The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1550 Bernal Avenue - Staff Report (2)�.� �.,. 4 � � �: . � d �� ♦ �� `� . ,�i '_r� ��, ��! `"""t t �' �-; . 'o� �'``i . .�� ,� '�►;�,. �►��,�>' a� Y �. SY • yiB'�"4. ? �3�Sjs ,�,,;� ;4�~� r`_ a , ; . r --,�,.A � , k „`� .t t.•t �' t; :�X,,.; , � � = � ,� �`. . .:� � ► .. , ,�� + , • . � » �� ,`, ' .�� .a� . � <�, .. .w_ "'.',tl-.,�, . 'r � % / � j�y� � �� ' tiF �y r . i'�. .+. �� «.. t� -r? '�Cb�c ' ��s: x. � .. 1 ..p vi'�'��. �. �iJ. � t � � �Ja �}��.•, :' 'y��,:r �' �, y� �� , ., �,�:; � �� :�} ,� ;,�: � � �. x ��, f��.y,� �7� � i w + �� i..�; ��f : t F � :r � c R, �. C` wY � �'7 : � � j r'. ,� n '�/�' �. . � ? -r '.t�:._�4.. . ' �` ,r .. ,� . �,': � : '� � t a.��+F � � ;f � ". -�..-7- �j•t� f. .. ` � ��Y� � '� ,�/F►'. . /�li �l_'� �Z � ' ` ,j.,, ,i ,�T� 4, y �i.r�` �. . 1 � y- iY� v+ - y i�� ! ! _ '. r 4 �• �t �.�7�Y �I . i �+' �a �' ;�F ` ='� - g � �� . _.��,k . z;�`' � ; ?; �r:: „� ..�; � ,-r a ,.�,�Ey , � �, .� , � �r `,"rr '� �'��M '<; ; S ..r ti t ° ;�. � ��. ,� , r� ,,,k �. • „r 'a ; �>.�; '�� . ;" s o r. � , .� 7 �.,^ . . t ; . �R .. �~ ��. -��.qv �,� Y� ��' . v-t C._.'�K� `'*. `� ;: w •� ..a�NR �A. � �. , _ -0�t�^�.��( --w.-...:G; � � . �S ,� `� , ' r t � . �.a.+..�d l � ,*,,, � f . ' � � i'' �S � 1 ',, C,� 6 -,W �±.�.��,v.. . __. ' ' �` � . •• �`.�' �.! . i �,.,-:3 t :,M'rtx�...0ey ' � �,� � ^�,9,.� �f�'.ti;iY� �'� „ �. .. ,.� <,� • Item # � Regular Action City of Burlingame Design Review for a New, Two Story Dwelling and a Special Permit for an Attached Garage Address: 1550 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: 09/08/03 Request: Design review for a new, single-family dwelling and special permit for an attached garage. Applicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design APN: 025-213-080 Property Owner: Denise Laugesen Balestrieri Lot Area: 10,200 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 February 24, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a parcel map for a lot line adjustment to create a buildable lot at 1550 Bernal Avenue and an application for design review for a new, two-story residence with a detached garage at 1544 Bernal Avenue (see chart at end of staff report). Along with these applications, a proposal was submitted for development of the lot at 1550 Bernal Avenue with a new, two-story dwelling with an attached garage. However, the application for the proposed dwelling at 1550 Bernal Avenue was withdrawn to resolve design issues and address the concerns of a neighbor on an adjacent property. The approved parcel map created a parcel at 1550 Bernal Avenue with a 90.47-foot frontage on Bernal Avenue and a 5-foot public utility easement running the length of the right side of the property. The parcel at 1550 Bernal Avenue requires a private sewer easement across 1544 Bernal Avenue to connect to the sewer main in the easement east of that property. Summary: The applicant is proposing a new, two-story, single-family dwelling with attached garage at 1550 Bernal Avenue. Mills Creek runs along the left side of the property and with the approved parcel map, 85% of the lot at 1550 Bernal Avenue is buildable area. The proposed floor area on the total parcel will be 3,678 SF (0.36 FAR) where 4,364 SF (0.43 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed lot coverage is 25% of the buildable area of the lot. At its closest point to the top of bank line for the creek, the house will be 2'-0" (to the uncovered deck off of the first floor dining room). There are 5 bedrooms in the proposed dwelling and the proposed 2-car attached garage meets the code requirements for covered parking spaces on the site. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010); and • Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S 25.28.035,a). Design Review for a New, Two-Storti� Dtivelling, and Special Permit for un Attached Garage 1550 BERNAL AVENUE I550 Bernal AvenTee 08.27.03 PLANS 07.21.03 PLANS ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (Ist flr): no change 21'-6" 21'-6" is block avg. (2fzd flr): no change 26'-6" 21'-6" Side (left): no change 36'-0" 7'-0" (right): no change 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1 st flr): no change 16'-0" 15'-0" (2nd flr): no change 20'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,272 SF 2,222 SF 4,080 SF 22% 22% 40% FAR: 3,678 SF 3,726 SF 4,364 SF 0.36 FAR 0.36 FAR 0.43 FAR Parking: same parking space 2 covered attached * 2 covered dimensions with a garage (10' x 20') staggered door design * (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') ** # of bedrooms: no change 5 --- Heiglit: no change 30'-0" 30'-0" DH Envelope: no change complies see code * Special permit required for an attached garage. ** Variance required for garage setback of 21'-6" where 25'-0" is required for a double-door attached garage. Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that the applicant proposes to remove three protected-size Eucalyptus trees on the lot at 1550 Bernal Avenue, one of which is located within the footprint of the dwelling. The applicant received approval for the Tree Removal permit from the Parks and Recreation Department on May 14, 2003. Design Review Action Hearing August 25, 2003: The proposed dwelling at 1550 Bernal Avenue went to design review study on July 14, 2003, and was set for regular action on August 25, 2003. At the action hearing, the Commission voted 4-0-2-1 to deny the project without prejudice. The Commission noted that there was not adequate physical hardship on the lot to justify a variance for a new house and directed the applicant to revise the project to eliminate a requested front setback variance for the attached garage. In response to the Planning Commission's concerns, the applicant has submitted revised plans dated 2 Design Review fo�- a New, T1vo-Story Dwelling, 1550 Be�-nal Avenue and Special Pe�mit for an Attached Garage August 27, 2003. The revised plans show that the front setback variance for the garage has been eliminated by staggering the garage doors at 21'-6" and 25'-0" to meet code requirements. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 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 an attached garage, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a- d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and a special permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 27, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.5 and sheet L1.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that any trimming of the two protected oak trees shall be done by an I.S.A. certified tree worker Design Review for a New, Two-Sto�y Dwelling, and Special Pe�-rnit for an Attacherl Garage l550 Bernal Avenue or arborist; and that the extent of the trimming will be outlined in a written report to be submitted for the approval of the City Arborist prior to any trimming taking place; 4. that prior issuance of a grading permit or any grading on the site or issuance of a demolition permit, a root protection zone shall be established around the two protected oak trees and the installation shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist; the tree protection measures shall be checked by a certified arborist weekly and a written report on the status submitted to the City Arborist; and that the protective fencing shall not be removed until a final Building inspection takes place on the site and the certified arborist determines that it is appropriate to remove the tree protection; 5. any excavation during demolition or construction that takes place within the root protection zone must be done by hand; and the foundation for the 19'-6" wall of the west side and the 9'-0" wall of the south side of the living room on the first floor, left side of the dwelling, shall be a pier and grade foundation; that the holes for the piers of this foundation shall be hand-dug to a depth of 18-inches and shall be relocated if any roots are encountered that are greater than 3- inches in diameter; that these activities shall be supervised by a certified arborist; that if the certified arborist determines that any portion of an excavation will pose a negative impact to the tree roots, construction on the site shall be stopped and the project shall be reviewed by the City Arborist; 6. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building envelope; 7. 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; 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 27,2003 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 25, 2002 memo, the City Arborist's May 21 and July 3, 2003 memos and the Recycling Specialist's November 26, 2002 memo shall be met; � Design Review for a New, Two-Story Dwelling, l550 Bernal Avenue anct Special Permit for czn Attached Carage 13. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 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 project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 16. 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; 17. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 18. 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 creek bed or 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; 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 methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 21. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the BAAQMD permit shall be met; 22. that protective fencing shall be installed along the top of bank on the site (as shown on the site development plan, Sheet A.2, date stamped August 27, 2003); and that at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction work or materials extend beyond the top of bank boundary, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment; 23. that if at any time construction activities extend below the top of bank, that a stop work order 5 Design Review for cz New, Two-Story Dwelling, and Special Permit for an Attached Garage 1550 Bernal Avenue shall be placed on the property until it is deterniined if the project is subject to review by the Army Corps of Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Game and if permits are required; and 24. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Erika Lewit Planner c: Denise Laugesen Balestrieri 6 Design Review jor a New, Two-Stoty Dwelling, and Special Permit for an Attached Garage ADJACENT LOT AT 1544 BERNAL AVENUE (APPROVED 02.24.03) I550 Bernal Avenue PROPOSED 1544 EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (lst flr): 21'-6" 30'-0" 21'-6" is block avg. (2nd flr): 31'-6" 68'-6" 21'-6" Side (left): 6'-0" 10'-6" 6'-0" (riglzt): 12'-0" 42'-0" 6'-0" Rear (Ist flr): 24'-0" 33'-0" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 33'-0" 33'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,440 SF 1,769 SF 2,736 SF 36% 20% 40% (lot size was 2,160 SF larger than proposed lot) FAR: 3,522 SF not known- 3,689 SF 0.51 FAR two- story dwelling 0.54 FAR Parking: 2 covered detached garage --- 2 covered (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') # of bedrooms: 5 --- --- Height: 24'-3" --- 30'-0" DHEnvelope: complies --- see code City of Burlingarne Planning Commission Uncappr�oved Minutes August 25, 2003 stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff rcport Augu t 25, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, revie d criteria and staff comments. our conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no ions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public hea ' g. Dan Biermann, designer, a Andy Jurow, property owner, represented the project. Commis � n asked if there was anyone livi in this building now since there was an unmade bed, food and clot ' g in the building when made site ' spection. No, building currently used as pool house, kitchen will b emoved as a part of this project d replaced with a bar area. How often does the owner hold parties sing this structure? Lived in hou 20 years, have 6 children, would like to watch TV, have exercise uipment, parties which rarely h e over 30-40 people in attendance, it's a large lot, neighbors come o the parties, do not complain. ere were no further comments from the floor and the public heari was closed. C. Vi�i"ca noted that it might appear that is is a very large structure, but the mass is located at the rear of this farge lot backing up to the school perty, all uses on the site, including this project, are within the allowed and the accessory structure ill not be used as a dwelling unit, so move approval by res ion with the following conditions: 1) that e accessory structure shall be built as shown on the plan bmitted to the Planning Department and da stamped June 20, 2003; with 1,422 SF of floor area ' cluding 196 SF of ceiling space over 12-feet ' height and 112 SF of covered porch areas; and sha e used only for family recreation and entertain ent purposes; 2) that the accessory structure shall ne include a kitchen (a stove), shall never include a indoor shower, and shall never be rented or conve d to a second dwelling unit; 3) that the co itions of the Chief Building Official's and the Cit ngineer's June 23, 2003, memos shall be met; a 4) that the project shall meet all the requireme of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 dition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. T motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair B �ues called for a voice vote on the motion to �ove the request for remodeling the accessory struc re and removing the kitchen. The motion passed on a 6-0-1-1 (C. Keele abstained; C. Osterling ab nt). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. C. Keele resumed his seat on the dais. 7. 1550 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE, AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE LAUGESON BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING 1NC., DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran noted that they live within 500 feet of this project site so would recuse themselves from this item. They stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report August 25, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: are there other options for setting back this garage; CP noted that if there were two single doors one could be setback at 20 feet and the second at 25 feet, however if a single double door is used, it must be setback 25 feet from the front property line. What was the FAR for the new house at 1544 Bernal; the FAR was .51 or 3,522 SF. This project now complies with the 7 foot side setback requirement ; yes. The second floor balcony rail is set back only 20'- 6" but staff report notes the second floor setback to be 26 feet? The second floor setback is measured to the face of the second floor wall. There were no other questions of staff. G City of Burlingarne Planning Commission Unupproved Mi�tutes Augusz 25, 2003 Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Denise Balestrieri, 424 Costa Rica, San Mateo, James Chu, designer, spoke. Noted this house is being built for her personal use, need the bedrooms since have children and work from home, staff report noted that 85% of site is buildable, however did not address limitations created by the Oak tree on site which reduces useable area on the site to 36%; creek and trees areas asset to site, want to work with, note that the 2.5 to 3.5 foot variance for the garage is not for the house but the garage; neighbors support with letters; they all have garages with less setback than now required. Asked for FAR of other creek side lots have information on 1021 Balboa, FAR 4, 400 SF, and 1032 Cabrillo, FAR 4.589; this proposed house is much smaller. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keele noted that he supports this application, did a good job in accommodating the garage location and addressed the trees and creek which also reduce the buildable area on the lot, move approval by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. Seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: Cannot support because this is a new house and the setback requirement can be met easily; we are keepers of the code need to find a hardship on the property for a variance and do not see one. Chair Bojues called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The vote was 2-2-2-1 (Cers. Auran and Vistica dissenting; Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran abstaining; C. Osterling absent). CP Monroe noted that a tie vote was no action and is interpreted as a denial. Did the commission wish to consider a second motion. C. Vistica movcd to deny the application without prejudice which would give the applicant the opportunity to return, without a front setback variance by adjusting the interior of the house. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: how easily can the variance be made to go away; on the right side the furnace and hot water heater could be located under the stairs as is common, the closet in the den could be removed not required in a bedroom, the bedroom could be made smaller. Chair Bojues called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny the project without prejudice on the basis that the front setback variance was not necessary. The commissioners voted 4-0-2-1 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran abstaining; C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. Cers. Brownrigg and Keighran resumed their seats on the dais. 8. 1311 BURLINGAME AVENU ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A— APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR ENANT IMPROVEMENT (THE GYMBOREE CORP., TI�VI WERT, APPLICANT; MCCA ESIGN GROUP, ARCH T; AVTAR JOHAL, PROP Y OWNER) (32 NOTICED) PR CT PLANNER: CATH E BARBER Reference st f report August 25, 200 , ith attachments. CP Monroe pr ented the report, reviewed criteria and staff mments. Four condit' s were suggested for considera � n. Commissioners asked if they were to con 'der signage tonight? aff noted no; signage will be a �ed for at a later date. Commissioner asked wh this item did not co before them as a study it onroe explained that the space is only 1 foot over the width requir ent for commercial design review, and less than 50% of the facade is proposed to be 7 Citl' of Burlir�gante Plaf�nirig Conz�riissioii Minatiles July 14, ?003 bedroom at the front of the house or the change in the roof line, the protrusion should be accurately shown on the building elevatio� and roof plan, some roof overhangs are not shown correctly, applicant needs to make sure fCoor plan, roof plan and building elevatio are consistent; Grid pattern ofthe windows on the second floor front elevation are n proportionate with the rest of the windows, need to revise so grid pattern is consistent; and Applicant should consider a way to add more interest to the second floor front elevation, possibly with donners to add more variation along this wall. C. Brownrigg noted that small changes are necessary to make this project more interesting and made a motion to place t1Yis item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made as directed. The motion was not seconded. Commission Comment: Commissio�l requested that staff verify the proposed floor area once the existing basement is included on the plans, and ifthe project exceeds the floor area allowed then the project should be removed from the consent calendar. The Commission noted that because there are several inaccuracies which need to be corrected, the project should be reviewed on the regular action c�iendar. f C. Bojues made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a.�me when the revisions have been made as directed. This m4tion was seconded by C. Osterling. / ; i Chair Bojues called for voice vote on the motion to place this iterr%n the regular action calendar when plans had been revis as directed. The motion passed on a vo vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item conclud 11:35 p.m. 9. 1550 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE LAUGESON BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Cmsrs. Keighran and Brownrigg recused themselves from this item because they live within 500' of the subject property. They stepped down from the dais and left the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staf£ All Commissioners visited the site. Chair Bojues opened t11e public comment. Denise Balestrieri, property owner and applicant, and James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions. The applicant noted that the neighbors' concerns have been addressed, the proposed house was designed around the existing protected-sized oak tree; requesting side and front setback variances because the house was shi fted towards the right side of the lot to stay away from the existing oak tree, the landscape plan was revised based on the direction given by the Commission at the previous ineeting, and an arborist report completed by Richard Huntington, Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., was submitted along with this project. Commission noted that it was surprised to see this project come back with two variances, this is a large lot where 85% of the lot is buildable, cannot see the hardship for the side and front setback variances. The applicant feels that the existing protected-sized oak tree is a hardship because in order to retain it, the house had to be shifted towards the right side of the property, and the right side property line angles in towards the rear of the lot. Regarding the front setback varianec, a detached garage was considered for this project, but is not possible because the lot is irregular and gets narrower towards the rear of the lot, the proposed front setback meets the average front setback along this side of the street. The applicant also pointed out that the footprint was reduced from the previous application, the living 16 C'rtl' of Burlingcrr�:e P/�tnning Contntissiora Mir2utes Juh� 14, 2003 spaces were reoriented to face the existing creek, and the second floor will appear s�naller because tlie majority ofthe second floor is behind the garage, approximately 50' back from the street. The Commission asked if the easement along the right side property line is existing; yes. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Com�i�ission had the following concerns with the proposed project: • coilcerned with the requested front and side setback variances, because this is a new house see no hardship on the property, feel that the applicant can redesign the house to eliminate the variances, this is a new house on a large lot with 85% buildable area, see no justification for the variances; feel that the creek on this site is an amenity and not a hardship, creek does not curve through the site. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions have been made as directed and the concerns regarding the setback variances have becn addressed. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojues called for a voice 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 5-0-0-2 (Cmsrs. Keighran and Brownrigg abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:55 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS r - Review of City Coun il regular meeting of July 7, 2003. CP Monroe Review � the actions which relat�d to planning at the Council meeting of July 7, 2003. Noting that the ordinance to require inclusionary affordable residential units was approved and will become effective August 6; Council did not introduce the ordinance ending the stipend to the Planning Commission an directed the City Attorney to revise the ordinance to establish a training fund and/or funding for C mmissioners currently unreimbursed expenses, Council cancelled the July 21, 2003 meeting; Co cil suggested that a jpint study meeting of the Couiicil, Planning Commission and Bayfront W rking Group be schediyted to discuss the Preliminary Draft of the Bayfront Plan update. ; - FYI — 14 5 Benito Avenue - windows cllanges to an approved design r�view application. , CP Monroe noted that this request was to add two windows, one on ea side ofthe building, in the two front bedrooms on the second floor in order to comply with Buil ' g Code egress requireinents for sleeping areas. The Commission acknowledged the change and no d that they did not affect the design as approved. - FYI — 1033 Balboa Avenue - exterior inaterial change to an�pproved design review application. CP Monroe noted that this request was to change the mat �al on the chimney and exterior trim from river rock to real wood shingles. The Commission felt th this change was significant to the design of the house. For this reason they felt that the request to ch�nge this item should be set to a public hearing so the applicant could present other ideas and to bfing samples of the proposed material. The Commission noted that the applicant sllould provide cailculations by a licensed engineer to document that the river rock is too heavy for the house. / - Set date for Planning Commission review of Safeway Response to Comments Document Amendment. The EIR consultant is working on an addition to the Safeway EIR Response to Comments document. Safeway is providing some additional infornlation, when that is completed and the information reviewed 17� City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes , May 12, 2003 • If oak comes out would like to see replacement trees be evergreen to provide a better screen; • If oak removed might consider widening driveway, or modify the corner of the house if oak stays; • How will drainage next to retaining wall be addressed; • Need City Arborist to review revised arborist report on the oak trees and tree removal; • Tree is too close to driveway, either the tree is removed or the driveway needs to be changed; • Need to study retaining wall, provide proper engineering for retaining walls, need information on hydrology and soil conditions; • Nice design and nice articulation; • �d`ok at rear elevation, balcony should be eliminated, looks into neighbor's house; • What is the driveway surface and how will it work with the tree; and • Insta112 foot curb rather than 6 inch curb at property linc to prevent cars on adjacent driveway from rolling over the retaining wall. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. Commission asked staff include minutes from any previous project hearings for this site in the next staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the gular action calendar when plans had been revised as d�i cted. The motion passed on a voice vote 7- The Planning Commission's action is advisory and ne�appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 10. 1550 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE LAUGESON BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING INC., DESIGNER) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Cers. Keighran and Brownrigg noted they live within 500 feet of the subject property and recused themselves from this item. They stepped down from the dais and left the room. Plnr Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Denise Balestrieri, 414 Costa Rica Avenue, San Mateo, property owner, and James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions. Noted that the previous proposal was withdrawn so that they could work with the neighbors and resolve. Issue with side setback and utility line easeinent that affected a neighbor on Devereaux; resolution is she will underground the utility line and easement on her property. Commission asked how far the foundation is from the top of bank; it is 5 feet. Commenting on the project: Lucciano Deglinnocenti, 1556 Bernal Avenue, stated that is concerned that the removal of landscaping will allow people to look into his backyard, would like to see large, tall trees added to screen his yard; oak tree has 3— 4 feet of dirt at base that was placed there after excavation; limbs of oak over creek need to be trimmed; should add fence at drop from top of bank to the creek, dangerous for kids walking by; could make house smaller. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following concerns: Front elevation is blank, needs more windows; increase proportion of glass to solid wall; 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2003 • Left side elevation porch and balcony could be improved, beef up column; can porch step down to yard; • Looks like crown of two oaks in the front will project into the roof line, need to address to protect tree; • Landscape plan shows tree ferns at the front of house, not typical for Burlingame, change to evergreen shrubs, something fragrant; • Would like to see story poles in corner of the building where den/living room are on the first floor and bedroom #2 and bedroom #3 on the second floor, as well as to show the garage location and impact on oaks; • Look at stability of the oak tree as a result of grading; • Adjust landscaping to screen the neighbor's yard. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chair Bojues called for a voice 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 5-0-2 (Cers. Keighran and Brownrigg abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. Commissioners Keighran and Brownrigg returned to the dais. 11. 1021 BALBOA AVENUE, ZON R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESI�N REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW T O-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU D� N& ENGR., INC., DESIGNER; RICHARD PROPERTY OWNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT P NNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly'presented the project description. Two letters of concern were received. Commission requested staf#��provide the square footage of the house and creek side lot that recently was approved on Carmelita at Cabrillo. There were no other questions �if staff. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Richard Dwyer, 4086 23ra Avenue, San Francisco, property ow�rers and James Chu, designer, were present to answer questions. It was noted that design of house was tt'ying to re-create bungalow feel with porch, trellis , and a taller roofline. Approximately 250 SF of the total FAR is porch and trellis area, design is 500 SF below maximum FAR for this double lot. Neighbors commented: Andrew Stypa, 1024 Cortez Avenue; Bill l�oberts, 1020 Cortez Avenue; Denise Balestrieri, 414 Costa Rica Avenue, San Mateo, James Chu, 1032 Balboa Avenue; stated that the proposed house is too big for the property; double wide lot but not for two houses; house infringes on the trees. Like architecture and articulation of the proposed house, but too big; need to reduce the volume; request story poles; could be very attractive but shouldn't crowd creek and vegetation; his property located behind subject property and is slightly lower, would like to see new 6 foot fence with 1 foot of lattice placed on the higher elevation on neighbor's property. Hard to build a house that fits in with this block, planning on also building on this block, supports the project. Have a small two,:�bedroom, one bathroom house with a one-car detached garage, will also be re-building a two-story house on this block. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • What is height of existing structure, should be reduced; • What is the height of the house on the left; 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 �r� ciTr o�. BURLJNOAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION �..e Type of application: Design Review � Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: . APPLIC T �� r�� OP� OY WNER � i�. l...1'!J Name: Name: Address:'�" � � (..�1✓� �� Address: �i��K� City/State/Zip: � �� - 1�2' City/State/Zip: Phone (w): � I I- l� 15 (h): �fl: 558- O�'�'� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Phone (w): (h): ;�� Name: C-'� �� 1`�I �' � V �� I ( � ' Address: �� f�l •�� I.. Please indicate with an asterisk * �y� e contact per�� }� p�jgct. City/State/Zip:� �� I� Il" .� �� j U Phone (w): ��' � � NOV 2 2 2002 (h): (fl: � I � � I�B� I know about the propo3e� aj application to the Planning C Property owner's signature:_ CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. i�tion and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this �� PCAPP.FRM AFFADAVIT/SIGNAT ere rtify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and c ec t t best f m owledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: I 22 �� Jul O1 03 03:25p Chu Design Engr. Sr, � � (650) 345-9287 p.2 CITY OF E�URLTNGAML PLANNING DEPARTMGNT 50l PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) G96-3790 �, �T, o � o�� .. �' CITY OF BURLINGAME VARTANCE APPLICATION G .� �..�, C�� -{L- � i��- � �NC�, The Planning Conunission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in makulg the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in inlc:. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circunistances ar conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The proposed property on 1550 Bernal Ave is very different from "typical" standard (50'-0" x 120") lot in this vicinity, which created a"Hardship" in designing the proposed k�ome. It has a creek running through (front to b<ick) on the left side of the property, wit}i two large existing protected Oak trees, and an irregular shape property lines. All of which created an exceptional condition that do not apply to other properties in this area. b. Explain why the variance request i� necessary for the preservadon and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreu�onable property loss or uttnecessary hardship might rest�lt form the denial of t/ie application. The variance request for the garage front setback (35'-0" required, where 21'-6" provided) foc this project is necessary due to the above stated "hardship" conditions. By pushing the two car attaehed garage back additional 14'-0" will create inconsistency with the re�t of the residence on the same block, and It will limits the development of the proposed residence. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposFd locatia�t will not be detrimental or injttrious to property or improveinents in the vicir�iry or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The proposed variance request is for the front setback of the two car attached garage. Tt. is setback more than 30'-0" fi•om the face of street curb, with 2I'-6" setback from the front properiy line. Therefore, it will not be detrirnental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicznity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. d How will the proposed project be contpatible with the aesthetics, mass, 6u[k and cltaracter of the existing and ,potential us�s on adjoirting properties in the general vicinity? The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods that also have attached two-car garage located at the front. By having two (2) sir�gle car garage doors, instead of one (1) single large door, it will minimiz� the visual impact, and bring down the overall mass/bulk of the proposed7esidence. '_ CITY OF DURLINGAME P ANNING DGPART ENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAll P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 t�� , �� r. o � � 641RiJNQAME � T...m CITY OF BURLINGAME �' II -�i r- �" SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION �� -� �-�� `�I �- � �= `; _', - ;-` , r , _ �, N 3 0 20�3 _ , � �_�� r �__� r;��j��;� i_�r d�i�.�IfVGAME ��I r'„'lfdi'idG DEPT. 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. Exp[ain w/ry the blencf of mass, sca[e ai:d dominantstructural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with t{te existing street and neighborhood. The proposed two story residence with two car attached garage is inconsistent with the existing one story dwelling, but it is consistent with properties that have similar attached garage patterns, mass and scale on the "west" side of Burlingame neighborhood. The two car garage is attached to the proposed are due to the "hardship" conditions (as indicate in Variance application) exist on this particular lot. 2. E�plain how the variety of roof li�ie, facade, exterior finish materials and e[evations of tl�P prnpnsed i:ew structure or addition are consistent with tl:e existin� structure, street a�td neighborhood. The proposed French country inspired home is located within a variety of older styles neighborhood. The steep roof pitch, shutters, dormers, and stucco exterior walls are all consistent with this style and it should blend �vell on this block. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent wit{: the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The proposed single-family residence with attached garage is inconsistent with City Design Review Guidelines (special permit is required for attached garage), but it complies with all other major zoning requirements, except for the right �'-0" side setback, where 7'-0" is required 4. E.rplain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirentents. Wltat mitigation is proposed for t{:e ren:oval of any trees? E_rp[ain why tl:is �nitigatio�i is appropriate. All existing Oak trees will be remained, except for the existing eucalyptus trees to be removed (with approved permit). A new landscaping plan for the entire lot is proposed. 07/07/2063 10:43 It0�25�')� N�D la �� /' � � lJ � � 6506967216 Fa.i e5o�9a4�4� BURL PARKS & REC lU1Y)iB 7'1tEE F,.APBRTS r..0 PAGE 01 f� 00? �Vl�yne Tree Ez�rert �ampany, I�ac. �Cf l��! !�'TAI'� [`QjVTAACT+DR"S Y.10ENgB 1+14. 276Tl9 F4�xfeR • C'E1Yl'{F18i1 �itHOR13T3 • !L"Si CY3NTllt7L • ADYtSUR9 AND QP�KA7'�RS '� .Tune �S, �p03 sas et�tcnra Rv�� at� A R:C"M�lF.b L, li�/[dT1NL''� -Kes;nptrc -['� ��: KE�'11� A. K1F�,7Y � �'� �P6�i„'1cirJ3 l�U,tiAUYII �' � 9'! �IP�li�PF RIi�C,7{171 � - � 414 � � Rica , S�u M � '� . CA 9�4�Qa 911N1`..�LQ� CA yiMfhdZ��l T6Lb1�HcN�IL• {6S6'� ��4+00 1;1CSIAel1$. (dsp) 3p}r11,43 $awt.: t,fa�q,�qy�neWc.wm 3 Rr; �'3+� 8ern+�1 Aven�tc, �uriin�c�eaC � �� t'/� p�% '-' �--�.. Ucar 1�,j Laug�svn: ' ��i Y r�nE vl�lted the �bnve s�e to detormipe go��is con;�rucrlon impacts to Qpe c+r both ef ch� � a�ks an thr c�k b�utit. Thc e�� hau�r is to be cc�t,oved au+d a naw houxc Constru � c1o5Cr t� Ihe casttr�►1t�e. HetWecn ttus tzae und tite ex�sting house �s a t�ed beru► a � kxt hT��. �; The pro � scd cor�atrt�tion i� to bG X2 feCt aw�y Lo tht south nod an tll�s r�cd Are�. 7'he hou� be abc+ut 3�'cec sbvve the etpvatian uf t�he tred� b�. 7'hi� sectio�, of thr hnuea is � b� a s1ng1� �cury, wieh r1+e second s�ary �taxti� �lroat I7 fcet w�e a�! 1'h�s �+rili rnin" che pucuui�l iue� far riear:u4c� �runi�n� � C1rp� �iiON'r1 I� tFj� 3f'l1i �T 8[ 1'�!'dY jhb �TO�q3� x1fJPtI1 �EOPiiI�. : prv�d down 8 tv I O inchea arx 16 it�ch 1onR nacruw �h��l end t'ac►nd nto hig rc+ois. '1`ht arrs of potauial irnpeicc is r� aou�bes�sc quadrane vtr�e roo� �nne. T'hc housr �aotprisit with�n the dnptirse will onky t a maxi�twr� of20°Yo ofthB rootzc. Tho pftCs�s witll rwt havo s�igu�$�ant h u �P�'� tn= ? heabb c�t the tree. 7i� � bra�z� c�n be 6 ixml�ea below tha cxi�+g grade vr highc:r. , : ':� j bv�i�evp t�s r�purr i� accar�te ar�d be�pd vn �vurid qrboricu�u�l prinCipl� 4rd pr�rticea. ,,; Slucsr�ty, atichard i,.: C,a�txRed Ai RLl�:dcr �� i, s� S� �. 1 1� i�, {� i. � ;• , i� �: �, I ��. J. �' �` � �4 � l 9 vb�is-u� �r.0 i�:i�t r.a.Y bsu5asaaas yt:�]�:� TFt� E'4�� 0 1Q001 Denise Laugeson 414 Costa Rica San Mateo, CA 94402 Re: 15a�?Berna! Avenue, Buriingar,ie Dear Ms. Laugcson �.-- ° �'.�°r-�- 2 I recently visited the above site to determine possible canstruction impacts to one or botl� of the live oaks on the creek bank_ The existing house is to be removed and a new house constructed closer to the casterly tree. Betwcen t}us tree and the existing house is a raised berni about � fect high. The proposed construction is to he 10 feet, 2 inches away to the south and on the raised area. The house wil] be about 5 feet abovc the elevation of thc tree's base. This section af the house is to be a sirtgle story, with the second story starting about 17 �eet to the east. This will minimize ihe potential need for cle�urancc pruning. I explored down in the soil at or near the proposed north Cooting. I probed down 8 to 10 inchcs with An 18 inch long narrow shovel and found no roots 2 inches or Iazger. The area of potential impact is in the southeast quadrant of the root zone. The house footprint within the dr;pline will oniy impact a m3ximum of 20% of the roots. The piers will rtot have a �igruficant impact to the health ofthe iree. The grade beam can be 6 inches below the �xisting grad� or lughcr. I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricWturat principles and practices. Sincercly, �� i'``�L.f.'�.c i�� Richard L. Huntington Certified Arborist WC #O 1 t 9 RI.H:dcr .Tune 25, 2003 '%. . � . %%. c , /` f� i� � �� _, . 4 � No. vdC-0119 ` `" ' � � � �\� �5� � ED AR6 ��:� :l !�:� u'EU le�:�N F�A 4Sn5AJIJ/J AAF�'E TREE EJIPERTS CO �W�u• Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. E�TAP1LdS1�D 19J1 STATE CONTR.�CTOR"$ LICENSE (Jp, j76193 �RADI.'�T►pOREST�k • CERTIFi6D �RBUR1.tTs • YEST �QNTROL • ADVISORS AND APERAPpR RI�;;IA21'1� ��Nt�plCipFl �Rr:S'Ur:v � 5,15 OR^OATt) ROAD, .STC q SANC�RL0.�. CA WO�p.62�t �s`•��' : �:L�� ia l4, 2UU3 '+'FRAi Il�N1 A(�NwC.hF Y TLL&PHQNG: (6�0� 39�-,�QG FACS►MlLr. (0lU1 S93•s,w� kW11L mfo!N;rrrynr,.e.com �illll3e �,1U�lSOII 4l4 Cu�ta R�ta San M�br, CA 99402 Re: I544 Bcrnal Avenue, Bur;ingamv Dear h�. LaugFson: According to the re�rnt sit� grading plar., grade chanaes beloh the dripline�ltree p�otectlpn zone on the lergr live �ak along the ercek arr ]in�ited !o the �outherly s,de. 1'his grad�ng will only be to IoHrr the ra�aeci area nonh of the exicting driveway by 1 tv 1 and '.�, Eret. I do not th�nk there will !+e Eignificant impects tu the coots of the oaks. ��tt I�c�ommec�d th� arbor►st monitur tht work �r thst ch�n�rs rnd/nr mitigatlon �an F� IASromrMnded. Thc� n�e�twest house corner �ppeus to br abuut 10-12 feec away from trec nuitnber 16. Thr pief and gradr beam foundsiion will significsnlly reduCe potentia) impact5. FenCe o�f r� naucl� of thc root zone as f�o�stblc, sfiU allowing for conbtru�tion to proceed. 7 he ar!�orist al�ould inspect the fencing and rrcomrriend adjuatqnei�tF ay needed. i believq this rrport is accucate and basrd on sound arbaricultu ral principles �nd �ra��ti ntt, Sit�cercly, �� j��c.�� 4 �T �lp ` v•c.�i�GC�° � 7t qo, YNG01�9 Rich�►dj,�.. Huntil�gtOn t �1' Cerhfied A �butiat WC �M0119 _ �� P.LH� da� Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. �' ti0 "76793 GSf.aEiLfSHED 1931 GEtAllliAI�E FORESTER • RICHARil 1. }II:NTI�IGTON YRE5IDENT !�r.\'lN R Ki£�TY �lP:.r.A'1VNS MAN:�GE2 Denise Laugeson 4I4 Costa Rica San Mateo, CA 94402 STATf. CON CftACTOR S LICEh�E , - CERTIFIEll ARBORISTS • PEST CON7�R01. • ADVISORS AND OPERATURS 535 gltr�GATO R0.4D, S;'c. A SA.^i C�RLOS. CA 94070-b228 O�tober 4, 2�2 TL'LEPH()NE: (650) 593-4400 FACSIMILE: (650) 593-»4a.; EMr1IL info'umayr�etree.com Re: 1544 Bernal, Burlingame Dear yis. Laugeson: On September 30, 2002, I inspected the 17 remaining trees on the above referenced site. There are 4 trees depicted on the site plans which are no longer there. The purpose of this inspection was to determine general tree health and structure. The lot wili be divided into two lots and the tree ir�formation can be used to place the proposed new home footprints to favor the more desirable trees. Each tree was assigned a number which connects this report to site plan numbering. Each tree was given a cor_�?tion rating based on the following table and is a combination of tree health and structure. 0-29 ... Very poor 30-49 ... Paor 50-69 ... Fair 70-89 . ..Good 90-100 .. Excellent Finally, comments are given to explain condition rating and other information regarding Site construction. You also wished me to address the matter of tree protection on a construction site. This is best done by instalting fencing at or near the trees driplines ta enclose as much of the root zone as Qossible, still allowing for the construciion to proceed. (See "Mitigating Measures for Exisiing Trees on Construction Sites", enclosed.) �There are only 4 large trees which could t►e at risk af significant construction impacts: trees numbered 2, ]4, 16 and 17. Tree number 2 is a borderline tree and I`To. 14 is a large eucalyptus. r. ... _ ._. .. � . __ �.,.� F E B 1 3 2003 CIT r . r r�U�;LINUHME P�.,,:,�vli�G DEPT. Laugeson 10-4-�2, Pg. 2 :Vumbers 16 and 17 are large live oaks on thP creek bank and are tr�e best trees on the lot. l wc,uld rathtr see trees numbered 2 anc: l� removed than risk si�nificant impacts to the uaks. 1 believe this repurt is accurate and based on souzid arboricultural principles an.c� prac:tices. Please contact us if you have any que�tians. Sittcerely�, _ ,� f � ( ✓ � J� �l C.�`-� � r/ Iiichard L,. Huntinglon C.ertified Arhorist W'C 0119 RL.H:dcr Encl. ��;�lV�.D FEB 1 3 ?003 CITY Or BUh'�INGAME PLn�JNING DEPT. I.au�esun 10-4-02 TREE SURVEY Tree N�. e ies Size Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 1 Liquidambar 15.2 45 Basal w�und, bark canker. Reco�nmend removai. 2 Magnolia 26.6 @ 3' Tree was topped, with all resulting growth being sprouts. Most of the roots are on the surface. Tree has a slight lean and trunk decay. � �ig 10.0 25 Topped at 10'. Tree is sunburned. Severely paor structure. Recommend . removal 4 Coast iive oak 9.6 G' 1' 50 Forks at 18" with included bark. ; Coast live oak 6.2, �.7 50 Forks at ground level with included �� bark. 6 Loquat 11.3 C� 3' 60 Growing into wires. Forks at 4'. 7 Coast live uak l l.05 60 Growing into wires. Most growth on �vest side. 8 Coast live oak 9.5 5� Growing into wires and fence. Topped for line clearance. 9 Coast live oak 10.8 60 Growing into wires and fence. Slight east lean. 10 Coast live aak 9A 60 West lean. 11 California pepper 12_0 30 Nearly choked by ivy. Recommend remova:. t2 Eucalyptus 42 55 3/a of trunk cov�red with ivy. Recommend globulus (From site �lan) removal. �ri_�_oL�.��t�_a FEB 1 3 ?p0; ciry �� ;�_,,,��,�;a,�r�� PL�iiViViivG DEPT. 1_aug,eson 10-4-02 TREE SURVEY C ondition Comments �I•�ee No, S�ecies ize I, cen�) (Inches) ( er 13 Eucalytpus �6 65 3/a of trunk covered with ivy. Slight lean. globulus (From site plan} � fi5 Large trunk . Has westerly lean. S4 Eucalyptus globulus (From site plan) 1� Bay 24 70 None. (From site plan) 16 Coast live oak 48 70 Slight lean. Recently pruned. . (From site plan) ?; C;oast live oak 49 70 Slight lean. Recently pruned. (From site plan) � �. � �. �'� C. t� F E B 1 3 2003 CITY OF �� NPT�f'E pl.,;t�N 11. 11.1! .. ..11 !.�! �Illl�� 1,1.. .�..., ..AI..��.! l,0 �� i,� � fic�s�„ � o-a-�2, rb. 2 Numbecs 16 and 17 arc 1��rbc livc oakS on the crcck bank and arc thc bcst trecs on the lot. i wi�u)d rather see trees numbered 2 and 14 removed than risk.ignificant impa�ls lo the oaks. '1'r��e pr��tP�tion is easily a�-�omplish�d by placing tonstruction fencinp al �r near thc driplines of the trecs. The fenCin� can be adjusted to allow conslructi�n t� pr��eed. It is import�nt to havc �s i�r�c a ire�� prutccti�n �.nne is possiblc arnUnd thc treec 1'��r tr�•�•s numbered 16 ai�d 17, ,traibht fri�ce wiil proFzct more of the ro��t �one from the construction site. Oth�r trees to r�mdin shuuld b� tre�ted tht� samc. 1 beiiPve rhis report is accur:,t� and based �n .niind arboricuilur�l Frinciples �nd practices. Plrasc contacf us if you have any c�uections. Si ncerely, � � � ` vr� � �S�;�Ti CF,q,�� ,. NUNTj �P� �O �, � �� r� �+ �, WC-011S � � �. RiChard L. Hunlin�tc,n Ccrtificd Arborist WC O1 19 RLH:dcr [ncl. R��.�-6�f�L� F E B 1 3 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PL{��nnsi,-. t,r„-r _.,:i �• •"� � � • �'� A 3 l 1 V �S nhOv K�t�i o� � .�.0 �..�:...� i �� ` � , ° '� � ;� : a� � � ��: :-� � �_ �o �; � � �� .. . � � ��,_� :� { � �t . . ` �� ; � � _ _� � � , ,, ,: �� . ,�� f :��r _ j_ � .� � / � � � � .. _ i �1 - - - :i, � � � T . ' ��a ' � ; ,. � , i � � , ' -, -� „� ' ,. �; ! ' ' � i v.r.tr '1 �-. [ �"�'. 1 �� 1 1 1 1 1 i. ��• , � - ��'-�--------__.��..:��'��.i - - - 1 Y _.-��-- 4t J � � W � ,� I a q � � ��, � �� , � I I� I � I � I �' ( i . . �. Cnnl f' � A � � « - �''!!� , .� :� - � • I: r ' `� � I .�-__ • � �$ --�-------- - a,,._ � � _ � i n _ � 1M �-.- --` � i �� - ,�—�� ^ � _- r — �` � 9� � � �� pr ��N� � y�� R�� ` ' � � \� � � r �� i�r' �� i�l �. i- �. �-d onn:l � ��w'�1ri - '^�� ~ .w��n�r= � � r_ - _ l_.. � v� �w __Tr_ �-""`�': i - - —. � : - ; ��: �� I O � I � , .' � ' � N,Y .+� ` � �.�_': .�r y� �� -� 1 � �I nsc�^';:' � � :ri.i � �,'�' � ��-- �� ,�-- ��•rv+r . �. . . . Y .e � �� 1 {.--�a» � � � _r �� `1 1 �� 1 �'1 f `f �� •�., � Ai i .�' f,' * � _�� 1 �, . r. _� . � �,F `("", y„'r�— �� _ � �'�+ ' �� . . �} �.. �' e � h ` F P T� .� -- t� I~,� c tl _ �� _ �\ I �� \ � G ,. . n � � 9 A� � �� , r, �' ~ � � � �� " --- �� r- � � � , - - _ ----� �:.�- - � � � _ ` f �g �� . 4i = � � � ' �� r o� � � , \ � --- %/ �� 1 ��_ � , : ,,� k '� � � --- � � , , . �`�. ` �_..y� ' -.-. � � � / .*�. � . 1 I � � � 6 �4� /f � �..� � � ~ � '�� I � -- ^- �__�_ r-'� �-----'- ' — — - - � • -� � 3 r~ .�._ �" - �! _ - �..,.� i�s � ��r�_ �-•- I ,a � •S�� j/ �'~�•►7'•t 1 �°�� —` �1 � �� I -"' �J j �---�h � � � r ..a�' i 1 i �— � �� r � i � ..-�-� 1 �— � if _r � �9�� 1 1 5 I � w•.i �s� ; � �� , ��; � ��gg � ' � � � ,o�w __� -�� `TY�r�� Y* �i��Yy:— - � �rrr�� .�, r�.,. ,... ��.�. .� ,�r�' ��T �t CITY OF BURLINGAME BURtJNC�AME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �b,,.,�,,,„,•''� TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 1550 Bernal Avenue Application for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling at: 1550 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 025-213-080). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, May 18, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: May 2, 2003 �:�w.'�„- . . ..— . .�. �—L 1W _ _ yr _ �—I (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME f A copy of the applicatio�l �and plans for this; project may be reviewed'prior to the meeting at the;�Plarining De,partjnent at �5Q1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Califoriva. ' r :� If you challenge the subject applicritign(s) in court, you may�be limited to raising onl�those issues �yot� t�r someone else. raiticcl at the public hearing, described irt the notice or�in wrrtten cotresponclence delivered to the city at or prior to the pt�hlic hearing. _ ' � _ ,�_ Property ov��ers �io receive this notice ai-e res�onsible,�or informing their tenants abo�it this'notice. _�.. For �additi��nal information�; please call (650) 558-7250. },ank �u. � ` ��• � y�«� � , i s: '� ` �� Margaret �o roe �tc � ��" ; �'� , y^ � �p�,� City Planner ��,� � � �'��.*, «: ,_ � :.� -,.,. , ,_;: ,. r .�.t PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE � (Please r-efer to other side) �r�, ciry o� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURIJNGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �. __ BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ' ,,. �o�-„�•''� TEL (650) 558-7250 Site: 1550 Bernal Avenue Application for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling at: 1550 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 025-213-080). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: May 16, 2003 �r.st�:� , �sa .. ., ,- . � . . � . - - .�t�Fr, ."a;-•-� - -- (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project;may be reviewed prior to the meetin� at the Plann��g Department at��Ql Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. `'�� ''��`�'� .�`�, If you challenge the subject applicaCion(s) in court �you ma�-be limited to raising only� �those issues yot� e�r someone else raised a`�'the piablic hearing, described in the notice or in wrilten corresponde�ice �ciel��rered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. '_ � ' Property o�`��iers who receive this notice are responsible��for�informing their tenants abo�tt thi�notice ��For �tdditiofial information, please call (650) 558-7250. '£hank �ou. �'� � � � � s ��:, �" �:- ; > ' ;. i�i ' '' 4.� '� Margaret Monroe .,�''��, �, � /,/� City Planner ,�. . � y . . _ �� . � .f, ��` PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to othef- side) ,�,t��' c'T� ��. CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLJNGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ,,�• _ BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 1550 Bernal Avenue Application for design review, special permit for an attached garage, front and side setback variances for a new two-story single family dwelling at: 1550 Bernal Avenue. zoned R-1. (APN: 025-213-080). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday July 14, 2003 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: July 3, 2003 (Plense refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applica�n=�rid' plans for ttii5 pToject�,�nay be reviewed prior to the meeting at ;if�e Planning I�epartment ,at,�Ql Primrose Road, Burlingame, Califoniia. �''" e;, � :;- If you chall�nge the stibject application(s) in cotirt, you inay"be limited to raising only�thos��tssues -you or someone else raised at the pt�blic hearing, described in tl� notice or i�i writteii con�espon�l�uce deliver�d to the city at or prior tp tl�` pu�lic hearing. ��-, ; .� � Property owt�ei=s wi�o�i-eceive this notice are responSi �s� or i forming their tenants abo�t this�' ndfiee. �. For additi<�nal inforinatioi ; ple�ase call (650) 558-7250. Thank �;ou. � b i F . .�W:�;�.x � �.. � .�,.'+�}, . �� - � �.,.�.'<:� � `�� Margaret Mo [o�,"' , �� ;�,4 (��.- � , City Planner ��:�,. � �.,,.,. �.. ._ ._. ..-�. �=, .->.m ,,�, PUBLIC HEARING (VOTICE (Please refer tn other si�le) �r`` ciT� o� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME PLANNtNG DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �. _ BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 1550 Bernal Avenue Application for design review, special permit for an attached garage, and front setback variance for a new two-story single family dwelling at: 1550 Bernal Avenue. Zoned R-1. (APN: 025-213-080). The City of Burlingame Pianning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday August 25, 2003 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council � Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: August 15, 2003 (Plense refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINUAME A copy of the application and plans foi- this pi-oject rnay be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Plailnin�� Depart�nent at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California If you challenge the snbject applicatic�n(s) in court, you may be limited Co raising only thosc; issues yoii oY- someone else raised at the public hearing, described in tlle �notice or in �vritte.n corres��ondcuce cielivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. �� Property o�ners who receive this notice are re.sponsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For �tdditional i�ii�orination, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. � - . , �,��,:.� � , ; Margaret Momoe ,� ��"`��,�_��! j� City Planner - , ,r�,. .. , . ,. . ., ,�! PUBLIC HEARING IVOTICE (Please refer to olhc��- side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and a special permit for a new two-story dwelling with an attached gara� at 1550 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, Denise Lau�esen- Balestieri, property owner, APN: 025-213-080; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on September 8, 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. 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. 2. Said design review and special permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for the design review and special permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of September, 2003 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for design review and special permit 1550 BERNAL AVENUE effective September 18, 2003 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 27, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.5 and sheet L 1.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that any trimming of the two protected oak trees shall be done by an I.S.A. certified tree worker or arborist; and that the extent of the trimming will be outlined in a written report to be submitted for the approval of the City Arborist prior to any trimming taking place; 4. that prior issuance of a grading permit or any grading on the site or issuance of a demolition permit, a root protection zone shall be established around the two protected oak trees and the installation shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist; the tree protection measures shall be checked by a certified arborist weekly and a written report on the status submitted to the City Arborist; and that the protective fencing shall not be removed until a final Building inspection takes place on the site and the certified arborist determines that it is appropriate to remove the tree protection; 5. any excavation during demolition or construction that takes place within the root protection zone must be done by hand; and the foundation for the 19'-6" wall of the west side and the 9'-0" wall of the south side of the living room on the first floor, left side of the dwelling, shall be a pier and grade foundation; that the holes for the piers of this foundation shall be hand-dug to a depth of 18-inches and shall be relocated if any roots are encountered that are greater than 3-inches in diameter; that these activities shall be supervised by a certified arborist; that if the certified arborist determines that any portion of an excavation will pose a negative impact to the tree roots, construction on the site shall be stopped and the project shall be reviewed by the City Arborist; 6. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building envelope; 7. 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; Page 2 Conditions of approval for design review and special permit 1550 BERNAL AVENUE effective September 18, 2003 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; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 27,2003 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 25, 2002 memo, the City Arborist's May 21 and July 3, 2003 memos and the Recycling Specialist's November 26, 2002 memo shall be met; 13. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 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 project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application; 16. 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; Page 3 Conditions of approval for design review and special permit 1550 BERNAL AVENUE effective September 18, 2003 17. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 18. 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 creek bed or 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 soit 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; 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 methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 21. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the BAAQMD permit shall be met; 22. that protective fencing shall be installed along the top of bank on the site (as shown on the site development plan, Sheet A.2, date stamped August 27, 2003); and that at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction work or materials extend beyond the top of bank boundary, including but not limited to construction personnel, debris, or equipment; 23. that if at any time construction activities extend below the top of bank, that a stop work order shall be placed on the property until it is determined if the project is subject to review by the Army Corps of Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Game and if permits are required; and 4 Page 4 Conditions of approval for design review and special permit 1550 BERNAL AVENUE effective September 18, 2003 24. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. ,�r�' �TY �t CITY OF BURLINGAME RUH ME P�NNING DEPARTMENT �" " "�" 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ��,,,,�,,,,,.''� TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 1550 BERNAL AVENUE Application for design review and special permit for pUBLIC HEARING an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at: 1550 BERNAL AVENUE, zoned R-1. � NOTICE (APN: 025-213-080). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission � announces the following public hearing on Monday, i September 8, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall I Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, � Burlingame, California. Mailed: August 29, 2003 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the appl' to the meeting a Burlingame, Cal' If you chal ge raising onl hos described i t at or prior t t Progerty o ers tenants ab t thi � 558-7250. ank � Margaret �l�C City Planner PU ic ' ay be reviewed prior �lai �g� D pa ent � 1 Primrose Road, � . �� bject �application(s) in�conrt,� u ssues you or someone else raiscd a�t 'c or in ��ritten ��orres�ondcnc t.'. � � �� C A � 1 F Ci R!V t a �i �' 1+ G•7 ��0� ,�9 6' ICE be limited to iblic hearing, ;d to the city ming their call (650) (Please refer to other side) vry • 2 -,-..1=.� /� � ��, I � % Y ..- � a�x��r ,j r . � � �k� ,I � , �ii� �,��,': +i�. .;' �_y `�`�?� �c., � . .� ,� r .� t� :� i � � �� 1 ' � ,. � : �, , ' ��.� ��` �' .. ,^_ � . �': s �' ►- �� ' ; �'�. � ��" �- � -L�.��-Ll. .. ��'��:. w�\ I 1' � � �_. ..� �p��'� � -M� Y •tr,��' ' ;�:� ;I"',,!: :� ��-`�'i; ~;��F,1 � ,��'!�' �,�, ; �'�, , .�_T >•. � `� . �1 • �� ROUTING FORM DATE: June 26, 2003 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official _Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist �City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff �OYY�t�Yuf�i" � -�a� J�.� 3� ? 003 • r �l a�. S SUBJECT: Request for new single-family dwelling with attached garage at 1550 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-230 . STAFF REVIEW: J� r,�,,�,E% "T �� '1`7Z.c �. �.. � :� d K �//1(+E- -�'tu-o pito rt�v*�GSD v�G !t_ � rt i t d� i3 � �an.� �i � /y� � 3. /.1 . c�G��r.'�. � cs� 'T r�E �✓o it. k-�i-2 cg /l /� Ot-� v�tc S4- . �„J �.k y E� cA v.iQ� a►,. a. ; 71,r. ,u Yrt � -r/�-�E S`� �t: 4� � �.u. E r 5 -r- o ./ / � E. ma�''. E��I k/t�v�D /1 �wV �k.� i iC 7a'�E fvPri�t v• Yr:� s�J'� TlI�E �Ot� .i f c�' I�/Zt3 o-n, aSQ� 'p►"b �r avt ,"`t'b rl. "TJI.E E lL�OY' � nt f�II ��tS �� T`12E� �t 6�w�� l��•�.wwrt�� y`� r3a Y� �.Ar.c�s�o�t -r�� /3'/b�E /LGo� �n.rt-cj /.l S �E 2 //. B � . B �' � 4� f�.z � Z. 77e.�E. Ps�o��•i., G �, ��., �,c�,c.� �.-� s�L �j ,�i.� �`Z� y,c�c E T•� Go_ n,6f��'- e�� 0/4%,� pn,�E. �o S3E �o�.� ow.�`'� . Reviewed By: - a�%�' Date of Comments: �� ROUTING FORM DATE: April 23, 2003 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official _Fire Marshal Rec cling Specialist _ ity Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff Cp m,(Yl.�(Y� � �O � � ��j � 4 � �3 P��.�n s { SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for a new two-story house with an attached garage at 1550 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, Apri128, 2003 /H�' S 9�E S� 6.t./ (,u r` `l tf/% �/� /'1 S�vFi2� �/� G,A'dz'vE �.�t P/1(�� G� �5casv`i.�G 1�'v� O,�/� -t'/L.E� -yu �3� AGz�s��e�� >.`, z � an. �� G iL� /� 5 �`� � o,�- 7�<� S P�G� S�?�-� . / �� S�u�l,� � G�-��,�.w A �.c�j G vLo n !i' � � G� �u G�l ��A�I c�� v �i� -nw�l w��G� �3� n�E�sn �-2 � /L8-�.�.vh A �'� a� / , �• ,�=1 l�i�`G� /�,��-�.>5 F�'n .�.r �u q�u v�• ic.� �v r�� 1.F�v � n.rt, /d .t[ iE S� �I%K4.wG c� .t-6�lLG� �0'/1�`za7, «� -�7t-�c.� G/1.�[.oft y#`a � � dZ+Fi�'yb uG�j / � %l.G� S� /yG7'ro-Yi-S Gu� G C�1h S � �ffi1� '��i�� 't� �3 � l',c6i'f/I�� Reviewed By: ' Date of Cotnments: �� oZ� d ROUTING FORM DATE: November 25, 2002 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official '�� Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning St:� � � SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for a new two-story, single family dwelling with attached garage at 1550 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 025-213-080 (026-033- 230) . STAFF REVIEW: Monday, November 25, 2002 �� 7�.��,. �._ � <� �--: �, t �7 E � c� � I ` �, � k � 7. �C �=�-� +� y�� c..� \ \ "�5��' �- �l -�.. °-j(� r.�,�,�,�. \ Reviewed By: �---ti— ��_�� Date of Comments: z- ��.,�- �:�� ROUTING FORM ��7:� November 25, 2002 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Offiicial Fire Marshal �Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for a new two-story, single family dwelling with attached garage at 1550 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 025-213-080 (026-033- 230). STAFF REVIEW: Monday, November 25, 2002 �` � �;�',,�,�,� ��N� �- �J��e �-��.u.�-� G�� . � � . �,�,�- � �c�� L � _ ��. � � � � �t-�� ` �� /�� .. �� r�� 'l,`'�'� 1 � �� r � �� 'l,t��- �d�-v�-c�-c �.�:1 � Reviewed By: Date of Comments: � C ��' l 0 Z ROUTING FORM _ *. DATE: November 25, 2002 TO: � City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for a new two-story, single family dwelling with attached garage at 1550 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 025-213-080 (026-033- 230) . STAFF REVIEW: Monday, November 25, 2002 � � �� } �-�,e. �� ,�. G�,�� (� ,�, `-�^-e �'�� ,��-r� �� B-�� '` -�"'`�-' �/yf.L�.�'`�cJ c.� j-� Sl' ��4--� r �% 'J Reviewed By: V�• Date of Comments: _��2��?% I� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS ;�� -�,,,,,, - ;.� Project Name: � ��rlii,� �v� u1,,r�,�,u,� Project Address: _ l ��' �� ►y � _. '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 permit issuance.) 2 � The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 5 '�l A sanitary sewer lateral trR 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 n, ��_ afion 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. � 10. �_ The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page 1 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall 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 hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 � Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Enginee� �- Permits. 19 � No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 �_ The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 � The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject to City Engineer's approval. 22 �r The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 —� The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store 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 garbage azea to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc