applicant originally reduced the size of
this house by 410 SF prior to getting approved on November 24, 2003 (from 3,534 SF to 3,124 SF). The
applicant is now proposing to increase the floor area by a total of 284 SF (190 SF on the first floor, 14 SF net
area for trellis, and 80 SF on the second floor). With the cunent proposal the floor area of the previously
approved project would be increased by 284 SF or a 9% increase from previously approved project. The FAR
would change with the proposed project from 3,124 SF (0.49 FAR) to 3,408 SF (0.54 FAR) where 3,535 SF
(0.55 FAR) is the ma�cimum allowed on this lot. The proposed floor area is 127 SF below the maximum
allowed. The proposed detached two-car garage provides the required covered parking on the site for the five
bedroom house (den qualifies as a bedroom).
Along with the increase in floor area for the house at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue revisions are also proposed to the
roof configuration throughout the house. In addition, one window was added in the breakfast nook (left side
elevation) and one window was added in the second floor master bathroom facing the rear yard (rear
elevation). The windows in the second floor bedroom and closet were decreased in size (rear elevation). The
front setback has been reduced from 22'-0" to 20'-0", where 19'-1" is the average front setback on the side of
the street.
In regards to trees, only the existing 14-inch oak tree at the front of the lot will remain. The arborist notes in
his report dated October 27, 2003, 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 on the construction side.
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 October 27,
2003, arborist report and notes the report appears complete and adequately addresses tree protection measures
needed for this project. He also 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. There were
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OFAN AMENDMENT TO ANAPPPROVED DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATIONAT1428 CABRILLO, AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Apri119, 2004
no changes to the originally approved landscape plan except to adjust to the increased footprint of the house.
All other zoning code requirements have been met.
TI� REVISED DEVELOPMENT DATA TABLE FOR 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE INCLUDES TI�
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT (NOVEMBER 24, 2003 MEETING) AND TI-� CURRENT
PROPOSAL. TI� DEVELOPMENT DATA TABLE FOR 1432 CABRILLO AVENUE IS ALSO
INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE. 1NFORMATION WAS PROVIDED FOR THE EXISTING HOU5E TO
USE AS A COMPARISON. BECAUSE THE EXISTING HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE ARE
LOCATED ON A DOUBLE-WIDE LOT AND TI� 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 SETBACK5 ARE BASED ON THE SIDE LOT
LINES FOR LOT 28.
TABLE 1-1428 CABRILLO AVENUE
CURRENT PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLW'D/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
3/29/43 11/24/03
SEIBACK.S
Front (Ist flr): 20'-0" 22'-0" 20'-10" 19-11" (average)
(2nd flr): 21'-0" 23'-0" 24'-10" 20'-0"
Side (left): 10'-0" 10'-0" 9'_�"
5'-0"
��ght�: 5�_p�� 5'_(" 10'-0" 5�_���
Rear (1st flr): 33'-0" to �deck 37'-0" to �deck 35�-0�� 15� 0��
(2nd flr): 39 -6 48 -6 58 -0 20 -0
Lot Coverage: 2,528 SF 2,214 SF 2,089 SF 2,544 SF
39.7% 34.8% 40%
FAR: 3,408 SF 3,124 SF 2,927 SF' 3,535 SFZ
0.54 FAR 0.49 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 29 (9' x 20')
# of bedrooms: 5 5 4 ---
Height: 25'-8" 25'-8" 27'-11" 30'-0"
DH Envelope: dormer dormer complies see code
exception exception
' The existing house and detached garage has a floor area ratio of 0.46 (2927 SF) when measured only
lot 28 (0.55 FAR, 3535 SF inaximum allowed on lot 28).
against
�
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONDENIAL OFANAMENDMENT TO ANAPPPROVED DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATIONAT1428 CABRILLO, AVENUE, ZONED R-1. April 19, 2004
(0.32 x 6360 5F) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3535 SF (0.55 FAR)
TABLE 2— FOR REFERENCE ONLY
1432 CABRILLO AVENUE
APPROVED EXISTING ALLW'D/REQ'D
11/24/03
SETBACKS
Front (Istflr): 25'-10" 20'-10" 19-11"
(Znd flr): 30'-4" 24'-10" 20'-0"
Side ([eft): 10'-0" 9�_p" 4�_���
� ��
��ght); 4'-p" 10'-0�� 4 -0
Rear (lst flr): 45'-0" 35'-0" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 45'-0" 58'-0" 20'-0��
Lot Coverage: 1,943 SF 2,089 SF 2,400 SF
32.3% 40%
FAR: 3,244 SF 2,927 SF3 3,420 SF4
0.54 FAR 0.57 FAR
Parking: 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
�Zo� X zo�� (ao� 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 4 ---
Height: 27'-3" 27'-11" 30'-0"
DH Envelope: encroachess complies see code
3_ �„... ,.,..�� r�� ._�.,... measured only
The existing house and detacnea garage nas a i,�u� �u ca � a�i� �l �.-.� ��.� -.�_ ,.•-�--
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")).
Planning Staff Comments:
City staff comments are attached in the Planning Commission StaffReport dated March 29, 2004. Planning
Staff would note that to properly understand the conte� of this appeal is was necessary to include the
background on the original October 14, 2003/November 24, 2003 Planning Commission reviews. In the
interest of paper the staff reports for these two actions are not included, although staff will make them
available if you wish to see them. However the plans are included. The plans noted "previous plans" are
those originally approved. The proposed plans for 1428 Cabrillo are date stamped February 18, 2004.
�
APPEAL OFTHEPLANNING COMMISSIONDENIAL OFANAMENDMENT TOANAPPPROVED DESIGNREVIEW
APPLICATIONATI428 CABRILLO, AVENUE, ZONED R-1. April 19, 2004
ATTACHMENTS:
Monroe letter to Mr. and Mrs. Robert Gilson, Apri17, 2004, setting appeal hearing
Robert Gilson to Mayor and City Council, Apri12, 2004, requesting appeal
Planning Commission Minutes, March 29, 2004
Planning Commission Minutes, November 24, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes, October 14, 2003
Planning Commission StaffReport, March 29, 2004
Public Notice, Appeal Hearing, mailed Apri19, 2004
Previous Plans, 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, reduced 11" x 17"
Plans Date Stamped February 18, 2004, 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, full sized
%
,,_t;.j'� ;�",,
, ,�;;� _,_�,_;
..;,� ` � � �+
:� y
�''l, �, �i
�I' � `�� <�. ��..� 9
�-�''-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
TEL: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
Apri17, 2004
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Gilson
30 Woodgate Court
Hillsborough, CA 94010
Dear Mr. and Mrs.Gilson,
At the City Council meeting of Apri15, 2004, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on
your project at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held on April 19,
2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA.
We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely yours,
��Z'�
M garet Monroe
City Planner
c: City Clerk
James Chu, 39 W. 43rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403
I D ���� U � PLEASEBSETAN APPEALCHEARINGNCIL:
` FOR 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE ON
APR 0 2 2004 i APRIL 19TH.
I � ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK
CITY OF BURI INrnnn�
L�—�`�
, �
;�l/� l' 1V �-i11� ,� �` or��� � ���a,� . f Oc,u,v 7�-�-�"�
I�o� � �4�Q �-�/�32t�Lc� �rt1 ��L�rv���.
�, ��y
L W��!-� �d A� �/�i'L �"d Ti��G C.�u,N G L `i N'�
i'7�1� (O/� Q� '�f{� �L�4�vN i n3 G�OrYtrv� �SS r Or`l �C��fz-►� I N C�
�I.t �' ���I��E1� /�1� (�U C�S
/� �, l�s �
�-� ��
� �
� � �... ��„ y y �..0 : �.
. ;� � °� p '�
��� - 9 ti90�
CITY OF BURL{NGAME
PL.4I�INING �EwT
::< :; _ .. .
,. _
_ � ,_ .. ���,�.CITY � � � .
�� ��
�'R""�"'"E CITY OF BURLINGAME
� � ,e 5189
I ��,,..e��.�••' �l ��.V�— Dept.
�
i '� , 20,�
� 1 .,
� Received from �I�-�' �-�
� Address I ��� �� � (�
( �Inl(>.�ilY7'�i/�o%i 1%.�l
� $ �:
� `
Cash �
[Chec�: ���
� � �ul�� v.�.�_...._vz .�,v.o-L..c��..s.u...
Sy t✓ �
I
: . � . �Printed on Hacycl�d P�p�r .� .
' 33%"�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
CASH COLLECTIONS DIVISION
04/08/04 09:42am REFERENCE - 13249-3-3
MISC BATCH 618 - UTILITY BATCH'617
FROM : ROBERT GILSON FOR 142$ CABRILLO -
ACCOUNT : 10136600
ZONING/SIGN PLAN CHECKING 10136600 250.00
-----
TOTAL PAID 250.00
CHECK 250.00 RECEIVED BY COUNTER
� ,;.
�A��
f > „ �, � .x,
7�1 `� Y
L $ �` � ' � ; F
' � ��'#i. � � , 4V'�-_
; ce . _
� � - . ,_ ..... . �
� T y,, . . . ..
' .�� . �
�. .. ..
� .{y `-. �.i.'. ... . ... . _ �_.....
1 —._'"�v�ars �$ � )
loo
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004
�10. 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
� FOR A NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ROBERT
AND CYNTHIA GILSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHLT, CHU DESIGN &
ENGR. INC., DESIGNERL75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HUR1N
Reference staff report March 29, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Twenty-three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Robert Gilson, property owner, 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, was present
and noted that the design of the house is not changing, the additional square footage is being requested at the
rear of the house, the roof configuration will also change in some areas, master bathroom will be extended
out an additional five feet, noted that the existing house is five to seven feet taller and therefore the proposed
new house will be less of an impact, large existing trees surrounding the house will provide screening and
reduce the impact on the street, there will be no visible change from the street since the added area is at the
rear of the house. Commission asked what is the reason for adding 284 SF? Property owner noted that the
previously approved floor plan seemed cramped, the family room, master bathroom and closest is too small.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: the originally approved project was a package, two houses in one project, when a
single house is demolished and replaced with two new houses, the idea is to make each house smaller to
reduce the cumulative impact, if the floor plan doesn't meet your needs, the changes should be made within
the interior of the house, not by adding more square footage; feel that the proposed changes are acceptable,
house is within the allowable FAR, other new house has been reduced, house is located on the downhill side
of the street, proposed height is at 25', houses across the street on the high side are much taller, the large oak
tree and a 70' tall Redwood tree at the front of these properties will screen the houses, the house is well
designed and articulated throughout, front right side of the house will be screened by the existing Oak tree,
lot slopes downward and therefore mass and bulk will go away; we need to be careful when reviewing two
houses simultaneously as one proj ect, do not want to be nickel and dimed later with changes, the house was
previously revised by reducing the size of the house by 3 to 4 percent off the maximum FAR, this is not an
issue if the lot can accommodate this size house, but that an agreement was reached at a certain house size
and now the property owner want to add more; there were a number of comments when the project was
originally reviewed, there was more flexibility at that time, owner addressed a number of issues, came back
to the Commission with revised plans and those plans were approved, now want to make changes to increase
the size of the house, this is not acceptable, Commission's original decision based on the applicants proposal
should be respected; with present proposal also concerned with the increase in lot coverage from 34% to
39.7%, reduction in front setback from 22' to 20', reduction in the side setback from 5'-6" to the minimum
required 5'-0", need to look at the principal and philosophy, a decision was made and the property owner
needs to abide by the decision, not in support.
Continued discussion: this is a tough decision, feel like the process has been abused, in principal the request
should be denied, was submitted as one application for two new houses, there were criteria for both houses,
now the property owner would like to make changes to one of the houses, does not satisfy the design review
criteria addressing the impacts on the neighborhood or the interface of the two structures. CA noted that the
property owner asked staff how to process this application for changes to the proj ect, based on staff direction
he submitted the application to make changes to one house rather than resubmitting the entire project for two
new houses. Commission suggested that another option is to submit a new application for reconsideration of
both new houses. Commission asked if the current request for a design review amendment is denied, will
11
r
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
11.
March 29. 2004
the approval of the original application still stand? CA noted that the original approval would still stand and
that they have a certain timeline in which to have building permits issued.
C. Brownrigg moved to deny the application for design review amendment �i�he�t�-prejtirdi�Ce. The motion
was seconded by C. Keele.
Comment on the motion: wanted to make it clear that the Commission did not interpret any malice with this
request after the project was approved, comments focus on the changes and how that affects the mass and
bulk of the project.
Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Auran dissenting).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m.
1132 D GLAS AVENUE, NED R-4 — APPLICATION FOR CONDOMIN PERMIT AND
VAR NCE FOR DELIVE VEHICLE PARKING OR A NEW THREE- IT RESIDENTIAL
C DOMINIUM (DAL EYER, APPLICANT ARCHITECT; MANO CHEHR JAVAHERIAN,
ROPERTY OWNE (99 NOTICED) PROJEC PLANNER: CATHE BARBER
�.
PERMIT ANkYVARIANCE FOR DEI,PVERY VEHICLE P
C. Vist' a recused himself becaus e owns property withi�0 feet of the project. H�'stepped down from
the as and left the chambers. / /
�eference staff report M ch 29, 2004, with attac ents. CP Monroe
and staff comments. orty three conditions re suggested for con
Monaghan if a cu d driveway at grade at e front could be instal
downwards to t garage from the curb el. SrE. noted that a ry
would end up ith a cross-sloping dri eway and that it would imin,
There wer no further questions of taff.
�se ed the report, reviewed criteria
ration. Commission asked SrE.
given that the driveway is sloping
driveway is possible, but at you
one more on-street par ng space.
Chai ojues opened the pub ' hearing. Dale Meyer architect, 851 Burlway Road, rlingame, noted that
th ree species was chang to evergreen as requ ed by the Commission at the s dy meeting, considered
dding a space for deli ery vehicles, provide a drawing to show what it w d look like in front of the
building, would hav double slope becaus he ramp slopes down to the b ow-grade garage, conside d a
circular driveway ut would lose one on- reet parking space, felt that it as more important to pr ide the
front setback 1 dscaping rather than e delivery vehicle space, wo d be better for the stree don't think
there woul e many deliveries to e site with a three-unit build' g. Commission noted at the Leyland
Cypress ees to be planted alon e left side property line are ry messy, suggest repl 'ng these with one
of the other tree species pro sed. Commission asked if e divided light wind s will be used, yes;
co erned with the west e vation, can the long expans on this side of the buii ng be articulated m .
chitect noted that the ar one-third of this site faces e new multi-family r idential project to b uilt at
512 Primrose Road, f el that this wall is not broke p, carried the chimn up at the front of t uilding,
have bay windows wards the back of the buildi g. Commission asked i the architect read e letter dated
March 29, 2004 submitted by Mr. Jacobson? o, did not see that letter, staff then provided a copy of the
letter to archit ct.
12
Ciry of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 24, 2003
� 5. 1428 & 1432 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —
a. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT FOR RE-EMERGING LOT LINE;
b. 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE — DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING
c. 1432 CABRII,LO AVENUE — DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMII.Y DWELLING (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC.,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND CYNTHIA GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (75
NOTICED� PROJECT PLANNER� RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report November 24, 2003 with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staffcomments. Twenty three conditions were suggested for consideration for 1428 Cabrillo and
25 conditions were suggested for consideration for 1432 Cabrillo. Commissioner asked why the den on the
first floor at 1428 Cabrillo was not counted as a bedroom, noted that a bedroom on second floor was
incorrectly labeled as a bathroom; looks like it was not included in the bedroom count. Commission asked for
clarification on parking requirement for a 4 bedroom verses a 5 bedroom house. Staff explained that a 4
bedroom house requires one covered and one uncovered space and a 5 bedroom house requires two covered
spaces and one uncovered space. This proj ect provides two covered spaces, and meets the requirements for a
5 bedroom house. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. James Chu, 39 W. 43`d Avenue, San Mateo, project designer was
available to answer any questions. Apologized for mislabeling bedroom a bathroom on the second floor of
1428 Cabrillo. Staffreport clearly explains changes made to project, re-designed 1428, submitted arborist
report, and overall reduced bulk and mass. Staffasked ifthe columns in the front of 1432 Cabrillo are wood
or plaster, material is not called out, also are windows wood. Mr. Chu replied that the columns and windows
will be wood. Commission asked where square footage was taken out of 1432 Cabrillo. Mr. Chu explained
that square footage was taken off at the rear from the family room and room above, and about 6" was taken
off of the front. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: 1428 Cabrillo is a big improvement from the last proposal, listened to the Planning
Commission, did the same with 1432 Cabrillo, definitely an improvement over what is there now; drastic
reduction in the mass and bulk, listened to Commission's concerns, hate to see one house removed and two
houses go up, the increase in density impacts the neighborhood, but support the project, trees will be retained,
would like to point out that you can have a 5 bedroom house at 3,100 SF; would have liked to see more
square footage reduced from 1432 Cabrillo.
C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions for 1428 Cabrillo
Avenue: 1) 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,
E
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 24, 2003
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; 8) 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; 9) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staffwill 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 pernut 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 ofcutJfill and
soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; e�sting 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
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 runoffinto 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, sha11 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
6
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 24, 2003
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.
And the following conditions for 1432Cabrillo Avenue: 1) 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 pernut; 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; 5) that the required tree protection measures sha11 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 e�sting driveway shall be removed and new driveway installed
only after the e�sting 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 Of�icial'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 pians; 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 staffwill 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 pernut 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 sha11 be accepted by the City Engineer; 16) that
during demolition of the e�sting 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
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 24, 2003
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 sha11 include a site plan showing
the property lines, e�sting and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations ofcut/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; 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, sha11 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 sha11 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) �
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.
The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Keele,
Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m.
6. 755 CALIFORNIA DR1VE, ZONED G2 — APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A
FITNESS STUDIO (BARBARA A. YERBY, APPLICANT; JD & ASSOCIATES, JERRY DEAL,
DESIGNER; K& B INVESTMENTS, C/O TERRY HORN, PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report November 24, 2003 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staf� comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no
questions of staff.
Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. George Yerby, business manager; Jerry Dea1, 1208 Paloma,
designer, and Ann O'Brien, 145 Balboa represented the project; Harold Coffee, 24 Amber Drive, SF; Katie
Treu, 745 Neuchatel. Felt that it is unreasonable to restrict the number of people who can be on site at one
time, did not see how the business owner could limit, some may car pool or walk so the number of cars
generated may not necessarily conelate with the number of people on site at one time; they have 27 on site
parking spaces enough for 60 members; while Prime Time has 70 parking spaces for about 3,000 members.
Commissioners asked: what are you doing to improve the appearance of the structure, its ugly will paint,
inside will add a lounge and first class bathroom facilities. Uncomfortable given parking variance without
8
City oJBurlingame Planning Comrnission Minutes
November 24, 2003
� 5. 1428 & 1432 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1—
a. APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT FOR RE-EMERGING LOT LINE;
b. 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE — DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMII,Y
DWELLING
c. 1432 CABRILLO AVENUE — DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., 1NC.,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND CYNTHIA GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (75
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER� RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report November 24, 2003 with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staffcomments. Twenty three conditions were suggested for consideration for 1428 Cabrillo and
25 conditions were suggested for consideration for 1432 Cabrillo. Commissioner asked why the den on the
first floor at 1428 Cabrillo was not counted as a bedroom, noted that a bedroom on second floor was
incorrectly labeled as a bathroom; looks like it was not included in the bedroom count. Commission asked for
clarification on parking requirement for a 4 bedroom verses a 5 bedroom house. Staff explained that a 4
bedroom house requires one covered and one uncovered space and a 5 bedroom house requires two covered
spaces and one uncovered space. This project provides two covered spaces, and meets the requirements for a
5 bedroom house. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. James Chu, 39 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, project designer was
available to answer any questions. Apologized for mislabeling bedroom a bathroom on the second floor of
1428 Cabrillo. Staff report clearly explains changes made to project, re-designed 1428, submitted arborist
report, and overall reduced bulk and mass. Staffasked ifthe columns in the front of 1432 Cabrillo are wood
or plaster, material is not called out, also are windows wood. Mr. Chu replied that the columns and windows
will be wood. Commission asked where square footage was taken out of 1432 Cabrillo. Mr. Chu explained
that square footage was taken off at the rear from the family room and room above, and about 6" was taken
off of the front. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: 1428 Cabrillo is a big improvement from the last proposal, listened to the Planning
Commission, did the same with 1432 Cabrillo, definitely an improvement over what is there now; drastic
reduction in the mass and bulk, listened to Commission's concerns, hate to see one house removed and two
houses go up, the increase in density impacts the neighborhood, but support the project, trees will be retained,
would like to point out that you can have a 5 bedroom house at 3,100 SF; would have liked to see more
square footage reduced from 1432 Cabrillo.
C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions for 1428 Cabrillo
Avenue: 1) 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,
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 24, 2003
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; 8) 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; 9) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staffwill 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 pernut 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 e�sting 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 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
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, sha11 be
covered and shall be inspected for property functioning and leaks; a11 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
6
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 24, 2003
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.
And the following conditions for 1432Cabrillo Avenue: 1) that the project sha11 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; 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 front porch and single family dwelling shall be constructed using a pier
and grade beam foundation; 7) that the e�sting driveway shall be removed and new driveway installed
only after the e�sting 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; 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 staffwill 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;l4) that prior
to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor sha11 locate the property corners and set the
building envelope; 15) that prior to undertloor 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
7
City of Burlingame Planning Comrnission Minutes
November 24, 2003
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 e�sting 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; 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) �
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.
The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Keele,
Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m.
6. 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 — APPLICATION FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A
FITNESS STUDIO (BARBARA A. YERBY, APPLICANT; JD & ASSOCIATES, JERRY DEAL,
DESIGNER; K& B INVESTMENTS, GO TERRY HORN, PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report November 24, 2003 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no
questions of staff.
Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. George Yerby, business manager; Jerry Deal, 1208 Paloma,
designer, and Ann O'Brien, 145 Balboa represented the project; Harold Coffee, 24 Amber Drive, SF; Katie
Treu, 745 Neuchatel. Felt that it is unreasonable to restrict the number of people who can be on site at one
time, did not see how the business owner could limit, some may car pool or walk so the number of cars
generated may not necessarily correlate with the number of people on site at one time; they have 27 on site
parking spaces enough for 60 members; while Prime Time has 70 parking spaces for about 3,000 members.
Commissioners asked: what are you doing to improve the appearance of the structure, its ugly will paint,
inside will add a lounge and first class bathroom facilities. Uncomfortable given parking variance without
8
City of Burlingame Planning Corrrmission Minutes
October 14, 2003
Chair Bojues made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions
have been made. This motion was seconded by C. Visitica.
Comment on motion: this is a great project; designed with thought about the living needs; design is sensitive
to the existing style; the architecture looks great.
Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been
revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Brownrigg absent, C. Auran abstained).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m.
C. Auran returned 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-
5TORY SINGLE FAMIL,Y DWELLING
(JAMES CHU, CHLT DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND
CYNTHIA GII,SON PROPERTY OWNERS�(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 e�sting bedrooms and the height ofthe
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 staffalways
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 Crilson, 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 e�sting 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 of Burlingame 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 pernut 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 appro�umately 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
��:� .
' j, y,�'i�''��`a.
. . •� ; - `;�;�,�:
, y ;;:' ,, .
,, � �-- s;, ,^:�
, � `' ` ,-
`.�.c, . . -��I. , '. :,�,�
�`,, .. _ ` . . * A ; - �
il i..,' ti '; � �r ;
, +! , • � �:�
't,\, ��; .�w �; �`�v
�' ... , ':�;.�i�{.�:,
ti>*
�r�w�,.n,�
� . �;_
;' } .
, �. �
. '�,
:� °
, ,
, �
, a�:�"�� .
, ;"�; '-,..R �. •+'ta;:
�� � ..;;
.�k�: rR �"'�.�':
,C t � ..
K;� �)a� y .r.
K � � :
A
S t)�:4�y,y.. R�� �
;�\ `t � y�, p�
-��Q�� �[ � ^' �A i�
o�..;�lch� t'l1�'��u..-''��(
" . ,. //
.. / __
City of Burlingame
Design Review Amendment
Address: 1428 Cabrillo Avenue
Item #10
Action Item
Meeting Date: 3/29/04
Request: Design review amendment for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage.
Applicant and Designer: James Chu APN: 026-051-160
Property Owner: Robert and Cynthia Gilson Lot Area: 6360 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential 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.
History: On November 24, 2003, the Planning Commission approved an application for a conditional
use permit for the re-emergence of two parcels previously merged by a use, and design review for two
new, two-story single family dwellings with detached garages and a special permit for declining height
envelope at 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue (November 24, 2003 P.C. Minutes). The applicant is now
applying for an amendment to the design review approval for the previously approved house at 1428
Cabrillo Avenue to increase the floor area by 284 SF (revised plans date stamped February 18, 2004).
There are no changes proposed to the house at 1432 Cabrillo Avenue (8%z" x 11" reduced plans of 1432
Cabrillo Avenue are included for reference). Please refer to Table 1 on pages 2 and 3 for development
data for the previously approved project and the current revised project.
Project Summary with Revisions (February 18, 2004 plans): The applicant is applying for an
amendment to the previously approved design review for the house at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue (revised
plans date stamped February 18, 2004). The applicant originally reduced the size of this house by 410
SF prior to getting approved on November 24, 2003 (from 3,534 SF to 3,124 SF). The applicant is
now proposing to increase the floor area by a total of 284 SF (190 SF on the first floor, 14 SF net area
for trellis, and 80 SF on the second floor). The floor area of the previously approved project would be
increased by 284 SF from 3,124 SF (0.49 FAR) to 3,408 SF (0.54 FAR) where 3,535 SF (0.55 FAR) is
the maximum allowed on this lot. The proposed floor area is 127 SF below the ma�cimum allowed.
With the proposed increased in floor area, there will not be an increase in the number of bedrooms (5).
The proposed detached two-car garage provides the required covered parking on the site for the five
bedroom house (den qualifies as a bedroom).
Along with the increase in floor area, there are revisions to the roof configuration throughout the house.
In addition, one window was added in the breakfast nook (left side elevation) and one window was
added in the second floor master bathroom facing the rear yard (rear elevation). The windows in the
second floor bedroom and closet were decreased in size (rear elevation). The front setback has been
revised from 22'-0" to 20'-0", where 19'-1" is the average front setback.
In regards to trees, only the existing 14-inch oak tree at the front of the lot will remain. The arborist
notes in his report dated October 27, 2003, 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 on
the construction side. 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
Design Review Amendment 1428 Cabrillo Avenue
Arborist reviewed the October 27, 2003, axborist report and notes the report appears complete and
adequately addresses tree protection measures needed for this project. He also 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. There were no changes to the originally
approved landscape plan except to adjust to the increased footprint of the house. All other zoning code
requirements have been met.
The revised development data table for 1428 Cabrillo Avenue includes the previously approved project
(November 24, 2003 meeting) and the current proposal. The development data table for 1432 Cabrillo
Avenue is also included for reference. 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.
Table 1 -1428 Cabrillo Avenue
CURRENT PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLW'D/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
3/29/03 11/24/03
SETBACKS
Front (lst flr): 20'-0" 22'-0" 20'-10" 19-11" (average)
(2nd flr): 21'-0" 23'-0" 24'-10" 20'-0"
Side (left): 10'-0" 10'-0" 9'-0" 5'-0"
(right): 5'-0" 5'-6" 10'-0" 5'-0"
Rear (lst flr): 33'-0" to decic 37'-0" to deck 35'-0" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 39'-6" 48'-6" 58'-0" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2,528 SF 2,214 SF 2,089 SF 2,544 SF
39.7% 34.8% 40%
FAR: 3,408 SF 3,124 SF 2,927 SF' 3,535 SFZ
0.54 FAR 0.49 FAR 0.55 FAR
' 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).
2(0.32 x 6360 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3535 SF (0.55 FAR)
Table 1 continued on next page.
2
Design Review Amendment 1428 Cabrillo Avenue
Table 1-1428 Cabrillo Avenue continued
CURRENT PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLW'D/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
3/29/03 11/24/03
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 29 (9' x 20')
# of bedrooms: 5 5 4 ---
Height: 25'-8" 25'-8" 27'-11" 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: dormer dormer complies see code
exception exception
Design Review Amendment
Table 2— For Reference Only
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
APPROVED EXISTING ALLW'D/REQ'D
11/24/03
SETBACKS
Front (lst flr): 25'-10" 20'-10" 19-11"
(2nd flr): 30'-4" 24'-10" 20'-0"
Side (left): 10'-0" 9'-0" 4'-0"
(right): 4'-0" 10'-0" 4'-0"
Rear (Ist flr): 45'-0" 35'-0" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): 45'-0" 58'-0" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 1,943 SF 2,089 SF 2,400 SF
32.3% 40%
FAR: 3,244 SF 2,927 SF3 3,420 SF4
0.54 FAR 0.57 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 4 ---
Height: 27'-3" 27'-11" 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: encroachess 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")).
Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that since this request is an amendment to a
previously approved project, the amendment was taken directly to action. If the Commission requires
any additional information before action, this item can be continued.
4
Design Review Amendment
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted
by the Council on Apri120, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review amendment, and the
reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should
be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped February 18, 2004, sheets A.1 through 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
prior to any demolition, construction, or material/equipment
maintained until the final inspection has been completed;
the oak tree in the front yard
staging on site and shall be
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;
Design Review Amendment
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
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 Arborist's November 18, 2003 memo, 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, memos shall be met;
8. 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
Deparhnent;
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 Deparhnent;
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;
C
Design Review Amendment
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
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 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.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c: James Chu, designer
7
. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 24, 2003
5. 1428 & 1432 CABRTLLO 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 OWNERS) (75
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report November 24, 2003 with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Twenty three conditions were suggested for consideration for 1428 Cabrillo and
25 conditions were suggested for consideration for 1432 Cabrillo. Commissioner asked wh� the den on the
first floor at 1428 Cabrillo was not counted as a bedroom, noted that a bedroom on second floor was
incorrectly labeled as a bathroom; looks like it was not included in the bedroom count. Commission asked
for clarification on parking requirement for a 4 bedroom verses a 5 bedroom house. Staffexplained that a 4
bedroom house requires one covered and one uncovered space and a 5 bedroom house requires two covered
spaces and one uncovered space. This proj ect provides two covered spaces, and meets the requirements for a
5 bedroom house. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. James Chu, 39 W. 43`d Avenue, San Mateo, project designer was
available to answer any questions. Apologized for mislabeling bedroom a bathroom on the second floor of
1428 Cabrillo. Staffreport cleazly explains changes made to project, re-designed 1428, submitted arborist
report, and overall reduced bulk and mass. Staff asked if the columns in the front of 1432 Cabrillo are wood
or plaster, material is not called out, also are windows wood. Mr. Chu replied that the columns and windows
will be wood. Commission asked where square footage was taken out of 1432 Cabrilla. Mr. Chu explained
that square footage was taken off at the rear from the family room and room above, and about 6" was taken
off of the front. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: 1428 Cabrillo is a big improvement from the last proposal, listened to the Planning
Commission, did the same with 1432 Cabrillo, definitely an improvement over what is there now; drastic
reduction in the mass and bulk, listened to Commission's concems, hate to see one house removed and two
houses go up, the increase in density impacts the neighborhood, but support the project, trees will be
retained, would like to point out that you can have a 5 bedroom house at 3,100 SF; would have liked to see
more squaze footage reduced from 1432 Cabrillo.
C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions for 1428
Cabrillo Avenue: 1) 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 azea 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, 20Q3, sha11 be installed and inspected
by the City Arborist before issuance of a building pennit 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 azound the oak tree in the front yard prior to any
5
City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 24, 2003
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 pernut 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 ofthe 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 constxuction 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;l3) 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
cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing �egetation 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
irrigation;l7) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoffshall 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,
C
. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 24, 2003
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 Dischazge 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.
And the following conditions for 1432Cabrillo Avenue: 1) 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; 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 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 beaz 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; 10) that
prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall
provide azchitectural 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 proj ect, 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 fmal inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note
compliance of the azchitectural 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 Buildi.ng permit is issued; 13) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor
shall shoot the height of ttie roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Departrnent;
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
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
6.
November 24, 2003
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
cudfill 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; 18) that the erosion and
sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, andlor 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; 19) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoffshall be
diverted azound 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.
The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Keele,
Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m.
755 CALIF RNIA DRIVE, �ONED C-2 — APPLICATI i�t�FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A
FITNES STUDIO (B `� �RA A. YERBY, APPLI ; JD & ASSOCIA ES, JERRY DEAL,
DES NER; K& B D�'�7ESTMENTS, C/O TERR HORN, PROPERTY O��R) (44 NOTICED)
Reference sta report November 24, 2003 'th attachments. CP Mo oe presented the report, re�v �ved
criteria an taff comments. Seven co itions were suggested f consideration. Commissi �f had no
question of staff. �
- .
" :���:� ,- : .
Ch Bojues opened the pub ' hearing. �eorge Yerb , business manager; Jerry eal, 1208 Paloma,
signer, and Ann O'Brien, 45 Balboa represented project; Hazold Coffee, 24 berDrive, SF; Katie
Treu, 745 Neuchatel. F that it is unreasonable t estrict the number of peo who can be on site at one
time, did not see how e business owner coul unit, some may car pool walk so the number of s
generated may not cessarily correlate with e number of people on sit at one time; they have 2 on site
parking spaces e ough for 60 members; w'1e Prime Time has 70 par g spaces for about 3,00 members.
Commissi ers asked: what aze yo oing to improve the appe ance of the structure, ' s ugly will paint,
inside ' 1 add a lounge and first c ss bathroom facilities. Ur� omfortable given p ng variance without
:
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
November 12, 2003
❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Rec ling Specialist
L9"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
%�i �. i�ovt cv-c.� /'�E � SvR.eE S/� �E i� 6� �2 71�lc S G�d¢G�•
,.� �avc.� .2EC�x�E�cv3� �Gvt�Ev� rL 7'i,�i��"' y►r� �iP�K62
.
e�•.• __.___ .�..� �, . � ,� � � _ _ _ � .�. � � �'�� /\ � ..,.. _.,..._...�. -
�i�lP.A-c�f-4 � 71f�'� 71�� F2v?t�i"" �2c /{ v'�'� oIC �'�i 6-2
,9��fj c�E.�o�-j� O2 oTst�tZ T�U�`�e- oF �ESi6A/.
Reviewed by:
Date:
/i�i�-�o 3
,,...,.,_ F:,�_� ,.�;, .,. . _ ;.,-�;,�,:
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
9/9/03
�City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ 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
� �l� �rt'�0.
� - : � . , _ _„�___,r.,.i �
.
�JI�Yi+�r�o � n-�. l 7 l�.
Reviewed by:
V�-
Date:
�����3
,, ,.. . .
�
� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMIVIENTS
The following requirements apply to the project
Project Name:�r��oc� , f �cUr___�_��ti✓�,1.;�
- Project Address:_ � � �,'�u
1� � A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners,
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 Fronta.ge 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 standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.)
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and I)evelopment Commission.
7. Sanitary sewer analysis is requued 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 traffic 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
Engineer.
14. The project shall file a pazcel map with the Public Works Engi.neering
Division. The parcel map shall show all existing propeity lines, easements,
monuments, and new properly and lot lines proposed by the map.
Page 1 of 3
U:�private development�PLANNING REVIEW CONIl�'NTS.doc
, ..
PiTBLIC WORKS DEPART'MENT 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 pazcel 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 requuements 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 The project shall, at its own cost, design and conshvct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, pazking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights ui 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 traffic
and public on street parking. The project shall identify ttiese impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclasure. The hydraulic calculations
must shQw 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 Pernut and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 No construction debris shall be allawed into the creek.
20 � Y The project shalt comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevenf 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 � 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 developmentlPLANNING REVIEW COMI��NTS.doc
, > .
.�. '. 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 reeeptacle shall be placed in front. The
4 sidewalk fronting the store shail be kept clean 20' from each side of the
proPertY-
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the gazbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�FLANNING REVIEW CONIlVIENTS.doc
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
9/9/03
a 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:! � 9 w_�.�
� � ��r»,
Project Comments
Date: 9/9/03
To: ❑ City Engineer
� Chief Building Official
O Fire Marshal
6" 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.
Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR"S LICENSE NO. 276793
GRADUATE FORESTER • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPERATORS
RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A
PREStDENT �CtO�Cr 27, 2��3 SAN CARL.O6, CA 94070-6228
KEV[N R. KIELTY TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400
OPERATIONS MANAGER FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443
EMAIL: info@maynetree.com
Robert Gilson
Gilson Mechanical
P.o. BoX sss
Burlingame, CA 94011-0585
Re: 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame
Dear Mr. Gilson:
RECEIVED
OCT 3 0 2003
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING 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 conesponding 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 determined 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
Fina.11y, 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 fu-st 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 aze 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. Ttus will, however, take many yeazs until its trunk
encroaches into the sidewalk space. If the tree is not ma.intained 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 yeazs.
This tree, number 14, also has a root zone/system that needs protecting. On this tree the
drip line and root zone aze 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 descnbed, tree health and support should not be compromised. Keeping
pmtective 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 garage 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 approximately 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. _
Tree No. Species
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
TREE SURVEY
DBH Condition Distance fram 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 befinreen 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 controlled. To live near a tree
is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to
eliminate all trees.
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 buitt, 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 deternune 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 maintained.
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 azboricultural principles and
practices.
Sincerely,
� P��
Richard L. Huntington
Certified Arborist WC #0119
/ ��(',�.Tlf QF�,.��
����,.NUP�� �'EY�
��� G�
�� � �
_ �, WC-0119
*
�
RLH:dcr/pmd
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(b50) 696-3790
g1�1�L1t�(i�1ME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIUN
�..m M°�
TypeJof application: Design Review � Conditional Use Permit Variance
� �Sp�i,�1,P�it �- Other , Parcel Number:
"Y� ,�
Project address:
APPLICANT �
Name: V �' I � �� �
Address:� I� � �� � �''° �
City/State/Zip:'�J� • �
Phone (w):��� =!� � f*��
�. � � . � .
- jI %' _►� ' "` 1►��/ .%� �" ,s�
. , , - � ii r�.�:�� . �''J
. � � ��.ii�� �� _ � 'i r
. � , r/�"�/ �� ,�+ r��
(h}:
c�.� '�• ?��`���
(h):
c�� � I �—�°I �I °I
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name:t-�"�I � � ��I� � G�i:�-'l� � � I �.-�' `
Address:
City/State/Zip: ��,�� �
�' ��..i �`
Phone {w):
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
f-� �.. �.� �:.. � °�� �. C�
5 E P �- � 2003
(h):
(fl•
CV�[Y UI- isll�it.�l'J1:/11+11E
PLAI�1NIfV(a D-CPT.
I know abot?� ro d application and hereUy authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Plaruzing Commis 'on.
Pro e owner's signature: � "�Y ate: G � ��
P rtY
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: �
�r`. c rr o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
e��tu'�wME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�b,,,,�,,,,,•-' TEL: (650) 558-7250
Site: 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE
Appiication for design review for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and detached
garage at:1428 CABRILLO AVENUE,
zoned R-1. (APN: 026-051-160).
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, March 29, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the
City Hall Council Chambers located at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed: March 19, 2004
(Please refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the applic ' � �"' ay be reviewed prior
to the meeting a la ' D pa ent � 1 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Ca ' � �
If you chal ge t
raising onl hos ssues
described i 'c
at or prior t t
C r� �. � � �c3
Property o ers Q:r i i
tenants ab t thi no i
558-7250. ank u. r �
��u�^`° - �
Margaret �o��'� p �
City Planner �
��
PU
(Please refer to other side)
!'� i A
onsi
informatio
f�
• ',
limited to
ic hearing,
to the city
ming their
call (650)
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW
AMENDMENT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for
design review amendment for construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling and
detached � a�e at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, Robert and Cynthia 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
March 29, 2004, 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 design review amendment is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review amendment 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 29`�' day of March, 2004, by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review amendment.
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective April 8, 2004
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped February 18, 2004, sheets A.1 through 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 materiaVequipment 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 Arborist's November 18, 2003 memo, 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, memos shall be met;
8. 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;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review amendment.
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective Apri18, 2004
Page 2
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
BNII's (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,
sta.ging 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
irrigation;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review amendment.
1428 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective April 8, 2004
Page 3
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.
Y �'
� � /sx . •.,�` /��, � ��
t � i�w .%',t .`",`° � ` `.`� �� ��. �.t,Yy,f �
.., ' E . a � � i� " ��� �,�;,' � �`i ,:
�� ,. , r �,,-�+ � � �� ' � �� ';� . ,.� � � ;•, �
. .v a: �� `° `� ' � ����� 4� „�r °6 � ffi� �"' . �,, �'�R1%
, , � � � . r �. � � � ,, "�, �
� ri,,
� , , �
y 4 ��. , ',�°��`' u' �r�� d`t�`a , i `� _ , :. �,
y
� �'�a tl ' Q� � � a � '�w.�'� "' f+�' �' `'��`.r ,�.
,,.
�
:
� �
�c< , �
, ' �^ .
,� f' ' �i�` '�'
`P"�k. E�, �y� ' ,� +6.r2... �ga 'f$ti ;',. •k�� �
�.
.,� � �,� �-_ �n �r � �,. �� �� � .. i x.
��'s� : � ,1L� `r. y '' ���. n :�- �4 • R � �.7°�'bF �� �.
�
� ' " � .
r
� �,. t �, t" . � t�., a t.�
_ ��, _� a �yy:. � .
r
�� � ��4 � �.' � �� � � ..
� '�',yyi I9 - � jj ��e .cyµ 'Q,\4� .:: ` _ `,.„; '�Y '{'tii�� +.
n � r � n. , < , . \ �� V`"� / lr s` $ ,a' .x , �� :'�%
�°yt 1 � ��*9 �;4 � ` � �'.` � � '
�'�, �,, °�. v �,,. �,L" .� ��y� �e �����' �� x � � � �- ..�� �� �. ��, � �y C
° �l' + � ' �.�I'F
�., �J. �4Z � i �. t yt»�,�' ' �+c�� ` . # � ; ������� "y �.
� �.� 1 �A'l , { ' ! y • �'+4;` r �� �`•.
$��� �+'
�, �. � � m,q�'� pfi•w �: .' `y 1�
G' • �a,
"�-' / .;q.'4� �" 1 �. �,'{'' .� '�.�" d • �r��.� 1} �`' ` �'4a -� � .� d �4t„�� ��� 4,�"r&. '��..
��,! .� ��' �.:.; `. �, ,�; ` •�.��r � , ��� .�.�. ���,: �',°�
•r' �, �� � � � � � .�
� � ?��', _":�s��' 'I��,� �� ` t,�� ;� 'r., /M ,�� � r � i,�+ .�rw`�,
� ,
, , � - '• , _ �r' . ; :.. -� � / ' ,�::., a, `�„i: . � �jv'�„ . �..�a
�
�'"�+ �M; , # ��}�� �`�. �- \'��-: r, tb �� � �,� fw�.,. �4 `.:i .
. � ,
+J„ , y� � z �
, „ , v
.'�.+� h ;... �f - T �: . � `.`N� / .�'•� � � �* ' �' �e �
`°nu� i j!_.,1"� \ � . �' !� R f �, ^ �� ^ � ���r- �' �: •
+�� �;. �,�`� � ��r�� , ��^ � T y�„ �m�v .�`v� � �.,
��� , ;, f � �+.��'iR � F
. „ � <
� � /�/� /��{ �J '4�'�� : �r 4 a� ;ry �� � '�' [ � �j �� ,
� . a �'�(�y..:..., �'.. ` ., � i��'TV ;/�y �Y G.! �.�� �4�'1'��t � � 3� ��FZ. ti • �/'P'�� `" \� r:� -.
: � a-, ' ' rkp�. _,� � `� �. "'� �� si•'..
4. `b t � � T
a, �
� t � �°
,i *�'�� �t ` 6 �� � ,� `�' ��;� } �yrt��'�� �-„����� z� ' .
� �' �. �. �:� �`',;� bF +��`� .+� �
�, � � �'�i �"� , ,� � a+> .RA� 1 "✓ /j , � . y .
H4r} � "�° �� � �b � / 4 A +
X p �• � ��� �� �. 1 ,�M� �.
F, ` ���/� � � ! � :
a .
:'
� � � �
.j' � � t
.
- ,� . %n� �' al
�, .� � - �'�T5 a ; �� "�fi,
:��"' � .�r • i'" �-43 r � J t
� �� � . �
Yy�.� a �' � � � Yy '�'' �, a?�y �� `� . �'``.
�� � � t.
"Y-,'�" '+ tz \ �* ,+. �`�,�! +. f°r :. /r/ �_ i i� � ,"" d rt;� '�'�����' �g
} ��. �� � `�� ,�-� �' ':�t,;' � •p �_, i°� �`, �. 1 - . a 'Si'.� t, qr.? �� .
l��*e. � � v�`*�`''�' a ,�'P � ��. '/� �' .: ��'F .e� �� �� � .� � �� _ .'�' ++. � �A�:S' T y 1` "!
��,�' R¢•�� .4 ':` . �` : ?,z = �,. ��� � � ,, : �+ ��`�
� . : , , � ,� y�� r , .�:" .� + ,
�" y . �� 1433' �w `
� 4 � � . .
� �t � �_ � .. �� �., �r• � 3� • .: . � � s
, �. �i 'n ,y�... 4� �'\, lif .�ik ��:�� �� .•. .�%
�� � �' ��,'`�„`��,� i � �, '� �" � 429 . ,�" � �' . � � s. � ��'y��,,:,,;
;� `�e` �4& , °`�� f� � , � .: ",c`�, � "' , : � ,� � ` ''� �� �'.��. �; �,
�" `� ��� d '�'�. "� `��, � � � �4°25� � � �� t �,n� �p.� i� �,.`,���,�`�♦. `� ��
.
_ . . .
. � � � � a �� w 421 � � "�:; ` - ���� . � • "� p t �� ��� '
.
.
��� , . „ .�.
� � � • • � ��q..?"�k � ��a �.,, � �,� ,� sp� .� xr, ��''R.
• ,
� . . - - �, ` '��� 7� '� + `�
.�
` � �,'&�`, c R � .r d� � i I� u � , ' �" :�'�3 ����� � / ��,,,. ,
��� �� �. ,,,,,,��-:a �� �� ,� °� �� � g'" 1�Q�'' �"'
�, a f, . �._. .�., ; — .� � • . :� � �' �r � �'�, ��, . � ���,
< ki 1 .L i
S { T ,.. .. � � � g #" �, k ' , . r� r ' ,
r, � ddt wTM� � � .'�i„�%. , . �.�..�` a�`-� . . �•,., "��'��, .4 �„ r; + �x , ���t,� �� �H t
'�1' "' cg�; � ` �►� ` '�" ��' M � �
% i �"� � �"�' ,r � � � �� °, ��.� �}^'�3, a •3 '
� � ,��. /. �ry.r � :� �� #��. t.�
� �' F'' ' � J �' i'� ., ...=, ` 'o.` ''�
R. � "� z f - � � / . � �r � ,�� a � % � j� �+S� 3� � ,,�
.�(. /����� � +�j� , p {:. � .. �i w�`•�t dip � � 4t-� �
t(
� �q ' +. ,# = W . , � ��� ,. . �' '�
�r � �
���,.e� „� ' �� � � t� � .�. . .'"�� ^ ,� G i. . z , � „� �� p�. � ��
� _ �'� � ,. • �`- . ' �� , � � � � � .
� � � � ,� /�'��� } �,� . �+ � '� `" �" � �, �
� � � �� � `
�,� ^' 3�,` y� . w/� f � ��.�, �,`j?. � � �� �^." � = 1 �• �� »�* '. '�ti
t �� ` d � � Y'� � ,� � : \,°' � ' � J � .� � � � aj . , � 1 y � � . � �
� �o��f'a"�� t�, �� �'.,k. ti� �, �- - �: g ,. , � , J .y� �,
�.> '� i���zN , q/ :i�. " �1"�A ', � � � �>' �n '^ �.,�' N � ,� � .. + �.
�� �,�`�,� �w ' A � � ' r � ,� • �- � � 4 � >,�, ��' ,� . � ,' -' �,� �
�`�', ��: 4f 'a;` : k,� � �s� ; .�, j
* ;�,q� � ;� �F �. �. �.,�ck ��j" � 3r� � �St ,��; t �•� ' � ��,� '
x.� • ;'� � � : ? '�;�lft �,- ^F � a> '' ; '�� � � ,�t� �}u, -'
�'�. � ;�•.e�#� x. � ' i � �- • . �� `4��y" . ,�.`�� ' '4 ���.�
,�F .,
�� , s,q :. �'•� * �.';, � ,� r : � :,
� �'i' . d1P xt � � . y� ,' • � yj � , .. .�,. - � �� � . ' - ; �'�,.
' �.�ji,''�g�"3 .. �,,f�� �� `�,� �d._.'«� ' k; ��#5��� 5 ���� � `� . . 4 ..► �g'
�� .
� � � r �� � '� ��.� �� : � ,.'Q �ht � ,� , y � �, ., .. y �\ � ��ir'� „'. �;�, �
� � P ' f .n ', � � \r., . � ��� � � �" � ,� v � �2 ��� . e, i- '�r"�
.,.a��.. �"� .. n v�s��i 'r , `�,, .N�, pt � � � � , .`�. .
4 A y ; � \y � t� :S � ''�.� Y ,� J'� �I
�`1 � �" � "`t�i.� �'�!�-e w�. „ �T^' �• • / R � � � ��'�" � �:•� � , �\lj � � �
� Y � 5i ��g�'d} ��. � f �4 t .m. � � %�n
r�. - .� �� ! �&'. �� `„ ...���.( � �'ie .i fi+'C�a , r� # �'1y.,�4,�1
��� � ,�,�r� � �r ♦r � ��. � � re� .. f� . ��. �g � �� �e
����.: .'�,� Y.r. .:ti.�� � a -�p `�,. F.'w.'�,. s ..�� � ,� ''^�t�s{�J� �`-;">!� � `S
,1... '�• x,; , . - 4 . '� d' . l� _
�r4, cirr o� CITY OF BURIINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�RLJNS3AME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�,,,_�„�,,,.�'" TEL: (650) 558-7250
Site: 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE
Appeal to the City Council of a design review
amendment to change approved plans for a pUBLIC HEARING
new, single family dwelling with a detached
garage at: 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE, NOTICE
zoned R-1. (APN: 026-051-160).
The City of Burlingame City Council
announces an appeal public hearing ,
on Monday, April 19, 2004 at 7:00 P.M.
in the City Hall Council Chambers located at �
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. il
Mailed: April 9, 2004
(Please refer to other side)
A copy of the a
to the meeting
Burlingame, Ca]
If you ch�
raising on
described
at or prior
Property c
tenants at
558-7250.
Margaret Nl�
City Planner
y be reviewed prior
rl Primrose Road,
be limited to
�blic hearing,
;d to the city
ming their
call (650)
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
��, �, � ,
.; `\` .�1. �;,1,, `
:. t:
'.;, ,, "r`
_t t,,;..
;�� �'; �: �=; ' +'• -
. � ;.Z».-1.;'.
;�;�.� • =�;�
� �
:ltiri '
� _ .�., �. � 1 . A -.e- '
�t i ? �C
<. Y � + {5� .': � � )7 �iA��1(� ' �.
., � z � ;
• ��.,x '� '+1` ' 1, . o� �.'�.
- x L �, � . 'If ' . 1 �
- _ r` \ .� :, l('
.. 'h'
. . 1 �. ..' '.
1-,': � { ` �\ 1 .
� � � , . F t ,�.t.
, .., . .. q . r �� M . .�
�, .:,� �. a � � . :
�' 7. �i ;, rF a } :+t,
�. k,� ' t,, t ..}�' 4!
y -.��`.4 � . f.. � .
���� . .. � � � _ , . ,
��,,..,.�,..j� �+
c�e< y � -
.���_,e--�..+'T�� �� �.<'�`_� ._:-' _'+` rY�+, "tY„ , . . ..
�.T'.a" _'"--•' .e� i '^x.s�`..,'�„�,.dA-t"'..n$�G��ma {��'
�1°'. � :'v�.r"�"* . ..'s`.'w"�av=�mau.���.,z "��"-�� <�:-`a� �,�R
�fa'l-1 � ,.. 1 � 1 ! � ! � +�.y. p ,. � : � .
-_-_{ • .♦ � ' .
� N .
� � `�
3y_�� '
�` �... ' ' '+
�.. ',; i � . .
/ ,t
� _
=�'7 s--� ^�-""��z.$vn.C�"`�e I ..j' � � .. .
... irc'" ,��*eg�rozk��zs� :�`� v,t�'.
v
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 Fami[y 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 ulans)
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
i
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 (1 st f lr): 22'-0" 20'-0" 20'-10" 19-11 "(average)
(2nd jlr): 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 (lst 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% 40%
FAR: 3,124 SF 3,534 SF 2,927 SF' 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�) �20� 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).
z(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
14'�2 C'ahrillo Avenue
REVISED PREVIOUS EXISTING ALLW'D/REQ'D
PROPOSAL PROPOSAL
11/24/03 10/14/03
SETBACKS
Front (lst.flr): 25'-10" 23'-4" 20'-10" 19-11"
(2nd flr): 30'-4" 28'-0" 24'-10" 20'-0"
Side (left): 10'-0" 10'-0" 9'-0" 4'-0"
(right): 4'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" 4'-0"
Rear (1 st 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"
i D�,��velape: .,�� encroach'�ess �� encro�.ches' 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 nlans)
• 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 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.
• 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).
C
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 footpriht of the structure; under design
review Commission looks at intensity of use and increase of size on the block, does not fit in with
�eighborhood, too big; project is to the limit on FAR, size of house is amplified; Hice design
overall but need to tone down, can be reduced without effecti�g design; reduce plate heights and
visual mass; need to see substantial change to this project, reduce floor area by about l0% 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
a
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 wa[l, 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 vlans)
� 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 no evergreen for screeniHg, stepping stones go nowhere; plants arouHd
redwoods are not compatible with the shade and moisture eHvironment 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 properly 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
appears complete and adequately addresses tree protection measures needed for this project.
However, although he feels that the tree protection measures and mitigation are adequa.te 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 garage 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 enha�ce.
• 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 Cabril[o Avenue
and Special Permit for DHE
S. 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 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
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 Ave�ue:
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-yeaz 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 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;
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 Deparhnent;
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 irrigation;
17. that off-site runoff shall be diverted axound 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 properiy 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:
1. 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 azborist 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 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 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 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 LewitlRuben Hurin
Planner
c: James Chu, designer
15
City of 8�trlin'game 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 b Visitica.
Co ent on motion: this is a great project• igned with thought about the living n ; design is sensitive
o 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 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 CABRII.LO AVENUE — DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMII.,Y
I �]�.%� 1l1��[f�
c. 1432 CABRILLO AVENUE — DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMII.,Y DWELLING
(JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND
CYNTHIA GILSON. PROPERTY OWNERS) (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 ofthe 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 ofBurlingame 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 43`d 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
RECEIVED
(]CT 3 0 2003
Re: 1428 & 1432 Cabrillo Ave.
Dear Planning Commissioners:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING 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 Desi r
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
November 12, 2003
❑ City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Rec ling Specialist
Q"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
�
%�i �. }�o�� cd-c,n.. ME � tva¢.dE S/tiGE �� 6 T.� L�2 7J�fc S�/�d¢c�•
�� wc�uc.� .�2Ecay,s,.,,�,c�v� , sLox�,EoE 2_ 7's<i��'" y�za �iP�K62
( � i \ � ..._. _ .,. �_.,.. _ •
� ,9 _.�.,.. _a.-.• �.+, , i ,7 . h _ _ . - - - �i. � i _
i iLlPA�c�t �'71f�� 71�� �2driQ'" �2c ff 13E. o� �� r`�� 6- 2
i9M� c�F�,oN-(� 02 oTstrE2 ?'Ut`�e.. oF '�ESi6AI.
Reviewed by:
�`�/ Date: ���/�/0 3
Date:
To:
From:
r . _ �-e� :.r_ �,. ..... . ; �c..:;,� �. �:.,.� . ,:•. - n-, .t��.�.z.�-..nr•';•-�-R".�.c�,..
k -
� 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
t< <,
�Z �
_ i2�•�s-m ��� �"e ac T7-� r r t`�2�s.��6- c.a— �cf7' �'. �,�- cr�i
- 77d� �le� � �� �r,��t �,�v- w � !� �2�� � 2� �
�
TfL� �E r2 �ticv-v/� Z. �,�s?ilw,fQ�'
i' `i �� 1J•` �t ta.
`r�«6d'E cA`��-�t 2a�rz � m-!'c- 7`/!� �L��s-�-6 D'V"at-6.E
_ /o i'�to k.+�.w�`Z•E z�e� �.o-.�c a-G-,� /d- �� �E 2 �t—�Era.�
l �?E �oz�.w�q r�, l,u� G( r3� �3�� /ri F�l1'�ii' �C
n�o�s � 2���r--- w` �� �E ;z���2.�� �,��,�
fco i t�.�c .
Reviewed by:
r
Date:
�// �' ��
Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR"S LICENSE NO. 276793
GRADUATE FORESTER • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPERATORS
RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A
PRESIDEN7' �CiObCi 2%, 2��3 SAN CARIAS, CA 94070-6228
KEVIN R. KiELTY TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400
OPERA"fIONS MANAGER FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443
EMAIL: info@maynevee.com
Robert Gilson
Gilson Mechanical
P.O. Box 585
Burlingame, CA 94011-0585
Re: 1428 and 1432 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame
Dear Mr. Gilson:
RECEIVED
0 C T 3 0 2003
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING 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 conesponding 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 determined 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. T'he 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 caze 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, potentiai 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 yeazs 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 yeazs.
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 descnbed, 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 garage abuts to the back alley/right-of-way.
The proposed garage for 1432 Cabrillo is replacing an e�cisting one. Tree number eight, a
neighbor's deodar cedar, is approximately 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 existing driveway. Remove the driveway ca.refully so as
not to damage underlying roots. Have the project arborist inspect for roots within the
trees' drip line to help deternune if proposed driveway design will work and not
sigruficantly impact these trees.
Different driveway designs andlor 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, azound the roots).
Monitoring
A;s 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 maintained.
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,
� P/�
Richard L. Huntington
Certified Arborist WC #0119
RLH:dcr/pmd
/���1Y Uf�,,,,
��'�t,NUNTj �`�''£,['r
��� ��
�� � �
_ �, WC0119
� *
c�R�'f7ED 1►��
Tree No. Species
1 Redwood
2 Black acacia
3 Black acacia
4 Black acacia
5 Black acacia
6 Plum
7 Fig
8 Deodar cedar
9 Plum
10 Box elder
11 Redwood
12 Crabapple
13 Crabapple
14 Coast live oak
TREE SURVEY
DBH Condition Distance from Comments
(Inches) (Percent) Construction
533 @ 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 befinreen 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 controlled. To live near a tree
is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to
eliminate all trees.
1 V / V
AlAil\G 1l�LL LArGn1J VV �(!.JVVL
1Vlayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
ESTABLIS(iEU 193t
C�RADIJq'I'E PO[tESTbR • CERTIF7L•DARA01215'j'$ • PEST CONTROL �N.,�CI�OR"S LfCENSE NQ, z76793
ADVISORS AND OPf;liAT01tS
RICI�(aRD L. HUN7'iNGTOH
P����ENT September 26, 2003 53S DRAGAfc> ROAp. S1�F_ q
KCVIN 2. K11=1,TY
SAN (',q►t1,pS, Cn 94070.622$
O?EkA110N5 MANACER TEI: Ep110NE' (650) S93•44f10
NACS1MrI,G (650) 593•aaa�
FMA1L: mf'o(�maynctrcacOm
Robert Gilson
Gilson Mechanical �
P.O. Box 585
Burilingarrie, CA 94011-0585
Re: I428 and 1432 Cabrill� Avenue, Burlingame
Dear Mr. GiLson_
On September 25, 2003, 1 visited the above sites for the purpose of pr�viding an arlwrist
report. T�e purpose of this rcport is to dctermine �enerel tree health and structure and
outline expected construction impacts. I will also address mitigating/reduciog these
impacts through construction adjustments, i.e. pier and grade bearn foundations.
Each tree was given a small plastic tag with a cortesponding number to the site plan. The
trees were thcn measured for diameter at 54 im;hes above grade (Dl3H or diameter breast
height). "1'rees with �nulciple trunks were so measured or jvst noted.
T]�e condition of each tree was deterrnined by a visual ground inspection. "l�he perce�ttage
rati.ng is a eombination ofgeneral tree i�ealth and structure as it cor,�pazes co a perfcet
trec. The tollowi.ng table gives relative ratings.
0-29 . .. Very poor
30-49 ... Poor
50-69 ... Fair
70-89 . .. Good
90-100 .. Excellent
Finally, the "Connmenzs" section is tu explain the conditions, canstruetion impacts and
m.iti�ations. This �me section addresses recommendations ior the "fate" c�f eacl� tree_
For example, if the condition of a tree is low, a remova] recor�mendation may be made,
regazdless of construction activity. �
i�i �ci vo inv �o. vl rnn OJUOtlJ999J mnxivr, 1x�r. tnrnxla w �UVJ
Gilson 9-26-03, Pg. 2
Tree No. S cCies
1 Redwood
? Black acacia
3 Black acacia
4 Biack.acacia
5 Black acacia.
6 Plum
7 r �g.
g Deodar ccdar
9 Ylum
10 Box elder
lI Redwood
12
13
14
Crabapple
Crabapple
Coast live oak
TftEE SURVF.y
DBH Condition bista�om (���ents
(lnehes) f Percent) Construction
,
1 65 10 feet Dieback on north side. Small roots in upper
8 inches. Kr.ep grade beams above roots,
Hand dig piers to avoid r0ots. �ence off
from site at 8 feet_ The proposed p��ch
wiTi be on a sla.b and the rest of the house
will be pier and �rade beam. Fertilize tree
now and repeat in June, Z004.
10.1 55 15 feet Weak struc:ture. Topped, witli all �owth
on one side.
8.25 55 20 feet Weak structure, Topped, with all growth
on one side.
5.6 SS 20 fc;et Weak structu�e. Topped, with all growth
on one side.
16.65 SU 12 feet Porks at 8 feet, topped.
Multi 50 0 ieec. Mature, with weak structure, in footprint
of proposed construction.
7.5, 5.9 45 6 fcet Topped at 8 feet. Forks at ground level.
prudent to remove, but fencc orf at S feet
if retained.
NA 70 8 feet_ North neighbor's tree. Potenlial root damage
durin� ga�age demolition ancl reeonstruccion.
Multi 50 0 feet. in proposed construction f'ootprini.
NA 60 12 feet South neighbor's tree. Minimal expected
impacts.
7-4 g� 0 ftet In proposed construction fooiprint. "Crans-
plantable.
5.6, 4.4 30 8 feet Very mature, significant dcc(ine_ Ptudent to
remove.
6•� 20 8 feet Very mature, 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 S to 10 feet. Lighten
and thin this tree.
10/02!0� THLT 08:41 FA% 65059J444S MAYNE TREE ERPERTS CO � 004
Gilson 9-26-p3, Pg. 2
�n conclusion, there are only G trees wortlz retaining. These aze tree nun,bers 1-5 and
aumber 14. Of these, only number 1 will potentially be ;,mpacted by the construction.
I believe this ceport is accurate and based on sourid arboricultural principles and
practices.
Sincerely,
%� s� ��
� ����h�(/�,- � HUhT
�40 .G�
Richard L. Hvntington �� �
Certified Arborist W c iz — Ib. WG0119
C#O11)
RLH:dcr * ,. � /,
lU/Ul/UJ AtU 1J: N tAA OJVJCJ4YVJ qAY.Vt 1KGL GAfGrt1J LV 1QJVU'L
e �
i
�, 9 ►�55•os•omw
— — . .. .....,.. —� Sm�•
�.•_...:...-...: �
�. :.��'•.:•::'.�.:.... � 1
4 '.�'.'.'.'.':�:,��:.':.'�' �
.'.��: � .... � �
� ' � .'" ','.': �'. � . _" � .'� .'.'. . .'.'. � . '
I'�.':.'..... . . ..t.�i� �.� �
�.... '
'.�'.-�"...'.' •.. ':. '.�:.::.:..'::...'.' �
�,....:...:�_... ..:::.. F�-♦uar.oeroeE
1.'.. ..:'• . I
1.•... 1
'� :� � j �� a �
� - 3� ,
. ;.
;
... _.. � ..s.
3 .. . �
0 29
, '
... ... , ..
- ---.,.,,
� . �:� -
_ ::� �': '•� ::; ;.: �
.. , r. � �
,. : �_;
� = �._ _ `— __�;
r:�::�::�:::.:�:: � �:.: �::. �.;i
:. r �-:::..�..:..�:::: : •.•..:.. :•.i
�::...:.� ::• ......::::..: ':..:.•:::::�: '::::�:;•.,�
,:.:'.:'. '.. ��i
• f : :. .:: " �' '.1
' ..!
t
! .� ��i
�, f . ��I
� � �_ �:� �::::�:�: ::: �� : :::.::::.... . ....... ,
:� �. �. , .:::.::.-
�p ..;.�.::..,..•.;.::.�.•��2:.6iORK:.�:.��'�......�...•.
l-� l'..':::..': ' :'.!�'ie �!�i��'�M?� . .'' _....'.�.. :':.
� �. ..drw...�.
�^n , l'.•..:.•.r.. �....��..r:.:,5:::.•..:r:�.:.:•.•r. .'...�....�...
,:.:� ��: � .: : : .:.:::::..:::.:.:..: .::.: :.... :�_:�
,.::�. :,
r....�.:.. .
�; - .�i
;:._ -- �:
' �;,, _
. � � r 1
. . ti��� ���p �
<: . . _ � e
fE1���71tE , �
_ ��� � �+f'
- -- .�4 -
�� 113I GABRILLO A .
E�Q O 6�
�
�
i ' -
i :� 1�� '
a �a
� `.'°'�
S
� 27 .
i
� �
� �
�. �
� �
1,
I !
_. . t. .. ; . .:..:. ,� . . :�: .�; �
.. '� i... :_,�.:::�; :�::;-�.`-:' . `i
r::::: .':.: : .:.� r :� ::..........:.�. �.i
' ��'.' .�t 1.,�....�:::. : .:.J —�t•_�_-_
r _ `:..'� . . _---- �
___ w���� �� - i
. ��� ,a�� . ,
'�� � +•? i 1
/E � I
.� ,.�i�:
IODO��
� GABRILLO Av�NUE -
5�' RIGuT-OF-wnY
(�� STTE DEVELOPML'NT PLAN
` - �" n ur.��a•
, •.
a��
:
��
�rf .,.
� ��� i .d��
i�
..
r
� ��t; �
� •� � �
I�
��
� , �` . .• 9�
. :��, _ �,
� ,�� I
I�i�M ���'�
IV YV�c
14� I 3. _ ••.
531D�' , �
H28 GABR�LLO AvE
8 .�
NOUSE
IS' ALLEY
r��a
��
ie
Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
GSTABLISHED 193I STATE CONTRACTOR"S LICENSE NO. 276793
GRADUATE PORESTER • CERTIF[ED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPERATORS
R[CHARD L. HUNTINGTON 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A
PRESIDENT June 30, 2��3 SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6228
KEVIN R. KtELTY TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400
OPERAT[ONS MANAGER FACSlM[LE: (650} 593-4443
EMAIL: info@maynetree.com
Robert Gilson
Gilson Mechanical
P.O. Box 585
Burlingame, CA 94011-0585
Re: Lot at 1432 Cabrillo, Burlingame
Deaz Mr. Gilson:
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 inches 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 Iine at 15 feet east of the tree. I encountered
many small roots in the upper 6 inches. The proposed driveway will be in approximatety 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 rema.ins, construction may come within �G I�/ E 1.��
within 10 feet of the tree and cause minimal impact to the tree.
S E P- 8 2003
CITY OF BURLIIVGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Project Comments
Date:
9/9/03
To: 0 City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
❑ Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ 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
� � ��,�o
� - : : i � . _,,_ _ ,., �
,
cJ12xY1�rbrp � �. 17 ! � .
Reviewed by:
�r�-
Date:
����.�3
a; � • - �
� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGIlVEERING DIVISION
PLANIVING REVIEW COMIV�NTS
The following requirements apply to the project
Project Name:�;��4c� ,��+.Ut� �,i.H
- Project Address• � G,A�,��u.,� �g,�x,
-
1� � A property boundary survey shall 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 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 pernut.
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 pernut issuance.)
6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail
and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco
Bay Conservation and I�evelopment 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 traffc 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
Engineer.
14. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The pazcel 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 COMIvvIENTS.doc
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land sha11 be
submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the pazcel map
for reviews.
12, Map closure/lot closure calculations sha11 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 construct frontage public
improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary
; appurtenan� work.
15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape
improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, pazking meters and poles,
trees, and streetlights iri accordance with streetscape master plan.
16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appeazs that the project may cause
adverse impacts during construction to vehicular iraffic, pedestrian traffic
and public on street parking. T1ie project shall identify tllese 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 azea of the 100-yeaz
� flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements.
18 Any work within the drainage area; creek, or creek banks requires a State
=, Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 No conshuction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
20 �_ The project shalt comply with the City's NPDES pemut requirement to
prevenf storm water pollution.
21 � The project does not show the dimensions of e�cisting 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:lprivate development�ELANNING REVIEW COA�IlVIENTS.doc
'� � .
.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 overIlow 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 shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the
ProPertY•
25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area
shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the gazbage area to
the Sanitary Sewer System is required.
Page 3 of 3
U:\private development�FL.4NNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
9/9/03
O City Engineer
O Chief Building Official
�Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ 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:1, ��
��
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Staff Review:
9/9/03
O City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
[9" Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ 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
�
�
'�
�
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.
an -
; Project Comments
Date:
9/9/03
To: Cf City Engineer
❑ Chief Building Official
❑ Fire 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
�-�—��r,�o
s
r i..., i►. � � 'a
Reviewed by:
V�
Date: ����
P, � ` �
�
� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMIV�NTS
Project Name:�'•��� _ ,r.� �
- Project Address:_ �32 C$�,Got,� �iM
The following requirements apply to the project
1 ,�_ A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land
surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners,
easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the
building perriut issuance.)
2 �r 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 pertnit.
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 access 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 tra�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 aud recommend mitigation
measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City
Engineer.
10. The project sha11 file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering
Division. The parcel map shall show a11 existing property lines, easements,
monuments, and new property and lot Iines 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 pazcel 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 Aet.
14 _� The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public
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 sidewallc, 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 traffic
and public on street pazking. The project sha11 identify these impacts and
provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City.
17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil
engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydrautic calculations
must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse
imgact 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 State
�_ ; Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers
Permits.
19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
20 - l� The project shall comply with the CiTy's NPDES permit requirement to
prevenf storm wa#er 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 `� 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 COI�IlVIENTS.dce
� y •
,
' 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 reeeptacle 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
shall 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 CONIlVIENTS.doc
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
9/9/03
� City Engineer
Q Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
� Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
❑ City Attorney
Plan�ing 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
Q'1-�►� � Gj�vr „C�N�^ �S�s1�i�e �s� OK r�tiU��O �ers
� �. -
Reviewed by:
Date:
`( f�( U3
Project Comments
Date:
To:
From:
9/9/03
❑ City Engineer
❑ ief Building Official
�'Fire Marshal
❑ Recycling Speciatist
❑ 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
�rc� v � �dZ� �. '1�'2 5 , �'���7 `a�Q . '1' � ✓� S�D � i r�.�. �
3 l 1 S'�-v� �C"Ll.r� �.c.
Reviewed by: �.
��
Date:
� �� � 3
Project Comments
Date: 9/9/03
To: O City Engineer
� Chief Building Official
❑ Fire Marshal
C�" Recycling Specialist
❑ City Arborist
a 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 pernutting.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
�f, c�rr o.�.
BIJRIJNOAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�.,m �.
��.
Type of application: Design Review %� Conditional Use Permit Variance
' �Sp�i�P�t �- Other Parcel Number:
Project address:
APPLICANT �
Name: V � � �� �
Address:�J I �G� . �/'�YG� �
City/State/Zip�. . �
Phone (w): �� � =�� � ifo�
(h):
����• =����
PROPERTY OWNER
• - �i %'_►1 � ` 1\Ili % �' .� .
�„- / �j�i�R
, � _�.ii►� Ji �'ir
.
. � _ ,�1"�/ � ,� '
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
(h):
c�� � � ��°l1°I
. I� � �� , � � � '
Address:
City/State/Zip: ��� �
Phone (w):
� ���
(h):
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
����� V ��
S E P- 8 2003
GITY 0�- BURL�iVGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I know abo ro d application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commis 'on. _
�
Property owner's signature: � ate� V�
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 BURLMGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT S01 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
� . a' .�
�
����,k=�
.,�' � ����1� .
i .t=
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). 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 proposed use at the proposed [ocation wi[Z not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, 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 Burlingame Genera[ Plan
and Zoning Ordinance?
The existing zone for the proposed building site is low-density
(�-1) single family residential, which allows one dwelling per
single legal parcel. It's consistent with City of Burlin�ame
General Plan and zoning regulation.
�
3.
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 genera[ vicinity?
The proposed project are located within a variety of styles with
majority of homes being a two story and detached garage in tt�e
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
shoulcl minimize any potential impact on adjoining properties. In
adciition, 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
���' / / �iYT if \ I I � ! . / %���� �� � �
��`, CITY O�
BURUNOAME
�.,m.�.,.���d
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
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`rcoval of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure
or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements.
What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is
appropriate.
. ���E��J�Ca
No trees will be removed, and all new trees with proposed hardscape are shown on
landscape plan. S E P- 8 2003
CITY Or BURLI(VUNME
PLHN�ING 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-emer i�n� lots and design review for construction of a new, two-
story sin�le faznily dwelling and detached gaza�e at 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, Robert
and Cynthia Gilson, 30 Wood�ate Court, Hiilsborough, 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 heazd 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 �aybe conshucted 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 permit 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 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�' day of November, 2003, by the following vote:
Secretary
EXI�IBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, conditional use pernut and design review.
1428 Ca6rillo Avenue
Effective December 4, 2003
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped October 29, 2003, sheets A.l — 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 gazage,
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 pernut and shall be complied with during construction, and
that the property owner shall maintain the trees after conshuction as directed by the
azborist report;
4. that protective fencing shall be installed eight to ten feet azound the oak tree in the front
yard prior to any demolition, construction, or materiaVequipment 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 Mazshal's
September 15, 2003 memo, the Recycling Specialist's September 10, 2003 memo, and the
City ArborisYs November 18 and September 19, 2003, memos shall be met;
EXHIBIT uA"
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 project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide azchitectural.certification that the ardutectural 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 azchitectural deta.ils (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 ternoination 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 pemiit 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 comers and set the building envelope;
13. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation
of the new shucture(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and conshuction 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
cudfill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected;
existing and proposed drainage pattems and structures; watercourse or sensitive azeas on-
site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construdtion 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 azound the construction site and all on-site runoff
shall be diverted around exposed construction areas;
18. that fiber rolls and other erosion prevenNon products are installed azound 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 azeas shall be regulazly 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
PERNIIT, 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-emerging lots, desipn review and special permit for declinin h� ei�ht
envelove for construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at
1432 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1, Robert and Cynthia Gilson, 30 Woodgate Court,
Hillsborou�h, CA 94010, propertv owners, APN: 026-051-160 (LOT 29 BLK 48 EASTON
ADD BURLINGAME NO 4 RSM A/45);
WHEREAS, said matters were heazd 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
azeas, 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
pernut, design review and special pernut aze 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 regulaz meeting
of the Planning Commission held on the 24�' day of November, 2003, by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, conditional use permit, design review and
special pemut.
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Effective December 4, 2003
1. 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 enlazging 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
azborist repoft;
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 sta.ging on site and
shall be maintai.ned 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 front porch and single family dwelling shall be constructed using a pier and grade
beam foundation;
7. that the existing drivev�iay shall be removed and new driveway installed only after the
existing gazage 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 tluee 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;
EXAIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, conditional use permit, design review and
special pernut.
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 azchitect, 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 azchitectural 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
Departrnent;
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;
� , � �
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; azeas to be disturbed, locations of
cudfill 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 azeas 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 minunize 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.
� � ti r
�r� TY �� CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
���E 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
�„o,,,,,,,.''�� 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
two-story single-family dwellings at 1428 & 1432
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 P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Califomia.
Mailed: November 14, 2003
(P[ease refer to other side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NQTICE
A copy of the a�
to the meeting
Burlingame, Cal
If you cha]
raising onl
described i
at or prior I
Property o�
tenants abc
558-7250. '
Margaret 1V1�
City Planner
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF B URLINGAME
"� ! ay be reviewed prior
�lat ' g� pa ent � 1 Primrose Road,
�
be limited to
iblic hearing,
;d to the city
ming their
call (650)
• . , ` �� � �
. - � ,,�=� . > �
� ,, .. „ . � . :� ` /� � `. � .,� �?`' � f ;` � \ �`Q' , S
+ . '_ ,
_
_ ,
,
.. . ,
. , '; �"�
_ ' �
, , , T r
�
� _ ... � , � -� 3 �� F "�a, _..
r.. � .. 'k� /.,. l ..-:� : .-/ t..- /.�� 4 _ . .
y��
� / � �,��a� � � �l ,
t�. °`ti�y, � *� � � .�� ��✓ _��;�! � +�!*.y�''1�' �'�� ',,fZt+�� t'r.. �.� ,'1 . ,�k,.y� z ��� -.. ° �
f': �n �f ' � ka� ++ � '� � �✓ � . � •� � � ♦
,' � ��. ���� ��s�.x _ \. � � . -+'ta� F�� r � � n,� ��
i 5, � �
F` y`°p � � ,� �`�� '� �r „ ;�. �'; i� �, 9be . �``°e�
'�` � �. �- � � � ,��. . � ,�s i � � ;' �
„ r r � �,�.
�� _ ,r � _ a�,��' `:` ' , , , .*�, ,'� � ,�. . ... �� ^��,. F .�'l' c `� �
ti.^ ` ( - � S�-��� `q."x� �i j; � =yf, V } � � �.. '..�.i � �.,.+
�. � � �� 1 �' � .Y � } ' - �
C i S ��
' � � i` •. � �+r / • v ' .
,,, � ,�F F, f ,A �.:� �o� � � f��:, t , � .: •� � . _ .
h\ 9� �y�' . A 4r.. 1 \ ) w �` � �A �' ' �
1, • / �,£ l �,'� S R" :Y4 ' e
'�'` ' � � t � ai u��" e� �y, '
��`?� S ` � = ��' �f � � �
h'� 4� . .. � "+�, ,�.,A �'�.�� �4' �R�! �- �� � } '
� � � � . l . . , �,.; f� �'�. j�� �`t�t� _ �,�' t,(yw ` ti. !� .J�., ✓ � ;�� � � _�}_.
� '� f- , . ,a. � ��>•��,�,. .�_� � a�,^ ��o � � •�:., v� . �f� :�� `
� b . . . •��r� ��,; �..�� � . y� ��� r,��� .q�r �� �
,:,y ,d �� �,-��• �'�'c�4� -� � �.,��.: � 2�.�,�'` � ��, � � � , � �`��.�
,, . � ,,, �
� , `
� � � ,r' �` . /L� ',r'� � - -
�- , ���, � t , �� k � � , �� � � , �,.R.� �, � , � r
r �� � �� �t s�•����' � .� . . V �` ' C' -� � z - / � �: � � �i
� 4,.
�y � } _'. ,� �� � �x� � q ^ �4 �',, � ` '` �_. ..
p; : . � ^.
" � '' v ' l; y; ��� ,�, e � ' ` `... .,�, 13�f � �,, _9 '�� � � ,
't � � ;1444 � " t., ° 'F435 ' �^ � ' `' . � ' `
e >,
, \ y,�' p�el�� ,. �.:�TTO ` f , .f' .. , . '�� _.- ��� �A�.' '
" '� ; � � '� �� : � 142� ; . � � � , � � " .
�� 5> >
! .. � -�. . . T {�� ...A,
� �-� �. - _ . ` e1:�'-�l� �� `^'a � ` �... �T J/,' .. f\f. " �`i�..
=s .� �� �'� ' � � � ,. ' 1425 � �a � �' `
� �� 143 �,�► .� �
S.y.. -� �� A \ ,F .. � s, � f ' . Y / � �' � k� � �� C � �.�� �,
��49 a��`" � � f � ', � �,�` , ,�'
, � �' .� . �"�4�� f p�, � �^ � "`� }.�
, ' �,� .' , � ; ��° �, �. 'a�. ��
.�� ,,,�� 1432 : , , . � � �
� /�/�`A � ��: � � ��, ; ��., � r �.� � � � 'r `�
'TTI'7'p��R �*'��,` 1` � j' \ l.:�y .,4� � "
� � '�,� �'�,424 4- � `� ��; � � t
� 1437 . ('� � ., � < � �
V 3�, , `'r� �� - �'��� ��20 � • a� ., � �-' ~/j -
, ` �1433 /� � a�� ��� >
f /'/ d ,�a � *'C � 4 �,.{ 1-�._ ;i' � /
Y �►' ' �P _" . ✓ "O -. �� � .
e ` ^', . �-- t �,s�'I 429 - �` "� � � '1416 6� > , �,� s �, �
� a = _ � �' �� €�.�3� � ;..;�
� � f � 4
:�� � � �_�� ` ' ,. �`1425 `�,� �,� 14�12 '� .,��
�j 3 � �l�ry- ! . . � , 4 • �'._, e �S � ';��4
�,, � . �"� '�', � � 1408 � � � �,,`-.
�i ` ' 421 "' � , ���-, n �,.
� -� �_ ` & � �
, � , , • , �` '�/;" � ; '' -� �•. f' , ,.
��' , 1417 �4 �� �" � � ;1�4Q4 , ' � j.$ .
� ,�.:, �`;� �.. ,�.�� ,�� � �,, ' . �`� ��, „
-- - , , � ` ` � . � �, ,, �.�� .":�,,1'�2 p ��
�.'i �'.,. � �' � �`�.. `� . . � r�R .
� � �� .. �:. - �4� � Y�,�, ; R �, .� � �
.: �` � ,� � �; ,r'�,` �. p�
�. -
� F� . w ; ,�t �* � �� �.. S.�C/�` � i
�' `�• '`� ��QQ� .h, ,�.� '� r
At /�, a :. «>' .
a y`' � �, ' �y¢y�ti 'e
r'. �j #,. �` '" �y. r�, ' ,(� ��,�,. ` �'.1 � 'a � . � , . t`;' `
"F "E�
- �.t-. '�. ♦ .''1, ' 'A . �"�:' ="�?'a, i� �. � � � ����.
�,�- �.t � . ,�? � , '•� � ' --'"
�y : .� ,Z . ••a��� ,� . . , a �� � : tti� � � ; \,`� � �`'��� ..
'il� - , - -,.
�'�" .. � • "'yw �; i! - 4 , � � � �' . � . �" _ '��
�' 4
�, / „ v,� �;: j � �' 4 .. ;�: � $O�� � �` Z � � �`+a
� � �`� ' � �'�ai. - �, �AI �.�. , ��i�.L�' �yY � � �' � " . .
- 5� �r �` yaF�? P� .•� J .
.� ��t j'' '.� ct�' l�.� , . �y.;%a ` � �.� t ,� j ��`�
4 �.� V .,. �� ... � .� � v �- ..� :' ? .
a� +aW�' �'• � ;'i % `"l � �.. � ,�iZ4 ! -.f � � �'.
, .�
(s
• �,= �. ' : r` d; � �,' ;` J� ' . �„�. ;�= '�' O ;j �,.�": � - �
, '�. I " o'` '� � � �
u 1 � �� 1 . +j i %,.�'�, � . . ;-t. Y,� ,�. � •'�J �.G- _�^�-•• � _' '' .� F•-_ t � ^
1 : ��... e,�,� . � v -
F . , ���, � �� e��''°`b" �aS %�t _ � o� � `°��`'� ' A�''�L�"'�, ' � fi�
x ,J � s � .y .> '` ;Q - �,�. i�rya�
� � :� , Y �� '�. � \ �: F'
Jp'' ' ,, ' ' �� "' �ir
, � �, � `.
G y � `, �� • a
- � •, .-, � ���. '� � �,. ' ' �� �.e ''4 V � � � T�� �;�t � ��lp ��
fV;-.
Y��i a p . ` '. d
�; ` � f
t ;' . � t� ' `.. �'Y � i. T �' � " . 'r� . . . �. .
� �
• • .� , � �`.�, ^ .- _
� - q � '� � a� � � � /�y��
� il �\ . •,�. b � '�j � ' .� � '• 1.'.�
7 . '
s,-,. � � ��� .. ; :� . yd�