Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2019.07.08Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, July 8, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft June 10, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft June 10, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN – Update of a previously approved office /life science development ("Burlingame Point"). (Facebook, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 24, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING a. 300 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 300 Airport Blvd - Attachments Attachments: Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 July 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 150 Park Road (Lot F), zoned HMU & R-4 – Update of a previously approved 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development. (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Pacific West Architecture, architect) (376 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b. 150 Park Rd - Staff Report 160 Lorton Ave - Attachments 150 Park Rd - Revised Plans 150 Park Rd - Previously Approved Plans Attachments: 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N), zoned R-4 - Update of a previously approved five-level parking garage. (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Watry Design, Inc ., designer) (298 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin c. 160 Lorton Ave - Staff Report 160 Lorton Ave - Attachments 160 Lorton Ave - Revised Plans 160 Lorton Ave - Previously Approved Plans Attachments: 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 16 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Variance for parking off -site at 12 Park Road for a personal training studio. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Philip Levi, applicant; Park Road Properties, LLC, property owner) (197 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi a. 16 Park Rd - Staff Report 16 Park Rd - Attachments 16 Park Rd - Plans Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 812 Linden Avenue (vacant lot adjacent to 816 Linden Avenue), zoned R-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re -emerging lots, Design Review and Special Permit for one new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 812 Linden Avenue (vacant parcel next to 816 Linden Ave). (Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, applicant and designer; 812 Linden LLC and 816 Linden LLC, property owners) (148 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DATE TO BE DETERMINED a. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 July 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting July 1, 2019 920 Bayswater Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to elevations to a previously approved Design Review project for 128-unit apartment development. a. 920 Bayswater Ave - Memorandum and Attachments 920 Bayswater Ave - Plans Attachments: 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on July 8, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on July 18, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $1,045, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 10, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and LoftisPresent6 - ComarotoAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve in this meeting. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1548 Balboa Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a previously approved first and second story to an existing single family dwelling (previous approval expired - no changes proposed to project). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan, architect; Edward Y. Li and Zhi Hui Liu, property owners ) (83 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1548 Balboa Way - Staff Report 1548 Balboa Way - Attachments 1548 Balboa Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes b.12 Valdivia Court, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Audrey Tse, applicant and designer; Douglas Solomon & Lauri Pasch, property owners ) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 12 Valdivia Ct - Staff Report 12 Valdivia Ct - Attachments 12 Valdivia Ct - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Gaul, and Loftis5 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Tse1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1316 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; 1316 Capuchino Avenue, LLC, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit (item continued from May 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting) 1316 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1316 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1316 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Does not believe Spanish style fits into the neighborhood. OK with two-story, but not Spanish. >Should fit in OK, it is a well-design house. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The design guidelines allow for some variety in architectural style. >Nicely crafted, well-scaled. >Even though there are not others like it in the neighborhood, it will still fit in. >Style, articulation and massing are well done. Will not look out of place. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Kelly, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis4 - Nay:Gaul1 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Sargent1 - b.853 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Van Voorhis Architecture Inc, Andrea Van Voorhis, applicant and architect; William and Tara Cilmartin, property owners) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 853 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 853 Paloma Ave - Attachments 853 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Andrea Van Voorhis, Van Voorhis Architecture, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Changes are really good. Appreciates the changes to the north facade. >Solution for the kitchen is clever. >Drawings do not reflect the corner boards. The corner boards would detract from the design. >Looks tall compared to the other houses nearby. >Flood zone is a unique circumstance for the height. It is not asking for special considerations for height. >Natural siding is more typical of what is seen in town. This material does not give the same detailing and warmth that is seen in older houses. >Would not like there to be corner boards. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Window in kitchen under the hood seems forced. >Effort to get a window on the kitchen wall is clever. With the muntins it will help with shadowing from translucent glass. >Gables break down the massing. >Drawings do not have corner boards. >The high-quality design demands high-quality materials. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following condition: >The exterior finish material shall be natural wood shingles with mitered corners; any change to this finish shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff). The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - c.2617 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope, and Front Setback Variance for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e)(1). (Alicia Ader, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Tricia and Darren Tayama, property owners) (89 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2617 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2617 Easton Dr - Attachments 2617 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Alicia Ader, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, represented the applicant. Commission Comments: >Variance application does not make a good case for the exception. Would be better supported by the factoring the existing location of the porch. (Ader: Wants to rebuild the porch as is, and is also constrained by retaining the tree in the back.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >The variance application can be supported by the reasoning provided in the public testimony, and in Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the findings provided in the staff report. Special circumstances are the location of the existing porch, and retaining the tree behind the house. >The addition meets the setback requirements. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis5 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Terrones1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.123 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit, and Side Setback Variance for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling that attaches to existing detached garage. (Malin P. and Namita Kansal, applicants and property owners; Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders, designer) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 123 Loma Vista Dr - Staff Report 123 Loma Vista Dr - Attachments 123 Loma Vista Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones had a conversation with the property owner when he visited the property and accessed the rear yard. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Thomas Saviano, Saviano Builders, represented the applicant. Commissioner questions: >Why is the front porch being removed? (Saviano: Removing the cover because it counts towards lot coverage, but the porch itself will remain.) >Why is there a shed roof in the middle of the new addition? (Saviano: It is not visible anywhere, and will allow an elevated roof in the kitchen. It will allow clerestory windows inside.) >Should show clerestory windows. >What is the window material? (Saviano: White fiberglass combination, in both the addition and the windows being replaced.) >Window schedule shows double -hung, but elevations show casement. (Saviano: Schedule is incorrect, it is intended to be casement.) >Are there corner boards on the garage? (Saviano: Not making any changes to the garage.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Roof ridge over garage does not line up with the addition. >The existing house is a simple bungalow with nice charm, and by removing the front porch the charm goes away. It also removes the weather protection. >The roof plan needs to be looked at. It is not cohesive. >The roof can be raised higher. >The fenestration patterns need to be assessed; they are inconsistent between the various windows. >The windows can be anywhere on the facade; they do not have anything to do with the experience in or outside the building. >Needs to have a north arrow. Hard to get oriented otherwise. >Glass rail is not consistent with the neighborhood. >Variance application is supportable since it is existing and will be made nonconforming. Should be revisited to address exceptional or extraordinary circumstance, would help with the variance application. >Garage is already attached for all intents and purposes, and is consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - b.1457 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Condominium Permit, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new 4-story, 9-unit residential condominium building. (Rabih Balout, applicant and property owner; Troy Kashanipour, architect) (135 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1457 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1457 El Camino Real - Attachments 1457 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: Terrones was not in attendance in first meeting, but watched the video. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Rabih Balout spoke as property owner, with architect Troy Kashanipour. Commission Questions/Comments: >Has the feasibility of digging the basement been considered? (Kashanipour: Has met with a general contractor with a preliminary cost estimate, and it is expensive .)(Balout: Understands the cost, but does not want stackers.) >Why are there not balconies? (Kashanipour: Negative impact on privacy of neighboring properties, and between units. The roof decks are unlikely to be used at the same time. There are not direct sightlines to adjacent buildings, and the generous setbacks would mitigate noise.) >How much of the roof deck is required to meet the open space requirement? (Kashanipour: The Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes requirement is 75 sq ft per unit, so just a part of the terrace.) >Were smaller terraces considered? (Kashanipour: The size and dimensions of the terraces was defined by stair location and wedge for A/C unit.) >Site is being filled property line to property line. Would the foundation use sheet piles? (Kashanipour: Sheet pile or drilled pier set in concrete.) >If the garage dimensions had to be reduced to make room for the structural elements, would the parking still work? (Kashanipour: Has allocated 14 inches for the concrete. May need to have a pier or pillaster coming out of the wall. Should not impact parking spaces.) >Height to top of penthouse? (Kashanipour: Building is 38 feet to top of roof, then 9'-8" to top of penthouse.) Total is less than the 55 feet allowed by the zoning with a CUP. >Soils report yet? Water table? (Kashanipour: Will not be in the water table. Will be evaluated in environmental review.) >Are railings on the west elevation the same on second and third floors? (Kashanipour: Yes.) >How was the fenestration pattern determined? (Kashanipour: Intentional to keep proportions vertical . Sizes based on program of interior rooms.) >Large balcony doors on the second story but smaller on the third story? (Kashanipour: Second floor units do not have roof decks so the balconies are larger.) >Are metal panels on the renderings representative of the colors that will be anticipated? (Kashanipour: Yes. Only color will be on the lower canopy next to the entry.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the folding panel aesthetic. >Concern with the size of the roof decks for noise. >Concern with viability of building the garage lot line to lot line. Needs to have due diligence with the garage construction. >Metal, plaster and glass have flatness that brings coldness; not inviting. >Thinks balconies would be better than roof decks. Would be more usable to the units. Balconies are not just for open space, but also to break up the facade of the building. >All landscaping would need to be in planter boxes. >In favor of project programmatically, likes the architecture. Believes there will be more texture than what is shown in rendering, should provide a sample board. >Roof terraces are a potentially good solution if they are made a bit smaller. Suggest adding planters to separate the terraces, would bring down the usable space and make it a more inviting place to be. >Would be a nice addition to El Camino Real. >Appreciates attention to the entry. Likes the pop-up color. >Roof decks feel like an afterthought, not integrated into the building. Would like them to be more integral to design of the building. >Encourage revisiting the entry again. Eyebrow is not quite enough, could be bolstered to break up strong horizontal line. >Likes rooftop decks compared to balconies, more functional. >Likes the material palate. Is different but will be welcoming. The application will return to the Planning Commission upon completion of the environmental review. c.509-511 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) - Environmental Scoping for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and Lot Merger for construction of a new 5-story, 24-unit live/work development. (Alex Mortazavi, applicant; Toby Levy, Levy Design Partners, architect; 509 California Drive LLC and Denham LLC, property owners) (276 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 509-511 California Dr - Staff Report.pdf 509-511 California Dr - Attachments 509-511 California Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Kelly opened the public hearing. Toby Levy, Levy Design Partners, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >How far back are the top floor setbacks? (Levy: 7 feet on the top floor). >Will the landscaping include grass? (Levy: Not turf, but look like grass.) Consider some specimens for verticality and volume. >Will there be seating area next to the gallery? (Levy: Could consider it.) >Entry lobby feels squeezed. (Levy: Will have glass so it will not feel like a hallway.) >Will there be room on the upper decks for seating? (Levy: There is room for seating, enveloped by planters. There is 10-12 feet.) >How to support the building height? (Levy: The width of the California Drive corridor width supports it, and it appeals to a demographic that wants this lifestyle. Speaks to the future of the urban core, but humanized with the ground floor set back with planting. The intent is to provide the additional housing that is appropriate to the commercial zoning.) >What is the thinking behind the exposed moment frames? (Levy: Wanted to set back the first floor, but needed to deal with the sheer as a wood-frame building.) >Is the intent of the bifold garage doors to be able to see through to the back? (Levy: Yes, to see the landscaping in the back.) Have full-height gates been considered? (Levy: Will look at it.) >Could consider reversing door swings on the balconies to provide full use of the balcony? (Levy: Can look at that.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >There is a lot of corrugated metal. More industrial feeling, not sure it is the right thing on California Drive. >Likes the central space. >Does not like the mansard roof. Maybe it would be better with a simple setback. >Does not think the metal panels on the north elevation will soften the look as described. >Good programmatically. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Suggests different articulation along top floor, would help the north elevation. Continuing the material up into the mansard makes it look taller. >Revisit the entry, it presents a harsh line over the first floor. Feels like one has to duck under the moment frame; should celebrate the entries. >South elevation works better than the north because of the windows into the stairwells. But both elevations are very stark, needs more articulation to help with scale. >Not a fan of the mansard roof form. The balcony railings take away from the roof form. >Look at taller garage gates. >Moment frame is so strong, but would like to see it carried though to upper floors in some manner. >More human relation to the entries to the units and galleries. >Likes the layout, gallery, setback and planting in the front. But concerned with the industrial feel . Would look better on Rollins Road. Not sure this is compatible with the other structures in the area . Maybe less metal, too much for this area. >Likes the open space to the back, breaks up the mass. >Concern with the impact on the neighboring properties with shadows and noise. >Height is too much of a stark contrast with the neighbors. Likes the exposed beams, but not sure with the color. Likes the break in the building on the north side. The public hearing was re-opened to allow the applicant to ask a clarifying question. Levy: Would pilotis be more acceptable than the ground floor recess? (Terrones: Does not mind the recess, and likes that it provides some relief along the street. Concern that the doors get lost in the facade when they are under such a strong, hard shadow line. OK with the moment frame and recess, it's how to articulate and celebrate the entries. Maybe break the hard line at the bottom of the second floor.) Vice Chair Kelly closed the public hearing. The application will return to the Planning Commission upon completion of the environmental review. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.2120 Carmelita Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 2120 Carmelita Ave - Memorandum and Attachments 2120 Carmelita Ave - Plans Attachments: Pulled for further discussion. There is not a lot of detailing on the house, so concerned with the muntins being removed. b.300 Airport Boulevard – FYI report back regarding a previously approved Design Review project. 300 Airport Boulevard - Memorandum and Attachments 300 Airport Boulevard - Exhibits Attachments: Pulled for further discussion. Concern with the location of the reserve space. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 June 10, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on June 10, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 20, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2019 City of Burlingame Update of Previously Approved Office/Life Science Development (“Burlingame Point”) Address: 300 Airport Boulevard Meeting Date: July 8, 2019 Request: Update of a previously approved office/life science development ("Burlingame Point") Applicant: Facebook APN: 026-350-130 Property Owner: Burlingame Point LLC Lot Area: 18.13 AC Architect: Gensler (Burlingame Point); WRNS Studio (Tenant Improvements) General Plan: Bayfront Specific Plan Anza Point Area Zoning: Anza Point North (APN) Summary: The most recent amendment to the application for Design Review for the Burlingame Point office development at 300 Airport Boulevard was approved by the Planning Commission on August 13, 2018 (see attached August 13, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). Construction of the building shells is currently underway. The applicant recently submitted for a building permit for tenant improvements, however a permit for that phase of work has not yet been issued. At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the amendment to the project based upon the following information being reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit for the tenant improvements:  Condition of Approval #6: …the project shall provide a minimum of 2,500 sf of space in buildings B1 or B2 (facing the shoreline or pedestrian promenade) for public-serving amenities, which may include food/beverage service and other retail services to serve recreational users of the Bay Trail and members of the public. Such public amenities are encouraged to be provided and open for business on days and times when substantial use along the shoreline is anticipated, including weekends and holidays, and are required to provide restrooms accessible to the public. If after two years of operation the tenant has evidence that the demand for the public amenities is so limited as to justify discontinuing such services, it may request a change of use. Any significant change of use of the public amenity space or request to discontinue services shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. In addition, following the first two years of operation of the 2,500 sf public serving amenity space(s), the project shall evaluate the commercial feasibility of converting an additional 2,000 sf of reserve space within buildings B1 or B2 to public amenity uses, based on projected profitability (absent any subsidy), and provide a report to the Community Development Director; if determined that providing an additional 2,000 sf of public-serving amenity spaces is commercially feasible, then the project shall use its best commercial efforts to convert such reserve space to public-serving amenity uses. The location of the public-serving amenity space(s) and reserve space shall be confirmed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit for tenant improvements. The applicant previously submitted a letter dated May 22, 2019 and exhibits date stamped June 5, 2019, in response to the Commission’s direction. Those materials were provided to the Planning Commission as an “FYI” item on the June 10, 2019 agenda. The FYI was pulled by the commission for further discussion. The applicant has subsequently revised their submittal. However, exhibits for the revised submittal were not ready in time for the staff report printing deadline. The applicant will present the revised submittal at the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Action: This is an informational item, which includes providing “FYI” clarifications to the Planning Commission’s direction and suggestions for a previously approved project. Item No. 6a Study Item Update of Previously Approved Project 300 Airport Boulevard (“Burlingame Point”) 2 Because the exhibits will be presented in the meeting, commissioners will not have the opportunity to study the proposal prior to the meeting. If at the meeting commissioners decide the proposal is acceptable as presented, no further action will be required. However if commissioners determine they will need more time to consider the proposal, they can ask for the matter to be continued to the July 22nd meeting. Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director c. Mandy Spain, Facebook, Technical Program Manager Attachments: August 13, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 13, 2018 b.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment to Conditions of Approval #6 (retail and food service provisions) and #21 (Transportation Demand Management provisions) of a previously approved office /life science development ("Burlingame Point") (Genzon Investment Group, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner) (23 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 300 Airport Boulevard - Staff Report 300 Airport Boulevard - Attachments Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones, Loftis, and Comaroto had conversations with the legal representatives for the applicant. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Would the changes approved in 2017 to remove the roof decks from two of the buildings be retained? (Gardiner: Yes, those have not been proposed to be changed with this application.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Tosta, Arent Fox, represented the applicant. In his presentation he provided an update that that the public-facing amenity is proposed to be increased and combined into 2,500 square feet in Building 1. Chris Hom, Facebook, represented the prospective tenant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Had hoped for a restaurant that would be open to the public, beyond the needs of the tenant, and would be an attraction for the Bayfront. Traffic generation was not the only consideration; had hoped to enliven the Bayfront, and thought the restaurant would be an attraction. >What went into the math to change from 1,600 square feet to 2,500 square feet? (Tosta: 6,000 square feet in the orignal approval anticipated a commercial success of the retail and restaurants from the tenants, with a two-year trial period. Facebook needs at least 60,000 square feet for its own needs and it cannot be shared with the public; the more space that is created for the public, the less available for Facebook for its own purposes. Facebook will be attracting trade to this part of the city; the experience in Menlo Park has been a lot of changes to the surrounding area.) >There needs to be some "pioneer species" to enliven the Bayfront. >The rooftop terraces were removed to allow space for additional mechanical equipment for biotech uses, but this is not a biotech. Could the rooftop terraces be restored? Will the other two rooftop terraces remain? (Hom: Still needs the rooftop space for mechanical units .)(Tosta: The other two rooftop terraces will be retained.) >Example of Google Charleston East example has a green loop running through the project and a public-facing restaurant shared between Google and the public. Could there be a public restaurant here too? (Tosta: The space here is intended to function similarly, and serve both Facebook and the public . Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2019 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The 2,500 square feet is comparable to the space in the Google example, and is a viable area for a commercial space that can be maintained over time.) >How was the location for the amenity space determined? (Tosta: Intent to get people into the promenade. Wants to activate the promenade.) What would prevent the amenity space from facing the water, rather than the promenade? (Hom: Balance with the rest of the use of the building, including the location of the kitchen.)(Tosta: Did not want it to be remote. Wanted a front-door location.) >Why couldn't a destination restaurant on the Bayfront be successful? (Tosta: Not enough traffic for a white tablecloth restaurant.) Would like to offer people an additional reason to go over to the Bayfront. >Kincaids is a busy restaurant, and it's on the Bayfront. It is busy at lunch and dinner. Wants more attractions for going out to the Bayfront. Not sure the economic feasibility argument is correct. (Hom: Facebook's kitchen is specific to Facebook. To have another restaurant it would need to have its own kitchen, which requires more space .)(Tosta: Size is not as important as what is in the space. Something more than a coffee destination.) >Had wanted another restaurant - another reason for people to come to the Bayfront. Viability of the restaurant requires tenants of the new building to support it. Should find a restaurant who wants to be in the Bayfront location. >Originally wanted more retail to enliven the area. Why would there not be other tenants like a bicycle rental or tackle shop? (Tosta: It takes a lot of traffic to support a bike shop. There is 2,500 square feet that could include some bay -specific products. Retailers are in a lot of trouble with flattening retail trade . Could consider some pop -up uses on the weekends. Had proposed a farmer's market in Belle Haven in Menlo Park, but it was not economically viable. Instead Facebook modulated it into a truck that drives into the neighborhoods.) >Issue with the word "may" for Bay Trail users. (Tosta: Did not want it to be specific to a particular market such as people on the Bay Trail .)(Kane: Emphasis has been to maintain flexibility over time without locking into a particular solution. Needs to have long -term enforceability, and assumes there will be some experimentation to determine what works in this location. Use patterns may change over time, particularly as other developments are built in the area.) Public Comments: Jennifer Pfaff: This project has been 15 years in process, and each time it has been an effort to get the developer to provide something for the public. Seems like each time something is taken away; a thousand cuts are being made to try to make a tenant happy. Likes the pop-up idea, something creative. Scott Kirkman: Represents the Owners of the site across the street comprising 8.76 acres, and has looked for 30 years to figure out what to build. It is hard to attract uses in this area. This could be a benefit to the other surrounding properties. Tim Tosta: Can set aside an additional 2,000 square feet as a "reserve" to allow expansion in the future . The market does not exist now but this could accommodate something later. Chris Hom: It is less about the square footage than it is about what is going to be built. Willing to put the energy into working to find what that is. Note from City Attorney Kane: All commissioners file a Form 700 which disclose financial interests. Some commissioners may have Facebook stock as an individual holding. The identity of Facebook is not crucial to the application; the question is whether the conditions language should be amended to accommodate a single tenant. The action is being sought by the original applicant (Genzon); whether or not a commissioner has holdings in Facebook would not be material to this application. If Facebook were to become the applicant, staff would need to conduct a conflicts analysis. Note from Community Development Director Gardiner: The 2,500 square feet is an envelope that can be split between different tenants, or could be combined into one. The distribution can be changed over time. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2019 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Amendment to the Transportation Demand Management condition is supportable. Allows flexibility over time with review by the Community Development Director. >Can support the amendment that the 1,600 square feet of space becomes 2,500, and that the applicant crafts an additional setaside of 2,000 square feet. >Likes the synergy of the two spaces together. Would work better than two separate spaces in different buildings. >Can support 2,500 square feet plus the setaside for 2,000 square feet. >Needs to determine the location of the public-facing space. >If the public-facing space faces the central promenade, it ensures the promenade will remain open to the public rather than being closed off in the future. >If Facebook gets more involved with the community in the future, it could host uses such as pop -ups on the central promenade. >Could add a local angle to the space, perhaps a mural or something to commemorate the former drive-in. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: >The project shall provide an additional 2,000 sf of "reserve" space for expansion of public-amenity uses. The location of the public-serving amenity space(s) and reserve space shall be confirmed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2019 City of Burlingame Update of a Previously Approved 132-Unit Workforce and Senior Apartment Development Address: 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) Meeting Date: July 8, 2019 Request: Update of a previously approved 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development. Applicant: Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies APN: 029-224-270 Property Owner: City of Burlingame Lot Area: 36,750 SF Architect: Pacific West Architecture General Plan: Howard Avenue Mixed Use District/R-4 Incentive District Zoning: HMU (Howard Mixed Use) and R-4 Incentive District Subarea Adjacent Development: Multifamily Residential and Commercial Uses Current Use: Public Parking Lot (Lot F) Summary: On December 10, 2018, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review, Density Bonus Incentives and Lot Merger for construction of a new five story, 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development at 150 Park Road (Public Parking Lot F), zoned HMU and R-4 Incentive District Subarea (see attached December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A copy of the December 10, 2018 project staff report reviewed by the Commission is attached for reference. A building permit for the project has not yet been submitted. At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project based upon the direction and suggestions listed below being reviewed by the Commission as an “FYI” item prior to issuance of a building permit. In order to ensure that the direction provided by the Commission is reviewed in a timely manner, staff is bringing these items forward directly as a study item (rather than an FYI) in case the Commission has any questions. Below you will find responses to the Commission’s direction and suggestions; please also refer to the attached letter submitted by the applicant, dated June 18, 2019. 1. Revise the type and style of windows from internal grids to either simulated true divided muntins with a spacer bar between the dual glazing or windows with no muntins; provide window details and revise building elevations/renderings.  The type and style of windows has been revised from the previously proposed internal grids to windows with no muntins. Please refer to the attached revised rendering, building elevations, and window brochure/specifications. The applicant notes that due to budget constraints (40% premium on bronze color), the previously proposed bronze color for the vinyl windows has been changed to “Desert Clay”. 2. Revisit the color specified for the storefront and awnings (“Jargon Jade” or equal previously specified).  The color specified for the storefront and awnings has been revised from “Jargon Jade” to “Hemlock”, which is a darker green color. Please refer to the color renderings and color swatch (swatch will be available at the meeting). Item No. 6b Study Item Update of a Previously Approved Project 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) 2 3. Revisit the color specified for the structures on the roof (“Honey Bees” or equal previously specified).  The color previously specified for the roof structures has been revised from “Honey Bees” to “Alabaster”, which is the color previously approved on other portions of the building. The color specified for the Southeast stair tower and portions of the building façade has been revised from “Honey Bees” to “Jonquil”. Please refer to the revised rendering, building elevations and color swatch (color swatch will be available at meeting). 4. Provide bicycle parking and bench seating near the main entrance to the building; must be determined feasible by the Department of Public Works if provided within the right-of-way.  Bicycle parking and bench seating is provided near the main entrance to the building. Please refer to the revised site plan and rendering. Staff would note that the Department of Public Works (DPW) has approved the location of the bicycle parking. Noting concerns with pedestrian safety, DPW has not accepted the location of the benches, which are proposed on the sidewalk abutting the building. However, DPW is open to considering an alternative location, such as in the planter strip area between the sidewalk and street curb. DPW and the applicant will be working together on finding a feasible solution. 5. Revisit alternative options for the Hardie horizontal lap siding, such as wood or other material.  In his response letter, the applicant notes that “due to maintenance costs and funding restraints we are unable to use a real wood product.” Planning Commission Action: Since this is an informational item, which includes implementation of the Commission’s direction and suggestions for a previously approved project, there is no action required by the Planning Commission. In their discussion with the applicant, the Commission may ask for additional clarifications to the information provided, but there is not a decision required since the revisions do not affect the projects’ compliance with objective standards, design review standards, and conditions of approval. Planning staff would note that State of California Government Code Section 65589.5 limits the ability of municipalities to deny a multifamily residential project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application is determined to be complete. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant Attachments: Applicant’s Explanation Letter, dated June 18, 2019 December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2018 Project Staff Report A r c h i t e c t s · E n g i n e e r s · P a r k i n g P l a n n e r s C:\Users\watry\Desktop\Ruben Letter 070319.docx San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX • Irvine, CA watrydesign.com July 3, 2019 Mr. Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager City of Burlingame Community Development Department-Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Burlingame Village and Lot N Parking Structure WDI Job #17030.112 Dear Ruben, Here are the drawings addressing the concerns that the Planning Commission had in regards to the proposed architectural mesh for the referenced project. We are proposing to use the GKD Metal Fabrics, Omega 1520 mesh on the two street facades of the building as indicated. This product is durable and low maintenance and minimizes the structural support, which addresses the main concern that the planning Commission had. One variation is that in developing the final details, we learned the manufacturer does not recommend installing the product at such a tight curve at the stair as we had indicated on our original renderings. Therefore, we are proposing to segment the mesh at the stair as indicated in Option 2 of the attached drawings. This will maintain the original intent of the design, instead of changing to a completely square landing. In addition, the preliminary bids have come in extremely high. This will require that the project go through value engineering. Our recommendation for VE is to prioritize where Green Screen panels are located on the façade. Where existing or proposed adjacent properties have large buildings, we recommend deleting the panels. We trust that this will not impact the aesthetics as the garage will be screened by new or existing adjacent buildings. Subsequent VE items will be brought back to Planning Commission as necessary after review with the staff. Please do not hesitate to call me if you need additional information. Sincerely, WATRY DESIGN, INC. Genaro Morales, Director of Architecture North American Headquarters North America GKD-USA, Inc. 825 Chesapeake Drive Cambridge MD 21613 Direct: 410.901.8429 or 410.901.8428 Fax: 410-221-0544 metalfabrics@gkdusa.com Omega 1520 Product Specifications Flexible, one direction Material AISI Type 316 SS Open Area 50% Weight 1.06 lbs/sqft Max. width Up to 20' special order, 62" standard max. Max. length Contact GKD Available also with ss cables and bronze rods up to 62" wide System Components Extended loop - eyebolts Extended loops - hook at top Flat & angle Flats with clevis Frame Outrigger tension system Reinforced internal flat bar StealthLok StealthLok Sprung U-binding frame WIB - hooks and springs WIB - eyebolts top and bottom WIB - hooks and eyebolts Applications Custom-Woven Solar Mesh Fabric Metal Mesh Parking Facades Custom-Woven Metal Column Covers Custom-Woven Metal Fabric Facades Etched Graphics Ceilings Custom Metal Wire Mesh Partitions Please refer to page 2 for Solar Control Data North American Headquarters North America GKD-USA, Inc. 825 Chesapeake Drive Cambridge MD 21613 Direct: 410.901.8429 or 410.901.8428 Fax: 410-221-0544 metalfabrics@gkdusa.com Omega 1520 GKD-USA offers a complete sunshade technical program. Our engineering team works with you to provide an assessment and application analysis to your specific need or project. GKD Metal Fabric Sunshading Façades offer significant energy saving, comfort, and a pleasant work environment by filtering light and providing transparent views to the outside. Solar Control Data Percentage of Visible Light Transmittance Minimum 0.30, Maximum 0.54 Percentage of Visible Light Reflectance Minimum 0.19, Maximum 0.25 Solar Gain Coefficient (SHGC)Minimum 0.21, Maximum 0.36 SOLAR CONTROL DATA NOTES: Test per EN 410 "Glass in building - Determination of luminous and solar characteristics of glazing" SHGC per EN 13363-1 "Solar protection devices combined with glazing - calculation of solar and light transmittance" Glazing system constants: Uglazing = 1.2 W/m²K, gglazing= 0.60 TVtot = visible light transmittance PVtot = visible light reflectance gtot = Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 10, 2018 h.160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N), zoned R-4: Application for Design Review and Lot Merger for construction of a new five -level parking garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Watry Design, Inc ., designer) (319 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Chris Grant and Genaro Morales, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Do you have any point of reference as to what the metal mesh will look like? Suggest taking a look at the mesh on the wall of the Audi dealer on Broadway, it's handled very well on the that building. Would help to jazz up the building given the amount of concrete on the structure. (Morales: Included a detail of the mesh in the attachments.) >Mesh is a woven wire fabric, so there will need to be a subframe to attached that to, but it is not shown on the rendering. Concerned the frame will be larger and overdone, don't want to see huge members holding up the light fabric. (Morales: Agree, there are two reasons not to build it that way. First, the expense of using a lot of steel. Second, don't want it to be bulky. It will be a tension fabric, so it will be supported at the top and bottom to provide the tension. So will try to minimize the size of the subframe.) >Concrete is poured in place, not precast, correct? (Morales: That is correct.) >Some of it will be high end, architectural finish, right? (Morales: We are proposing for the board form to show the ties and provide a smoother finish than what is normally done.) >When I hear board form, I think of a rugged, very textured finish. (Morales: No, it's the form work, will provide a smooth finish.) >Will all the concrete be the same color, or will there be variation of color? (Morales: The color may vary in tones, based on the way it's poured. The intent is not to color the concrete. Difference would be in the finish, which would provide some reflection and contrast. If you want color, might as well paint it.) >Like the paseo along the side of the structure. There is a passage gateway feature at the alley along Burlingame Avenue between Lorton Avenue and California Drive. Would like to see a pedestrian scale created to the entrance to the paseo on either end, would make it more special to enter and walk along the paseo, given that the structure is so tall. (Morales: Can take a look at that.) >Has there been any consideration given to a zip car operation here? This solution works well in San Francisco and helps to get people out of owning cars. (Grant: Willing to work with staff, conversation are ongoing.) (Kane: Zip car feature would not change the architecture of the building. These programming Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes questions will be up to the City to decide in the long term. Project has agreed to provide the conduit so that we can have EV charging stations in a designated area.) >Can you tell us more about the panels needed to conceal headlights? Will they be colored? (Morales: Panels will be prefinished 16-gauge plates. Will be colored.) Public Comments: Gary Vielbam, business owner at 124 Highland Avenue: Located across the street from project. Need access on Highland Avenue, concerned with the amount of construction material, staging and construction workers and how it will impact my business. Need to be able to maneuver cars in and out of shop. David Mendell: In support of project, parking is needed downtown. Passageway appears too narrow for the trees as shown. Hopes this does not become a hold site for construction of the housing project, want to keep project moving, downtown desperately needs parking. Michael Brownrigg: Thanked Commission for their time on the housing project, design got a lot better. Is one step closer to 132 families having a place to live. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Have come to like the design as it is now proposed. Critical that details on screen mesh be worked out. Like the way it adds varied mass to the building. Like the idea of enclosing the stair with the mesh, will be a much nicer experience with the open stair. >Like the way the massing is articulated, has some calm to it. Variation between metal panels and cable railings at lower level, adds articulation and spark. Storefront glass helps with the pedestrian experience. Paseo helps soften building along ground level and provide connection without having to walk through the garage. >Assume there will be a construction logistics plan that gets worked out with Public Works in terms of timing sequencing, construction worker parking, etc. >Did not see any parking signage on the plans, assume there will be lighted signs indicating available parking. >Like the way the project is simplified, with a simple concrete structure, cable rail, and a few urban gestures with the metal panels. >Based on its location and proximity to residential uses, feel that it is still too rough around the edges for being a mid -block large parking structure. Missing level of charm, needs to be a little better for its location. >Project has improved a lot since the first iteration. No matter what, it is still a large parking structure. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of the details of the architectural screening and a detail of the sub frame showing how the architectural screening is supported/attached to the parking structure. Comment on the motion: >Should think about the architectural screen very carefully and what is used to hold up the screen. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Nay:Kelly1 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2019 City of Burlingame Design Review and Lot Merger for a New Five-Level Parking Garage Address: 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) Meeting Date: December 10, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Lot Merger for construction of a new five-level parking garage. Applicant: Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies APN: 029-231-060 and 029-231-240 Property Owner: City of Burlingame Lot Area: 33,750 SF Architect: Pacific West Architecture General Plan: R-4 Incentive District Zoning: R-4 Incentive District Subarea Adjacent Development: Multifamily Residential and Commercial Uses Current Use: Public Parking Lot (Lot N) with 109 stalls Proposed Use: Five-level parking garage providing 388 stalls. Allowable Use: Multifamily, duplex, single family residential uses and public buildings. Environmental Review: Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines is intended to promote in-fill development within urbanized areas. This class consists of in-fill projects which are consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements. This class is not intended to be applied to projects which would result in significant impacts on endangered, rare, or threatened species, traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, utilities, and public services. Application of this exemption, as all categorical exemptions, is limited by the exceptions described in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15332 states: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. On the basis of the evidence provided in the analysis, it was determined the project is eligible for a Class 32 categorical exemption, in accordance with Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines (see attached CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption prepared by ICF, dated December 2018). Based on City of Burlingame threshold criteria, no additional substantial adverse impacts beyond those discussed in the analysis are anticipated. Because the project meets the criteria for categorically exempt infill development projects, and because it would not have a significant effect on the environment, this analysis finds that a Notice of Exemption may be prepared for the Project. No further review is needed. Background: In 2010 the Burlingame City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The culmination of a multi-year community planning process, the Plan provides a framework for sustaining the existing success of the downtown and accommodating new opportunities. One aspect of the Downtown Specific Plan is a focus on better use of parking facilities downtown, particularly the twenty City-owned surface parking lots. The plan encourages parking lots to be converted to different uses over time, such as housing, open space, and additional parking. Choices about uses are guided by what will most benefit the downtown area. Item No. 8h Regular Action Item Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 2 Consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, the City Council has expressed an interest in expanding the housing options available in Burlingame, including the provision of more affordable housing options, a category of housing that is minimally represented amongst the existing housing stock within the community. Likewise, as parking is important to Downtown businesses and residents alike, the City Council has been evaluating options for improving parking in the downtown area. This includes accommodating demand by using the land more efficiently with decked or structured parking. The proposed development of Parking Lots F and N is intended to respond to the following objectives with:  new housing units to support the community, including housing for seniors and for people working in the community;  additional, conveniently-located parking for use by downtown businesses and residents alike;  additional open space to be enjoyed by both current and new residents. For more general information about the proposed project and affordable housing, please refer to the attached “Village at Burlingame Frequently Asked Questions” prepared by staff and the developer. Although the purpose of the design review action meeting is only to review and discuss the proposed design of the project, staff thought it would be helpful to include this background information so that the Planning Commission has a full understanding of the context of the proposed project. Project Summary: In December 2014 the City of Burlingame distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified developers interested in partnering with the City to develop City-owned Parking Lots F & N with affordable housing. One requirement of the RFP was that the development should not only replace the existing spaces on the two parking lots, but also to the extent possible expand the amount of public parking for the benefit of the downtown business district. The City Council's Downtown Specific Plan Implementation Subcommittee reviewed the proposals and provided recommendations for the City Council to consider. After several public hearings, the City Council selected The Pacific Companies as its preferred developer at its regular meeting of July 6, 2015. Since that time, the developer has been doing preliminary work on the project including financing, site conditions reconnaissance, and design development. The project site consists of merging a portion of Lot 7 and Lots 8, 9, 14 and 15 of Block 10, which combined will extend from Lorton Avenue to Highland Avenue (see attached aerial). These lots are currently owned by the City of Burlingame and contain Parking Lot N, a public parking lot with 109 stalls. The project site has 100 feet of frontage on Lorton Avenue and 125 feet of frontage on Highland Avenue and is zoned R-4 and located within the R-4 Incentive District Subarea. The site is bordered by two-story commercial buildings to the north along Howard Avenue, a two-story multifamily residential building and private parking lot to the south, two-story multifamily residential buildings and Parking Lot F to the west across the street on Lorton Avenue, and a gasoline station and automotive repair buildings to the east along Highland Avenue. The proposed project consists of demolishing the existing public parking lot (Parking Lot N) and constructing a new five-level above-grade parking garage. The proposed parking garage would provide a total 368 parking stalls, including 97 parking stalls that would be displaced by the proposed affordable housing development on Lot F, 109 parking stalls currently located on Lot N and 162 new parking stalls. The garage will contain four levels of covered parking with the fifth level being open to the sky. The proposed parking garage has been designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit on both Lorton Avenue and Highland Avenue by way of one driveway entrance on each street. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 3 Code Section 25.29.020 (a) of the R-4 District Regulations allows all uses permitted in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts. In the R-1 District, public buildings are permitted under Code Section 25.26.020 (b)). A public parking garage is considered to be a public building. The proposed parking garage measures 48’-0” in height, where 55’-0” is allowed by right in the R-4 Incentive District Subarea. As noted above, the fifth level is open to the sky and therefore the building will appear as a four-story building. The following applications are requested for this project:  Design Review for construction of a new five-level above ground parking garage (C.S. 25.29.045 and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan); and  Lot Merger to combine a portion of Lot 7 and Lots 8, 9, 14 and 15 of Block 10, Town of Burlingame Map No. 1 Subdivision into one lot. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on February 26, 2018, the Commission reviewed the proposed parking garage and provided feedback on its design, expressing concerns with the facades and mass/bulk and suggesting that the design be lighter and simpler (see attached February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). At that time, the plans provided a total of 388 parking spaces in the parking garage. Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of comments/concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. Subsequently, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission met with the developer and architect to provide further direction and discussion regarding the parking garage design. The design of the structure has since been modified to reflect input from the Planning Commission and subcommittee. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped December 5, 2018, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and concerns. Please refer to the applicant’s letter dated December 6, 2018, for a detailed summary of the changes made to the project and responses to the Planning Commissions concerns and comments. One of the suggestions from the subcommittee included adding enclosed spaces on the ground floor at the street facades which could be used to display art and/or for bicycle storage. The Public Works Department reviewed conceptual drawings showing the enclosed spaces and expressed strong concerns with regards to vehicle and pedestrian safety, in that the location of the proposed enclosed spaces at both entrances to the garage would create conflicts with sight lines and vehicles maneuvering in and out of the garage. In addition, they expressed concerns with the loss of parking spaces due to the enclosed spaces. The proposed design no longer includes the enclosed ground floor spaces, but provides storefront windows on the Lorton and Highland Avenue facades to break up the massing of the garage at the pedestrian level. The modifications also include compliance with PG&E overhead utility clearance requirements, which required the parking garage to be pushed backed 5’-8” from the property lines along the Lorton and Highland Avenues (previously set back 1’-3” from property line). Together, these changes have resulted in a decrease of 20 parking spaces, from 388 to 368. The City Council has been informed and accepted the reduction in the number of parking spaces provided in the garage. However, there should be no design changes suggested at this time that would result in reducing the number of parking spaces any further. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 4 Design Review: The proposed project is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.2.6 (page 5-16) provides design guidelines specifically for developments on public parking lots. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-27) provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown, including residential and mixed use areas. These applicable sections of the Design and Character chapters of the Downtown Specific Plan have been attached for reference. The materials proposed for the exterior of the parking garage include unfinished concrete walls, architectural screens, and cable and metal panel guardrails on the Lorton Avenue and Highland Avenue facades of the building. Storefront windows are proposed on the ground floor along the street facades with a concrete entry canopy above the vehicles entrances to the garage. The stairway and elevator enclosures are proposed to be enclosed with architectural screens and glazing. Green screen panels are also proposed on the north and south facades of the building that will allow vines to climb up onto the green screens. Please refer to the building elevations on sheets A3.1 through A-3.2A and perspective renderings on sheets A3.3 and A3.4 for additional information. Landscaping: The project site is currently covered primarily by a paved public parking lot, with several small areas of landscaping at the entrance to the parking lot along Lorton Avenue. There are no existing trees on the project site. There are several existing trees that are located adjacent to the proposed project, including a large Redwood tree and an unknown tree species at the rear of 1115 Howard Avenue. The City Arborist notes that an arborist report will be required to establish tree protection measures during construction, but pointed out that the smaller tree at the rear of 1115 Howard Avenue, located very close to the property line would most likely need to be removed. He also requested that there be standard conditions of approval included in the entitlements such as require hand-digging for the garage foundation, having a qualified arborist on-site during the construction of the foundation, and notifying the City Arborist if roots over a certain size are encountered. Landscaping is proposed along the south side of the site, which also includes a 10 to 14 foot wide pedestrian walkway connecting Lorton and Highland Avenues (see Landscape Plan on sheet L1). A total of seven 36- inch box Columnar European Hornbeam trees are proposed to be planted in the area portion of the lot nearer to Highland Avenue. In addition to the trees, the pedestrian walkway will consist of decorative paving, benches, a raised planter, groundcover and pervious paving. These elements also are provided to comply with stormwater requirements. There are three existing street trees along Lorton Avenue and two existing street trees along Highland Avenue in front of the project site. All existing street trees would be removed and replaced with three new 36-inch box street trees along Lorton Avenue and four new 36-inch box street trees along Highland Avenue. The applicant will be working with the Parks Division to select the appropriate street tree species prior to the building permit submittal. The applicant would obtain the required tree removal permits from the Parks and Recreation Director pursuant to the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.04, Street Trees. Lot Merger: In the R-4 District, the minimum requirement is a 5,000 SF lot with 60 feet of street frontage for lots measuring greater than 10,000 SF in area. The proposed combined lot would have 100 feet of street frontage along Lorton Avenue and 125 feet of street frontage along Highland Avenue, and would measure 33,750 SF in area. Therefore, the proposed lot merger is in compliance with lot size and street frontage requirements. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 5 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) Lot Area: 33,750 SF Plans date stamped: December 5, 2018 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Use: Five-level parking garage with 368 stalls (includes 97 parking stalls displaced by the proposed affordable housing development on Lot F, 109 parking stalls currently located on Lot N and 162 new parking stalls) public buildings Setbacks Lorton Ave: 5’-8” ¹ 10’-0” Highland Ave: 5’-8” ¹ 10’-0” North Side: 1’-0” ¹ 10'-0" South Side: 10’-0”/14’-0” 10'-0" Building Height: 48'-0" 55’-0” (rooftop enclosures allowed to extend additional 10’) Lot Coverage: 79.3% ² (26,775 SF) 50% (16,875 SF) Landscaping: 18% of front setback ³ (272 SF) 40% of front setback (600 SF) ¹ Request to allow decreased setbacks along the Lorton Avenue, Highland Avenue and North sides of the building based on Code Section 25.29.050(f). ² Request to allow 79.3% lot coverage based on Code Section 25.29.050(f). ³ Request to allow 18% front setback landscaping based on Code Section 25.29.050(f). The proposed parking structure deviates from setback, lot coverage, and front setback landscaping requirements of the R-4 district, as outlined in Section 25.29 (R-4 District Regulations). However, the R-4 district regulations include a provision (Section 25.29.050(f)) that allows the Planning Commission and the City Council, in the considerations and acceptance of any tentative or final map submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, to approve or accept any such tentative or final map wherein one or more lots or parcels of land do not conform to all of the provisions of Chapter 25.34, when the planning commission and the city council find that by reason of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the approval or acceptance of such maps will not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. The Tentative and Final Map for Lot Merger for the project would propose that the building be built 5’-8” from the lot lines on the Lorton and Highland Avenue frontages and 1’-0” from the northern property line, that the lot coverage be 79.3% (50% maximum allowed) and the percentage of front setback landscaping be 18% (40% minimum required). The Planning Commission and City Council would need to determine that the proposal Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 6 would be not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city, and incorporate the appropriate findings into their actions on the Tentative and Final Parcel Map and the project. Staff Comments: Several letters/emails concerning the project were received and are attached for review. Included as an attachment is a staff report from the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, dated April 12, 2018, recommending construction of a 5-level parking garage. General Plan/Specific Plan: The Burlingame General Plan designates the project site as High Density Residential. In 2010 the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (with amendments in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017), which serves as an element of the General Plan. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the planning area for the Downtown Specific Plan; the site is in the R-4 Incentive District. The Plan describes the R-4 Incentive District as follows: The R-4 Incentive District consists of lands in the southern portion of Downtown, on either side of Bayswater Avenue between Highland Avenue and Park Road. The land uses for this area are predominantly higher density multifamily residential. The development standards for this district provide incentives to encourage high density residential uses. In addition to residential uses, small corner retails stores serving local residents would be allowed. The Downtown Specific Plan includes various Goals and Policies to guide growth and development in Downtown Burlingame. The table below shows how the proposed project meets these Goals and Policies. GOAL/POLICY PROJECT PROPOSED Policy LU-5.2: Promote public/private partnerships for redevelopment of City-owned properties. The parking garage is proposed to be built on a City- owned public parking lot in partnership with the developer building an affordable housing development on Public Parking Lot F. Policy P-1.1: Encourage the use of “alternative” vehicle types with ample bicycle parking and free parking for electric cars. The project will be required to provide an area for bicycle storage; electric vehicle charging stations for vehicles will be provided as required by the California Building Code California Green Building Standards Code. Policy P-1.2: Devote less land for parking Downtown while accommodating increased demand by using the land more efficiently with decked or underground parking. The proposed public parking garage will contain five levels of parking, which uses significantly less land than it would if all of the parking spaces were accommodated on surface parking lots. Policy P-1.4: Provide incentives for joint ventures between the City and developers for new development that includes public parking facilities. Policy P-2.3: Consider the sale or joint development of some parking lots for development and use the proceeds for development of new parking facilities. The developer is partnering with the City to develop City-owned Parking Lots F & N with affordable housing on Lot F and a public parking garage on Lot N. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 7 GOAL/POLICY PROJECT PROPOSED Policy P-3.2: Ensure downtown parking is conveniently located. Policy P-5.1: Consolidate parking lots in a convenient, centralized location such as a parking structure or underground parking on Lot J Policy P-5.2: Construct well-designed parking garages in central locations. The proposed public parking garage is located within the downtown area, just south of Howard Avenue, between Lorton and Highland Avenues. The design of the parking garage is subject to Design Review. Policy S-1.3: Streetscapes should reflect Burlingame’s destination as a “tree city.” Trees should be planted throughout the downtown as an integral part of the streetscape, and mature streets trees should be persevered whenever possible. There are three existing street trees along Lorton Avenue and two existing street trees along Highland Avenue in front of the project site. All existing street trees would be removed and replaced with three new 36-inch box street trees along Lorton Avenue and four new 36-inch box street trees along Highland Avenue. Policy OS-2: Provide additional green open space in Downtown, including walkways and seating areas. Landscaping is proposed along the south side of the site, which also includes a 10 to 14 foot wide pedestrian walkway connecting Lorton and Highland Avenues. A total of seven 36-inch box Columnar European Hornbeam trees are proposed to be planted in the area portion of the lot nearer to Highland Avenue. In addition to the trees, the pedestrian walkway will consist of decorative paving, benches, a raised planter, groundcover and pervious paving. Policy D-1.2: Require design review for all new downtown buildings and for changes to existing downtown buildings, and integrate historic review into the design review process. Policy D-3.1: Ensure that new development is appropriate to Burlingame with respect to size and design. Policy D-3.2: Evaluate development in the Downtown Area that is proposed to be taller than surrounding structures (i.e. over 40 feet) for potential to create new shadows or shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. The proposed project is subject to the design review process. Policy D-4.1: Encourage buildings to be built out to the sidewalk, with doors and windows facing the sidewalk to create a lively pedestrian environment. The proposed building is built near the sidewalk (5’-8” setback) with storefront windows facing the sidewalk. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 8 Design Review: A design review application in multifamily residential (R-3 and R-4) Districts shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations (CS 25.57.030 (f): (1) Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood; (2) Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles; (3) Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used; and (4) Incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the proposed public parking garage will be compatible with the existing character of the commercial downtown neighborhood to the north with the use of a variety of quality materials including unfinished concrete walls, architectural screens, and cable and metal panel guardrails on the Lorton Avenue and Highland Avenue facades of the building, with storefront windows on the ground floor along the street facades and green screen panels on the north and south facades of the building. The new garage will contain five levels of parking, with the fifth floor being open to the sky, so it will be represented more like a four-story building, and therefore respects the mass and scale of the area which is bordered by two-story commercial buildings to the north along Howard Avenue, a two-story multifamily residential building and private parking lot to the south, two-story multifamily residential buildings and Parking Lot F to the west across the street on Lorton Avenue, and a gasoline station and automotive repair buildings to the east along Highland Avenue, all of which have a variety of architectural styles. The building includes articulated street façades that provides visual interest. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. ABCDEFGHIJKBENCH TO BE PROVIDED PER A1-1 SHEETCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture 430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON − SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NO UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESE PLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WEST ARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270−A7.111/12/18THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3PERMIT SUBMITTAL SET150 PARKAWREVISIONS 12" = 1'-0"1PARK ROAD - COLOR BOARD - CGWOOD TRELLISIMETAL RAILINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "RIVERWOOD STAIN" SW3507COLOR TO MATCH POWDER COATED "CHOCOLATE" OR EQUALFBELLY BANDS & FASCIACOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "SPALDING GRAY" SW6074 OR EQUAL.JVINYL WINDOW FRAMECOLOR TO MATCH ALSIDE WINDOWS, "DESERT CLAY", OR EQUAL.HCONCRETE BASECOLOR TO MATCH INFUSION WATER BASED STAIN "ARCTIC STONE" OR EQUALDSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "ACCESSIBLE BEIGE" SW7036 OR EQUALBSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "JONQUIL" SW6674 OR EQUALASTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "ALABASTER" SW7008 OR EQUALCHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "STONE LION" SW7507 OR EQUALESTOREFRONT & AWNINGCOLOR TO MATCH PAC-CLAD "HEMLOCK" OR EQUALKENTRANCE TILECOLOR TO MATCH DALTILE "ARCTIC GRAY" L757 OR EQUAL ABCDEFGIJCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture 430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON − SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NO UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESE PLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WEST ARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270−A7.211/12/18THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3PERMIT SUBMITTAL SET150 PARKAWNORTHEAST - LORTON AVE. ELEVATIONREVISIONSGWOOD TRELLISIMETAL RAILINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "RIVERWOOD STAIN" SW3507COLOR TO MATCH POWDER COATED "CHOCOLATE" OR EQUALFBELLY BANDS & FASCIACOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "SPALDING GRAY" SW6074 OR EQUAL.JVINYL WINDOW FRAMECOLOR TO MATCH ALSIDE WINDOWS, "DESERT CLAY", OR EQUAL.HCONCRETE BASECOLOR TO MATCH INFUSION WATER BASED STAIN "ARCTIC STONE" OR EQUALDSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "ACCESSIBLE BEIGE" SW7036 OR EQUALBSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "JONQUIL" SW6674 OR EQUALASTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "ALABASTER" SW7008 OR EQUALCHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "STONE LION" SW7507 OR EQUALESTOREFRONT & AWNINGCOLOR TO MATCH PAC-CLAD "HEMLOCK" OR EQUALKENTRANCE TILECOLOR TO MATCH DALTILE "ARCTIC GRAY" L757 OR EQUAL PARK RD.ABCDEFGIJCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture 430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON − SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NO UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESE PLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WEST ARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270−A7.311/12/18THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3PERMIT SUBMITTAL SET150 PARKAWNORTHWEST - HOWARD AVE. ELEVATIONREVISIONSGWOOD TRELLISIMETAL RAILINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "RIVERWOOD STAIN" SW3507COLOR TO MATCH POWDER COATED "CHOCOLATE" OR EQUALFBELLY BANDS & FASCIACOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "SPALDING GRAY" SW6074 OR EQUAL.JVINYL WINDOW FRAMECOLOR TO MATCH ALSIDE WINDOWS, "DESERT CLAY", OR EQUAL.HCONCRETE BASECOLOR TO MATCH INFUSION WATER BASED STAIN "ARCTIC STONE" OR EQUALDSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "ACCESSIBLE BEIGE" SW7036 OR EQUALBSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "JONQUIL" SW6674 OR EQUALASTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "ALABASTER" SW7008 OR EQUALCHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "STONE LION" SW7507 OR EQUALESTOREFRONT & AWNINGCOLOR TO MATCH PAC-CLAD "HEMLOCK" OR EQUALKENTRANCE TILECOLOR TO MATCH DALTILE "ARCTIC GRAY" L757 OR EQUAL ABCDEFGIJCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture 430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON − SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NO UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESE PLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WEST ARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270−A7.411/12/18THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3PERMIT SUBMITTAL SET150 PARKAWSOUTHEAST ELEVATIONREVISIONSGWOOD TRELLISIMETAL RAILINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "RIVERWOOD STAIN" SW3507COLOR TO MATCH POWDER COATED "CHOCOLATE" OR EQUALFBELLY BANDS & FASCIACOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "SPALDING GRAY" SW6074 OR EQUAL.JVINYL WINDOW FRAMECOLOR TO MATCH ALSIDE WINDOWS, "DESERT CLAY", OR EQUAL.HCONCRETE BASECOLOR TO MATCH INFUSION WATER BASED STAIN "ARCTIC STONE" OR EQUALDSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "ACCESSIBLE BEIGE" SW7036 OR EQUALBSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "JONQUIL" SW6674 OR EQUALASTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "ALABASTER" SW7008 OR EQUALCHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "STONE LION" SW7507 OR EQUALESTOREFRONT & AWNINGCOLOR TO MATCH PAC-CLAD "HEMLOCK" OR EQUALKENTRANCE TILECOLOR TO MATCH DALTILE "ARCTIC GRAY" L757 OR EQUAL Beautifully engineered – for exceptional style, strength and energy savings. F8 0 S e r i e s F u s i o n - W e l d e d V i n y l W i n d o w s Fairfield 80 Alside PO Box 2010 Akron, Ohio 44309 1-800-922-6009 www.alside.com Please recycle White Decorative Options Almond 5/8" Standard Colonial 5/8" Standard Prairie 5/8" Standard Craftsman 3/4" Contoured Colonial 3/4" Contoured Prairie 3/4" Contoured Craftsman 1" Contoured Colonial 1" Contoured Prairie 1" Contoured Craftsman 5/16" Designer Prairie 5/16" Designer Double Prairie ©2012 Alside. Alside and ClimaTech are registered trademarks of Alside. Intercept is a registered trademark of PPG Industries. ENERGY STAR name and logo are registered U.S. marks and are owned by the U.S. government. *It is always suggested to consult your tax planner and review all IRS guidelines. Alside nor its representatives shall act as a tax advisor. †Insulated Glass (IG) units that require capillary tubes may experience some argon gas depletion. **Multiple configurations also available. See your Alside Sales Representative for details. ††It is imperative that your new bay or bow window is sealed and finished properly within the first 30 days after installation. Failure to properly finish and seal all of the wood components may cause the wood to fade, swell, warp, or develop other defects that would not be covered under your normal product warranty. ¥A written copy of the warranty is available by writing to: Warranty Department, PO Box 2010 Akron, Ohio 44309. Colors are reproduced by lithographic process and may vary slightly from colors of actual product. All specifications and designs subject to change without notice. Printed in USA 1-12/15M/OP 75-2531-01 Ask your Alside Sales Representative for more information about the Energy Tax Credit*and visit www.energystar.gov for complete details. CColors. Fairfield 80 Series Windows are available in white, almond and desert clay to complement your home. A bronze exterior with a white interior also is offered. Interior grids. Decorative grids will lend style and dimension to your windows. Classic grids are available in white, almond and desert clay as well as a standard 5/8" bronze/white grid. All grid selections are offered in Colonial, Prairie and Craftsman patterns in a 5/8" standard flat grid, a 3/4" contoured grid and a 1" contoured grid. Designer grids are also available to further customize the appearance of your windows. The Alside Lifetime Limited Warranty. Fairfield 80 Series Windows are made by Alside, a recognized leader in product innovation, manufacturing excellence and uncompromising quality control. That’s a reputation you can count on, from the day your windows are installed until the day you sell your home. And to make your buying decision easier, Alside backs all Fairfield 80 Series Windows with its Lifetime Limited Warranty¥. . . one of the strongest in the industry. Desert Clay Bronze / White ** Specified Color - Desert Clay Bronze exterior removed due to 40% premium on finish. USGBC and related logo is a trademark owned by the U.S.Green Building Council and is used by permission. Go Green Exceptionally energy-smart and weathertight, Alside Windows not only reduce fuel consumption needed to heat and cool homes, they also boast a long service life and achieve optimal material use and minimal waste in production. Virtually all in-plant vinyl scrap is recycled into other useful products, further reducing the environmental impact of waste. And because vinyl never needs to be painted, it helps eliminate paint, stain and other maintenance-related products from entering the waste stream or releasing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere. Vinyl windows also are eco-friendly because vinyl resin is derived largely from common salt –a sustainable and abundant natural resource!1 1Source: A Clear View – Vinyl Windows and the Environment. American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA) & The Vinyl Institute (VI). March 2007 Innovations in Window Technology 2 3 In Fairfield 80 Series Windows, you have discovered a window that will reduce your energy use while enhancing the beauty of your home, inside and out. Masterfully crafted with a premium vinyl construction, fusion-welded technology and high- performance glass, Fairfield 80 Series will exceed your every expectation for quality and value. Experience you can trust. When you buy Fairfield 80 Series Windows, you know you’re getting more than just frame, sashes and glass. You’re getting the knowledge and technical skill of Alside’s Product Development Group – experts with a proven track record of designing, building and testing superior, energy-efficient windows. These specialists know that to build the best windows, you have to start with the best materials and components. Their experience is your assurance of total satisfaction. Future-forward window systems for advanced energy savings. Fairfield 80 Series Windows incorporate precision-engineered components for a powerful thermal shield that keeps homes cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter with less energy use. Beginning with the fusion-welded mainframe and sashes, the weathertight construction features multi-chambered extrusions that trap dead air for an effective insulating barrier. Double-pile weatherstripping, interlocking sash meeting rails and ultra-efficient glass further prevent energy loss. AA smart choice. Fairfield 80 Series Windows. DDesigned for year-round energy conservation – and beautiful transformation. 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 L W ClimaTech LT:One pane of soft coat, multi-layer vacuum deposition Low-E glass with argon gas and Intercept Spacer System. ClimaTech:Soft coat, multi-layer, vacuum deposition Low-E glass with argon gas and Intercept Spacer System. ClimaTech Elite:Soft coat, SHGC multi-layer, vacuum deposition Low-E glass with argon gas and Intercept Spacer System. ClimaTech iE/ETC:Soft coat, multi- layer, vacuum deposition Low-E glass with argon gas and Intercept Spacer System. Carbonized foam insulating liners in select frame channels. ClimaTech Plus:Soft coat, multi-layer, vacuum deposition Low-E glass with argon gas and Foam Spacer System. Functionality and Refinement 5 Ultra-Efficient Insulated Glass Packages 4 1 3/8"Nail Fin (standard) Plus these additional features: • Fusion-welded frame and sashes for increased strength and structural integrity. • 3 3/8" frame depth for multiple applications. • Side-load sash operates on two concealed, pre-calibrated block and tackle sash balances. • Double-pile weatherstripping at the meeting rails for added thermal protection. • 1" thick glazing standard – triple glazing is also available. • Side-load bottom sash makes cleaning convenient from inside the home. • Water management system with offset drainage to the exterior. F 1.Premium vinyl mainframe and sashes are colored throughout – won’t chip, peel, crack or warp and never need to be painted. 2.Multi-chambered mainframe and sash construction create effective insulating air spaces for thermal efficiency. 3.1" thick insulated glass unit with optimal air space improves year-round performance. 4.PPG Intercept®Warm-Edge Spacer System helps block the transfer of heat and cold for reduced energy use. 5.Interlock at sash meeting rails increases strength and reduces air infiltration. 6.Metal reinforcement in the meeting rails increases rigidity and strength. 7.Fully extruded dual lift rails provide easy and convenient operation of the sashes. 8.Drop-in glazing for added energy efficiency and interior aesthetic appeal. 9.Full capture sill enhances protection from air and water infiltration. 10.Hidden screen track for added beauty. Fairfield 80 Series Windows come standard with a 13/8" nail fin. For enhanced appearance and ease of installation, three additional options – 1"set back nail fin, stucco fin and a block frame – also are available. Save more energy with ClimaTech glass. ClimaTech insulated glass packages have proven to be far more effective than ordinary clear glass units. The lower the U-Factor, the less energy you’ll need to heat your home. The lower the Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC), the more you’ll conserve on air-conditioning. Stucco Fin Leave it to Fairfield 80 Series Windows to deliver energy-saving innovations while lending the perfect touch of elegance to your home. 1" Set Back Nail Fin Block Frame ClimaTech triple-glazed units deliver exceptional energy savings and thermal performance and are available with an Intercept Warm-Edge Spacer or optional Foam Spacer. Alside offers a variety of ENERGY STAR ®qualified products. Consult your window professional for the optimal glass package required for your home and climate zone. In summer months, Low-E glass filters the sun’s rays and reduces heat penetration from solar energy. In winter months, Low-E glass lets warm solar rays into your home, while preventing indoor heat from escaping. Windows are about 80% glass, so it’s important to choose a glass system that meets the specific challenges of your climate. Upgrading your windows with a ClimaTech®insulated glass package will further optimize your windows. ClimaTech combines multi-layered, low-emissivity (Low-E) glass, argon gas†and the PPG Intercept Warm-Edge Spacer System for improved energy efficiency compared to a standard clear glass unit. Low-E also reduces damaging UV rays that cause carpets and furnishings to fade. Single-Hung Sliding Fairfield 80 Series Glass Performance Comparison 2 Glass Package Terminology: ClimaTech LT ClimaTech ClimaTech Elite ClimaTech iE/ETC ClimaTech Plus ClimaTech Elite Plus ClimaTechTG23 ClimaTechTG2 Plus3 Energy HSG3 U-Factor 0.35 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.24 0.34 SHGC 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.54 U-Factor 0.35 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.23 0.34 SHGC 0.31 0.30 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.53 Traditional Competitive Products Single Pane Clear Insulated 0.85 0.48 0.61 0.59 0.85 0.48 0.61 0.61 2Whole window values / single-strength glass 3Whole window values / double-strength glass ClimaTech Elite Plus:Soft coat, SHGC multi-layer, vacuum deposition Low-E glass with argon gas and Foam Spacer System. ClimaTech TG2:Triple-glazed unit with two surfaces of Low-E glass and two air spaces of argon gas with the Intercept Spacer System. ClimaTech TG2 Plus:Triple-glazed unit with two surfaces of Low-E glass and two air spaces of argon gas with the Foam Spacer System. Energy HSG:High Solar Gain Low-E glass with argon gas and Intercept Spacer System. Single Pane:Clear, single-pane unit. Clear Insulated:Clear double-pane insulated glass unit. ClimaTech iE/ETC features carbonized foam liners in select mainframe channels for increased energy efficiency. High-performance spacer systems. Another key component to a window’s energy efficiency is the spacer system. The PPG Intercept Warm-Edge Spacer features a unique, one-piece metal alloy, U-channel design that reduces heat loss through the window. It’s stronger and better at retaining insulating gas than many conventional spacers, and is nearly 25% more effective than a traditional metal spacer at the edge of the glass unit. The Optional Foam Spacer combines a structural foam spacer with a seal of hot melt butyl to create a “warm” non-conductive edge. This non-metal design eliminates any metal-to-glass contact, thereby increasing the edge of the glass temperature by more than 16°– resulting in 60% more energy efficiency than a traditional box metal spacer. 7 A Picture and Fixed-Lite Windows / Specialty Shapes Sliding Windows 6 Specialty Shapes Full Round Half Round Round Top OctagonQuarter Arch Pentagon Trapezoid Triangle • Multi-walled extrusions provide superb welding strength and structural integrity. • 11/8" wide nailing fin is welded in all four corners to ensure weathertight performance. • 1" thick insulated glass with warm-edge technology helps deliver year-round energy savings. • Narrow sight-lines for a clear, expanded view. • Combine specialty shape windows and fixed-lites for dramatic appeal. Distinctive for their smooth horizontal gliding action, sliding windows also feature sashes that lift out for easy cleaning. • Fusion-welded mainframe and sashes eliminate potential leak points at sill corners for improved energy efficiency and easy water drainage. • Multi-walled extrusions provide superb welding strength and structural integrity. • Integral pull handle for easy and convenient opening and closing of the window. • Integral full-length interlock with double-pile weatherstripping increases strength and thermal performance. • Specially designed brass tandem roller system ensures smooth operation. • Cam lock and keeper for a tight seal and increased energy efficiency. Large, beautiful picture windows expand your view without sacrificing comfort. Available in 2- and 3-lite styles, Fairfield 80 Series Sliding Windows feature a generous glass area that offers a great outdoor view. Sliding windows combine casual elegance with a strong, weathertight construction. 7 Optional PAL lock shown unlocked and locked. Paired with a beautiful outdoor view and an infusion of natural light, large picture windows can transform your home by creating a spacious and airy ambiance. Add specialty shape windows and fixed-lites to expand your window design and create an upscale appearance. • Fusion-welded mainframe eliminates potential leak points at sill corners for improved energy efficiency and easy water drainage. FFairfield 80 Series Picture Windows will lend a dramatic focal point to your room. Model A780 Picture Window** Unit Size is 1/2" smaller than Rough Opening MINIMUM MAXIMUM HEIGHT 10 119.5 WIDTH 10 119.5 U.I. 180 Model A282 Sliding Window** MINIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM HEIGHT 20 29.5 72 WIDTH 14.5 10.5 72 U.I. 144 Unit Size is 1/2" smaller than Rough Opening Model A283 Sliding Window** Unit Size is 1/2" smaller than Rough Opening MINIMUM MAXIMUM HEIGHT 40 143.5 WIDTH 10.5 71.5 U.I. 204 F W Single-Hung Windows 98 Casement and Awning Windows Combining casements or awnings with fixed-lites will enhance your window design and allow ventilation. • Fusion-welded mainframe and sashes eliminate potential leak points at sill corners for improved energy efficiency and easy water drainage. • Multi-walled extrusions provide superb welding strength and structural integrity. • 1" thick insulated glass with warm-edge technology helps deliver year-round energy savings. • Heavy-duty, multi-point locking system ensures a tight seal for added comfort. • Multiple lite configurations are available in a single mainframe. With simplicity and ease, Fairfield 80 Series Single-Hung Windows will beautify and protect your home. The traditional character and charm of the single-hung window will enhance any room of your home. Fairfield Casement and Awning Windows feature an easy-touch crank handle for a gentle outward opening of the sash. Optional folding handle shown upright (below left) and folded (below center). Optional butterfly handle (below right). The classic elegance of single-hung windows complements a variety of architectural styles – from contemporary to rustic. •Fusion-welded mainframe and sashes eliminate potential leak points at sill corners for improved energy efficiency and easy water drainage. •Multi-walled extrusions provide superb welding strength and structural integrity. •1" thick insulated glass with warm-edge technology helps deliver year-round energy savings. •Side load sash operates on two concealed, pre-calibrated sash balances. •Integral lift rails ensure easy and convenient raising and lowering of the sash. •Cam lock and keeper for a tight seal and increased energy efficiency. •Full weatherstripping on the perimeter provides greater energy savings.Optional PAL lock shown unlocked and locked. Model A682 Casement Window** Unit Size is 1/2" smaller than Rough Opening MINIMUM MAXIMUM HEIGHT 14.5 35.5 WIDTH 17.5 71.5 U.I. 107 Model A681 Awning Window** Unit Size is 1/2" smaller than Rough Opening MINIMUM MAXIMUM HEIGHT 17.5 47.5 WIDTH 11.5 35.5 U.I. 83 Model A581 Single-Hung Window** MINIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUM HEIGHT 15 10.5 47.5 WIDTH 24 30 95.5 U.I. 143 Unit Size is 1/2" smaller than Rough Opening W A Bay, Bow and Garden Windows 1110 Sliding and Hinged Patio Doors Bay and Bow Windows • Multi-channel design allows for additional insulation between window units. • Extruded vinyl frame and sashes increase energy efficiency. • 11/4" furniture-grade veneer is standard in the construction of head, seatboard and jambs. • Head and seatboard is available in oak or birch veneer finishes and are ready for painting or staining.†† • Optional 3/4" unfinished birch veneer in the construction of head and seatboard is also available. Garden Windows • Fully welded mainframe for strength and stability. • Top sloping insulated glass panel is wet glazed for a weathertight seal. • 3/4" insulated glass unit provides all-weather protection. • Single-hung vents on both sides for increased ventilation options. • A custom-designed shelf offers an attractive look with increased support for large plants. • Nail fin is included for ease of installation. Add a distinctive touch of style to your home with Bay, Bow and Garden Windows. Bay and bow windows can create the appearance of an expanded living area, while garden windows let you enjoy the pleasure of gardening year-round. Whether it is home to colorful flowers or fresh herbs, a garden window makes an eye-catching focal point. A well-built patio door invites the beauty of outdoors inside, while providing an energy-efficient barrier against inclement weather. Sliding Patio Door • Fusion-welded construction delivers long-lasting strength and durability. • Sturdy 4 1/2" frame depth and 1" wide integral nailing fin with 13/8" set back for added structural integrity. • Stucco fin option is also available. • 1" thick insulated glass with warm-edge technology. • Adjustable dual tandem roller system on a stainless steel track ensures easy operation. • Available in white, almond or desert clay; a bronze exterior with a white interior also is offered. • Keyed handle lock and foot lock options. • Two, three, and four-panel configurations available. The clean-line design and large glass area of patio doors will infuse your home with the warmth and beauty of natural light. Hinged Patio Door • Fusion-welded construction delivers long-lasting strength and durability. • Choose from 4 9/16" or 6 9/16" frame depth, both with 1" wide integral nailing fin for added structural integrity. • 1" thick insulated glass with warm-edge technology. • Heavy-duty stiffener in all frame and panel members. • Three-point locking system for a tight seal and added comfort. • Brass hardware with adjustable white hinges. • Available in single, double or French-style doors – in white and almond. With their pristine appearance, Sliding and Hinged Patio Doors will create a stylish entry for your home. 2.5 CUBICYARD BIN48.00002.5 CUBICYARD BIN48.0000 UPUPUPDNUPUPUPDNCOMMUNITY SPACE1,734 SFENTRANCEREFUSESTORAGEFIRERISERGENERATOR RM.EXISTING WALLELEC. RM.15.0%OCCUPANTLOAD:USE TYPE 'A-3'AT GRADE15 O.L.1,734 SF / 15 =115 OCCUPANTSU.S.P.S.FDC7.5%NEW POWERPOLELOCATIONELEV.EQUIP.U.S.P.S.TRANSFORMER RM.RELOCATION OF EXISTING POLE TOBE COORDINATED BY PG&EFIRE MITIGATIONMEASURE: TWO WAYADA EMERGENCYRESPONSE ANDDIGITALANTENEAA1.1VICINITY MAPN.T.S.PROJECTLOCATIONSITE PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"B A Y SW A T E R A V E . ALASKA - ARIZONA - CALIFORNIA - COLORADO - HAWAII - IDAHO - LOUISIANA - MONTANA - NEVADA - NEW MEXICO - NORTH DAKOTA - OREGON - SOUTH DAKOTA - U.S.V.I. - UTAH - WASHINGTON - WYOMING COPYRIGHT DATEDRAWN BYPROJECT #05/28/19PWH17-3DSP/RJMCOPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WEST ARCHITECTURE THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NO UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESE PLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. Pacific West Architecture 430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100 EAGLE, IDAHO 83616 (208) 461-0022 fax (208) 461-3267 © PROJECT BURLINGAME, CA150 PARK 05-28-19 PROGRESS SET REVISIONSTHE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME RESIDENTIAL ---PARK RD.H OW A R D A V E .CALIFORNIA DR.LORTON AVE.2#4-41#&ELEV.PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEELEV.RAMP DOWN 15%SLOPEGRADEELEVATION(0'-0")3'-4"1'-0"3'-1"#22.+%#06 2.#024'2#4'&$;BURLINGAME PACIFIC ASSOCIATES DOUGLAS GIBSON - C29792430 E. STATE ST. #100 430 E. STATE ST. #100EAGLE, ID 83616 EAGLE, ID 83616(208)461-0022 (208)461-0022 EXT.302170+6/+:Ä914-(14%'%10&+6+10'&53(116#)'5(3) STUDIO (3) x 470 S.F. = 1,410 S.F.2.2%(53) 1-BEDROOM(53) x 580 S.F. = 30,740 S.F.40.15% (22) 2-BEDROOM (22) x 760 S.F. = 16,720 S.F.16.6%____________________(78) UNITS TOTAL1,410 S.F. + 30,740 S.F. + 16,720 S.F. = 48,870 S.F.70+6/+:Ä5'0+14%10&+6+10'&53(116#)'5 (49) 1-BEDROOM(49) x 588 S.F. = 28,812 S.F.37.12% (5) 2-BEDROOM (5) x 760 S.F. = 3,800 S.F.3.78%____________________(54) UNITS TOTAL 28,812 S.F. + 3,800 S.F. = 32,612 S.F.  70+65914-(14%' 5'0+142#4-+0)57//#4;REQUIRED:1 BEDROOM = 1 STALL2 BEDROOM = 1.5 STALLSTOTAL REQUIRED = (146) STALLSPROVIDED:(7) ADA(137) VEHICLE LIFTS STALLSTOTAL SPACES PROVIDED = (144) STALLS5+6'%18'4#)'SQ. FEETPERCENTAGEBUILDING FOOTPRINT28,250 S.F.83.8 %LANDSCAPE 1,748 S.F.16.2 %TOTAL AREA29,998 S.F. (.68 AC±) 100.00 %SITE DENSITY(132 UNITS / .68 AC±) = 194 UPANOTE: ALL NUMBERS PROVIDED ARE '56+/#6'& FOR SITE COVERAGE18'-2"1'-4"3'-4"FIRE AND MAINTENANCE ACCESS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTEFIRE AND MAINTENANCE ACCESSFIRE ANDMAINTENANCEACCESS ANDACCESSIBLEROUTEFIRE ANDMAINTENANCEACCESSSHORING:PLANS AND ENGINEERING WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR SHORING AS REQUIRED BY 2016 CBC, CHAPTER 31 REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF ADJACENTPROPERTY AND AS REQUIRED BY OSHA. THE FOLLOWING WILL BE ADDRESSED.1. THE WALLS OF THE PROPOSED BASEMENT SHALL BE PROPERLY SHORED, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THIS EXCAVATION MAY NEEDTEMPORARY SHORING. A COMPETENT CONTRACTOR SHALL BE CONSULTED FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND DESIGN OF SHORING SCHEME FOR THEEXCAVATION. THE RECOMMENDED DESIGN TYPE OF SHORING SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD OR SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TOUSAGE.2.ALL APPROPRIATE GUIDELINES OF OSHA SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SHORING DESIGN BY THE CONTRACTOR. WHERE SPACE PERMITS,TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SLOPES MAY BE UTILIZED IN LIEU OF SHORING. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VERTICAL CUT FOR THE SUBJECT PROJECT WILL BEFIVE (5) FEET. BEYOND THAT HORIZONTAL BENCHES OF 5 FEET WIDE WILL BE REQUIRED. TEMPORARY SHORES SHALL NOT EXCEED 1 TO 1 (HORIZONTALTO VERTICAL). IN SOME AREAS DUE TO HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT / WATER TABLE, FLATTER SLOPES WILL BE REQUIRED WHICH WILL BE RECOMMENDEDBY THE SOILS ENGINEER IN THE FIELD.3.IF SHORING IS REQUIRED, SPECIFY ON THE PLANS THE LICENSED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL THAT HAS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO DESIGN ANDPROVIDE ADEQUATE SHORING, BRACING, FORMWORK, ETC. AS REQUIRED FOR THE PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY DURING CONSTRUCTION OFTHE BUILDING.4.SHORING AND BRACING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL FLOORS, ROOF, AND WALL SHEATHING HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY CONSTRUCTED.5.SHORING PLANS SHALL BE WET-STAMPED AND SIGNED BY THE ENGINEER-OF-RECORD AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. IF APPLICABLE, INCLUDE SURCHARGE LOADS FROM ADJACENT STRUCTURES THAT ARE WITHIN THE ZONE OF INFLUENCE (45 DEGREEWEDGE UP THE SLOPE FROM THE BASE OF THE RETAINING WALL) AND / OR DRIVEWAY SURCHARGE LOADS.OSHA PERMIT:OSHA PERMIT WILL BE OBTAINED PER CAL / OSHA REQUIREMENTS*CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS : CHAPTER 4, SUBCHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 6 , SECTION 1541.1.PROPERTY LINEEXISTING TREEPARKING BELOW GRADERE: A3.1150'-0"55'-0"100'-0"150'-0"200'-0"18'-4"PROPERTY LINEEXISTING TREETO BE REMOVEDPASSIVE PARK /LANDSCAPING -DESIGN TO BEDETERMINED ANDCOORDINATED WITHCITY OF BURLINGAME3'-4"3'-4"3'-4"BIKE RACKBENCHBENCH3'-4"45'-0"Proposed seatinglocation. Requiresreview by PublicWorks to be includedor removed. ABCDEFGHIJKCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture 430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON − SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NO UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESE PLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WEST ARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A7.111/12/18THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWGWOOD TRELLISIMETAL RAILINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "RIVERWOOD STAIN" SW3507COLOR TO MATCH POWDER COATED "CHOCOLATE" OR EQUALFWINDOW TRIM, BELLY BANDS & FASCIACOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "SPALDING GRAY" SW6074 OR EQUAL.PARK ROAD - COLOR BOARDJVINYL WINDOW FRAMECOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "URBANE BRONZE", SW7048 OR EQUAL.HCONCRETE BASECOLOR TO MATCH INFUSION WATER BASED STAIN "ARCTIC STONE" OR EQUALDSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "ACCESSIBLE BEIGE" SW7036 OR EQUALBSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "HONEY BEES" SW9018 OR EQUALASTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "ALABASTER" SW7008 OR EQUALCHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "STONE LION" SW7507 OR EQUALESTOREFRONT & AWNINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "JARGON JADE" SW6753 OR EQUALKENTRANCE TILECOLOR TO MATCH DALTILE "ARCTIC GRAY" L757 OR EQUALREVISIONS ABCDEFGIJCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture 430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON − SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NO UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESE PLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WEST ARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A7.211/12/18THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWNORTHEAST - LORTON AVE. ELEVATIONREVISIONSGWOOD TRELLISIMETAL RAILINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "RIVERWOOD STAIN" SW3507COLOR TO MATCH POWDER COATED "CHOCOLATE" OR EQUALFWINDOW TRIM, BELLY BANDS & FASCIACOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "SPALDING GRAY" SW6074 OR EQUAL.JVINYL WINDOW FRAMECOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "URBANE BRONZE", SW7048 OR EQUAL.HCONCRETE BASECOLOR TO MATCH INFUSION WATER BASED STAIN "ARCTIC STONE" OR EQUALDSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "ACCESSIBLE BEIGE" SW7036 OR EQUALBSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "HONEY BEES" SW9018 OR EQUALASTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "ALABASTER" SW7008 OR EQUALCHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "STONE LION" SW7507 OR EQUALESTOREFRONT & AWNINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "JARGON JADE" SW6753 OR EQUALKENTRANCE TILECOLOR TO MATCH DALTILE "ARCTIC GRAY" L757 OR EQUAL PARK RD.ABCDEFGIJCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture 430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON − SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NO UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESE PLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WEST ARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A7.311/12/18THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWNORTHWEST - HOWARD AVE. ELEVATIONREVISIONSGWOOD TRELLISIMETAL RAILINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "RIVERWOOD STAIN" SW3507COLOR TO MATCH POWDER COATED "CHOCOLATE" OR EQUALFWINDOW TRIM, BELLY BANDS & FASCIACOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "SPALDING GRAY" SW6074 OR EQUAL.JVINYL WINDOW FRAMECOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "URBANE BRONZE", SW7048 OR EQUAL.HCONCRETE BASECOLOR TO MATCH INFUSION WATER BASED STAIN "ARCTIC STONE" OR EQUALDSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "ACCESSIBLE BEIGE" SW7036 OR EQUALBSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "HONEY BEES" SW9018 OR EQUALASTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "ALABASTER" SW7008 OR EQUALCHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "STONE LION" SW7507 OR EQUALESTOREFRONT & AWNINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "JARGON JADE" SW6753 OR EQUALKENTRANCE TILECOLOR TO MATCH DALTILE "ARCTIC GRAY" L757 OR EQUAL ABCDEFGIJCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture 430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON − SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NO UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESE PLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WEST ARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A7.411/12/18THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWSOUTHEAST ELEVATIONREVISIONSGWOOD TRELLISIMETAL RAILINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "RIVERWOOD STAIN" SW3507COLOR TO MATCH POWDER COATED "CHOCOLATE" OR EQUALFWINDOW TRIM, BELLY BANDS & FASCIACOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "SPALDING GRAY" SW6074 OR EQUAL.JVINYL WINDOW FRAMECOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "URBANE BRONZE", SW7048 OR EQUAL.HCONCRETE BASECOLOR TO MATCH INFUSION WATER BASED STAIN "ARCTIC STONE" OR EQUALDSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "ACCESSIBLE BEIGE" SW7036 OR EQUALBSTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "HONEY BEES" SW9018 OR EQUALASTUCCO - COLOR #1COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "ALABASTER" SW7008 OR EQUALCHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "STONE LION" SW7507 OR EQUALESTOREFRONT & AWNINGCOLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS "JARGON JADE" SW6753 OR EQUALKENTRANCE TILECOLOR TO MATCH DALTILE "ARCTIC GRAY" L757 OR EQUAL COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture 430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON − SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NO UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESE PLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WEST ARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A10.311/12/18THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWN.T.S.1PERSPECTIVE RENDERING 3REVISIONS City of Burlingame Update of a Previously Approved Five-Level Parking Garage Address: 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) Meeting Date: July 8, 2019 Request: Update of previously approved five-level parking garage. Applicant: Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies APN: 029-231-060 and 029-231-240 Property Owner: City of Burlingame Lot Area: 33,750 SF Architect: Pacific West Architecture General Plan: R-4 Incentive District Zoning: R-4 Incentive District Subarea Adjacent Development: Multifamily Residential and Commercial Uses Current Use: Public Parking Lot (Lot N) with 109 stalls Summary: On December 10, 2018, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review and Lot Merger for construction of a new five-level parking garage at 160 Lorton Avenue (Public Parking Lot N), zoned R-4 Incentive District Subarea (see attached December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A copy of the project staff report reviewed by the Commission is attached for reference. A building permit for the project has not yet been issued. At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project based upon the direction listed below being reviewed by the Commission as an “FYI” item prior to issuance of a building permit. In order to ensure that the direction provided by the Commission is reviewed in a timely manner, staff is bringing these items forward directly as a study item (rather than an FYI) in case the Commission has any questions. Below you will find responses to the Commission’s request for additional details of the architectural screening and sub-frame; please also refer to the attached letter and screening specifications submitted by the applicant, dated July 3, 2019. 1. Review of the details of the architectural screening and a detail of the sub-frame showing how the architectural screening is supported/attached to the parking structure.  The plans submitted by the applicant, date stamped May 22, 2019, include overall building elevations, enlarged elevations, and structural details showing how the architectural screening will be supported/attached to the parking structure. A sample of the architectural screening will be available at the meeting. In his letter, the applicant notes that “the manufacturer does not recommend installing the product at such a tight curve at the stair as we had indicated on our original renderings. Therefore, we are proposing to segment the mesh at the stair as indicated in Option 2 of the attached drawings. This will maintain the original intent of the design, instead of changing to a completely square landing.” Planning staff would note that the modified mesh around the stairway faces Highland Avenue. Planning Commission Action: Since this is an informational item, which includes implementation of the Commission’s direction for a previously approved project, there is no action required by the Planning Commission. In their discussion with the applicant, the Commission may ask for additional clarifications to the information provided, but there is not a decision required since the revisions do not affect the projects’ compliance with objective standards, design review standards, and conditions of approval. Item No. 6c Study Item Update of a Previously Approved Project 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 2 Planning staff would note that State of California Government Code Section 65589.5 limits the ability of municipalities to deny a multifamily residential project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application is determined to be complete. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant Attachments: Applicant’s Explanation Letter, dated July 3, 2019 Architectural Screening Specifications December 10, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2018 Project Staff Report A r c h i t e c t s · E n g i n e e r s · P a r k i n g P l a n n e r s C:\Users\watry\Desktop\Ruben Letter 070319.docx San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX • Irvine, CA watrydesign.com July 3, 2019 Mr. Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager City of Burlingame Community Development Department-Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Burlingame Village and Lot N Parking Structure WDI Job #17030.112 Dear Ruben, Here are the drawings addressing the concerns that the Planning Commission had in regards to the proposed architectural mesh for the referenced project. We are proposing to use the GKD Metal Fabrics, Omega 1520 mesh on the two street facades of the building as indicated. This product is durable and low maintenance and minimizes the structural support, which addresses the main concern that the planning Commission had. One variation is that in developing the final details, we learned the manufacturer does not recommend installing the product at such a tight curve at the stair as we had indicated on our original renderings. Therefore, we are proposing to segment the mesh at the stair as indicated in Option 2 of the attached drawings. This will maintain the original intent of the design, instead of changing to a completely square landing. In addition, the preliminary bids have come in extremely high. This will require that the project go through value engineering. Our recommendation for VE is to prioritize where Green Screen panels are located on the façade. Where existing or proposed adjacent properties have large buildings, we recommend deleting the panels. We trust that this will not impact the aesthetics as the garage will be screened by new or existing adjacent buildings. Subsequent VE items will be brought back to Planning Commission as necessary after review with the staff. Please do not hesitate to call me if you need additional information. Sincerely, WATRY DESIGN, INC. Genaro Morales, Director of Architecture North American Headquarters North America GKD-USA, Inc. 825 Chesapeake Drive Cambridge MD 21613 Direct: 410.901.8429 or 410.901.8428 Fax: 410-221-0544 metalfabrics@gkdusa.com Omega 1520 Product Specifications Flexible, one direction Material AISI Type 316 SS Open Area 50% Weight 1.06 lbs/sqft Max. width Up to 20' special order, 62" standard max. Max. length Contact GKD Available also with ss cables and bronze rods up to 62" wide System Components Extended loop - eyebolts Extended loops - hook at top Flat & angle Flats with clevis Frame Outrigger tension system Reinforced internal flat bar StealthLok StealthLok Sprung U-binding frame WIB - hooks and springs WIB - eyebolts top and bottom WIB - hooks and eyebolts Applications Custom-Woven Solar Mesh Fabric Metal Mesh Parking Facades Custom-Woven Metal Column Covers Custom-Woven Metal Fabric Facades Etched Graphics Ceilings Custom Metal Wire Mesh Partitions Please refer to page 2 for Solar Control Data North American Headquarters North America GKD-USA, Inc. 825 Chesapeake Drive Cambridge MD 21613 Direct: 410.901.8429 or 410.901.8428 Fax: 410-221-0544 metalfabrics@gkdusa.com Omega 1520 GKD-USA offers a complete sunshade technical program. Our engineering team works with you to provide an assessment and application analysis to your specific need or project. GKD Metal Fabric Sunshading Façades offer significant energy saving, comfort, and a pleasant work environment by filtering light and providing transparent views to the outside. Solar Control Data Percentage of Visible Light Transmittance Minimum 0.30, Maximum 0.54 Percentage of Visible Light Reflectance Minimum 0.19, Maximum 0.25 Solar Gain Coefficient (SHGC)Minimum 0.21, Maximum 0.36 SOLAR CONTROL DATA NOTES: Test per EN 410 "Glass in building - Determination of luminous and solar characteristics of glazing" SHGC per EN 13363-1 "Solar protection devices combined with glazing - calculation of solar and light transmittance" Glazing system constants: Uglazing = 1.2 W/m²K, gglazing= 0.60 TVtot = visible light transmittance PVtot = visible light reflectance gtot = Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 10, 2018 h.160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N), zoned R-4: Application for Design Review and Lot Merger for construction of a new five -level parking garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Watry Design, Inc ., designer) (319 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Chris Grant and Genaro Morales, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Do you have any point of reference as to what the metal mesh will look like? Suggest taking a look at the mesh on the wall of the Audi dealer on Broadway, it's handled very well on the that building. Would help to jazz up the building given the amount of concrete on the structure. (Morales: Included a detail of the mesh in the attachments.) >Mesh is a woven wire fabric, so there will need to be a subframe to attached that to, but it is not shown on the rendering. Concerned the frame will be larger and overdone, don't want to see huge members holding up the light fabric. (Morales: Agree, there are two reasons not to build it that way. First, the expense of using a lot of steel. Second, don't want it to be bulky. It will be a tension fabric, so it will be supported at the top and bottom to provide the tension. So will try to minimize the size of the subframe.) >Concrete is poured in place, not precast, correct? (Morales: That is correct.) >Some of it will be high end, architectural finish, right? (Morales: We are proposing for the board form to show the ties and provide a smoother finish than what is normally done.) >When I hear board form, I think of a rugged, very textured finish. (Morales: No, it's the form work, will provide a smooth finish.) >Will all the concrete be the same color, or will there be variation of color? (Morales: The color may vary in tones, based on the way it's poured. The intent is not to color the concrete. Difference would be in the finish, which would provide some reflection and contrast. If you want color, might as well paint it.) >Like the paseo along the side of the structure. There is a passage gateway feature at the alley along Burlingame Avenue between Lorton Avenue and California Drive. Would like to see a pedestrian scale created to the entrance to the paseo on either end, would make it more special to enter and walk along the paseo, given that the structure is so tall. (Morales: Can take a look at that.) >Has there been any consideration given to a zip car operation here? This solution works well in San Francisco and helps to get people out of owning cars. (Grant: Willing to work with staff, conversation are ongoing.) (Kane: Zip car feature would not change the architecture of the building. These programming Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes questions will be up to the City to decide in the long term. Project has agreed to provide the conduit so that we can have EV charging stations in a designated area.) >Can you tell us more about the panels needed to conceal headlights? Will they be colored? (Morales: Panels will be prefinished 16-gauge plates. Will be colored.) Public Comments: Gary Vielbam, business owner at 124 Highland Avenue: Located across the street from project. Need access on Highland Avenue, concerned with the amount of construction material, staging and construction workers and how it will impact my business. Need to be able to maneuver cars in and out of shop. David Mendell: In support of project, parking is needed downtown. Passageway appears too narrow for the trees as shown. Hopes this does not become a hold site for construction of the housing project, want to keep project moving, downtown desperately needs parking. Michael Brownrigg: Thanked Commission for their time on the housing project, design got a lot better. Is one step closer to 132 families having a place to live. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Have come to like the design as it is now proposed. Critical that details on screen mesh be worked out. Like the way it adds varied mass to the building. Like the idea of enclosing the stair with the mesh, will be a much nicer experience with the open stair. >Like the way the massing is articulated, has some calm to it. Variation between metal panels and cable railings at lower level, adds articulation and spark. Storefront glass helps with the pedestrian experience. Paseo helps soften building along ground level and provide connection without having to walk through the garage. >Assume there will be a construction logistics plan that gets worked out with Public Works in terms of timing sequencing, construction worker parking, etc. >Did not see any parking signage on the plans, assume there will be lighted signs indicating available parking. >Like the way the project is simplified, with a simple concrete structure, cable rail, and a few urban gestures with the metal panels. >Based on its location and proximity to residential uses, feel that it is still too rough around the edges for being a mid -block large parking structure. Missing level of charm, needs to be a little better for its location. >Project has improved a lot since the first iteration. No matter what, it is still a large parking structure. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of the details of the architectural screening and a detail of the sub frame showing how the architectural screening is supported/attached to the parking structure. Comment on the motion: >Should think about the architectural screen very carefully and what is used to hold up the screen. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2019 December 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Nay:Kelly1 - Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2019 City of Burlingame Design Review and Lot Merger for a New Five-Level Parking Garage Address: 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) Meeting Date: December 10, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Lot Merger for construction of a new five-level parking garage. Applicant: Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies APN: 029-231-060 and 029-231-240 Property Owner: City of Burlingame Lot Area: 33,750 SF Architect: Pacific West Architecture General Plan: R-4 Incentive District Zoning: R-4 Incentive District Subarea Adjacent Development: Multifamily Residential and Commercial Uses Current Use: Public Parking Lot (Lot N) with 109 stalls Proposed Use: Five-level parking garage providing 388 stalls. Allowable Use: Multifamily, duplex, single family residential uses and public buildings. Environmental Review: Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines is intended to promote in-fill development within urbanized areas. This class consists of in-fill projects which are consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements. This class is not intended to be applied to projects which would result in significant impacts on endangered, rare, or threatened species, traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, utilities, and public services. Application of this exemption, as all categorical exemptions, is limited by the exceptions described in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15332 states: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. On the basis of the evidence provided in the analysis, it was determined the project is eligible for a Class 32 categorical exemption, in accordance with Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines (see attached CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption prepared by ICF, dated December 2018). Based on City of Burlingame threshold criteria, no additional substantial adverse impacts beyond those discussed in the analysis are anticipated. Because the project meets the criteria for categorically exempt infill development projects, and because it would not have a significant effect on the environment, this analysis finds that a Notice of Exemption may be prepared for the Project. No further review is needed. Background: In 2010 the Burlingame City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The culmination of a multi-year community planning process, the Plan provides a framework for sustaining the existing success of the downtown and accommodating new opportunities. One aspect of the Downtown Specific Plan is a focus on better use of parking facilities downtown, particularly the twenty City-owned surface parking lots. The plan encourages parking lots to be converted to different uses over time, such as housing, open space, and additional parking. Choices about uses are guided by what will most benefit the downtown area. Item No. 8h Regular Action Item Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 2 Consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, the City Council has expressed an interest in expanding the housing options available in Burlingame, including the provision of more affordable housing options, a category of housing that is minimally represented amongst the existing housing stock within the community. Likewise, as parking is important to Downtown businesses and residents alike, the City Council has been evaluating options for improving parking in the downtown area. This includes accommodating demand by using the land more efficiently with decked or structured parking. The proposed development of Parking Lots F and N is intended to respond to the following objectives with:  new housing units to support the community, including housing for seniors and for people working in the community;  additional, conveniently-located parking for use by downtown businesses and residents alike;  additional open space to be enjoyed by both current and new residents. For more general information about the proposed project and affordable housing, please refer to the attached “Village at Burlingame Frequently Asked Questions” prepared by staff and the developer. Although the purpose of the design review action meeting is only to review and discuss the proposed design of the project, staff thought it would be helpful to include this background information so that the Planning Commission has a full understanding of the context of the proposed project. Project Summary: In December 2014 the City of Burlingame distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified developers interested in partnering with the City to develop City-owned Parking Lots F & N with affordable housing. One requirement of the RFP was that the development should not only replace the existing spaces on the two parking lots, but also to the extent possible expand the amount of public parking for the benefit of the downtown business district. The City Council's Downtown Specific Plan Implementation Subcommittee reviewed the proposals and provided recommendations for the City Council to consider. After several public hearings, the City Council selected The Pacific Companies as its preferred developer at its regular meeting of July 6, 2015. Since that time, the developer has been doing preliminary work on the project including financing, site conditions reconnaissance, and design development. The project site consists of merging a portion of Lot 7 and Lots 8, 9, 14 and 15 of Block 10, which combined will extend from Lorton Avenue to Highland Avenue (see attached aerial). These lots are currently owned by the City of Burlingame and contain Parking Lot N, a public parking lot with 109 stalls. The project site has 100 feet of frontage on Lorton Avenue and 125 feet of frontage on Highland Avenue and is zoned R-4 and located within the R-4 Incentive District Subarea. The site is bordered by two-story commercial buildings to the north along Howard Avenue, a two-story multifamily residential building and private parking lot to the south, two-story multifamily residential buildings and Parking Lot F to the west across the street on Lorton Avenue, and a gasoline station and automotive repair buildings to the east along Highland Avenue. The proposed project consists of demolishing the existing public parking lot (Parking Lot N) and constructing a new five-level above-grade parking garage. The proposed parking garage would provide a total 368 parking stalls, including 97 parking stalls that would be displaced by the proposed affordable housing development on Lot F, 109 parking stalls currently located on Lot N and 162 new parking stalls. The garage will contain four levels of covered parking with the fifth level being open to the sky. The proposed parking garage has been designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit on both Lorton Avenue and Highland Avenue by way of one driveway entrance on each street. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 3 Code Section 25.29.020 (a) of the R-4 District Regulations allows all uses permitted in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts. In the R-1 District, public buildings are permitted under Code Section 25.26.020 (b)). A public parking garage is considered to be a public building. The proposed parking garage measures 48’-0” in height, where 55’-0” is allowed by right in the R-4 Incentive District Subarea. As noted above, the fifth level is open to the sky and therefore the building will appear as a four-story building. The following applications are requested for this project:  Design Review for construction of a new five-level above ground parking garage (C.S. 25.29.045 and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan); and  Lot Merger to combine a portion of Lot 7 and Lots 8, 9, 14 and 15 of Block 10, Town of Burlingame Map No. 1 Subdivision into one lot. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on February 26, 2018, the Commission reviewed the proposed parking garage and provided feedback on its design, expressing concerns with the facades and mass/bulk and suggesting that the design be lighter and simpler (see attached February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). At that time, the plans provided a total of 388 parking spaces in the parking garage. Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of comments/concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. Subsequently, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission met with the developer and architect to provide further direction and discussion regarding the parking garage design. The design of the structure has since been modified to reflect input from the Planning Commission and subcommittee. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped December 5, 2018, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and concerns. Please refer to the applicant’s letter dated December 6, 2018, for a detailed summary of the changes made to the project and responses to the Planning Commissions concerns and comments. One of the suggestions from the subcommittee included adding enclosed spaces on the ground floor at the street facades which could be used to display art and/or for bicycle storage. The Public Works Department reviewed conceptual drawings showing the enclosed spaces and expressed strong concerns with regards to vehicle and pedestrian safety, in that the location of the proposed enclosed spaces at both entrances to the garage would create conflicts with sight lines and vehicles maneuvering in and out of the garage. In addition, they expressed concerns with the loss of parking spaces due to the enclosed spaces. The proposed design no longer includes the enclosed ground floor spaces, but provides storefront windows on the Lorton and Highland Avenue facades to break up the massing of the garage at the pedestrian level. The modifications also include compliance with PG&E overhead utility clearance requirements, which required the parking garage to be pushed backed 5’-8” from the property lines along the Lorton and Highland Avenues (previously set back 1’-3” from property line). Together, these changes have resulted in a decrease of 20 parking spaces, from 388 to 368. The City Council has been informed and accepted the reduction in the number of parking spaces provided in the garage. However, there should be no design changes suggested at this time that would result in reducing the number of parking spaces any further. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 4 Design Review: The proposed project is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.2.6 (page 5-16) provides design guidelines specifically for developments on public parking lots. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-27) provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown, including residential and mixed use areas. These applicable sections of the Design and Character chapters of the Downtown Specific Plan have been attached for reference. The materials proposed for the exterior of the parking garage include unfinished concrete walls, architectural screens, and cable and metal panel guardrails on the Lorton Avenue and Highland Avenue facades of the building. Storefront windows are proposed on the ground floor along the street facades with a concrete entry canopy above the vehicles entrances to the garage. The stairway and elevator enclosures are proposed to be enclosed with architectural screens and glazing. Green screen panels are also proposed on the north and south facades of the building that will allow vines to climb up onto the green screens. Please refer to the building elevations on sheets A3.1 through A-3.2A and perspective renderings on sheets A3.3 and A3.4 for additional information. Landscaping: The project site is currently covered primarily by a paved public parking lot, with several small areas of landscaping at the entrance to the parking lot along Lorton Avenue. There are no existing trees on the project site. There are several existing trees that are located adjacent to the proposed project, including a large Redwood tree and an unknown tree species at the rear of 1115 Howard Avenue. The City Arborist notes that an arborist report will be required to establish tree protection measures during construction, but pointed out that the smaller tree at the rear of 1115 Howard Avenue, located very close to the property line would most likely need to be removed. He also requested that there be standard conditions of approval included in the entitlements such as require hand-digging for the garage foundation, having a qualified arborist on-site during the construction of the foundation, and notifying the City Arborist if roots over a certain size are encountered. Landscaping is proposed along the south side of the site, which also includes a 10 to 14 foot wide pedestrian walkway connecting Lorton and Highland Avenues (see Landscape Plan on sheet L1). A total of seven 36- inch box Columnar European Hornbeam trees are proposed to be planted in the area portion of the lot nearer to Highland Avenue. In addition to the trees, the pedestrian walkway will consist of decorative paving, benches, a raised planter, groundcover and pervious paving. These elements also are provided to comply with stormwater requirements. There are three existing street trees along Lorton Avenue and two existing street trees along Highland Avenue in front of the project site. All existing street trees would be removed and replaced with three new 36-inch box street trees along Lorton Avenue and four new 36-inch box street trees along Highland Avenue. The applicant will be working with the Parks Division to select the appropriate street tree species prior to the building permit submittal. The applicant would obtain the required tree removal permits from the Parks and Recreation Director pursuant to the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.04, Street Trees. Lot Merger: In the R-4 District, the minimum requirement is a 5,000 SF lot with 60 feet of street frontage for lots measuring greater than 10,000 SF in area. The proposed combined lot would have 100 feet of street frontage along Lorton Avenue and 125 feet of street frontage along Highland Avenue, and would measure 33,750 SF in area. Therefore, the proposed lot merger is in compliance with lot size and street frontage requirements. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 5 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) Lot Area: 33,750 SF Plans date stamped: December 5, 2018 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Use: Five-level parking garage with 368 stalls (includes 97 parking stalls displaced by the proposed affordable housing development on Lot F, 109 parking stalls currently located on Lot N and 162 new parking stalls) public buildings Setbacks Lorton Ave: 5’-8” ¹ 10’-0” Highland Ave: 5’-8” ¹ 10’-0” North Side: 1’-0” ¹ 10'-0" South Side: 10’-0”/14’-0” 10'-0" Building Height: 48'-0" 55’-0” (rooftop enclosures allowed to extend additional 10’) Lot Coverage: 79.3% ² (26,775 SF) 50% (16,875 SF) Landscaping: 18% of front setback ³ (272 SF) 40% of front setback (600 SF) ¹ Request to allow decreased setbacks along the Lorton Avenue, Highland Avenue and North sides of the building based on Code Section 25.29.050(f). ² Request to allow 79.3% lot coverage based on Code Section 25.29.050(f). ³ Request to allow 18% front setback landscaping based on Code Section 25.29.050(f). The proposed parking structure deviates from setback, lot coverage, and front setback landscaping requirements of the R-4 district, as outlined in Section 25.29 (R-4 District Regulations). However, the R-4 district regulations include a provision (Section 25.29.050(f)) that allows the Planning Commission and the City Council, in the considerations and acceptance of any tentative or final map submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, to approve or accept any such tentative or final map wherein one or more lots or parcels of land do not conform to all of the provisions of Chapter 25.34, when the planning commission and the city council find that by reason of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the approval or acceptance of such maps will not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. The Tentative and Final Map for Lot Merger for the project would propose that the building be built 5’-8” from the lot lines on the Lorton and Highland Avenue frontages and 1’-0” from the northern property line, that the lot coverage be 79.3% (50% maximum allowed) and the percentage of front setback landscaping be 18% (40% minimum required). The Planning Commission and City Council would need to determine that the proposal Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 6 would be not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city, and incorporate the appropriate findings into their actions on the Tentative and Final Parcel Map and the project. Staff Comments: Several letters/emails concerning the project were received and are attached for review. Included as an attachment is a staff report from the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, dated April 12, 2018, recommending construction of a 5-level parking garage. General Plan/Specific Plan: The Burlingame General Plan designates the project site as High Density Residential. In 2010 the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (with amendments in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017), which serves as an element of the General Plan. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the planning area for the Downtown Specific Plan; the site is in the R-4 Incentive District. The Plan describes the R-4 Incentive District as follows: The R-4 Incentive District consists of lands in the southern portion of Downtown, on either side of Bayswater Avenue between Highland Avenue and Park Road. The land uses for this area are predominantly higher density multifamily residential. The development standards for this district provide incentives to encourage high density residential uses. In addition to residential uses, small corner retails stores serving local residents would be allowed. The Downtown Specific Plan includes various Goals and Policies to guide growth and development in Downtown Burlingame. The table below shows how the proposed project meets these Goals and Policies. GOAL/POLICY PROJECT PROPOSED Policy LU-5.2: Promote public/private partnerships for redevelopment of City-owned properties. The parking garage is proposed to be built on a City- owned public parking lot in partnership with the developer building an affordable housing development on Public Parking Lot F. Policy P-1.1: Encourage the use of “alternative” vehicle types with ample bicycle parking and free parking for electric cars. The project will be required to provide an area for bicycle storage; electric vehicle charging stations for vehicles will be provided as required by the California Building Code California Green Building Standards Code. Policy P-1.2: Devote less land for parking Downtown while accommodating increased demand by using the land more efficiently with decked or underground parking. The proposed public parking garage will contain five levels of parking, which uses significantly less land than it would if all of the parking spaces were accommodated on surface parking lots. Policy P-1.4: Provide incentives for joint ventures between the City and developers for new development that includes public parking facilities. Policy P-2.3: Consider the sale or joint development of some parking lots for development and use the proceeds for development of new parking facilities. The developer is partnering with the City to develop City-owned Parking Lots F & N with affordable housing on Lot F and a public parking garage on Lot N. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 7 GOAL/POLICY PROJECT PROPOSED Policy P-3.2: Ensure downtown parking is conveniently located. Policy P-5.1: Consolidate parking lots in a convenient, centralized location such as a parking structure or underground parking on Lot J Policy P-5.2: Construct well-designed parking garages in central locations. The proposed public parking garage is located within the downtown area, just south of Howard Avenue, between Lorton and Highland Avenues. The design of the parking garage is subject to Design Review. Policy S-1.3: Streetscapes should reflect Burlingame’s destination as a “tree city.” Trees should be planted throughout the downtown as an integral part of the streetscape, and mature streets trees should be persevered whenever possible. There are three existing street trees along Lorton Avenue and two existing street trees along Highland Avenue in front of the project site. All existing street trees would be removed and replaced with three new 36-inch box street trees along Lorton Avenue and four new 36-inch box street trees along Highland Avenue. Policy OS-2: Provide additional green open space in Downtown, including walkways and seating areas. Landscaping is proposed along the south side of the site, which also includes a 10 to 14 foot wide pedestrian walkway connecting Lorton and Highland Avenues. A total of seven 36-inch box Columnar European Hornbeam trees are proposed to be planted in the area portion of the lot nearer to Highland Avenue. In addition to the trees, the pedestrian walkway will consist of decorative paving, benches, a raised planter, groundcover and pervious paving. Policy D-1.2: Require design review for all new downtown buildings and for changes to existing downtown buildings, and integrate historic review into the design review process. Policy D-3.1: Ensure that new development is appropriate to Burlingame with respect to size and design. Policy D-3.2: Evaluate development in the Downtown Area that is proposed to be taller than surrounding structures (i.e. over 40 feet) for potential to create new shadows or shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. The proposed project is subject to the design review process. Policy D-4.1: Encourage buildings to be built out to the sidewalk, with doors and windows facing the sidewalk to create a lively pedestrian environment. The proposed building is built near the sidewalk (5’-8” setback) with storefront windows facing the sidewalk. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 8 Design Review: A design review application in multifamily residential (R-3 and R-4) Districts shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations (CS 25.57.030 (f): (1) Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood; (2) Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles; (3) Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used; and (4) Incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the proposed public parking garage will be compatible with the existing character of the commercial downtown neighborhood to the north with the use of a variety of quality materials including unfinished concrete walls, architectural screens, and cable and metal panel guardrails on the Lorton Avenue and Highland Avenue facades of the building, with storefront windows on the ground floor along the street facades and green screen panels on the north and south facades of the building. The new garage will contain five levels of parking, with the fifth floor being open to the sky, so it will be represented more like a four-story building, and therefore respects the mass and scale of the area which is bordered by two-story commercial buildings to the north along Howard Avenue, a two-story multifamily residential building and private parking lot to the south, two-story multifamily residential buildings and Parking Lot F to the west across the street on Lorton Avenue, and a gasoline station and automotive repair buildings to the east along Highland Avenue, all of which have a variety of architectural styles. The building includes articulated street façades that provides visual interest. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. CLIENT NAME:PROJECT NAME:DATE ISSUED: © WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2018 PROJECT NUMBER:SHEET:SHEET NAME: VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME LOT N PARKING STRUCTURE 03/05/1917-030 PKX.2A MESH AT ENTRIES (OPTION 2) EAST ENTRYWEST ENTRY LEVEL 02LEVEL 03LEVEL 04LEVEL 05ROOF LEVEL 7 1 23 4 6 8 9 ENTRYEXIT 1 A8.9 SIM. REVERSED LEVEL 01 1 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LEVEL 05 16 17 1 2 4 4 5 5 66 7 11 ROOF LEVEL 1 A8.10 2 A8.10 1 A8.7 STEEL BEAM WITH ALUMINUM COVER TO MATCH STOREFRONT-TYPE GUARD RAIL, TYP. PAINTED PLASTER OVER CMU WALL 1.5 LEVEL 01 A LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 B CB.6 LEVEL 05 A.3 A.6 123 4 6 7 6 9 ENTRYEXIT ROOF LEVEL 1 A8.9 1 A6.2 1 LEVEL 01 1 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 23456789101112131415 LEVEL 05 1617 11'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6" 10'-6"4'-11"5 7 9 ROOF LEVEL 2 A8.9 2 A8.8 1.5 59'-6"9 12 13 14 TYPE DESCRIPTION 1 FINISHES SCHEDULE 2 3 4 ARCHITECTURAL SCREENS .... CABLE RAIL .... STEEL PLATE PANELS OVER CABLE RAIL .... RAISED STORM WATER FILTER .... 5 6 7 8 GREEN SCREEN .... UNFINISHED CONCRETE .... UNFINISHED CONCRETE, EXPOSED FORMS W/ MATCHING LOUVER AT BOTTOM SECTIONSTOREFRONT WINDOW .... 9 10 11 CONCRETE ENTRY CANOPY .... 6'-0" METAL FENCE .... STOREFRONT WINDOW CLEAR SAFETY GLASS 12 PAINTED CEMENT PLASTER OVER METAL STUD 13 PAINTED CEMENT PLASTER OVER CMU WALL .... .... 14 PAINTED CEMENT PLASTER OVER CONCRETE ....TCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. C15158 Exp. 9/30/2019GENAROMORALES REVISIONS DATENO.BY JOB NO. DATE DESIGN DRAWN CHK. BY SCALE SHEET: : : : : : :©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2019watrydesign.com San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas As indicated 5/22/2019 8:45:06 AMA3.1VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME LOT NPARKING STRUCTUREMORALES OSEGUERA 04/05/2019 17-030 MORALES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIABUILDING ELEVATIONS100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 2 EAST ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 4 WEST ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 1 NORTH ELEVATION LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 B B.6 LEVEL 05 A.7A.6 METAL PANEL OVER CABLE RAILS CURVED MESH MESH SUPPORT, SEE SHEET (S9.2) STOREFRONT w/ LOUVERS, SEE SHEET FOR DIMENSIONS (A4.1) CLEARANCE BAR, SEE DETAIL /(1 A6.2) RAISED STORM WATER FILTER, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS CABLE RAIL, SEE SHEET (A7.2) 11A A9.2 CLEAR GLASS, TYP. HAZARD SIGN, SEE /(7 A6.1) ACC WARNING SIGN, SEE /(9 A6.1) PARKING COUNTER SIGN, SEE /(19 A6.1) PARKING SIGN UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT LIGHT POLE, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 456 LEVEL 05 / NOTE: FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION, SEE DETAIL (1 A8.9) 2"x2" GREEN SCREEN, SEE SHEETS & FOR SUPPORT DETAILS CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM OVER CMU WALL, TYP. CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM OVER CONCRETE, TYP. CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM OVER STUD WALL, TYP. TYP. 3'-1" 4'-0" TYP. 1" GAP 4'-0" TYP. 1" GAP 4'-0" TYP. 3'-1" SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR GREEN SCREENS, TYP. (S9.4)(S9.3)10'-0" 1'-0" 10'-0" 1'-0" 10'-0"6" 4'-6" 5'-0"6" 4'-6" 4'-6" 6"6" 4'-6" 4'-6" 6" TYP. 3'-1" TYP. 3'-1"10"LEVEL 01 14 A9.2 15 A9.2 TCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. C15158 Exp. 9/30/2019GENAROMORALES REVISIONS DATENO.BY JOB NO. DATE DESIGN DRAWN CHK. BY SCALE SHEET: : : : : : :©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2019watrydesign.com San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas 1/4" = 1'-0"5/17/2019 12:49:27 PMA8.9VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME LOT NPARKING STRUCTUREMORALES OSEGUERA 04/05/2019 17-030 MORALES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAENLARGED ELEVATIONS100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1/4" = 1'-0"A8.9 1 ENLARGED ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"A8.9 2 ENLARGED ELEVATION LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 16 17 ELEVATOR AND STAIR #1 ROOF LEVEL CONC. ROOF DECK MESH GUARDRAIL, SEE DETAIL /(1 A7.1) ELEVATOR GLAZING STORE FRONT SYSTEM, SEE DETAIL CABLE RAIL, SEE SHEET (A7.2) /(6 A9.2) 1'-6 1/4" 2 1/4" EQ. 2 1/4" EQ. TYP. 2 1/4" REVEAL, 1'-6 1/4"8"EQ.TYP.2 1/4" REVEAL,EQ.2 1/4"3'-2 7/8"8"6'-4 7/8"2 1/4"3'-2 7/8"8"6'-4 7/8"2 1/4"3'-2 7/8"8"6'-4 7/8"2 1/4"3'-2 7/8"8"7'-8 7/8"2 1/4" 4'-9 1/4"1'-0"EQ.EQ.1'-0"CL CL CLCLTYP. 1'-0" TYP. 1'-0"TYP.1'-0"TYP.EQ.TYP.EQ.TYP.1'-0"TYP. 1'-0" TYP. 1'-0"TYP.1'-0"TYP.1'-0"CLCL CL CLCL EQ. EQ. EQ. EQ. LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 C B.6 LEVEL 05 B.7 ELEVATOR AND STAIR #1 ROOF LEVEL / NOTE: FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION, SEE DETAIL (1 A8.7) LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 ELEVATOR AND STAIR #2 ROOF LEVEL / NOTE: FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION, SEE DETAIL (1 A8.7) ELEVATOR DOOR, SEE DETAIL /(6 A9.1)TCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. C15158 Exp. 9/30/2019GENAROMORALES REVISIONS DATENO.BY JOB NO. DATE DESIGN DRAWN CHK. BY SCALE SHEET: : : : : : :©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2019watrydesign.com San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas 1/4" = 1'-0"5/17/2019 12:50:16 PMA8.7VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME LOT NPARKING STRUCTUREMORALES OSEGUERA 04/05/2019 17-030 MORALES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAELEVATOR AND STAIR #1 ELEVATIONS100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1/4" = 1'-0"A8.7 1 ENLARGED ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"A8.7 2 ENLARGED ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"A8.7 3 ENLARGED ELEVATION LEVEL 01 A LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 ELEVATOR #2 (SIDE WALL) NO WALL GAPS @ PENTHOUSE LEVEL TOP OF GAPS TYP.3/4" WALL GAP NO WALL GAPS @ ELEV. PIT EXTEND TOP REINF. 6'-0" INTO SLAB, TYP. SEE CIVIL DWG. #4@12"o/c E.F.E.W.TYP.2'-0"8 S4.6 9 S4.6 9 S8.9 16 S8.8 19 S8.9 TYP. 2ND TO 5TH LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 2 LEVEL 05 ELEVATOR #2 (FRONT WALL) #5@12"o/c E.F.E.W. 8 S4.6 8 S4.6 9 S8.9 10 S8.9 TYP. 2ND TO 5TH 17 S8.8 19 S8.9 #4 @12"o/c 2-#5 TOP #4@12"o/c EACH FACE 2-#5 BOT. 10 S8.9 LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 2 LEVEL 05 ELEVATOR #2 (REAR WALL) #5@12"o/c E.F.E.W. 9 S4.6 9 S4.6 9 S8.9 20 S8.9 10 S8.9 19 S8.9 1 1/2" CLR. EACH SIDE 3" CLR.2'-0"BOT. 3/4" CHAMFER TYP. #4 TIES @10"o/c 3-#6, BOT. SLAB SEE PLAN 2"CLR. TO TIE, TOP CL OF BEAM 3-#6 TOP 9" 9" AT STAIR ROOF 1/4 2-12 1/4 2-12 L6x6x1/2xCONT. MESH SCREEN SEE ARCH. DWG. EMBED PLATE 1/2x10xCONT. w/(2) 5/8" DIA.x6" LONG HSA @24"o/c2"6"2"2-#4xCONT. STAIR ROOF SLAB SEE PLAN AT STAIR ROOF CL 1'-0"1'-0"2"6"2"1'-0"MESH SCREEN SEE ARCH. DWG. 1/4 2-12 L6x6x1/2" xCONT. EMBED PLATE 1/2"x10xCONT. w/(4) 5/8"⌀x6" LONG HSA @ 24"o/c 1/4 2-12 2-#4xCONT. TOP S.O.G. SEE PLAN #4x @18"o/c 12" TYP. 3-#4x CONT. BOT. ADDED AT STAIR BASE 1" CLR.1'-0"1'-0"CLR.3"12-#6@EQ. SPC. #4 TIES @ 4"o/c AT ELEVATOR SHAFT #2 3/4" CHAMFER 8-#10 #4 TIES @4"o/c EQ.EQ.1'-6"3/4" GAPCL(ELEVATOR SHAFT)EQ.EQ.EQ. EQ. 1'-7" 8-#10 #4 TIES @4"o/c CLR. 2 1/4" TYP. UNO 1 1/2" CLR.CLR.2 1/4"CLR. 2 1/4"EQ. EQ. 1'-0" 1'-6"3/4" GAP1'-6"CLR.2 1/4"CLR. 2 1/4" REVEAL, SEE ARCHITECTURAL DWGS SEE WALL ELEVATION FOR WALL REINF.3/4" GAPAT ELEVATOR SHAFT (ABOVE LEVEL 05)(S5.1)SEE TYPE "C" LAPSEE TYPE "C" LAP(S5.1)FOR COLUMN REINF. SEE DETAIL /(9 S8.9) FOR COLUMN REINF. SEE DETAIL /(9 S8.9) / NOTE: FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION, SEE DETAIL (9 S8.9) REVEAL, SEE ARCHITECTURAL DWGS SEE WALL ELEVATION FOR WALL REINF. (ELEVATOR SHAFT) AT ELEVATOR SHAFT #2 3'-10"1'-6"3/4" GAPEQ. EQ. EQ. EQ. EQ. #4 TIES @ 4"o/c 14-#10 EQ.EQ.TYP. 1 1/2" CLR. (ELEVATOR SHAFT) / NOTE: FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION, SEE DETAIL (9 S8.9) REVEAL, SEE ARCHITECTURAL DWGS 3/4" CHAMFER TYP. FOR COLUMN REINF. SEE DETAIL /(9 S8.9) / NOTE: FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION, SEE DETAIL(19 S8.9) FOR COLUMN REINF. SEE DETAIL /(9 S8.8) (ELEVATOR SHAFT) AT ELEVATOR SHAFT (ABOVE LEVEL 05)STATEOF CA L I F O RNIAREENIGNELANOISSEFORPDERETSIGERSTRUCTURALS 4774ALBERTC.D.WO NGREVISIONS DATENO.BY JOB NO. DATE DESIGN DRAWN CHK. BY SCALE SHEET: : : : : : :©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2019watrydesign.com San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas As indicated 5/22/2019 8:35:07 AMS8.9VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME LOT NPARKING STRUCTUREOSEGUERA 04/05/2019 17-030 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAELEVATOR FRAMING DETAILSWONG 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS WONG 04/05/2019 1/4" = 1'-0"S8.9 11 WALL ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"S8.9 12 WALL ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"S8.9 13 WALL ELEVATION 1" = 1'-0"S8.9 16 BEAM DETAIL 1" = 1'-0"S8.9 17 MESH SUPPORT 1" = 1'-0"S8.9 18 MESH SUPPORT 1" = 1'-0"S8.9 9 WALL PILASTERS REINF. 1" = 1'-0"S8.9 19 WALL PILASTERS REINF. 1" = 1'-0"S8.9 10 WALL PILASTERS REINF. 1" = 1'-0"S8.9 20 WALL PILASTERS REINF. LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 175 S9.2 15 S9.2 20 S9.2 19'-10"T.O.STL. T.O.STL. T.O.STL. MESH SCREEN 1 O.H. HSS BEAM SEE PLAN FOR EMBED PLATE SEE DETAIL CONCRETE BOLLARD 3/8 CJP 3/8 T & B 3/8 BOTH SIDES 3/8 HSS 8x8x3/8 AT TOP 1 & 17 /(14 S9.2) 1/4 2-12 L6x6x1/2x CONT. 1/4 2-12 MESH SCREEN SEE ARCH DWG.2"4"4"2"CLHSS BEAM SEE PLAN MESH SCREEN PL. 5/8x12x1'-0" w/(4)3/4"Øx8"LONG HSA 3/8 FRAME BEAM SEE DETAIL /(10 S5.4) HSS 7x7x3/8 3/8 1&17 AT LEVEL 04 HSS BEAM SEE PLAN HSS 7x5x3/8 3/8 PL. 3/4x12x1'-0" SLAB SEE PLAN 2-#5x4'-0" EACH WAY 1/4 TYP.@BAR 3/8 2-#5x CL AT LEVEL 04 SLOPE MESH SCREEN SEE ARCH DWG. 1/4 L6x6x1/2x CONT. 1/4 6"2" 10" 2"3"8"3"3/4" THK. PLATE 4-#8x4'-0" FOR BAR TO PLATE WELDING, SEE DETAIL /(7 S9.1) 3/8" THK. CAP PLATE HSS BEAM 3/16 PJP CAP PLATE B B.6 17 9 S9.2 CAP PLATE @ EACH END, SEE DETAIL /(19 S9.2) HSS8x6x1/4 CURVED BEAM HSS8x8x3/8 TYP. AT LEVEL 05CLCLCLCL9"7'-10" 8'-10" 7'-10"9"CONCRETE BOLLARD SEE DETAIL /(10 S7.3) B B.6 17 9 S9.2 AT LEVEL 04 CAP PLATE @ EACH END, SEE DETAIL /(19 S9.2)CLCL7'-10" 8'-10" 7'-10"CL9"CL9"HSS7x7x3/8 TYP. HSS8x6x1/4 CURVED BEAM B B.6 17 9 S9.2 AT LEVEL 02 CAP PLATE @ EACH END, SEE DETAIL /(19 S9.2)9"7'-10"8'-10"7'-10"9"EQ.EQ.HSS8x6x1/4 CURVED BEAM 4'-5" 4'-5"16'-11"16'-11"1 B B.6 CLCL12'-3" 12'-3"9"9"9 S9.2 SIM. CAP PLATE @ EACH END, SEE DETAIL HSS8x6x1/4 CURVED BEAM /(19 S9.2) AT LEVEL 0216'-11"16'-11"33'-10"1 B B.6 9 S9.2 SIM. CAP PLATE @ EACH END, SEE DETAIL HSS8x6x1/4 CURVED BEAM /(19 S9.2)CLCLCLCL8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2"9"AT LEVEL 04 HSS7x7x3/8 TYP. 1.5 1 B B.6 CLCLCLCL8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2"9"9"9 S9.2 SIM. AT LEVEL 05 CAP PLATE @ EACH END, SEE DETAIL HSS8x6x1/4 CURVED BEAM /(19 S9.2) HSS8x8x3/8 TYP. 1.5 CONCRETE BOLLARD SEE DETAIL /(10 S7.3)TCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. C15158 Exp. 9/30/2019GENAROMORALES REVISIONS DATENO.BY JOB NO. DATE DESIGN DRAWN CHK. BY SCALE SHEET: : : : : : :©WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2019watrydesign.com San Jose, California Irvine, California Dallas, Texas As indicated 5/17/2019 12:48:05 PMS9.2VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME LOT NPARKING STRUCTUREMORALES OSEGUERA 04/05/2019 17-030 MORALES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAMESH SUPPORT FRAMING AND DETAILS100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1/4" = 1'-0"S9.2 9 MESH SCREEN SUPPORT 1 1/2" = 1'-0"S9.2 5 MESH SCREEN SUPPORT 1 1/2" = 1'-0"S9.2 15 MESH SCREEN SUPPORT 1 1/2" = 1'-0"S9.2 20 MESH SCREEN SUPPORT 1 1/2" = 1'-0"S9.2 14 EMBED PLATE 1 1/2" = 1'-0"S9.2 19 GENERAL DETAIL 1/4" = 1'-0"S9.2 8 MESH SCREEN SUPPORT 1/4" = 1'-0"S9.2 7 MESH SCREEEN SUPPORT 1/4" = 1'-0"S9.2 6 MESH SCREEN SUPPORT 1/4" = 1'-0"S9.2 16 MESH SCREEN SUPPORT 1/4" = 1'-0"S9.2 17 MESH SCREEEN SUPPORT 1/4" = 1'-0"S9.2 18 MESH SCREEN SUPPORT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS .A3.1::::::Architects Engineers Parking PlannersWATRY DESIGN, INC. 2018C MORALES.BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA PARKING STRUCTURE watrydesign.comSan Jose, CaliforniaIrvine, CaliforniaDallas, TexasCHK. BYDRAWNDESIGNDATEJOB NOSHEETFILEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAME DESIGN CONCEPT .160 LORTON AVENUE17030A31MORALES17030 Date:E:P:Date:Date:A:JC:Date:11-26-18HIGHLAND AVENUE ELEVATION1/8"=1'-0"LORTON AVENUE ELEVATION1/8"=1'-0"1218494'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"VARIES AVE. 47'-6"10'-0" AVE. 57'-6"LEGENDCABLE RAIL2STEEL PLATE PANELSRAISED SW FILTER3GREEN SCREEN478UNFINISHED CONCRETE, EXPOSED FORMSSTOREFRONT WINDOW5ARCHITECTURAL SCREENS16UNFINISHED CONCRETE9CONCRETE ENTRY CANOPY741183106' METAL FENCE311GLASS BACKED ELEVATOR SHAFTAVE. ELEV = 36.70'ELEV = 49.00'ELEV = 59.50'ELEV = 70.00'ELEV = 80.50'ELEV = 85.00'ELEV = 95.00'ELEV = 95.00'ELEV = 93.00'4'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"VARIESAVE. ELEV = 36.70'ELEV = 49.00'ELEV = 59.50'ELEV = 70.00'ELEV = 80.50'ELEV = 85.00'ELEV = 95.00'ELEV = 90.50'ELEV = 95.00'ELEV = 93.00' EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS .A3.2::::::Architects Engineers Parking PlannersWATRY DESIGN, INC. 2018C MORALES.BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA PARKING STRUCTURE watrydesign.comSan Jose, CaliforniaIrvine, CaliforniaDallas, TexasCHK. BYDRAWNDESIGNDATEJOB NOSHEETFILEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAME DESIGN CONCEPT .160 LORTON AVENUE17030A32MORALES17030 Date:E:P:Date:Date:A:JC:Date:11-26-18NORTH ELEVATION3/32"=1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATION3/32"=1'-0"5476576628511110ELEV = 85.00'ELEV = 95.00'ELEV = 95.00'ELEV = 93.00'ELEV = 90.50'ELEV = 95.00'ELEV = 90.50'ELEV = 85.00'ELEV = 95.00'ELEV = 93.00'AVE. ELEV = 36.70'AVE. ELEV = 36.70' PERSPECTIVE VIEWS .Date:E:P:Date:Date:A:JC:Date:A3.3Date:E:P:Date:Date:A:JC:Date:::::::Architects Engineers Parking PlannersWATRY DESIGN, INC. 2018C MORALES.BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA PARKING STRUCTURE watrydesign.comSan Jose, CaliforniaIrvine, CaliforniaDallas, TexasCHK. BYDRAWNDESIGNDATEJOB NOSHEETFILEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAME DESIGN CONCEPT .160 LORTON AVENUE17030A33MORALES17030112618PLOTTED 11-13-18 07:20 genaro g:\projects\2017\17030 burlingame lot n-ps\drb 112618\17030a33.dwg FROM SOUTHEAST CORNERFROM NORTHWEST CORNER City of Burlingame Variance Address: 16 Park Road Meeting Date: July 8, 2019 Request: Application for Parking Variance to provide parking off-site at 12 Park Road for a personal training studio. Applicant: Philip Levi APN: 029-225-200 Property Owner: Park Road Properties, LLC Lot Area: 7,500 SF Downtown Specific Plan: Bayswater Mixed Use District Zoning: BMU Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) which states that Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveniences are exempt from environmental review. Project History: In February 2009, Park Road Fitness was granted a pproval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate as a personal trainer and assessment business. At that time, the Downtown Specific Plan had not yet been adopted so the zoning district for the subject property was C -1. The conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit limited the personal trainer business to the first floor and noted that the second floor would be maintained as a residential use (three bedroom apartment). The business was also limited to a maximum of four employees on-site at any one time with a maximum of ten persons on-site at any one time. Also, the hours of operation would be from 6 AM to 8 PM , Monday through Saturday and closed on Sundays. In December 2010, Code Enforcement received a complaint that the business was not operating within the conditions of the existing Conditional Use Permit. The Downtown Specific Plan had now been adopted and the zoning district became BMU (Bayswater Mixed Use). Park Road Fitness had transitioned from individual training services to group fitness (serving three or more clients at one time) which changed their use to commercial recreation which requires a Conditional Use Permit in the BMU zoning district. They were also required to apply for a Parking Variance to park off-site at the adjacent lot on 12 Park Road since they were already using that lot for parking. Park Road Fitness submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance i n June 2011. Their application was inactive for four years for reasons unknown. Burlingame Fitness took over the lease for the properties at both 16 Park Road and 12 Park Road from Park Road Fitness in June 2015. They attempted to continue the Planning application started by Park Road Fitness by submitting revised plans for both properties , but noted that Burlingame Fitness would operate under the same conditions of approval for the existing permit originally granted to Park Road Fitness. Therefore, it would eliminate the request for a new Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use but still require approval for a Variance to park off-site at 12 Park Road. Eventually, their application became inactive and expired. In September 2017, Code Enforcement had received a complaint regarding a business at 16 Park Road . Upon investigating the property, Code Enforcement found that two accessory structures had been constructed on the 12 Park Road lot without a building permit and that the business was also using the property at 12 Park Road for parking. Burlingame Fitness was directed to consult with the P lanning Division for the necessary approvals required and to get a building permit for the accessory structures. Planning approval must first be granted before submitting for a building permit. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a Parking Variance to provide required parking off-site at 12 Park Road because there is no parking existing on site at 16 Park Road. Please refer to the attached Letter of Explanation and the Commercial Application submitted by the applicant for more detailed information about how the business operates. The applicant submitted parking information Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Parking Variance 16 Park Road 2 showing the percentage of parking spaces utilized on weekdays and weekend s (Saturdays only). The information indicates that the morning hours (6 AM to 12 noon) are the peak times where most vehicles are present, ranging from 2% to just under 10% parking utilization on the weekends and approximately 8% to just under 14% parking utilization on the weekdays. The applicant also conducted a one -month study (March 23 – April 23, 2018) counting by hour the amount of clients and independent contracto rs (personal trainers) on site. The table below summarizes the findings from this study. There is a 1:1 ratio of clients to personal trainers and on average, the most persons on-site at any one time is six to eight persons primarily during the morning hours on weekdays. Average # clients on-site per hour Average # personal trainers on-site per hour Average total persons on-site per hour Weekdays Saturdays Weekdays Saturdays Weekdays Saturdays Morning (6 AM – 12 PM) 3 to 4 3 3 to 4 3 6 to 8 6 Afternoon (12 PM – 5 PM) 1 to 2 0 to 1 1 to 2 0 to 1 2 to 4 0 to 2 Evening (5 PM – 9 PM) 1 to 2 1 1 to 2 1 2 to 4 2 Parking: The earliest records of 16 Park Road indicate that the rear of the lot had been paved and used for parking but it is unknown as to how many parking spaces there were because they were not striped. In 2009, when the previous personal trainer and assessment business (Park Road Fitness) applie d for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use, no additional parking was required because the previous use was a real estate office. A personal trainer and assessment business is considered to be a personal service and has a parking ratio of 1 space required for every 400 SF (1:400 SF); real estate uses or office uses have a parking ratio of 1:300 SF. Therefore, parking was not addressed with the 2009 application. Furthermore, there was no information regarding use of the lot at 12 Park Road for parking. Presently, there is no parking on-site at 16 Park Road. Parking for the use at 16 Park Road is being provided off- site at the adjacent lot of 12 Park Road (12 and 16 Park Road are under the same ownership). The lot at 12 Park Road consists of compacted gravel. Approval of a Parking Variance is required for a business to provide parking off-site. With the parking credit from the previous use, 9 parking spaces are required for the Burlingame Fitness business. The applicant is proposing a total of 10 parking spaces on the 12 Park Road lot. The applicant is requesting approval of the following application:  Parking Variance for the use at 16 Park Road to provide required parking off-site at 12 Park Road (Code Section 25.70.010 (c)). This space intentionally left blank. Parking Variance 16 Park Road 3 16 Park Road Lot Area: 7,500 SF Plans date stamped: January 7, 2019 and May 21, 2019 Previous Use Square Footage Parking Ratio Spaces Required Personal Training Studio: 1,754 SF 1 space / 400 SF 4.38 spaces 3 Bedroom Apartment: --- --- 2 spaces Total Spaces Required: 6.38 or 7 spaces Proposed Use Square Footage Parking Ratio Spaces Required 1st Floor - Personal Training Studio: Storage: 1,637 SF 117 SF 1:400 SF 1:1000 SF 4.09 spaces 0.12 space 2nd Floor - 3 Bedroom Apartment: Personal Training Studio: --- 320 SF --- 1:400 SF 2 spaces 0.8 space Outdoor - Rear Yard: Pergolas: 2,745 SF 565 SF 1:400 SF 8.28 spaces Total Spaces Required: 15.29 or 16 spaces Staff Comments: None. Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission study meeting on March 11, 2019, the Commission had a few questions regarding this application (March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes attached). The following is a summary of the Commission’s comments and respective responses: Rear Setback Variance Request The Commission could not m ake findings to justify and support the request. In their letter of response to the Commission (see attached), the applicant is proposing to convert the existing rear pergola structure into two smaller accessory structures that are 110 SF and 88 SF in size , respectively. Structures that are 120 SF or less do not count towards lot coverage or floor area ratio and are not subject to setback requirements. Therefore, the request for a rear setback variance has been eliminated. Staff has confirmed with the Chief Building Official that the proposed split of the existing single pergola into two smaller pergolas is acceptable by the Building Division; these proposed rear pergolas and the existing pergola at the front of the 12 Park Road lot still require a buildin g permit. The applicant has also recorded a deed restriction on December 19, 2018 (see attached) on both properties (12 Park Road and 16 Park Road) that states that the pergolas would be removed and “that the sites will be put back to its original conditio n prior to the sale of either parcels unless both parcels are legally merged into one parcel.” The applicant is also proposing to have bicycle racks underneath the two rear pergolas (proposed) and utilize them for bicycle parking. This space intentionally left blank. Parking Variance 16 Park Road 4 Parking Variance Request The Commission suggested that the applicant update their Parking Variance application to bolster findings. In their letter of response to the Commission (see attached), the applicant included updated responses to th e Variance application questions. The applicant notes the following:  that the lease agreement is for both properties to be used as a contiguous area;  that although the application is for off-site parking, both 16 Park Road and 12 Park Road are utilized as one property; Burlingame Fitness and previous uses have always used both parcels as one contiguous area;  that the location of the subject property lays within the Downtown Specific Plan boundaries and is one block outside of the Parking Sector where their use would otherwise be exempt from parking;  that allowing parking on 12 Park Road mitigates parking shortages from surrounding properties and uses by allowing Burlingame Fitness to maintain their required parking “on -site”;  that the small boutique nature of the business does not require as many parking spaces such as larger fitness centers or what is typical for larger fitness operations would demand; and  that with the proposed revisions to the rear pergola to allow addition for bicycle parking combined wi th the walkability to Downtown, the proposed number of spaces adequately fulfills the required parking demand. Project Plans The Commission recommended that the parking plan be done by a professional architect or engineer. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped May 21, 2019. For reference, the applicant has also provided the plans for the existing pergolas, date stamped May 21, 2019. The proposed plan for splitting the existing rear pergola into two smaller pergolas is attached. Lease Agreement The Commission had questions about the applicant’s lease agreement and if it included both properties. The applicant has submitted to the Planning Division a copy of their lease agreement. Below is an excerpt from the lease agreement: “1.2 Property. That certain real property and improvement, as hereinafter defined, commonly known by the street address 12-16 Park Road located in the City of Burlingame and County of San Mateo, State of California (the “Property”). The Premises consists of approximately +/-3,000 rentable square feet, parking included.” Code Enforcement The Commission wanted to know the nature of the complaint/s that triggered code enforcement on the property. The City’s Code Enforcement Officer verified that the complaint was not parking related; the complaint was related to an unpermitted health service use that was subleasing on the property of 16 Park Road. The health service use has since moved out; bringing the entire property to compliance warranted this application. Required Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a -d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the pr operty involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss o r unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application 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; and Parking Variance 16 Park Road 5 (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings (Parking): That the personal trainer and assessment business (personal service) use operates in a less intense manner than typical fitness centers/operations because it will be used for personal training and will therefore generate less traffic and fewer parking needs. That the amount of parking provided off-site at 12 Park Road (10 spaces proposed) is sufficient for the use of the property at 16 Park Road where there would be no more than a total of 8 persons on site at any one time and therefore will not create an adverse impact to neighboring businesses and/or properties. That the applicant’s lease agreement is for both 16 Park Road and 12 Park Road to be utilized as one contiguous property, is an exceptional circumstance and is mitigated by the recorded deed restriction with the San Mateo County that the sites (16 Park Road and 12 Park Road) would return to its original condition prior to the sale of either parcel unless legally merged into one parcel. For these reasons, the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Variance criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should b e affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 7, 2019 and May 21, 2019 ; 2. that the rear pergola (188 SF) shall be split into two smaller pergolas, located in the same location but separated by six (6) inches, of 110 SF and 88 SF in size, respectively; 3. that all structures (pergolas) constructed on the parcel at 12 Park Road shall submit for a building permit; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls or increasing the size o f the mezzanine, shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 5. that any changes in operation, floor area, use, number of employees, or number of customers shall require an amendment to this use permit; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, or if the use in the existing space is changed, the parking variance as well as any other exceptions to the co de granted here will become void; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at the time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Parking Variance 16 Park Road 6 ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Philip Levi, Burlingame Fitness, applicant Park Road Properties, LLC, property owner Attachments: March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Letter of Response and Parking Variance Application Proposed split of rear pergola plan, date stamped May 21, 2019 Received After – Letter of Concern, received March 11, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation from Applicant Rear Setback Variance Application Parking Variance Application Commercial Application Parking Data provided by Applicant Hourly Count Report – Number of Clients by the hour Hourly Count Report – Number of Independent Contractors by the hour Building Division Staff Comments dated May 3, 2018 Deed Restriction Letters of Support Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 28, 2019 Area Map TRAINING AREA 896 SF TRAINING AREA 248 SF SUPPORT 261 SF SUPPORT 40 SF CHANGING ROOM KITCHEN 291 SF SUPPORT 320 SF RESIDENT 191 SF RESIDENT 172 SF RESIDENT 172 SF 11 SF 5 SF 12 SF DN UP UP 5 6 7 8 9 ENTRANCE EXIT 4 3 2 1 PERGOLA 1COMPACT STALL TRAINING AREA 896 SF TRAINING AREA 248 SF SUPPORT 261 SF SUPPORT 40 SF CHANGING ROOM UP OUTDOOR TRAINING AREA 2745 SF SLIDING GATE BACKING AREA PERGOLAUP 150' PROPERTY LINE150' PROPERTY LINE150' PROPERTY LINE50' PROPERTY LINE 50' PROPERTY LINE 50' PROPERTY LINE 50' PROPERTY LINE 10' 8'17'UP 8'-6"18'8'-6"18'VERIFY15'-2"5'-8"26'-10"12' 19'-53 8"20'-05 8" R 1 8 'R10'-6"10'-038"10'18'4'17'-01 4"DRIVEWAYSIDEWALK 45° CURB CURB GREEN GREEN GREEN 10'TO BUSINESS AREABIKE RACK 10 85'-378"74'-1112"12'-578"12'-578"12'-578"12'-578"12'-578"12'-578"4" THK PARKING LINES FROM CENTER OF DIMENSION 4" THK PARKING LINES FROM CENTER OF DIMENSION 4" THK PARKING LINES FROM CENTER OF DIMENSION 8'17'2'-6"8'-6"18'2'-6"WHEEL STOP WHEEL STOP 8"8"8"8" COMPACT CAR STALL REGULAR CAR STALL 4" THK PARKING LINES FROM CENTER OF DIMENSION 4" THK PARKING LINES FROM CENTER OF DIMENSION STALL NO. 1 STALL NO. 2-10 KENCHIKU 2600 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES ADDRESS: 103 LOWER CABINET HILL BAGUIO CITY PHILIPPINES 2600 EMAIL: kenchiku2600@gmail.com MOBILE: +639987735366 VINCENT JOHN V. REYES, UAP ARCHITECT - PRC NO. 0045053 SHEET NO. A01 1 OF 1 OWNER 16 Park Road Burlingame, CA 94010 REVISIONS NO.DATE REMARKS SHEET CONTENTS SITE PLAN FLOOR PLANS PERGOLA DETAIL SITE PLAN SCALE 18" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLANS SCALE 18" = 1'-0" GROUND FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN TYPICAL PARKING DETAIL SCALE 3 8" = 1'-0" BURLINGAME FITNESS 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47' 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47' 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47' 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47'all ideas, designs and plans represented by this drawing are the exclusive property of withee malcolm architects, llp and shall not be reproduced in whole or in part without the express prior written permission of said architects, any unauthorized reuse of these plans other than for the project and location shown is prohibited.job no. drawn submittal owner: date SHEET TITLE SHEET No 2251 West 190th Street Torrance, Ca 90504 t. 310.217.8885 f.310.217.0425 W I T H E E M A L C O L M A R C H I T E C T S, L L P consultant: Consultant File Background Info: revision 18 Park Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 950301st Plan Check Submittal 02/05/2019 2nd Plan Check Submittal 04/12/2019 3rd Plan Check Submittal 06/07/2019 B6079 A300a EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONSBAYSWATER920 Bayswater AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010FORE PROPERTY COMPANYSCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 0 8'16'32'48' 2A, 2B 1A, 1B MYRTLE ROAD BAYSWATER AVE.SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" SOUTH-EAST / FRONT / BAYSWATER AVE. ELEVATION (PROPOSED CHANGES)1A SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" SOUTH-WEST / SIDE / MYRTLE ROAD BUILDING ELEVATION (PROPOSED CHANGES)2A SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" SOUTH-WEST / SIDE / MYRTLE ROAD BUILDING ELEVATION (ENTITLEMENT)2B SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" SOUTH-EAST / FRONT / BAYSWATER AVE. ELEVATION (ENTITLEMENT)1B NORTHSee response 1aSee response 1a See response 1c See response 1b See response 2a See response 2bSee response 2cSee response 2dSee response 2eSee response 2fSee response 2i See response 2gSee response 2h Proposed Changes 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47' 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47' 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47' 1ST FLOOR +30.20 T.O.S.2ND FLOOR +40.28 T.O.S.3RD FLOOR +50.37 T.O.S.4TH FLOOR +60.45 T.O.S.ROOF +70.53 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT +75.47 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEMEASURED FROM AVERAGE T.O. CURB +29.47'46' - 0" MAX. BLDG HEIGHTT.O.CURB +29.47'all ideas, designs and plans represented by this drawing are the exclusive property of withee malcolm architects, llp and shall not be reproduced in whole or in part without the express prior written permission of said architects, any unauthorized reuse of these plans other than for the project and location shown is prohibited.job no. drawn submittal owner: date SHEET TITLE SHEET No 2251 West 190th Street Torrance, Ca 90504 t. 310.217.8885 f.310.217.0425 W I T H E E M A L C O L M A R C H I T E C T S, L L P consultant: Consultant File Background Info: revision 18 Park Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 950301st Plan Check Submittal 02/05/2019 2nd Plan Check Submittal 04/12/2019 3rd Plan Check Submittal 06/07/2019 B6079 A300b EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONSBAYSWATER920 Bayswater AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010FORE PROPERTY COMPANYSCALE: 1/16"=1'-0" 0 8'16'32'48' 2A, 2B 1A, 1B MYRTLE ROAD BAYSWATER AVE.SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" NORTH-WEST / REAR BUILDING ELEVATION (PROPOSED CHANGES)1A SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" NORTH-EAST / SIDE BUILDING ELEVATION (PROPOSED CHANGES)2A SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" NORTH-EAST / SIDE BUILDING ELEVATION (ENTITLEMENT)2B SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" NORTH-WEST / REAR BUILDING ELEVATION (ENTITLEMENT)1B NORTHSee response 3d See response 3c See response 3a See response 3bSee response 3b See response 4aSee response 4bSee response 4cSee response 4d See response 4a See response 3e Proposed Changes